North Korea: What should America do?

[Zoink]

The willingness to fight to the death is admirable, but you'd do that anyway if you knew that the alternative was getting dominated and having your people slaughtered.

A false dilemna. Britain could have lost too many pilots to continue the fight. Britain could have suffered more defeats and blunders, prompting Hitler to order an amphibious landing. Britain could have surrendered and been treated like Holland, France, etc. Britain could have failed to declare war in 1939 like certain other countries (U.S. and Russia). Britain could attempted to negotiate an alliance.

And that willingness means nothing if you don't have the logistics to back you up.

And logistics are meaningless without the people to fight. You focus on resources yet neglect *personnel* and skill as a resource.

The point really comes down to what's the deciding factor, if one factor has already been decided, (i.e. the willingness to fight and die) then it is moot when it comes down to deciding what the key factor in winning the war is.
....
That is the whole point, the original question is flawed because it assumed everyone involved had a choice. But that is false, the Russians and the Brits didn't have a choice, they were the targets of aggression, (specifically the Russians).
....
I am pointing to a single factor that turned the war in the favor of the allies

I take it the question is: what was the deciding factor in Germany's defeat. The "deciding factor" is not "deciding decision". The "deciding factor" is the "factor that decides". A factor doesn't have to be a choice, it can be a fact, hence factor. It is the fact of U.S. military superiority that would be the descisive factor in any war against Iraq (for example).

IMHO The Russian campaign is the deciding factor, which caused the greated casualties to Germany, and is primarily the result of superior Russian numbers in personnel and T-34 tanks.

I could argue that the U.S. had no choice but to support Britain if it wanted to keep its own position as a world power. That it had no choice but to declare war against Japan in 1942, and Germany had no choice to declare war against the U.S. in response.... but that doesn't belittle the important U.S. contribution.

[Perinquus]

Damn damn damn, stupid browser crash killed the entire last reply to the WWII part. Will do that later, Perinquus.

As for Korea, I don't know if arming Japan with nukes is a good idea. The Koreans (all of them) have not be Japan's best friends historically. Arming japan with nukes give NK a justification, and SK as well.

How does arming Japan with nukes give North korea justification when:

A) North Korea has them first
B) Japan would not have them at all were it not for the DPRK having them first, and
C) Japan would have them in response to the North Korean threat?

When you create a situation by behaving aggressively, and your neighbor responds to it, how does his response give you justification for an aggressive move?

And as you said, China would not be happy. And Japan has a natural aversion to nukes for obvious reasons. More than that, arming Japan with nukes are gonna alarm the Russians, and would mean a reduction in U.S. influence regionally.

The Russians would grumble a bit, but it is unlikely they would do much more. Japan is not a rogue state, and is no threat to Russia, nukes or no nukes. As for the Chinese, let them be unhappy. They are currently not only helping to prop up the DPRK, which is a rogue state, they are shipping it chemicals that will help it complete its nuclear program. The Chinese have to be made aware that this is unacceptable behavior.

So, probably not likely to happen, and dispite the classic image of ineptness of the Japanese military against Godzilla, they actually have some very credible capabilities. AEGIS style destroyers, F-15s backed by AWACS, on paper at least, they are pretty potent.

You misunderstand. The competence of the Japanese military forces is not in question. I trained with them when I was in the army. I know they're proficient. But they are also a very small force, with absolutely no ability whatsover to project their power to other shores. They are not a threat, and arming them with nukes will not transform them into an aggressive state.

In terms of China, they have economically backed NK, I think if they cut off what they currently offer to the NKs, well, that just might push the NKs over the edge. And the Chinese aren't likely to do that anyway, I mean what can America really do to pressure China? Put up MFN again? I doubt it, the U.S. is currently on good terms with China, and when they already have Korea in the bag, pissing off China isn't a good thing to do.

Again, the Chinese are providing materials which will aid a rogue state with a long history of selling anything and everything to whomever will pay them hard currency, in developing nuclear weapons. Pissing off China may be necessary. As I said, they have to be made to understand that this sort of thing contributes to political instability all over the world and threatens the peace and it simply cannot be tolerated. If they get their noses bent out of shape, oh well. Actions have consequences. It's time to apply a little negative feedback to the Chinese.

The scenario essentially comes down to the fact that NK's opposition holds all the cards in the game. Diplomatically, the NKs are in a bag, their only option otherwise is military (which is suicide). So, let things be, keep up the diplomatic pressure. And just wait. The worst case scenario is sales of nukes to foreign power or terrorists. And then there would be a problem of transporting those nukes. The Chinese probably won't allow it. And the only other option would be by sea, and that isn't the most viable option given that Korea is not a great naval power.

I think that simply waiting may be exactly the wrong thing to do. Even if cutting the DPRK off economically and diplomatically forces them to collapse, and maybe even makes them take a gamble on a war, it might be better to do that before they can get their nuclear program up and running. The worse case scenario is all too likely if we just wait. One day a mushroom cloud appears over New York because they've sold nukes to terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda. Given their history, there can be little doubt they'd do it. I think it's just a matter of time. Transporting them would not be nearly as big a problem as you think. Missiles would not be east to export, I grant you. But you can build nuclear devices the size of a suitcase these days, and that's just the sort of thing a fanatical terrorist group would want. It would also be impossible for us to be sure of containing such weapons indefinitely.

The current course is a good one. The main point is, you want to make sure that NK has a way out, classic art of war, don't corner your enemy, because then he becomes unpredictable. Of course, as you say, if it weren't for Clinton and the cuts in the U.S. military or the spineless foreign policy, the Korea situation might never have happened today.

North Korea is already somewhat unpredictable. There is no military justification for their having nukes - no one is contemplating invading them; they do not need a nuclear deterrent. They are an aggressive, highly militaristic rogue nation. They are dangerous and have to be dealt with. This is kind of like the Cuban Missile Crisis - it is a massively destabilizing move and it has to be opposed. They have to be made to back down, just as the U.S.S.R. had to be made to beack down back then. Otherwise I fear there will be a North Korean made nuclear weapon detonated on a target sometime before we are halfway through this century. Not only is this necessary if we are to diffuse the ticking bomb that is the DPRK, it is necessary in terms of influence, prestige and future diplomacy. If our response looks weak, it emboldens other rogue states to act aggressively in the future.

[0.1]

Well, arming Japan up with nukes is going to make the situation more difficult, not easier. Logically, you're absolutely correct in the sequence of events, but the ramification from NK will be: "well, see, now the Japanese have nukes, you can't trust them.... so we have to have nukes too." We both know that this is bullshit, but it's an excuse to muddle up the picture. I'm sure that you must've noticed by now that the world isn't clear up, or logical, it's all about influence and power. And those usually don't come about rationally. Arming Japan doesn't mean much anyway, they would realistically need theater missile defense, it would neutralize potential NK nukes on MRBMs. And militarily, they could defend their islands pretty efficiently from conventional attacks, and there is no need to expand their ability to project military power.

The situation in NK is actually pretty clear cut, arming Japan would muddle up the situation. China supports NK economically, fine, but that is not the case diplomatically these days, but pissing off China is just not a good way to go, remember, the Chinese supported NK during the last war militarily. Should a military conflict arise, better to have China as a tacit ally than an active enemy. As for unacceptable behavior, China's treatment of its citizenry in general is unacceptable. China has done what it has done for a long time, at this point, how would America punish China? MFN? There isn't the stomach for something like this, and if you want to start condemning China for distabilizing regions through sales of missiles and such, well, the French and the Russians are doing the same thing. That is also technically unacceptable (remember Kilo subs that Iran owns doesn't come from China) but it would not do at this point to apply negative feedback to Russia or the French. Same deal with China.

From a purely strategic point of view, fight one enemy at a time, vary your tactics, and go after one objective at a time. That's what the current administration is trying to do. Gambling on a war is not a good way to go, a war means South Korea is gonna get wrecked, U.S. with its focus on Iraq (and the middle east is truly a bigger problem now than NK anyway) couldn't respond properly because of aforementioned reduction in force. The situation is clear cut and fairly containable. Besides, there is time to work through things, the worst case scenario is that NK kick off tomorrow, and that would benefit the U.S. in terms of overall influence. The South Koreans would be hit hard, but in the end, the U.S. will come riding to the rescue, and that'll simply cement U.S. influence in the region for the next 50 years. So basically, I'm guessing that things would calm down soon enough, no need to exacerbate the situation by calling for world wide economic sanction which probably wouldn't work anyway.

In fact, I would go so far to say that NK gets the non-aggression pact it wants from the U.S. Why? Because it's not what the NK want in reality, but they are too damned proud to ask for what they really need. So, give them what they ask for, and then attach all sorts of strings to the pact and make them regret ever asking for it, that way, the U.S. look good to the rest of the international community, and it just binds the NK further.

I think there are fundamentally agreement that NK is a problem, it would be nice if the NK have a spontaneous revolution and then there'd be an outbreak of Jeffersonian democray, but that isn't possible. So, the only issue is the best way for the U.S. to respond, given the present situation, the response is about as good as it can get.


Piett,

the military cuts mattered. NK is doing what it is doing because of preceived military weakness in America. Let us say that next month, the U.S. went to war with Iraq, and NK kicks off against SK. Do you honestly think that the U.S. military can handle both fronts simultaenously and win? It would've been the case in the early 90s, but not any more.

The Clinton administration was a big disaster in terms of international relations, it basically illustrated appeasement, the unwillingness to stand for much and made the world think that it's ok to kill Americans and do whatever you want. Here are just a few examples, bomb a U.S. embassy, the response, shoot cruise missiles at empty camps. 18 U.S. soldiers die in Samolia doing something that is well worth doing and for good reasons, the response: pull out and negotiate with Aidid. Blow up the U.S.S. Cole, and what happens? NOTHING. Those events are equivallent to if I torched your car, and you did nothing, that just tells me that you don't have the will or the capability to do anything, guess what next time, I'll torch your house. The lack of will combined with cuts in the military is what really brings out crisis like the ones we see today. So, it matters.

[0.1]

Zoink, I'm gonna have to cut this off soon. It's not gonna get anywhere, because we're going to start debating the meaning of the word is at this rate. In the larger scheme of things, the U.S. getting involved is a political decision, and that is a FACTOR in the overall course of history. That is the point. Take away that FACTOR or the decision to get involved. We'd all be speaking German today.

But you say that the Russians won by superior equipment and numbers, and that was the case in the beginning of Barbarossa. Read up on the military campaign, the Germans were winning initially because they had better soldiers, but Hitler's interference cost the Germans just a couple of months for the other factors to kick in. Still, the Germans kicked their ass almost all the way to Moscow. You're right that the Russian campaign is what crushed the Wehrmarct in the end. But that factors that contributed to that success has less to do with Russian numbers than the factors I outlined earlier.

As far as the U.S. involvement argument on the basis of its position and it's own interest, I said that from the very beginning, so thanks for the agreeing to the obvious. And by the way, the Germans did have a choice of not declaring war on the U.S., it would've been the smart thing to do.

[Falcon]

Didn't the Axis agreement draw the Germans into war with America just like a treaty caused France and Britain to declare on Germany? (I've forgotten, someone chime in)

[0.1]

It did, but it's not a holy writ, Hitler should never have done it. There is some distinction between honoring and agreement and commiting suicide. But then Hitler is an idiot, he supported the Italians in Africa, talk about a waste. Besides, at that point, what did Japan do for the Axis anyway? The one thing that people should be happy about is the fact that the Japanese never coordinated with the Germans. Had Japan assaulted Russia seriously instead of going after America, the Russians would've been finished. (and not necessarily by the Japanese)

[Perinquus]

Well, arming Japan up with nukes is going to make the situation more difficult, not easier. Logically, you're absolutely correct in the sequence of events, but the ramification from NK will be: "well, see, now the Japanese have nukes, you can't trust them.... so we have to have nukes too." We both know that this is bullshit, but it's an excuse to muddle up the picture. I'm sure that you must've noticed by now that the world isn't clear up, or logical, it's all about influence and power. And those usually don't come about rationally. Arming Japan doesn't mean much anyway, they would realistically need theater missile defense, it would neutralize potential NK nukes on MRBMs. And militarily, they could defend their islands pretty efficiently from conventional attacks, and there is no need to expand their ability to project military power.

Giving Japan nukes would not increse their ability to project their power. China has nukes right now, but essentially no ability to project their power beyong their immediate neighbors. The Japanese would have perfect justification for developing nukes of their own, with or without our help. North Korea will shortly have them. North Korea has, in the past, lobbed missiles over Japan in tests. This means they will have the ability to lob nukes at Japan, and the Japanese would have every justification in the world for saying "we are not prepared to live under that threat". And the whole point is, the spectre of a nuclear Japan may put pressure on the Chinese to stop supporting the DPRK before it ever comes to that.

The situation in NK is actually pretty clear cut, arming Japan would muddle up the situation. China supports NK economically, fine, but that is not the case diplomatically these days, but pissing off China is just not a good way to go, remember, the Chinese supported NK during the last war militarily. Should a military conflict arise, better to have China as a tacit ally than an active enemy. As for unacceptable behavior, China's treatment of its citizenry in general is unacceptable. China has done what it has done for a long time, at this point, how would America punish China? MFN? There isn't the stomach for something like this, and if you want to start condemning China for distabilizing regions through sales of missiles and such, well, the French and the Russians are doing the same thing. That is also technically unacceptable (remember Kilo subs that Iran owns doesn't come from China) but it would not do at this point to apply negative feedback to Russia or the French. Same deal with China.

I have to disagree that the situation is clear cut. I also have to disagree that Japan having nukes would "muddle it up". I'm not worried about the Japanese selling nukes to Al Quaeda. I'm very worried about the North Koreans doing it. I reiterate that China helping to put the DPRK into a postion where it will have the ability to sell nukes is simply unacceptable. Yes their treatment of their own citizens is execrable, and their human rights violations deplorable. The crucial difference is that those things, bad as they are, do not threaten U.S. interests. A nuclear North Korea does. China, Russia, and France have sold missiles, yes, but they have not sold nuclear missiles.

If the Chinese are faced with the possibility of Japan having nuclear weapons, it may just motivate them to reconsider putting pressure on the DPRK to abandon its nuclear effort; and of all the countries in the world, China is in the best postiion to do it.

From a purely strategic point of view, fight one enemy at a time, vary your tactics, and go after one objective at a time. That's what the current administration is trying to do. Gambling on a war is not a good way to go, a war means South Korea is gonna get wrecked, U.S. with its focus on Iraq (and the middle east is truly a bigger problem now than NK anyway) couldn't respond properly because of aforementioned reduction in force. The situation is clear cut and fairly containable. Besides, there is time to work through things, the worst case scenario is that NK kick off tomorrow, and that would benefit the U.S. in terms of overall influence. The South Koreans would be hit hard, but in the end, the U.S. will come riding to the rescue, and that'll simply cement U.S. influence in the region for the next 50 years. So basically, I'm guessing that things would calm down soon enough, no need to exacerbate the situation by calling for world wide economic sanction which probably wouldn't work anyway.

The worst case scenario is not North Korea imploding, and gambling on a war in the near future. The worst case scenario is North Korea selling nukes to terrorists, and all due respect, but I think we would be out of our minds to wait around for that to happen. Just like with Hitler when he reoccupied the Ruhr, the time to nip this thing in the bud is ASAP. And if the DPRK did decide to gampble on a war, and they attacked first just like they did in 1950, I guarantee you we would have no shortage of allies. World opinion these days is just not prepared to tolerate that sort of naked, unprovoked aggression. Even though our forces are reduced, we could pretty much count on British and other NATO countries, possibly the Russians. And I don't think we have to worry too much about China as an active enemy. They are much less hardline communist these days, and have no desire to engage in a shooting war. North Korea would be pretty much on its own, and their economy is such that they can't sustain a campaign for more that a few weeks or months at most, particularly if the Chinese decide to cut off their electricity and foodstuffs.

In fact, I would go so far to say that NK gets the non-aggression pact it wants from the U.S. Why? Because it's not what the NK want in reality, but they are too damned proud to ask for what they really need. So, give them what they ask for, and then attach all sorts of strings to the pact and make them regret ever asking for it, that way, the U.S. look good to the rest of the international community, and it just binds the NK further.

I'm not sure that's what they want at all. I'm not sure anybody really knows what they want. Kim Jong Il is a madman, and hence, unpredictable. They've had peace for the past half century. Anybody with even the most elementary notion of U.S. politics knows there's always been zero chance of us launching an unprovoked attack on North Korea. They don't have to rattle their saber to get a non aggression pact; they've had fifty years to soften their stance and get one for the asking. And over fifty years, they've had plenty of opportunity to find a way to do it peacefully without losing face. They are clinging tightly to an outworn, disproven economic system, which has them in the depths of squalid, abject poverty, and totally unable to meet their own domestic needs. They have the example of their prosperous southern neighbor to further highlight the fact that they are their own worst enemies. None of this has made an impression. They are not rational people (the regime I mean, not the people). They cannot be trusted to do the rational thing. They are dangerous and unpredictable, and now are about to become an intolerable menace.

I think there are fundamentally agreement that NK is a problem, it would be nice if the NK have a spontaneous revolution and then there'd be an outbreak of Jeffersonian democray, but that isn't possible. So, the only issue is the best way for the U.S. to respond, given the present situation, the response is about as good as it can get.

What we are doing at the moment is essentially nothing. We can't keep doing that indefinitely. Quite aside from the danger that they will develop their nukes and sell them to terrorists (which is likely), they are thumbing their nose at us. If they are allowed to do that with impunity, you can bet your ass it's only a matter of time before other rogue nations are emboldened to do the same. Again, just as the opportunity existed to stop Hitler before he got big, there is a window of opportunity to do something about the DPRK now. Back then, people took the easy way and paid dearly for it later. We can't afford to make the same mistake.

[0.1]

Perinquus,

I think we've come to the conclusion of the thread. It is agreed that NK is not rational. I think we agreed that one possible bad scenario (depending on the point of view in terms of harm to the world economy) is that there is a shooting war, and it probably won't happen. The U.S. has time right now to play the diplomacy games, the worst case scenario is possible that nothing happens for the next few years, NK develops technology to mate ballistic missiles with their nukes as well as nuke minaturation, that technology is exported widely. No one knows for sure how long that will take, but proliferation will be more difficult with NK due to pure geographical reasons. Remember at this point, as far as anyone know, NK hasn't sold nukes yet either. They are more likely to do so, but they haven't done it.

We disagree on Japan possessing nukes. We agree that the NK are not rational, so if Japan were to be armed with nukes, that irrationality would turn around and say: "hey, look, see it's a good thing we have nukes to counter balance the Japanese" Remember, all that history will be used as rationale, no matter how irrational it might be in relation to the current situation. China is not the problem at this point, and to put undue pressure on Bejing as well as arming Japan with nukes will bring about another crisis for literally no good reason and would likely push China onto the side of NK right now. For the Chinese, history is just as much against Japan, WWII is not something that the Chinese will ever forget, guarantees of stable government today means nothing for the future.

I think in the end, doing the things that are done now (diplomacy is not nothing... not completely) does not mean sticking to pure diplomacy forever. Diplomacy and such is fine for now because there is the Iraq situation which is more important. NK should be dealt with, but only after Iraq is dealt with first. Besides, six to eight months of diplomacy will not significantly deteriorate the U.S. position. So, I think we agree that diplomacy should not be there forever, but right now it works. The disagreement might be how long to keep trying.

In the end, it is a race, but the race is set in the following terms: will the U.S. be able to deal with Iraq first before NK develop the nuclear technology significantly to sufficiently threaten Japan with nuclear armed MRBM and proliferate suitcase sized nukes. There are still lots of technological hurdles for the NK. And given the current world circumstances, there is no chance in hell that NK could ever come to a point similar to the Germany of WWII.

To be perfectly honest, war on the peninsula as bad as it might be in terms of casualties and the world economy would probably be a good thing in the strategic sense in that it takes care of a long term problem of NK, because if a war starts, it'll likely end with the destruction of NK, and unification of Korea under a democratic goverment. Not to mention embedding U.S. influence in the region for the next generation or two. But that won't happen... probably.

[Perinquus]

Well, I really doubt that putting a little pressure on the Chinese will push them into the arms of North Korea. I really, really doubt that. Why? Because unlike the people in Pyongyang, the people in Beijing are basically rational. Why on earth would they want to hitch their wagon to the DPRK's falling star? North Korea is a house of cards. It's only lasted as long as it has because it's living off of Chinese subsidies. This is a situation which simply cannot continue forever. This is not a strong, stable, reliable partner for the Chinese to take on, and they know it. Since North Korea would very definitely be the bad guy in the eyes of world opinion, this is just another reason the Chinese would think three times before they became allies with the North Koreans in a war. I just don't see it happening.

But you know, even if applying a little pressure did drive China and North Korea closer together, so what? So tensions would be heightened for a while. Well, we survived several decades of heightened tensions during the Cold War. It wouldn't bother us all that much really if it happened again. And economically, they need us more than we need them. Economically, we are a bigger powerhouse than they are. Let them deal with economic sanctions and put pressure on the EU to hit them with a few as well. As I said, they are engaging in unacceptable behavior and they need to stop it or feel some consequences.

A consequence of their aiding North Korea with their nuclear program by providing them with chemicals to extract plutonium could be the arming of Japan with nukes in response to the creation of this threat by them and North Korea. Again, the whole point is that if they realize we are serious about this, and have no intention of backing off, and they are thus realistically faced with this possibility, they may turn around to North Korea and say: "Sorry, this show's over. If a nuclear Japan is what we're going to get out of it, then we're going to have to put the kibosh on this. Stop with the nukes, readmit the U.N. inspectors, and live up to the agreement you signed in '94, or we'll just have to withold the 90% of your electrical power that we supply you."

And as far as the comparison with Hitler's Germany goes, I don't think you get me. I'm not suggesting North Korea is going to launch a world war like Germany did. The comparison is merely that like Germany in 1938, we can either face the hard reality, and do something about this now, or we can be faced with dire consequences later. In Germany's case back then, the hard choice was to stop Hitler while he was still weak, before he could launch an aggressive war. In this case the hard choice is to take a very tough line against the DPRK before they develop nukes and start selling them to terrorists. Back then no one was willing to make that hard choice, and it cost millions of lives. If we do the easy complacent thing again this time, I'm afraid it will also cost more lives in the end.

[SWPIGWANG]

What would happen if we give south korea nukes and pull out, and is that an opition at all?

[Admiral Piett]

Piett,
the military cuts mattered. NK is doing what it is doing because of preceived military weakness in America.
Let us say that next month, the U.S. went to war with Iraq, and NK kicks off against SK. Do you honestly think that the U.S. military can handle both fronts simultaenously and win? It would've been the case in the early 90s, but not any more.

If they were so stupid to do such a thing the SK army would spank their asses.Period.
The NK does not have any chance to win.End of the history.

Here are just a few examples, bomb a U.S. embassy, the response, shoot cruise missiles at empty camps.

And what would you have done instead?

18 U.S. soldiers die in Samolia doing something that is well worth doing and for good reasons, the response: pull out and negotiate with Aidid.

Maybe the fact that the US public opinion wanted to pull out from an intevention that it did not feel in first place might be related to his decision.

Blow up the U.S.S. Cole, and what happens?

Let me guess,do you mean that you should have bombed Yemen back in the stone age,despite the fact that its government is willing to cooperate with the USA in the antiterrorism effort? Brilliant.

[0.1]

Piett,

You're obviously an idiot, why don't you read up on the Orbat of both NK and SK. And then look at a fucking map, you goddamn idiot. Learn geography. The military situation favors the NK for a variety of reasons, taking away the U.S. troops would add to that effect. If SK is to withstand an assault, it has to be because it has defense in depth, but given the proximity of Seoul to NK and the population there, that isn't an option. You understand that don't you...

But since you started, what would you do in response to the bombing of the embassy and the U.S. warship... Let me guess, you're Slick Willy in disguise right? Spineless and whipping dog of public opinion? American public wouldn't have had a problem had there been an adequate explanation of why the troops were in Samolia, and why the mission was worth the cost of American lives.

Pulling out sent a message that if you kill a few American soldiers at the cost of a few hundred of your own, American will backed down. In the long run, it helped to cause the bombings, and ultimately 9/11... It would be equivalent of me punching you in the face, taking your money, and you turned around and just went home and did nothing. It tells me the next time, I can kick you in the balls, torch your car and there wouldn't be any serious consequences.

[0.1]

Perinquus,

I understood the basic concept with the Hitler reference, and I think I did point out that it would never get that far in terms of what happens in WWII. The difference between facing reality in the nearer term versus facing reality far down the road. I don't think it's so much complacency now as it is waiting for time to deal with NK. With the ball being so far down the court with Iraq, NK just has to be put off for a little while until Iraq is dealt with. Practicality of not doing two fronts at once mainly because of the lack of capability and more to the point because of the larger consequences for SK.

A better question is what would NK do given the present circumstances, they're on a clock too. Whenever the U.S. gets done with Iraq, NK is going to be the next focus in terms of complete attention. If they can mate nukes with MRBMs before the U.S. is done with Iraq or if they can finish off miniturization of nukes, then they're in a strong position. They also have an advantage in terms of their geographic position, they could devastate SK at any point, and that would change the dynamics of things very easily. So, if you were Kimmy Jr, and you knew that you aren't going to get nukes mated or miniturized before Iraq is done, what would you do?

[Perinquus]

We cannot afford to bet that they won't get them miniaturized beofre then, which is why I really think we've got to put some pressure on the Chinese to help deal with them now. We can't undertake military action as long as we're preoccupied with Iraq. But I still think a threat to the Chinese to help Japan develop nukes would be a good way to apply the right kind of diplomatic pressure on China to put a leash on the DPRK.

[Admiral Piett]

Piett,
You're obviously an idiot, why don't you read up on the Orbat of both NK and SK. And then look at a fucking map, you goddamn idiot. Learn geography. The military situation favors the NK for a variety of reasons, taking away the U.S. troops would add to that effect. If SK is to withstand an assault, it has to be because it has defense in depth, but given the proximity of Seoul to NK and the population there, that isn't an option. You understand that don't you...

And you are obviously a cretin if you think that an army with WW2 era equipment,whose best weapons systems are indigenous copies of soviet export variants (read 2nd rate even for the soviet standards of the 60's) of the 60's can wipe out an army which has western standard equipment.Without mentioning that even their pitiful equipment is poor mantained.Do you know how many hours of flight NK fighter pilots have?How pathetic their tanks are? How outdated are their air defenses?
Their army is falling apart.The south Korean one is strenghtening more and more.

But since you started, what would you do in response to the bombing of the embassy and the U.S. warship...

No mr Idiot, I asked it to you.What would YOU have done?
You were the one criticizing Clinton for his lack of action,remember?
Very well,then give me an alternate option, if your brain is capable of working out one,which is doubtful.

Pulling out sent a message that if you kill a few American soldiers at the cost of a few hundred of your own, American will backed down. In the long run, it helped to cause the bombings, and ultimately 9/11...

Because as everyone knows,Bin Laden has been scared to death by the bombings in Afghanistan and has stopped further terrorist strikes.As the relatives of the people who died at Bali would be happy to confirm to you, idiot.
These people are not scared by your military reactions.Either you kill them
or it is completely wasted effort.They are not going to be scared or deterred
by shows of military force.

I don't think it's so much complacency now as it is waiting for time to deal with NK

Invading the North Korea? Do not make me laugh.South Korea is not going to give you the permission for an invasion.End of the history.The have an other policy regarding the whole matter.
They are not a Kuwait or a Turkey you can scare or bribe into helping you.

[Admiral Piett]

Of course mr 0.1, you might prefer to be in a T 62 (their best tank) facing a K1/A1.But instead I know what would be my choice.
The majority of their systems are indigenous copies of chinese copies of soviet systems of the 50's.Only Kim Jong Il in his wet dreams and you can seriously believe that they have a chance of "reunificating" the korean peninsula.
The ROK army has 2200 MBTs,mostly modern,while the NK 3800,included some powerful types such as the mighty T34,or the terrifying T 59 (well for the unlucky people that have to crew it it may well be terrifying after all).
Training is minimal for the mechanized forces in anyway.
If there is one thing that is going to be devastated that is the north korean army.And then the regime with it.This is why Kim is not going to do anything so stupid.And if he is,then his fate is sealed.

[0.1]

Piett,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 0.1:

I don't think it's so much complacency now as it is waiting for time to deal with NK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Invading the North Korea?

Where did I say invade NK? Try the dictionary, but I believe the phrase DEAL WITH and the word INVADE have two different meanings. But let me help you out a bit here just in case you have problems looking up those words:

INVADE: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... invade*1+0

DEAL WITH: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... l.with*1+0

But you are obviously the Korean military expert, you should apply for a job at the Pentagon and tell them and all the other military experts around the world about how wrong they are on the effectiveness of the North Korean army. Heck, you should be giving advice to the new SK president who just recently said that he felt the U.S. military presence should remain. Now, why would the newly elected SK president (who ran on a fairly anti-American platform) say that if the SK military was so damn capable that it would in kick ass if the NK invaded.

I'm going to cut this off now because you can't even read. Which means thinking and even reasonable discussion is just out of the question, you have a nice day.

[0.1]

Perinquus,

Hmmm, that would be tricky though. I think what you're suggesting is that find some way to get the Chinese to help to deal with NK, pressuring them to put on the economic squeeze. The main issue is how to push things along so that NK don't go off on their own hooks and initiate military action on their own before the Iraq situation is finished.

I still disagree about nukes for Japan, I think even the threat of it would focus attention away from NK. But more importantly, it would put up a confusing message about proliferation of weapons of mas destruction and the U.S. stance on it.

[Admiral Piett]

But you are obviously the Korean military expert, you should apply for a job at the Pentagon and tell them and all the other military experts around the world about how wrong they are on the effectiveness of the North Korean army.

Find me any serious military expert that believe that they have a fair chance of winning against the SK army and whatever the US can spare from the war in Iraq,if you are capable.I have described what are their widely well know (except to ignorants like you of course) deficiences in terms of backward equipment and insufficient training.But please,demonstrate me that I am wrong,if you can without having to recur to you-are-not-an-expert crap.You are the one vaunting himself to know their order of battle so well,after all (sarcasm).
So you should also know that they do not even have enough trucks to move around all their half starved,poorly trained conscripts which, together with WW2 era artillery pieces,are the only things that they have in relative abundance.

Now, why would the newly elected SK president (who ran on a fairly anti-American platform) say that if the SK military was so damn capable that it would in kick ass if the NK invaded.

Because if you can have additional help it is silly throwing it away.
Quite frankly I am curious to know where the notion of the north korean military superpower come from.Despite the hypermilitarization of the North Korea the military budget of South Korea is still three times larger .

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spend.html

And speaking about the local geography that supposedly favor them so much,shall we have a little talk about the multiple fortified lines,reinforced by what is one of the the largest (over one million) concentration of landmines on the Earth, that any North Korea advance would be faced by? Or the rivers that they have to lay bridge upon under the little protective umbrella of the SK jets armed with precision guided munitions?
We are speaking about an army whose only advantage is in the number of
untrained conscripts and outdated artillery pieces trying to mount an assault against the most heavily fortified border on earth,defended by an army trained and supplied by the USA, with FAR better equipment and doctrines.
It would be a massacre.
Only you and Kim Jong Il can seriously believe in a north korean success.
I am not suprised you are so anxious to cut any further discussion,given you level of ignorance about the matter.
Let me guess,you have read the about numbers of the north Korean army and you have seen that Seul is near the DMZ and so you have jumped to the conclusion that it would be a cakewalk for the north koreans.What idiocy.With similar criteria the numerically superior Iraqui army should have beaten the living shit out of the US Army.Which is precisely what some "experts" were saying before the Gulf War,I bet the same who think now that the KPA is such good.
You fail to see is the qualitative difference in the weapons systems and doctrines,which,as the US army has shown, are more than enough to make for the lack of numbers.The north korean armored forces are made of pieces of museums such as the T34, tin can amphibious tanks that machinegun fire would rip apart such as the PT 76 and well positioned contestants for the "worst tank ever" award such as the T 59.I could speak of their air forces,whose backbone is constituted by the MIG 15/MIG 17 ,whose only right place is the musum.But it is not really necessary.I almost feel sorry for the poor pilots that would have to face the south korean F5 in those flying targets.A WW2 era japanese kamikaze had better chances of survival.
This without even considering their totally lack of modern recoinnaissance,
surveillance and target aquisition systems
You fail to see the difference in training.The North Korea is so fuel starved that training of mechanized units and the air force has been reduced to almost pathetic levels.The flight hours per year of NK pilots are eastimated into 20% or less of the south korean ones,depending on the sources.That is not a great thing if you are planning a blitzkrieg.This without even taking in consideration their outdated doctrines.
You fail also to observe the geography of the country,something that you accuse me of not knowing.Yes there is that plain that leads directly towards
Seul.A small detail that you have obviously missed is that there are rivers in the middle of it.Ever tried to lay a bridge under air bombardment with guided bombs and artillery fire? You think that is easy...
And as far the valleys in the mountains go,such as the Chorwon valley,one of the most likely attack routes,the term "killing zones",which is what the ROK army is preparing for them,is the most appropriate.
Also not described on the maps are the minefields,antitank walls and fortification that the south koreans have been building for the last 50 years and that make the korean border a defence line that only a fool like you would underestimate.

I assumed that you were using "dealing with" as a synonimus of "kick their asses".I was wrong.Much better.
Now I am still awaiting an answer about what Clinton should have done regarding the bombings of the embassies.Oh let me guess, you do not have one. What a surprise
It goes also that you failed to address my statements on the north korean military power of which you know exactly zero.Like you have failed to address all my others arguments.
The only things that I have heard so far are ad hominem attacks which do not counter my arguments in any way but demonstrate only that you are incapable of debating.You use my error about the invasion to avoid discussing all the others relevant points.What pathetic tactic.Do you seriously believe to be so smart? Sorry,if there is one here incapable of using his brain or discussing that is you.

I'm going to cut this off now because you can't even read. Which means thinking and even reasonable discussion is just out of the question

Are you referring to yourself,I guess? (very heavy sarcasm).
Your lack of arguments speak for you.

[Admiral Piett]

In all probability the ROK is not going to be invaded anytime soon.And should Kim Jong Il be so stupid to take such as step,then he would have signed its own death sentence.
All your talks,mr 0.1 are based on a grossly exaggerated underestimation of the south korean army and the US armed forces and on a big overestimation of the north korean capabilities.The only thing that the north koreans will be able to accomplish will be dying in huge numbers due to massively inferior equipment and training and attacking an heavily defended position.
The main problem for the ROK army will be probably traffic jammings.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I keep hearing this STOOOPID statement that NK only has WW2 level of tech in their army. What part of THOUSANDS of conventional artillery guns, and heavey morters hidden in caves and in range of SK don't you get?


I keep hearing this "obsolete", as if it is the same as "effective". Black powder, nitroglycerin, c-4, who fucking cares, dead is dead.

They still dig holes with shovels, and a big rock, caveman style, STILL beats an empty hand.

10,000 infantrymen with bayonetts, beats 1000 men with 5000 rounds of ammo, with no bayonetts.

[XPViking]

It would be a bloodbath either way.

XPViking

[Admiral Piett]

I keep hearing this STOOOPID statement that NK only has WW2 level of tech in their army.

Because it is true,at least as far as artillery goes.

What part of THOUSANDS of conventional artillery guns, and heavey morters hidden in caves and in range of SK don't you get?

So what?
The south koreans have them too.Roughly 5000 artillery pieces.Less than the north koreans but generally with longer ranges.The majority of the north korean artillery pieces are in sheltered positions along the DMZ.But they will have to abandon their shelters if they want to cover an advance .At that point they will become vulnerable to counterbattery fire,air strikes etc.

I keep hearing this "obsolete", as if it is the same as "effective". Black powder, nitroglycerin, c-4, who fucking cares, dead is dead.

A T 34 can kill you.Only a stupid would try to deny that.But if the T 34 meets a K1A1, try to guess who is going to die?

STILL beats an empty hand.

Unfortunately for the north koreans,the south koreans hands are quite filled with modern weapons,supplied by the USA.

10,000 infantrymen with bayonetts, beats 1000 men with 5000 rounds of ammo, with no bayonetts.

The north koreans have roughly one million of soldiers.The south koreans half a million (with a million of trained reserves that could be reacalled in few days) ,with better equipment, training and with the advantage of being on the defensive on prepared positions.While the north koreans have more quantity, they just do not have enough of it to make up for the lack of quality.
Granted,it would not be funny for South Korea.But chances of Kim Jong Il succeeding at reunifying the peninsula are not probably much higher than those of Saddam succeeding at driving the americans out of Kuwait back in 1991.Remember,even today Saddam has the numerical superiority,roughly 400.000 soldiers versus the roughly 150.000 the allies are sending there,if I recall correctly,which means that it has a numerical superiority greater than that of the north koreans versus the south koreans, one million versus half million.Still no one seriously expect that Saddam is going to win.
While the south korean army has less advanced equipment than the US Army, the north korean army is in worse conditions than the iraqui army
(at least the Iraqui have T-72s).
They are doing a lot of noise because they want more economic helps.
Essentially they want an higher bribe for stopping to behave like asses about the nuclear weapons and all.

[Admiral Piett]

For a more detailed analysis of the North korean weapons systems,tactics, strategy, strenghts and weaknesses I suggest the North Korea Country Handbook written by the USMC.An online version can be downloaded here.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/agency/kpa-orbat.htm

Unfortunately it is bit old,but keep in mind that time works in favor of South Korea, with more advanced systems rolling out of the SK production lines (K1A1 tanks churned out by the Hyundai factories,for example) and the situation in the north deteriorating.

[Vympel]

Admiral Piett is of course, correct. No serious military analyst with half a brain is going to contend that North Korea's obsolescent Army has a chance against South Korea, especially if backed up by American air power.

North Korea

Tanks

Type-59: Chinese T-54 copy. Utterly pathetic, a non-starter against modern tanks. They only have around 175

Type-62: a scaled down Type-59. Scary ... 50

T-62: Soviet 1960's tank. Less pathetic, still a non-starter against modern tanks. They have 1,800

T-54: the original from which the copy was made. Just as crap nowadays; they have 1,600.

T-34: yes, they still have 300 of these WW2 tanks. They were good 60 years ago. Not now.

PT-85: light amphibious tank. In the situation of North versus South, it is of little value. Unknown how many. Probably a few hundred.

PT-76: also a light amphibious tank. Same little value: 550.

Armored Fighting Vehicles

Only 2,500. Utterly inadequate to motorize the entire North Korean military, and made up of thoroughly obsolesent types of next to no value, with their best vehicle being the BMP-1. They even have old BTR-152s.

Artillery

4,400 self-propelled artillery pieces of various types. Not all of them are capable of hitting Seoul. Calibers ranging from 120mm to 170mm, unknown which guns are most abundant- a good guess would be the 122 and 152mm guns would be the most common. Another 3,500 towed pieces. 2,600 artillery rockets.

Anti-Aircraft Artillery

11,000 guns of all types. Thoroughly useless for air defense against modern air power. Great against 1940s-50s aircraft though!

Air Power

North Korea SUCKS.

107 J-5 FRESCO. These are a copy of the MiG-17 FRESCO. A total non-factor in any air war.

100+ J-6 FARMER. These are a copy of the MiG-19 FARMER. Again, a total non-factor.

150 J-7 FISHBED. Copy of the MiG-21 FISHBED. Again, a total non-threat.

45 MiG-23 FLOGGER (the export version) This plane actually has rudimentary BVR capability. Nowhere near the standards of South Korean and American aircraft. Missile fodder, and there's only one regiment of them (if a regiment is 45 aircraft, as in the Soviet system). Too few to make any impact.

40 MiG-29 FULCRUM. An excellent aircraft. Too bad they only have 25. They might actually score kills, if they were flown by competent pilots, which is not the case. Put Indian or German pilots in them, and we'll talk. Regardless, too few to present any significant obstacle to overwhelming allied air power.

40 Q-5 FANTAN. A mediocre attack aircraft. Fodder.

18 Su-7 FITTER. An ancient attack aircraft. Fodder.

35 Su-25 FROGFOOT. A modern attack aircraft. Too few, and inadequate escort, to present any serious threat to allied ground forces

24 Mi-24 HIND. A good gunship. Too few to make any mark.

South Korea

Tanks

Type-88 K1/A1: 1,000 of these superb tanks easily outmatch anything North Korea has to offer in all areas: armor, firepower and protection.

M47: On the same level as the T-54/T-62. Only 400 of them. Won't last long in combat.

M48A5: Easily superior to the T-62 marks North Korea has. 850. Outnumbered, yes, but along with it's SK friends, enough to give the tank game to the South Koreans easily.

T-80U: Eighty of these superb Russian MBTs. Easily outclasses anything the North Koreans have to offer. Modern in all respects. South Korea is obtaining more (the Russians gave the South Koreans weapons in exchange for debt relief)

Armored Fighting Vehicles

2,500 of a wide variety of types, with the majority of them being very modern (1,700 KFIVs). Also includes BMP-3s, BTR-80s, M113s, etc. Because the SK army is smaller, it is far more mobile.

Artillery

1,700 towed, 1,040 guns self-propelled, around 200 multiple rocket launchers. Not many, but effective for supporting offensive and defensive operations.

Air Defense

Has HAWK, Javelin, Stinger, SA-16 GIMLET, and some older types as well. More than enough to blast North Korea's obsolescent shit out of the sky.


Air Force

150+ F-16s. NK gets owned. End of story.

No need to go into the rest of it