Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
I sure hope so...but I don't think that will be the case.
If the NKs get away blackmailing the US, Iran would restart its nuke program, prompting KSA to build their own nuke. Asad will try the same. SK and Japan would get their own nuke. Vietnam would want one. Heck, even Somalian pirates would want one too. Letting NK have nukes = proliferating nukes.
In the polls, the second option is limited preemptive military strike. Does it mean drop a grenade? ;-)))
Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!
Yes sir we have, but we've also seen how it can work in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have no Douglas MacArthur today, nor a Hirohito to command his people to lay down their arms and surrender.
The point I was trying to make is that fanaticism ain't going to win them their war.
However, I submit that the war's aftermath ain't our problem. It's Seoul's problem. If war starts, Seoul is going to take the DMZ. That's a given. If Tiny Kim is to survive, then at least 50% of his army must survive the onslaught, enough for him to maintain order in the north. Frankly, I cannot see how that could happen. Seoul must hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting until the threat to Seoul is gone and that means not allowing the NKs time to regroup for round 2.
And if 80% of the North Korean Army is gone, then Tiny Tim is reduced a city state with his praetorian guard divisions. The families of those he fed to the dogs will be looking for blood as did Saddam's enemies. I also remind you that the Taliban's Omar's enemies picked over his bones.
I also see a ground incursion further north by the USMC to secure the missile launch sites. The strategic imperatives are obvious to those looking at the military options.
TH, NK is extremeley improvised. The moment the first bomb falls, NKs would rush to the border to cross-over for life and food. It's not an islamic state nor are guns available for all.
A military axiom. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
I saw that video in Youtube, and it is completely opposite of what the Russian article presents. NKs are not mindless zombies. There will be a civil war only if the Chinese and the Russians decide to join the party. How US manages that would be interesting to see.
There will be civil war regardless of Chinese or Russian involvement. Tiny Kim fed people to the dogs. Their families will be out for blood.
However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.
In the event of an armed conflict between NK and SK+US, what do you think are the chances of a Chinese armored incursion across the Yalu to secure nuclear sites closest to the Chinese border?
This seems to me a limited and logical step to preclude American bombing of those particular sites and the potential release of radiation into northern China that could result.
Further it would seem to be a well defined mission of limited extent that could be fought in line with PLA's limited war under modern conditions doctrine we were discussing so much on CDF many years ago.
On the other hand, this would still require a large commitment of forces across a broad front and deconfliction with US forces.
The point I was trying to make is that fanaticism ain't going to win them their war.
However, I submit that the war's aftermath ain't our problem. It's Seoul's problem. If war starts, Seoul is going to take the DMZ. That's a given. If Tiny Kim is to survive, then at least 50% of his army must survive the onslaught, enough for him to maintain order in the north. Frankly, I cannot see how that could happen. Seoul must hit hard, hit fast, and keep on hitting until the threat to Seoul is gone and that means not allowing the NKs time to regroup for round 2.
And if 80% of the North Korean Army is gone, then Tiny Tim is reduced a city state with his praetorian guard divisions. The families of those he fed to the dogs will be looking for blood as did Saddam's enemies. I also remind you that the Taliban's Omar's enemies picked over his bones.
I also see a ground incursion further north by the USMC to secure the missile launch sites. The strategic imperatives are obvious to those looking at the military options.
Are you saying that the option of using military force rests with SKorea and that US should get involved only to secure the missile launch sites? No tomahawks flying?
A military axiom. Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.
There will be civil war regardless of Chinese or Russian involvement. Tiny Kim fed people to the dogs. Their families will be out for blood.
I was thinking different. By civil war, I thought TH meant what happened in Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal, warlords killing and weakening each other to consolidate power.
What you say is true. From a strategic viewpoint, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will China and Russian not support some among those and try to install a proxy. I think the SKorean army should get inside NKorea as fast as it can so as to neutralise any Chinese/Russian moves.
However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.
Absolutely.
Sir, why did US let Pak and India go nuclear?
Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!
.
However, Gentlemen, I submit that the war's aftermath is a problem for Seoul to solve, not the rest of us. Seoul would have to occupy North Korea, not the US military. Seoul would have to pay for unification, not the US Treasury. Korean problems are for Koreans to solve.
Germany, 1918.
Iraq, 1991.
Iraq, 2011.
I'm the first to admit I'm no solider, but post-war is a job for politicians and economists.
Screwing up post-Kim Korea, by design or neglect, is a very bad idea.
In the event of an armed conflict between NK and SK+US, what do you think are the chances of a Chinese armored incursion across the Yalu to secure nuclear sites closest to the Chinese border?
It would have to be co-ordinated or else be targetted by American bombs.
Are you saying that the option of using military force rests with SKorea and that US should get involved only to secure the missile launch sites? No tomahawks flying?
The US is involved from the start. Seoul lacks the experience and the finetuning of a war hardened US military.
I was thinking different. By civil war, I thought TH meant what happened in Afghanistan post Soviet withdrawal, warlords killing and weakening each other to consolidate power.
I think you should study North Korea more before commenting on civil war prospects. Warlords have military force under their command. What do you think Colonels and Majors are?
Tiny Kim has been feeding Colonels and Majors to the dogs.
What you say is true. From a strategic viewpoint, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Will China and Russian not support some among those and try to install a proxy. I think the SKorean army should get inside NKorea as fast as it can so as to neutralise any Chinese/Russian moves.
The Chinese and the Russians will be involved. If nothing else but to secure their borders against fleeing North Korean soldiers resorting to criminal acts to survive. There's nothing the US or Seoul can do to stop them nor would they want to. Anything to secure their confidence and future help would be a blessing.
I'm the first to admit I'm no solider, but post-war is a job for politicians and economists.
Screwing up post-Kim Korea, by design or neglect, is a very bad idea.
Post-Kim Korea will be screwed up no matter what you do. But there are obvious mistakes to avoid. It is alot easire to replace one Korean rule with another Korean rule than to replace it with an American rule.
"...but post-war is a job for politicians and economists..."
Wouldn't that be nice but, sadly, politicians are even more narrowly short-sighted and self-centered. Want it done right then it'll require statesman-level determination, vision and prestige.
Think Woodrow Wilson or George Marshall.
Nothing of the sort readily available these days.
OoE,
Colonel, welcome back. It's good to again read your words.
"...There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings..."
Can't recall any civil disturbance issues in Japan nor W. Germany. Rumors of Nazis gathering in remote, forested beer halls -"Were-wolves" was never borne-out, thus complete B.S.
Oh! I haven't voted nor is it possible. I'm split equally between strategic ignorance and blowing the holy shit right out of tiny Kim. All in or all out until he begins slingin' nukes at every(any)body else.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Can't recall any civil disturbance issues in Japan nor W. Germany. Rumors of Nazis gathering in remote, forested beer halls -"Were-wolves" was never borne-out, thus complete B.S.
British forceful ethnic cleansing of eastern German provinces whose territory was being handed over to Poland. The Czechs did the same in the Sudetenland.
Die hard Japanese soldiers continued their fights well into the 21st Century, especially in Burma where they became warlords in command of the drug trade.
"...British forceful ethnic cleansing of eastern German provinces whose territory was being handed over to Poland. The Czechs did the same in the Sudetenland."
Colonel,
How in the hell were the Brits in a position to forcefully ethnically cleanse ANY eastern German province/state? That'd been the complete domain/responsibility of the Soviet Union. Further, if so, how would that be mistaken for an "uprising"?
"Die hard Japanese soldiers continued their fights well into the 21st Century, especially in Burma where they became warlords in command of the drug trade."
Their existence on remote Pacific islands would have been more akin to ship-wrecked pirates. Their existence as drug-lords in Burma is also new to me but would be dwarfed by Kuomintang drug warlords also living a life in remote exile. In any case, again, nothing remotely suggesting uprising on the home islands and nothing sufficiently worrisome to the world or within the meagre capacity of Burma to address.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
There has not been one post war occupation that did not require further military action to subdue uprisings..
1915-34: Haiti
1916-24: Dominican Republic
1945-49: Germany
1945-55: Austria
1945-52: Japan
1945-49: Korea (being invaded doesn’t count as a failure of the occupation)
I don’t know if it qualifies, but the post-Civil War South was divided into occupation zones …
How in the hell were the Brits in a position to forcefully ethnically cleanse ANY eastern German province/state? That'd been the complete domain/responsibility of the Soviet Union. Further, if so, how would that be mistaken for an "uprising"?
Their existence on remote Pacific islands would have been more akin to ship-wrecked pirates. Their existence as drug-lords in Burma is also new to me but would be dwarfed by Kuomintang drug warlords also living a life in remote exile. In any case, again, nothing remotely suggesting uprising on the home islands and nothing sufficiently worrisome to the world or within the meagre capacity of Burma to address.
At the time, they were a British problem.
Just because you isolated specific members of the alliance that did not see any action does not eliminate the fact that violent military force was further required to impose the victor's will onto the defeated population.
1915-34: Haiti
1916-24: Dominican Republic
1945-49: Germany
1945-55: Austria
1945-52: Japan
1945-49: Korea (being invaded doesn’t count as a failure of the occupation)
I don’t know if it qualifies, but the post-Civil War South was divided into occupation zones …
The traditional term is bandits. All your examples are rifed with banditry.
The Chinese and the Russians will be involved. If nothing else but to secure their borders against fleeing North Korean soldiers resorting to criminal acts to survive. There's nothing the US or Seoul can do to stop them nor would they want to. Anything to secure their confidence and future help would be a blessing.
Post-Kim Korea will be screwed up no matter what you do. But there are obvious mistakes to avoid. It is alot easire to replace one Korean rule with another Korean rule than to replace it with an American rule.
All true, provided China doesn't take a more proactive role in controlling NK. Under the radar betting is that it will.
China certainly has a strong incentive to do so. For one thing, if it fails to show leadership in its sphere of interest, it will be seen as weak by its neighbors.
China has the means to destroy the NK economy, such as it is. It is only a matter of summoning the will to do so. The alternative is unpalatable.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has often been the silent man in the Trump foreign policy team. But out of the spotlight, he appears to be crafting a broad strategy aimed at working with China to resolve the North Korea crisis and with Russia to stabilize Syria and Ukraine.
The Tillerson approach focuses on personal diplomacy, in direct contacts with Chinese and Russian leaders, and through private channels to North Korea.
Suspect a similar us china understanding is in place to handle the Paks as well
His core strategic assumption is that if the United States can subtly manage its relations with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin — and allow those leaders to take credit for successes — complex regional problems can be solved effectively.
So un trump like its funny. but yeah who wouldn't want to work with this guy
The big idea driving Tillerson’s China policy is that the fundamentals of the relationship have changed as China has grown more powerful and assertive. The message to Beijing is that Xi’s actions in defusing the North Korea crisis will shape U.S.-China relations for the next half-century.
Tweet
Comment