General North Korea thread

[The Romulan Republic]

I've seen that several other places as well. In a nutshell, China wants the status quo. If NK is stupid enough to put a fork through the USA's foot then China will let the USA do what they're gonna do. If the USA moves first, though, it could be WW3.

In short, if Trump fires first, or potentially is perceived as starting it even, we're looking at the destruction of modern civilization.

So... we just have to pray that Fat Kim is marginally crazier than Orange Kim.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I've seen that several other places as well. In a nutshell, China wants the status quo. If NK is stupid enough to put a fork through the USA's foot then China will let the USA do what they're gonna do. If the USA moves first, though, it could be WW3.

In short, if Trump fires first, or potentially is perceived as starting it even, we're looking at the destruction of modern civilization.

So... we just have to pray that Fat Kim is marginally crazier than Orange Kim.

The problem that China has is that any (nuclear) strike on NK risks radioactive fallout affecting mainland China. And Japan is becoming increasingly vocal about greater co-operation with the USA in the face of NK aggression.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still, it seems nuts of China. I mean, allowing America to overthrow Kim would hurt their strategic interests, but not nearly as badly as a genocidal nuclear war between the two countries would.

I don't think there's a sane man in charge on any side here.

[Ralin]

Still, it seems nuts of China. I mean, allowing America to overthrow Kim would hurt their strategic interests, but not nearly as badly as a genocidal nuclear war between the two countries would.

I don't think there's a sane man in charge on any side here.

Allowing the US to overthrow Kim without retaliation would send the message that the US can overthrow Good Hitler in the Philippines. Or that Taiwan province can secede and hope to hide behind American protection. Or that the US could attack the PLA Navy next time they have a border dispute with Vietnam or whatever, or overthrow the Chinese government itself to punish them for stealing manufacturing jobs or pretty much whatever the hell strikes Trump as a good idea that day.

Not much point to deterrence and alliances once it's shown that neither will be backed up with action when they're tested.

[The Romulan Republic]

Still, it seems nuts of China. I mean, allowing America to overthrow Kim would hurt their strategic interests, but not nearly as badly as a genocidal nuclear war between the two countries would.

I don't think there's a sane man in charge on any side here.

Allowing the US to overthrow Kim without retaliation would send the message that the US can overthrow Good Hitler in the Philippines. Or that Taiwan province can secede and hope to hide behind American protection. Or that the US could attack the PLA Navy next time they have a border dispute with Vietnam or whatever, or overthrow the Chinese government itself to punish them for stealing manufacturing jobs or pretty much whatever the hell strikes Trump as a good idea that day.

Not much point to deterrence and alliances once it's shown that neither will be backed up with action when they're tested.

Also not much point in deterrence if every city in the northern hemisphere is a radioactive ruin.

[Broomstick]

In short, if Trump fires first, or potentially is perceived as starting it even, we're looking at the destruction of modern civilization.

So... we just have to pray that Fat Kim is marginally crazier than Orange Kim.

How about we pray that NEITHER of them is that crazy.

[The Romulan Republic]

In short, if Trump fires first, or potentially is perceived as starting it even, we're looking at the destruction of modern civilization.

So... we just have to pray that Fat Kim is marginally crazier than Orange Kim.

How about we pray that NEITHER of them is that crazy.

Well, yes. Obviously.

But if it has to happen, God help us... better the scenario which at least has a real chance of not leading to World War III.

On a related note:

Certain people on this board have often criticized me for my opposition to political violence. People have challenged my position on where the line should be drawn in justifying armed revolt against a government. So let me (hopefully) make two things clear:

1. I do not expect Trump to engage in a nuclear first strike, and I sincerely hope that no one is insane enough to launch a first strike of any kind.

2. If, hypothetically, any leader, be it Trump, Kim Jong Un, or anyone else, launches a nuclear first strike, or takes any action which can reasonably be expected to result in causing World War III or nuclear war, or is known to be attempting or planning to imminently do so, I would consider that person effectively guilty of attempted genocide, and their overthrow by force of arms justifiable.

So if you want to know where my red line is? There it is.

[Ralin]

Also not much point in deterrence if every city in the northern hemisphere is a radioactive ruin.

Yes TRR, you have discovered the flaw the nucular deterrence concept.

Like I said upthread, I don't know what's going to happen and I don't know what part of this reasoning China's leadership would go with. I'm not convinced they know either. Far as I'm concerned this is all speculation. Hopefully informed speculation, but I don't think there's going to be a right answer until someone makes one.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also not much point in deterrence if every city in the northern hemisphere is a radioactive ruin.

Yes TRR, you have discovered the flaw the nucular deterrence concept.

Hardly something I just realized. I've been opposed to nuclear weapons, for the most part, for a long time, in part for precisely this reason. Either they're an empty threat you never intend to follow through on, in which case there is a risk of your bluff being called (or a catastrophic accident/misunderstanding), or you do follow through... in which case, the only thing it would accomplish is to take as many people as possible with you in a final act of genocidal spite.

I'd honestly rather my country be conquered than use nukes. Both because an occupied country can hope to one day regain its freedom while a radioactive ash heap is just a radioactive ash heap, and because if we're going to go, I'd rather our last act as a nation not be one of genocide.

Like I said upthread, I don't know what's going to happen and I don't know what part of this reasoning China's leadership would go with. I'm not convinced they know either. Far as I'm concerned this is all speculation. Hopefully informed speculation.

Ditto.

[Ralin]

Hardly something I just realized. I've been opposed to nuclear weapons, for the most part, for a long time, in part for precisely this reason. Either they're an empty threat you never intend to follow through on, in which case there is a risk of your bluff being called (or a catastrophic accident/misunderstanding), or you do follow through... in which case, the only thing it would accomplish is to take as many people as possible with you in a final act of genocidal spite.

I'd honestly rather my country be conquered than use nukes. Both because an occupied country can hope to one day regain its freedom while a radioactive ash heap is just a radioactive ash heap, and because if we're going to go, I'd rather our last act as a nation not be one of genocide

You are proceeding from the false assumption that it's impossible to win a nuclear war with a mostly intact and functioning country afterward. Going off some of the stuff Shep has posted in the past that's not at all a given.

You're also ignoring the distinct possibility that a country is dealing with invasion by another country with few or no nuclear weapons. Aside from deterring other nuclear powers a big part of the value of nuclear weapons is being able to declare that past a certain point you will not allow your country to be invaded.

Which brings us to three. If everyone rejects nukes them then they will probably end up being ruled by the one country that doesn't.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hardly something I just realized. I've been opposed to nuclear weapons, for the most part, for a long time, in part for precisely this reason. Either they're an empty threat you never intend to follow through on, in which case there is a risk of your bluff being called (or a catastrophic accident/misunderstanding), or you do follow through... in which case, the only thing it would accomplish is to take as many people as possible with you in a final act of genocidal spite.

I'd honestly rather my country be conquered than use nukes. Both because an occupied country can hope to one day regain its freedom while a radioactive ash heap is just a radioactive ash heap, and because if we're going to go, I'd rather our last act as a nation not be one of genocide

You are proceeding from the false assumption that it's impossible to win a nuclear war with a mostly intact and functioning country afterward. Going off some of the stuff Shep has posted in the past that's not at all a given.

At the very least, you're talking about a crippling level of destruction and loss of probably millions of lives. And at worst... well, your country collapses. Sure, their will probably be survivors, maybe even some form of government (even if its military dictatorship/martial law, which I think likely), but...

Short of an enemy that is literally bent on genocide, and has the means to pull it off, I think you'd have a better chance of recovering from an occupation than from "winning" such a war. I realize that's probably not a very popular view.

You're also ignoring the distinct possibility that a country is dealing with invasion by another country with few or no nuclear weapons. Aside from deterring other nuclear powers a big part of the value of nuclear weapons is being able to declare that past a certain point you will not allow your country to be invaded.

Using nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear opponent would be a God awful idea, both because it would set a precedent of nuclear first strikes, rather than deterrence of other nuclear powers, and because it would (with reason) likely be viewed by most of the rest of the world as excessive, to put it mildly.

Which brings us to three. If everyone rejects nukes them then they will probably end up being ruled by the one country that doesn't.

One country cannot rule the world, nukes or no nukes. Nukes don't really help you deal with terrorism and insurgencies.

And as I said, I'd rather be conquered than use nuclear weapons, though of course neither is a desirable outcome.

[Alyrium Denryle]

At the very least, you're talking about a crippling level of destruction and loss of probably millions of lives. And at worst... well, your country collapses. Sure, their will probably be survivors, maybe even some form of government (even if its military dictatorship/martial law, which I think likely), but...

Short of an enemy that is literally bent on genocide, and has the means to pull it off, I think you'd have a better chance of recovering from an occupation than from "winning" such a war. I realize that's probably not a very popular view.

It all...kinda depends. The nuclear capabilities of both states matter a LOT. North Korea for example does not have the capacity to hit us with that many nukes. No matter how much they might want to, a nuclear exchange will be fairly limited on their part. We have... many many more nukes, and the ability to precisely target them. So, say they launch a first strike. We have assets in place to (maybe) intercept some of those missiles before they break atmo (and possibly after). Their targets will probably include naval naval and airforce bases in Hawaii and the pacific coast, as well as Okinawa and Guam.The yield is not that high for their nukes (10 kt or so, less than Hiroshima) so the direct damage and casualties from any missiles that do hit their targets will be limited (by the standards of nuclear exchanges), and they will definitely be airbursts, so even with a low yield, radioactive fallout will also be limited. The biggest problem with a full-scale US-Soviet exchange for instance are not the airbursts, but the groundbursts used to destroy our own underground launch facilities. Those contaminate all the dust and particulates they churn into the atmosphere.... airbursts don't do that.

So... a few hundred thousand to a few million dead, depending on how many they launch. If Kim Jong Un gets a bug up his ass, we might lose parts of San Francisco or Seattle, but the yield is low enough that we won't lose ALL or even most of either city.

Now, here is the kicker. They don't have (as far as I know) underground launch capability. They literally have to wheel their missiles out on trucks and maybe even construct a launch scaffold. We have sufficient intel assets that we will likely get warning before an attack is launched, giving us the ability to at least partially evacuate targeted regions, or get China on the horn and inform them that we are going to engage in a limited pre-emptive strike on North Korea's launch facilities. Possibly with conventional weapons. Hell, the PRC might actually be the ones giving us advance warning at this rate.

[Flagg]

China has said they will support NK, but only so far as they don't actually start the conflict. So a preemptive strike and China declares war.

[Alyrium Denryle]

China has said they will support NK, but only so far as they don't actually start the conflict. So a preemptive strike and China declares war.

Noooooo. The Chinese will support NK if it is the target of unprovoked aggression. That is an important distinction. Preparing to imminently launch a nuclear strike on the US is likely to be considered provocation. At least that is my read of the situation. Honestly if the chinese knew the DPRK was about to do that, they might just take Ol Yeller out back behind the shed themselves.

[Lord Revan]

Yeah I dout China will wait until there's nuclear detonation of a weapon launched from North Korea, Honestly I suspect that moment there's any indication of the North Korean goverment might be planning a nuclear first strike there's gonna be a reminder from Beijing that Kim is only a "president for life" and that the economy of North Korea depends on goodwill of the People's Republic of China so they shouldn't test their patience.

Assuming such a reminder hasn't already been sent.

EDIT:in essense they'll fight for North Korea if they're attacked unprovocated, but China won't be helping Kim to boost his ego by starting World War III (or at least trying to).

Also I suspect that this announcement is meant as much against North Korea as it's meant again USA, essentially a "calm down before someone gets hurt" announcement.

[Flagg]

China has said they will support NK, but only so far as they don't actually start the conflict. So a preemptive strike and China declares war.

Noooooo. The Chinese will support NK if it is the target of unprovoked aggression. That is an important distinction. Preparing to imminently launch a nuclear strike on the US is likely to be considered provocation. At least that is my read of the situation. Honestly if the chinese knew the DPRK was about to do that, they might just take Ol Yeller out back behind the shed themselves.

Fair enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

At the very least, you're talking about a crippling level of destruction and loss of probably millions of lives. And at worst... well, your country collapses. Sure, their will probably be survivors, maybe even some form of government (even if its military dictatorship/martial law, which I think likely), but...

Short of an enemy that is literally bent on genocide, and has the means to pull it off, I think you'd have a better chance of recovering from an occupation than from "winning" such a war. I realize that's probably not a very popular view.

It all...kinda depends. The nuclear capabilities of both states matter a LOT. North Korea for example does not have the capacity to hit us with that many nukes. No matter how much they might want to, a nuclear exchange will be fairly limited on their part. We have... many many more nukes, and the ability to precisely target them. So, say they launch a first strike. We have assets in place to (maybe) intercept some of those missiles before they break atmo (and possibly after). Their targets will probably include naval naval and airforce bases in Hawaii and the pacific coast, as well as Okinawa and Guam.The yield is not that high for their nukes (10 kt or so, less than Hiroshima) so the direct damage and casualties from any missiles that do hit their targets will be limited (by the standards of nuclear exchanges), and they will definitely be airbursts, so even with a low yield, radioactive fallout will also be limited. The biggest problem with a full-scale US-Soviet exchange for instance are not the airbursts, but the groundbursts used to destroy our own underground launch facilities. Those contaminate all the dust and particulates they churn into the atmosphere.... airbursts don't do that.

So... a few hundred thousand to a few million dead, depending on how many they launch. If Kim Jong Un gets a bug up his ass, we might lose parts of San Francisco or Seattle, but the yield is low enough that we won't lose ALL or even most of either city.

Now, here is the kicker. They don't have (as far as I know) underground launch capability. They literally have to wheel their missiles out on trucks and maybe even construct a launch scaffold. We have sufficient intel assets that we will likely get warning before an attack is launched, giving us the ability to at least partially evacuate targeted regions, or get China on the horn and inform them that we are going to engage in a limited pre-emptive strike on North Korea's launch facilities. Possibly with conventional weapons. Hell, the PRC might actually be the ones giving us advance warning at this rate.

Yeah, Kim can't cripple America with nuclear strikes (yet)- honestly, my biggest worry in that scenario is that he'd do just enough damage to give Trump a pretext to declare martial law or something in the name of "national security".

And that Trump would probably respond by completely exterminating North Korea by nuclear bombardment, with the full support of the majority of the American people.

In terms of nuclear doomsday scenarios for America, I'm thinking more a situation where we end up at war with China too or something.

[mr friendly guy]

Just to make things so much more better, Trump is also talking about possible military intervention in Venezuela at the same time tensions are high with North Korea.

[The Romulan Republic]

At least Venezuela doesn't have nukes and probably wouldn't start WWIII.

Don't get me wrong, its incredibly stupid to throw a threat like that out their on what appears to be a whim, but if it takes the idiot man-child's attention off of blustering about NK for a while, it might actually be for the best. Trump can go chase his new ball while the adults try to sort out the NK mess before his attention wanders back to it.

[Ralin]

So the situation seems to be ebbing for a moment. Tensions will probably for shoot up again soon, but for the moment, uh...

I don't think Trump is handling this very differently from how Clinton, or Obama or Bush would have.

Don't get me wrong, it's fucking terrifying that Trump is the one making these decisions, but US presidents have never committed to a no first use policy and the threat of massive retaliation has always been on the table. Trump's whole 'fire and fury' bit may be more bombastic, but the sentiment is in that same vein.

[The Romulan Republic]

Things seem to have quieted down, although I expect most of the credit for that goes to others working to smooth things over (ie China, Trump's military advisors and diplomats), not Fat Kim or Orange Kim.

It may also be that Trump has found something else to chase for a while.

And of course, the national media is all heavily focussed on Charlottsville right now.

[Elheru Aran]

Things seem to have quieted down, although I expect most of the credit for that goes to others working to smooth things over (ie China, Trump's military advisors and diplomats), not Fat Kim or Orange Kim.

It may also be that Trump has found something else to chase for a while.

And of course, the national media is all heavily focussed on Charlottsville right now.

Mostly the latter, frankly. Charlottesville managed to swing the Atomic Cheeto's attention away for the moment, and the Norks quieted down because the trolls stopped feeding each other. There are military exercises in Korea at the moment that will keep them a bit stirred up, but since Charlottesville pulled the nation's attention inward, nobody cares about the Norks right now apart from those whose business it is.

[Isolder74]

Well those drills are the usual reason that they make their yearly tantrum about so we might be hearing more from them again assuming they haven't gotten anything out of this one yet. It does seem right now that they are moving to the point that not even China is going to keep playing along with their yearly games anymore.

If they do do something as stupid as actually fire a test rocket into the vicinity of Guam everything is up in the air at that point.

[Lonestar]

North Korea test fired a missile that passed over Japan. Supposebly it broke into three different parts before impacting the ocean.

If it had broken apart just a little bit earlier over Japan, we might be locked into a conflict. As it is, who knows.

Things are not good. The best option for this Administration is to continue to just ignore them and hope they go away, which is easy. Too bad this Administration hasn't, so far as I know, picked anywhere near the best option for any of their policies and actions.

[Flagg]

Fatty Kim needs his didy changed.