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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
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.
“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment