The Norks are Suspected of Sinking South Korean Shipping.

[Night_stalker]

Well, I prefer Kim Jong Il meeting Mr. Remington Model 700, which should send a clear message to the rest of NK HIGHCOM

[Lonestar]

Though those in power of North Korea haven't suffered any reprisals themselves, only it's civillians, and if Kim hasn't been affected by what is happening then why change the currant approach?

This would be my point. The lesson the Norks have learned over the decades is that they can get away with murder, again and again.

(FWIW, I am *not* advocating a military response)

[Kuroji]

That's the problem, though. What do you do to discourage a belligerent nation that may or may not have control of its military's actions from taking further belligerent actions toward a nation it signed an armistice with, without threatening total war? They'll call that bluff, and I'm not sure anyone really wants to see what would happen for that, least of all the people in South Korea who will get to see firsthand how much money that should go for food for the population instead goes for artillery shells and the like.

[Sea Skimmer]

I also think you are grossly overestimating how much China supports the DPRK. All they are doing is keeping the regime on life support out of political inertia.

Its hardly inertia. They know damn well that if the Norks collapse, the people wont be able to swarm across the DMZ to get aid from the ROK. The ROK has an acutal fence. The boarder between China and North Korea meanwhile is almost all unfenced, mostly unguarded in any meaningful way and the Yaul river is shallow enough to ford for much of its length. So China would be stuck dealing with millions of refugees pretty easily. They really don't want that to happen.

[Night_stalker]

As far as we know it's somewhat unguarded but it could have land mines like the DMZ has.

[Lonestar]

Fair enough, but I am talking keeping the regime on lifesupport, not backing the regime full-tilt as some posters are implying.

[Night_stalker]

That's why we just let the Chinese know that NK's finances are running low, and watch as they cut off all ties, and demand repayment off all the loans they've received, in cash.

[[R_H]]

I also think you are grossly overestimating how much China supports the DPRK. All they are doing is keeping the regime on life support out of political inertia.

Its hardly inertia. They know damn well that if the Norks collapse, the people wont be able to swarm across the DMZ to get aid from the ROK. The ROK has an acutal fence. The boarder between China and North Korea meanwhile is almost all unfenced, mostly unguarded in any meaningful way and the Yaul river is shallow enough to ford for much of its length. So China would be stuck dealing with millions of refugees pretty easily. They really don't want that to happen.

Why haven't they put up a fence, or started putting up a fence? Other than that sending a "wrong" signal to the DPRK.

[Norseman]

Why haven't they put up a fence, or started putting up a fence? Other than that sending a "wrong" signal to the DPRK.

They are doing just that apparently with the co-operation of North Korea.

[adam_grif]

Am I the only person who wishes that SK / USA had invaded NK like ten years ago?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Yes

[weemadando]

It's all being very nicely set up at the moment so that China has no choice but to back away from the Norks. The long, slow, deliberate process of proving beyond all doubt that they were the responsible party and that SK showed remarkable restraint has been really well executed and the rush of news in the past few days and really well written statements from various diplomats are making it look like China may be painted into a corner on the issue.

[recon20011]

It's all being very nicely set up at the moment so that China has no choice but to back away from the Norks. The long, slow, deliberate process of proving beyond all doubt that they were the responsible party and that SK showed remarkable restraint has been really well executed and the rush of news in the past few days and really well written statements from various diplomats are making it look like China may be painted into a corner on the issue.

I agree that South Korea has been showing remarkable restraint during this whole thing. I mean, a naval vessel is a public image of your military. And if it had been any other country it would have meant an almost-automatic declaration of war as soon as evidence of guilt was given.

[AniThyng]

It's all being very nicely set up at the moment so that China has no choice but to back away from the Norks. The long, slow, deliberate process of proving beyond all doubt that they were the responsible party and that SK showed remarkable restraint has been really well executed and the rush of news in the past few days and really well written statements from various diplomats are making it look like China may be painted into a corner on the issue.

I agree that South Korea has been showing remarkable restraint during this whole thing. I mean, a naval vessel is a public image of your military. And if it had been any other country it would have meant an almost-automatic declaration of war as soon as evidence of guilt was given.

Is this the Civ model of diplomacy? I think any other country in a similar situation (highly developed, industrialized, national capital region under range of the "cold war" enemy's guns) would exercise a similar level of restraint. This isn't like Russia vs Georgia where Georgia had practically nil ways to retaliate on Moscow.

[weemadando]

It's all being very nicely set up at the moment so that China has no choice but to back away from the Norks. The long, slow, deliberate process of proving beyond all doubt that they were the responsible party and that SK showed remarkable restraint has been really well executed and the rush of news in the past few days and really well written statements from various diplomats are making it look like China may be painted into a corner on the issue.

I agree that South Korea has been showing remarkable restraint during this whole thing. I mean, a naval vessel is a public image of your military. And if it had been any other country it would have meant an almost-automatic declaration of war as soon as evidence of guilt was given.

Is this the Civ model of diplomacy? I think any other country in a similar situation (highly developed, industrialized, national capital region under range of the "cold war" enemy's guns) would exercise a similar level of restraint. This isn't like Russia vs Georgia where Georgia had practically nil ways to retaliate on Moscow.

Yeah, but it's also not like there hasn't been a long and dirty history of really unpleasant back and forth between them on a "deniable" level that could've been reignited. What happened here was the Norks handed SK cassus belli on a platter (were they not already at war), so to be technically correct - they handed SK an bulletproof legal justification for just about any kind of arse-whupping they want to deliver. It's undoubtedly a come on so that Glorious Leader can go out with a bang, but who the fuck even knows what they're thinking anymore.

[recon20011]

Is this the Civ model of diplomacy? I think any other country in a similar situation (highly developed, industrialized, national capital region under range of the "cold war" enemy's guns) would exercise a similar level of restraint. This isn't like Russia vs Georgia where Georgia had practically nil ways to retaliate on Moscow.

Yeah, but it's also not like there hasn't been a long and dirty history of really unpleasant back and forth between them on a "deniable" level that could've been reignited. What happened here was the Norks handed SK cassus belli on a platter (were they not already at war), so to be technically correct - they handed SK an bulletproof legal justification for just about any kind of arse-whupping they want to deliver. It's undoubtedly a come on so that Glorious Leader can go out with a bang, but who the fuck even knows what they're thinking anymore.

This is what I was thinking along the lines of. I mean, I understand that there are practical reasons to show restraint. But they just frigging sunk your battleship! And Yes, I know its not really a battleship. But again, naval vessels are symbols of national power, a lot more so than a fighter plane or a tank.
Like my dad said when I asked him what he thought about the incident (I asked him thursday and he admitted he hadn't heard anything about it):

The North / South Korea drama has been playing out since 1953, and can instruct us in so many ways on the potential and limitations of international diplomacy.

Basically, he just sees it as a continuation of the various border clashes that go on on a seemingly yearly basis between the two. And that there is only so much diplomacy can do. I heard on the BBC though that there is still a United Nations Command in South Korea. If they were attacked do you think the rest of the world would even care?

[Night_stalker]

They would because they don't want a unstable regime with nukes to get any more power, so I think they will send in troops to show NK who they are messing with.

[Temujin]

As far as we know it's somewhat unguarded but it could have land mines like the DMZ has.

I believe most of the actual guarding is done on the North Korean side anyway to keep its citizens in. Landmines may exist, but I think they would rather put those in and around the DMZ where they believe the real threat comes from.

[MKSheppard]

would be my point. The lesson the Norks have learned over the decades is that they can get away with murder, again and again.

The thing is -- all the major NORK asshattery, like seizing a US Auxilary (PUEBLO), trying to assassinate the South Korean President (repeatedly too), blowing up an airliner and killing all 115 onboard; sending special forces via subs into South Korea to kill dozens of people; occured during the Cold War; when all the sides (United States, Soviet Union, China) had a very marked interest in keeping the Korean Penisula firmly locked up into an icebox, lest it spark Central Front Europe off.

Now? There's no cold war to offer the Norks cover; so more proactive measures can be taken.

I for one, would launch a heavy sustained air campaign against the North Korean Navy. Sink all of it's ships at harbor, mine it's seaports; blow up every building on their naval bases; destroy any defenses that shoot back at our aircraft; carpet bomb the naval bases with B-52s, etc. Disproportionate Response for the sinking of a single surface combatant. If the Norks want to escalate; then that means we just massively escalate AGAIN in response and nuke the whole damn country.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I for one, would launch a heavy sustained air campaign against the North Korean Navy. Sink all of it's ships at harbor, mine it's seaports; blow up every building on their naval bases; destroy any defenses that shoot back at our aircraft; carpet bomb the naval bases with B-52s, etc. Disproportionate Response for the sinking of a single surface combatant. If the Norks want to escalate; then that means we just massively escalate AGAIN in response and nuke the whole damn country.

Does your fantasy extend as far as to include what you'd say to the people of Seoul who are under the NORK artillery? It probably doesn't, but I'm curious and have plenty of time to burn at the moment.

[Night_stalker]

I prefer sending in some of our Los Angeles class subs in and go to town on the NK's navy. After that, have the New Jersey and her sister ships, alogn with a carrier group or two begin blowing up the NK infrastructure, or what little exists. We then launch another battle of Inchon.

[MKSheppard]

Does your fantasy extend as far as to include what you'd say to the people of Seoul who are under the NORK artillery?

That's the beauty of nuclear deterrence -- we are going to bomb the hell out of your Navy, since you sank our allies ship. If you open fire on our ally's capital city -- we'll carpet nuke you to ash, then nuke the ash again.

If however deterrence does fail -- about 5,000 to 9,000 people will probably die in the initial Nork barriage -- the highest casualties in any barriage occur in the first thirty seconds to minutes; as people are caught out in the open. But if you can get to even some amount of cover; casualties drop massively -- and a lot of buildings in Seoul were reinforced with bunkers on the ground floor to fight the Norks in the streets with anti-tank guns etc in case of Korean War II.

[Steve]

I for one, would launch a heavy sustained air campaign against the North Korean Navy. Sink all of it's ships at harbor, mine it's seaports; blow up every building on their naval bases; destroy any defenses that shoot back at our aircraft; carpet bomb the naval bases with B-52s, etc. Disproportionate Response for the sinking of a single surface combatant. If the Norks want to escalate; then that means we just massively escalate AGAIN in response and nuke the whole damn country.

Does your fantasy extend as far as to include what you'd say to the people of Seoul who are under the NORK artillery? It probably doesn't, but I'm curious and have plenty of time to burn at the moment.

I believe Shep's idea is that it's basically daring the Norks to escalate, knowing it means their doom. The Norks know if they shell Seoul in any way the balloon comes up and they're getting an asskicking, so they have to decide if they want to end their national existence or simply accept getting one-upped and being able to remain in power (while getting to scream about the EVIL IMPERIALIST YANKEES even louder).

[Night_stalker]

Yeah, they won't do it unless they know they're screwed, and even then, they'll use some nerve agents to maximize casulties during the barrage.

[recon20011]

Just doing some reading up on North Korea. I know think tanks aren't always the best sources of information and analysis but until someone shows me the CIA's reports on North Korea's capabilities its what I have to go on.
Center for Defense Information

A central tool in North Korea’s efforts to maintain the communist
regime has been the use of weapons development in order to gain concessions, aid and
favorable treaty outcomes with its prospective enemies. A first glance at North Korea’s
behavior might seem to show that the North is making threatening acts for no other reason than
to disrupt the process of warming relations with South Korea, the United States, and its other
neighbors. However, reexamination shows a careful policy of developing a threatening system
or capability, and using that threat to gain attention – and hopefully concessions – from
negotiating partners.
North Korea first employed this policy over its nuclear power and weapons program in the
early 1990s. An indigenous nuclear program had been underway since the 1970s, but it was
only in 1992 that the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
was allowed to inspect all North Korea’s nuclear facilities. After three inspections of the
Yongbyon nuclear facility, 60 miles north of the capital Pyongyang, discrepancies in the
submitted data showed that the North Koreans might have been concealing enough plutonium to
build one or two nuclear weapons. After an abortive declaration of withdrawal from the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the agreement that mandated the inspections, on the condition
that the United States not use force against it, the North agreed to give up its nuclear program
entirely if modern light-water reactors were supplied to fulfill its energy needs. After a period of
crisis, war was averted when essentially this formula was embodied in the ‘Agreed Framework’
of October 1994 between the United States and North Korea.
Much the same result occurred after the North Korean missile development program reached
the stage of flight tests at the end of August 1998. A Taepo-Dong 1 missile was launched on a
flight path over Japan on Aug. 31. Though there were initial negative reactions, almost a year
later, when the long-awaited Perry Report on U.S. policy toward North Korea was released,
U.S. sanctions on North Korea were lifted. The surrounding package included lifting of U.S.
sanctions on the condition that the North not conduct a second missile test and suspend any
other future tests.

Brinkmanship works. Maybe I should have traveled to North Korea to study Game Theory economics. They seem pretty good at it actually.

From another site, this time an amateur did a report on NK potential, using Google Earth no less.



He makes pretty good comments and analysis on the photos and stuff. I was looking for pictures of hardened artillery emplacements to show that stopping a bombardment of Seoul is not going to be easy. You'd have to locate every single battery within range and successfully eliminate it using counter-battery fire or air support.

Yeah, they won't do it unless they know they're screwed, and even then, they'll use some nerve agents to maximize casulties during the barrage.

The North Koreans will probably use chemical or nuclear weapons to blast a hole in the DMZ defenses and clear a path to Seoul, their ace will be capturing Seoul's population alive and using them as a shield against UN NBC retaliation.