View Poll Results: What is the best course of action in dealing with North Korea?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Full scale preemptive military strike

    4 28.57%
  • Limited preemptive military strike

    0 0%
  • Appeasement in the form of recognition and aid

    1 7.14%
  • Strategic Patience - Neither negotiation nor military action

    9 64.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 22 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 818

Thread: The Korean Dilemma

  1. #316
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,211
    Thing about Korea is it took a war to break her in half and i'm hearing now they need another one to put her back together again !!!

    Germans only had to put up with a broken wall : D

    These talks better deliver
    Last edited by Double Edge; 13 Mar 18, at 21:19.

  2. #317
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Question likely on the Administration's mind right now: what would happen is we launch a massive strike on NK targeting only the missile and nuclear complexes?

  3. #318
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Question likely on the Administration's mind right now: what would happen is we launch a massive strike on NK targeting only the missile and nuclear complexes?
    That depends on whether we think we have a pretty good chance of getting them all on the first try.

  4. #319
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    That depends on whether we think we have a pretty good chance of getting them all on the first try.
    Why stop on the first? Kick down the doors on day 1 and take it down over a week.

    Offer negotiations the entire time so Kim knows he's not the objective.
    Last edited by citanon; 13 Mar 18, at 21:26.

  5. #320
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That is a line that both Trump and Mattis would not tolerate.
    Well no, clearly not.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Same thing as last time. The IAEA. A nuclear bomb factory is extremely hard to hide.
    They don't have to hide it, just deny entry, stonewall, drag their feet, prevaricate, lie, make up whatever bull---t story they want ("Sorry, they're cleaning the floors so you can't go in") and on and on and on. Basically the same thing they've always done. To say nothing of subtlety and/or overtly making the IAEA inspector's life an absolute hell the whole time.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    It was a comedy of stupidity. The US was going to pay for it but Congress, being Congress, was putting up all sorts of conditions that delay funding for a couple of years. However, that was not the showstopper. Both the South Koreans and the Japanese were simply dragging their feet now the threat was over. At the time, it was looking more and more that KJI was going to collapse, so why pay for something that you won't need to?
    *repeatedly bangs head against the wall* Why am I not surprised?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  6. #321
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Question likely on the Administration's mind right now: what would happen is we launch a massive strike on NK targeting only the missile and nuclear complexes?
    That's easy enough: Every piece of DPRK tube and rocket artillery on the DMZ opens up with everything they've got. Within barely 10 minutes or less, you've got tens of thousands of dead South Koreans and billions in infrastructure damage.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  7. #322
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    That's easy enough: Every piece of DPRK tube and rocket artillery on the DMZ opens up with everything they've got. Within barely 10 minutes or less, you've got tens of thousands of dead South Koreans and billions in infrastructure damage.
    Why? Kim does that he's dead.

    Also, he has nothing like the firepower you described on the DMZ.

  8. #323
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,794
    Kim is dead either way if bombs start dropping. He has nothing to lose.

    But, what does the US do when our allies decide against a surgical strike? What do we do when neither Japan or South Korea allow us to use their countries as jumping off places for an act of aggression? Nor overfly rights.

    Think Europe during the Libya strike in 1986. We were denied overflight rights and the use of continental USAF bases.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  9. #324
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Kim is dead either way if bombs start dropping. He has nothing to lose.

    But, what does the US do when our allies decide against a surgical strike? What do we do when neither Japan or South Korea allow us to use their countries as jumping off places for an act of aggression? Nor overfly rights.

    Think Europe during the Libya strike in 1986. We were denied overflight rights and the use of continental USAF bases.
    1: you're assuming Kim cannot survive without his nuclear program. He can.

    2: The only country who might deny over flight rights is SK as Japan actually supports military action. Then we simply strike from the sea and make the decision for SK. If SK doesn't go along, they face taking on possible NK retaliation without American support, which would be insane.

    Also, the US still has overall wartime command in SK. once war starts, we are in control of the SK military and therefore it's airspace, not the SK president.

  10. #325
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    1: you're assuming Kim cannot survive without his nuclear program. He can.
    Where is his power after the US bombs him?
    2: The only country who might deny over flight rights is SK as Japan actually supports military action. Then we simply strike from the sea and make the decision for SK. If SK doesn't go along, they face taking on possible NK retaliation without American support, which would be insane.
    Nice way to treat allies. And are you sure the Japanese government is all behind the US attacking North Korea? This isn't like them allowing the US to use bases during the Vietnam war. There is a very good chance that if planes fly from Japan to strike NK. Then NK missiles will fly to strike Japan How do you think the Japanese people will feel about that?

    Also, the US still has overall wartime command in SK. once war starts, we are in control of the SK military and therefore it's airspace, not the SK president.
    Its not automatic. The South Korean government has to give the US control. Been that way since 1994.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  11. #326
    Contributor
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Kim is dead either way if bombs start dropping. He has nothing to lose.

    But, what does the US do when our allies decide against a surgical strike? What do we do when neither Japan or South Korea allow us to use their countries as jumping off places for an act of aggression? Nor overfly rights.

    Think Europe during the Libya strike in 1986. We were denied overflight rights and the use of continental USAF bases.
    Also 1973 European allies refused to allow re-supply aircraft to land for refueling or even overfly their territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

    If there is a carrier and Tomahawk strike, does Kim escalates the conflict attacking ROK and Japan.

  12. #327
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    Also 1973 European allies refused to allow re-supply aircraft to land for refueling or even overfly their territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

    If there is a carrier and Tomahawk strike, does Kim escalates the conflict attacking ROK and Japan.
    Gunny, Dazed,

    Japan and SK do not have the luxury of acting like the European allies during the Libyan strikes. During that crisis Libya was just a two bit actor with a penchant for terrorism. If Japan and SK are not in lock step with the US during actual military conflict with NK, they risk facing a fully nuclear north without US nuclear umbrella or further military backing. That would be catastrophic to their national security. If the US decides to strike, they WILL fall in line. Their security absolutely depends on it.

    You may think, public opinion polls don't say this:

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order...at-leave-them/

    but, the governments there have a lucid understanding of what is at stake:

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...08-gydhkb.html

    I find the last discussion about US deterrence dilemma there especially revealing.

    Given that neither SK nor Japan are willing to become nuclear weapons powers themselves, and that they doubt the actual commitment of the US to a nuclear umbrella, and that military action, once initiated would have to succeed or it would 100% lead to a nuclearized nuclearized NK, I find it very doubtful that either government would dare sabotage such an operation.

    It's ultimately not a nice way to treat allies, but this has gone pass the point of niceties.

    Regarding Kim's survival:

    Kim will certainly be weakened by destruction of his nuclear program, but he may well survive its demise, at least temporarily.

    The nuclear program is unecessay for the survival of the NK regime since no one was looking to invade NK in the first place. It has actually been a drain on the regime's resources. Its purpose for Kim was two fold:

    1: it kept his DOMESTIC enemies off balance by creating a unifying national direction for his country.
    2: it is an investment for him to reap returns via raising his international status, thereby raising his domestic adulation.
    3: it provides the means for future blackmail against the outside world to acquire economic concessions.

    if the nuclear program is gone, Kim would find it more difficult to suppress domestic opposition, but since he has already done a bang up job of suppressing opposition, he may be in a position to ride out the storm.

    we could help him do so by throwing him some economic enticements even as we are bombing him so that he could plausibly deny defeat and claim some sort of win. This will let him survive for at least while. If Saddam Hussein can survive GWI, KJU can survive a strike on his nukes.
    Last edited by citanon; 14 Mar 18, at 09:49.

  13. #328
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Where is his power after the US bombs him?
    Correct. The DPRK basically survives as an act of blackmail, especially against Seoul. If The US bombs Kim & he just takes it then his bluff has been called.

    The other issue is the assumption that Kim will accept that this is just a 'surgical strike' and not the start of a 'shock & awe' campaign to destroy his regime. He might reasonably conclude that it is 'use it or lose it' time and the only way to survive is to make the other side hurt very badly before they degrade his ability to strike.

    There simply can't be an assumption of limited war here. A hope maybe, but hope is a crap basis for policy this risky.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  14. #329
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,737
    I can't believe the war mongering going on here. Isn't anyone thinking of the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of dead that a war on the Korean peninsula would cost?

    Once you stop playing childish games about a first strike knocking out the entire DPRK military capability, or Kim Jong-un capitualating in the first few minutes, or a coup d'etat occuring seconds into the launch, that's when the butcher's bill starts adding up.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  15. #330
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,416
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    I can't believe the war mongering going on here. Isn't anyone thinking of the tens of thousands -- or even millions -- of dead that a war on the Korean peninsula would cost?

    Once you stop playing childish games about a first strike knocking out the entire DPRK military capability, or Kim Jong-un capitualating in the first few minutes, or a coup d'etat occuring seconds into the launch, that's when the butcher's bill starts adding up.
    Yes, but its not Americans who are going to die, so apparently its a risk worth taking. Absent a direct attack on the US, America can only act against Nth Korea with the consent of Sth Korea. To do otherwise would be to tell America's long term allies that the US is prepared to throw away their security simply because another nation might pose a risk to the.

    The ROK has spent its entire existence facing an existential threat from the DPRK. I can't imagine it will be to sympathetic to the US risking the triggering of that threat just because a US territory or city might be threatened by the DPRK.

    Even someone as manifestly unqualified to deal with these situations as Trump plainly is must see the insanity in attacking hte DPRK without full ROK agreement.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 55 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 55 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Drone Dilemma
    By Merlin in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Dec 09,, 23:02
  2. S. Korean perception of N. Korean nuclear program
    By Ironduke in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13 Jan 09,, 00:36
  3. the dreadful dilemma....
    By dave angel in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Sep 07,, 14:44
  4. The Second Korean War and China's dilemma...
    By YellowFever in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24 Oct 06,, 05:41
  5. Dilemma of Confronting Fundamentalism
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Sep 05,, 21:34

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •