The Korean Dilemma

The Korean Dilemma

  • Full scale preemptive military strike

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Limited preemptive military strike

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Appeasement in the form of recognition and aid

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Strategic Patience - Neither negotiation nor military action

    Votes: 9 64.3%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
Toby

Toby

Banned
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,499
Location
Manchester
For decades now we've had a situation where an isolated state born out of WW2 has point blank refused to accept its southern counterparts existence. Resulting in war then a stalemate for 60+ years. Enabled by China in the North and The USA in the South it would seem to quote a chinese statement 'we have reached a tipping point'.
Continually firing bigger and bigger missiles into the Sea of Japan and now over Japan into the Pacific with No regard for international law it would appear the end game is clearly in site. This is a very frightening prospect. Not only for Korea, but the region as a whole and the global economy of which Asia is a key component. My question is could this spread further afield, because I fear it has every prospect of doing so.
It would be good to hear your views...
 
Without spreading further afield, estimates of casualties in case hostilities break out

100k on the korean peninsula within the first 24h
300k over the next three months

Who is going to wage war with those figures ?
 
Double Edge said:
Without spreading further afield, estimates of casualties in case hostilities break out

100k on the korean peninsula within the first 24h
300k over the next three months

Who is going to wage war with those figures ?
Click to expand...

A Madman and A Despot!
 
snapper said:
Kim is not mad which leaves Trump.
Click to expand...

Your the one who is mad.

Kim is likely playing to an internal audience and internal power struggles. A deployable nuclear weapon cements his control and also gives his regime a level of security they don't otherwise enjoy.
 
Toby said:
A Madman and A Despot!
Click to expand...

Whether Trump could launch a nuclear strike on his own ?


President alone makes the decision but president alone cannot carry out the decision

My understanding is he must follow procedure otherwise the chain of command won't cooperate
 
Tiny Kim is again indulging in brinkmanship, and again apparently getting away with it!
Would not firing a missile over and through the airspace of a neighboring be considered a blatant act of war in most cases?
 
TopHatter said:
The DPRK has committed dozens of overt acts of war since the "end" of the Korean War.

They get away with it because escalating to a full-blown war again would be both catastrophic and not confined to the Korean Pennisula
Click to expand...
Looking at it in that context, it means that they pretty well have carte blanche to do anything short of launching an all-out attack against the South or Japan.
I wonder would the same restraint be present if one of Tiny Kim’s missiles broke up and crashed on the Japanese mainland, with eventual casualties?
Bowing to pay Danegeld has usually never proven effective. The Dane has a habit of comming back for more!
 
Yea. It's not quite time to hit them yet，but getting close.

Any use of force should be massive, decisive, and overwhelming, and undertaken with surprise.
 
hboGYT said:
I hope this has not been posted before.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/29/kim-jong-un-fearless-trump-215555
Click to expand...

America is losing ground in the region. They can talk about a pivot to Asia all they want, but as time goes on, China gets stronger and South Korea and Japan are going to have to decide which side they are on. China is not going anywhere, and neither are we. Even if the long-term trend takes decades, we have time. China has made clear our collapse is a bigger concern than our provocations. We are only getting stronger as America loses ground to China and their alliances show more and more stress. If we can help that process along, so much the better.
Click to expand...

Weaken the alliances ? how well is that working
 
Amled said:
Looking at it in that context, it means that they pretty well have carte blanche to do anything short of launching an all-out attack against the South or Japan.
Click to expand...
Essentially, yes. "Small" scale acts of war have been "overlooked" for decades. Some of them are literally incredible, for the utter brazenness of the attack and the lack of retribution that followed:

A KPA Special Forces platoon infiltrates South Korea and gets within 100 meters of the South Korean presidential residence before being detected and eventually exterminated.
30 South Koreans and Americans are killed, 66 are wounded, including civilians.

A North Korean mini sub blows a South Korean corvette out of the water without warning or provocation, killing nearly half the crew.

I cannot imagine another country getting away with such actions.

Amled said:
I wonder would the same restraint be present if one of Tiny Kim’s missiles broke up and crashed on the Japanese mainland, with eventual casualties?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe there would be restraint shown. Certainly no overt kinetic military action undertaken.

Amled said:
Bowing to pay Danegeld has usually never proven effective. The Dane has a habit of comming back for more!
Click to expand...

You are so right. In this case, the Danegeld has mostly kept the peace since 1953, kicking the problem down the road until the North Koreans have both nuclear weapons and an intercontinental delivery system...And now the Dane is truly coming back for more.
 
TopHatter said:
Or just subjecting it to a tube and rocket artillery barrage on a scale unseen since World War II
Click to expand...


You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.
 
snapper said:
You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.
Click to expand...

I was referring Seoul. It could subjected to that NK artillery barrage, even if it wasn't nuked.

To be clear, I am completely against a completely unprovoked "first-strike" on North Korea.
 
Last edited:
snapper said:
You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.
Click to expand...

What if there are no options available? Other than caving in to Tiny Kim’s demands?
Appeasement didn’t work in the late 1930’s when politicians, diplomats and the media in Europe were trying to curtail the actions of another militaristic dictator.
Appeasement didn’t work then, it only made him stronger.
 
Amled, I believe in appeasement probably least of all people that contribute to this forum; I am now a Ukrainian citizen and see the front line often. The point is not to appease fatty Kim ill whatever but to save civilian lives. He should have been taken out years ago clearly but much is simple from hindsight. The problem as it stands is that hundreds of thousands would die in the event of war. The question is whether there is any possible way to avoid that and still resolve the problem? The answer to that question is yes in my view. It is only polite to give them a chance before you opt for total destruction on both sides. A first strike is insanity at the cost of thousands of SK lives. If they go - and they will not - fine but I would not have those civilian lives on my conscience by attacking them first.
 
snapper said:
Amled, I believe in appeasement probably least of all people that contribute to this forum; I am now a Ukrainian citizen and see the front line often. The point is not to appease fatty Kim ill whatever but to save civilian lives. He should have been taken out years ago clearly but much is simple from hindsight. The problem as it stands is that hundreds of thousands would die in the event of war. The question is whether there is any possible way to avoid that and still resolve the problem? The answer to that question is yes in my view. It is only polite to give them a chance before you opt for total destruction on both sides. A first strike is insanity at the cost of thousands of SK lives. If they go - and they will not - fine but I would not have those civilian lives on my conscience by attacking them first.
Click to expand...
I sure hope that you are right, in that there is a solution that’ll save a modicum of face on both sides.
In my layman’s eyes it seems that the longer the present provocations and War on Words continues, the greater the chance of even a small inadvertent incident might escalate the conflict.
 
snapper said:
Not enough boots on the ground or time to stop them nuking Seoul.
Click to expand...

There's the entire SK army.

Their nuclear delivery systems are still immature. Their artillery systems are problematic but manageable.
 
TopHatter said:
I was referring Seoul. It could subjected to that NK artillery barrage, even if it wasn't nuked.

To be clear, I am completely against a completely unprovoked "first-strike" on North Korea.
Click to expand...

How much more provocation do you want?

Do you really think we could live with the world where NK is nuclear armed and striving to proliferate, with a long queue of authoritarian regimes to follow?

How far after that do you think we'll see mushroom cloud in some unfortunate corner of the world (eg, los angeles)?
 
Last edited:
citanon said:
Yea. It's not quite time to hit them yet，but getting close.

Any use of force should be massive, decisive, and overwhelming, and undertaken with surprise.
Click to expand...

I truly doubt there could be a surprise. I have a funny feeling that both Russia and China would pick up on the activity and notify the North. No way you are going to hide ship or plane movement from them. They may not be happy with Kim but I get the feeling Putin wouldn't be all broken up if something bad happened to the South or us. Once alerted, and I were Kim, I would let fly every single rocket and shell in my arsenal at once rather than have them caught on the ground. If I'm going down then Seoul goes down with me.

Call it a once in a lifetime going out of business blow out sale rather than being caught with inventory.
 
Last edited:
I think we have to be prepared to live dangerously. Theoretically, there are many ways to cause mass destruction without relying on fissile material such as laser-ignited fusion and asteroids slammed into the planet by spacecrafts. These technologies will migrate to the civilian sector eventually. We cannot hope to safeguard against them all.
 
The war / no war decision has to be made by the South Koreans; they’re the ones who will have to live – and die – with the results.

The best position may just be to ignore the DPRK. If there is no provocation, there is unlikely to be any reaction. If there are border skirmishes, they should be met forcefully, but without escalation.

We have no history of any nation on earth using a nuclear weapon without cause. Let’s not start a war because someone thinks it is unthinkable to let the DPRK – or Iran, for that matter – have their bombs, too.
 
I just wonder how an insignificant state like NK is able to effectively blackmail the world economy...who are the enablers and what are their motives...because it would seem to me that no China or Russia and you would have no NK....so my only conclusion is talking to NK is futile...as the puppet master resides elsewhere..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top