How should the United States deal with North Korea?

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-04-25 11:06pm

With North Korea anouncing that they had nuclear weapons; How should the United States deal with North korea? Should the United States introduce a resolution to the UN for an embargo or officially declare one? Should the US do what the Israeli's did to Osirak in the 1980's and take out North Korea's nuke reactor via a pre-emptive strike? OR should we broker a deal with North Korea, a deal that it may break in the future? (ala Clinton in 1998)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-25 11:13pm

Destroying North Koreas nuclear capability by military force isn't an option. While we could get their main installations, they could easily have another reprocessing plant hidden away. The Soviets managed to build a nuclear weapons plant complete with reactors underground.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-25 11:14pm

We'll have the cooperation of the world community in dealing with North Korea, I think, including China and Russia, all of whom would no doubt like to see a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. We might be able to deal with the problem purely diplomatically.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-25 11:15pm

One interesting strategy that I saw would be to screw the Chinese into helping out by offering to sell nuclear warheads to Taiwan.

Realistically, though, I think that the US should go through unilateral talks with the North Koreans. Where the hell are the United Nations when you need them, anyway? I thought this was the kind of thing they were built to prevent.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-25 11:17pm

I don't think North Korea is a big of a threat as the nutcases in charge of its government would like to be. They keep trying to stir up shit on a weekly basis but it just isn't working out for them.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-04-26 12:01am

We cant attack North Korea, that would be counter productive. If I was North Korea I would not give up my nukes for anything. So, do you think we are looking at a future, where the NK's are a nuclear power permanantly?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-26 12:11am

China is already putting pressure on NK about it's nukes- it's not happy, because it's afraid Japan and South Korea might respond by getting their own.

North Korea should simply be deterred and contained.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-26 12:13am

I say it has to be solved diplomatically. Kim Dong Small has been stirring up crap about his nuclear weapons for quite a while, and he just might have them, and is willing to use them in case we attack. Even if he can't hit the United States, there are plenty of high-population urban centers, such as Seoul and Tokyo nearby. It's quite an awkward position.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-26 12:53am

I think we should go with an embargo of some sort, but always keep military somewhere nearby incase they do something stupid.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-26 01:31am

Like Vympel said. Just keep NK in their box, smile and nod at them occassionally and wait for "Great Leader" to fucking well die.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-26 01:46am

I noticed someone mentioned something about the UN earlier...

Well, where ARE they? They haven't even started doing anything on this, as far as I have seen. Why aren't they putting up a HUGE fuss over this, as this could possibly destabalize the entire region, and world for that matter.

More evidence to the ineptness of the UN, IMHO...

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-26 02:37am

Nathan F wrote:I noticed someone mentioned something about the UN earlier...

Well, where ARE they? They haven't even started doing anything on this, as far as I have seen. Why aren't they putting up a HUGE fuss over this, as this could possibly destabalize the entire region, and world for that matter.

More evidence to the ineptness of the UN, IMHO...

Errrr, dude. The UN has been active in the fucking region. In fact they have been trying pretty damn hard to contain the situation.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-26 03:38am

Diplomacy is the way to go.

The Iraq war basically showed the NK that it wouldn't be a good idea on the receiving end of the U.S. military. Probably the only reason they finally decided to give multilateral talks a go. Otherwise, things would just keep getting worse for them, they'd have eventually boxed themselves into a corner where they would fight a losing war against half their neighbors supported by the Americans.

Preemptive strikes should never be ruled out, but should be the last possible option. Because kicking off on the peninsula would be a disaster for SK, and probably not so hot for Japan either.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-26 03:54am

0.1 wrote: Preemptive strikes should never be ruled out, but should be the last possible option. Because kicking off on the peninsula would be a disaster for SK, and probably not so hot for Japan either.

In this case we effectively can, since any operation would have to assume that the North already had a working weapon and we know they have the material for several more which could be easily hidden. Any strike could only buy time before they deploy a full arsenal, we couldn’t expect to remove there existing nuclear material from the equation and I would be unlikely we'd be able to find and strike all of there infrastructure.

Thinking of any strike as preemptive is flawed, because the North has a operational deterrent force in the form of hundreds of biochemical missiles and thousands of pieces of artillery with which to bombard the South and Japan should we strike. Every PAC-3 battery in existence wouldn't be enough to protect so many targets, and we can't stop the shells which can carry conventional or bio chemical payloads.

When Israel bomb Iraqis reactor it hadn't yet gone critical, and Iraq had no means of striking back at Israel. The North cant get the US, but it can get 37,000 US troops, the ROK and Japan. Course its reactor is also active, bomb it and you release about 50 million curies of radioactivity.

Fixed and edit correction deleted- Vympel

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-26 04:24am

Preemptive strikes can be broadly broken down into two categories.

One: permanent removal of an imminent threat set up as a one time action.

Two: opening phase of a campaign

To be clear, the Israeli strike in 1981 was an example of One, there was what they preceived to be an imminent threat by Iraq (which had the capability of developing nukes, but that capability was still embryonic) and so they removed the threat. There was no military follow up.

Two is considered more along the lines of a pure military prespective, not something in a broad strategic context. Example, you could from a distance consider the assault on Pearl Harbor a preemptive strike in that context, it allowed the Imperial navy to "run wild" in the Pacific for six months plus. But it is woven into a part of the campaign and made good sense on a tactical level since Japan was going to engage the U.S. no matter what.

So, in that context, preemption should never be ruled out. Example: let's continue the diplomatic route for the next year, no progress, and in the interim, NK gets more desparate. Military readiness becomes high on both sides of the DMZ. Then, intelligence (i.e. overheads from Global Hawk or SIGINT or whatever) determines that the NK are going to kick off soon. But right now, some of their nonconventional weapons are still in storage depots. Now, there is a strategic decision on whether or not to preempt, get those weapons or risk them being deployed in the field. (another way to look at it, NK artillery could do serious damage to Seoul, if you had every indication that was about to be used in the next hour, say, and you had the capability to prevent it by preemptive airstrikes and artillery of your own, would you do it?)

So, you see, you cannot rule out preemptive strikes, the alternative is to allow the NK the initiative militarily (if it came to that) in the opening phase of a shooting war where they could as you point out do significant damage.

The point here is that situations will not always be favorable, it's a matter of what you do to better the odds. Again, I point to Japan in 1941, Pearl Harbor was in fact a very good strategic decision from the military point of view, but only because Japan had been forced to commit itself into fighting America.

Now, I think we agree that the US should not do a one time preemption, because it simply would never work unless they can get everything all at once.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-04-26 05:05am

Do nothing. More exactly, get China to apply the pressure instead.

Unlike Iraq, there's too much at stake now. I mean, you can still defend against chemical or bio weapons by suiting up, but nobody has ever invented a nuke shield...

The Wobbly Guy

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-26 05:10am

The_Nice_Guy wrote:but nobody has ever invented a nuke shield...

Its called digging really fucking deep under a solid chunk of granite, Russians are good as is North Korea. Though like the NBC suits needed for biochemical attacks, it doesn't work very well for civilians and cities.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-04-26 05:18am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Its called digging really fucking deep under a solid chunk of granite, Russians are good as is North Korea. Though like the NBC suits needed for biochemical attacks, it doesn't work very well for civilians and cities.

I hate digging, especially after that time during my BMT when my platoon was assigned to an area with clay like rock. My hands were bleeding for days after that evening....

I shudder to think of granite.

The Wobbly Guy

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-26 10:57am

I think we should let South Korea and Japan take the lead on what to do, and support whatever decision they come up with.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-26 01:40pm

0.1 wrote:So, you see, you cannot rule out preemptive strikes, the alternative is to allow the NK the initiative militarily (if it came to that) in the opening phase of a shooting war where they could as you point out do significant damage.

I don't think they will, because hopefully they understand that this war will go nuclear, and the DPRK will be the big losers here.

Containment is the only real option here.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-26 10:12pm

I agree with Vympel. North Korea can be deterred. Heck, we're already seeing progress. China's opted not to wait. Eventually, more of the region's top players (South Korea, Japan) will see the merit in joining those same discussions and "come to."

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-26 10:53pm

weemadando wrote:
Errrr, dude. The UN has been active in the fucking region. In fact they have been trying pretty damn hard to contain the situation.

And what a good job they have done...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-27 12:13am

Containment will work here because there isn't a third party nation slipping the N. Koreans aid on the sly. As long as the Chinese play along with everyone else, Pyongyang can't do anything but rattle its sabres and concoct glorious new recipes involving tree bark. Realistically, the Chinese are in the best position to apply pressure, because they're the ones keeping that shithole in business (mostly because they don't want to face a titanic refugee crisis that will come if N. Korea falls apart--strategically, it's a liability that gives the United States an excuse to maintain an active military force on the mainland of East Asia).

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-27 04:47pm

Best realistic shot is to starve em out. Naval blockade, close the border with China and SK until internal pressure builds and they voluntarily surrender the nuclear threat. Disconnecting Kim's head from his body in the process is a choice for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Getting China onboard should by using the phrase "The nuclear arsenal of the Republic of China".

The only real problems I see are North Koreans starving and some mad effort by Kim for which the only response involves lots of dead Koreans.

I hope the world learns a valuable lesson ... bomb the crap out of the reactors BEFORE they can build nuclear bombs. Allowing pyscotic idiots to get the bomb is NOT the road to world peace. Neither is bribing them off. We need to make it QUITE clear that attaining nuclear status is a RISKY proposition with excessive negative costs.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-27 06:04pm

An attempt to starve out North Korea is a fucking bad idea. Such actions could easily spark of an internal revolt, the leadership and part of the Army will still get fed. Bad thing in a nation crawling with Biochemical weapons. Not to mention it could easily push the North's leadership over the edge. If they open up on the South with ten thousand guns and unleash 300 SCUDs there's not much we can do to stop them without a barrage of tactical nuclear weapons.

North Korea has both a conventional and BC and likely nuclear deterrent force and a fucking strong one at that. That severely limits any direct action against them.