North Korea conflict

[GoIrish41]

1) Our soldiers in South Korea and their safety should be atop the list.

2) When Kim Jong Un is bored with starving his people and playing with his dingaling, he should consult Japan before aiming missles at us.

3) North Korea is like the loud, boisterous, annoying kid on the playground who talks out of his *** and pounds his chest until someone hits him in the face.

4) I think there's a 4% chance this thing ever reaches the level of "oh $hit, it's nuke time", but I have a hard time imaging our "social justice" president pulling the trigger on one.

I agree with points 1 thru 3, but I'm a bit puzzled at #4.

Why would he use nukes? Even if NK has any nukes, it is likely no more than a few and there is much doubt if he has the ability to strike at any distance. Our military could wipe them off the map without ever putting any boots on the ground, let alone using a nuke.

Your statement seems to indicuate you think it is a weakness not to use nukes. Was Eisenhower weak? Nixon? Ford? Reagan? Bush 1 and Bush 2? Was it their affinity for social justice that compelled them to restraint in the face of the respective major conflicts during which they served as commander-in-chief? Why didn't any of those gentlemen use nukes? You consistent, desperate reaches to vilify Obama no matter the topic are getting absurd.

 

[BobD]

This man has demanded a meeting,

With his top advisor

And this man, at his secret lair.

 

[GoIrish41]

He won't bomb the US. He'd hurt his new friend Dennis.

 

[IrishinTN]

hmmm. I think the problem is his real father...

Let him watch too much violence on TV.

 

[FLDomer]

I agree with points 1 thru 3, but I'm a bit puzzled at #4.

Why would he use nukes? Even if NK has any nukes, it is likely no more than a few and there is much doubt if he has the ability to strike at any distance. Our military could wipe them off the map without ever putting any boots on the ground, let alone using a nuke.

Your statement seems to indicuate you think it is a weakness not to use nukes. Was Eisenhower weak? Nixon? Ford? Reagan? Bush 1 and Bush 2? Was it their affinity for social justice that compelled them to restraint in the face of the respective major conflicts during which they served as commander-in-chief? Why didn't any of those gentlemen use nukes? You consistent, desperate reaches to vilify Obama no matter the topic are getting absurd.

This bothers me, because history has shown that no war can be one without boots on the ground. If we went but air power alone, Vietnam would have been a victory and even Afghanistan now would be a victory (yet to be determined but not looking good). To effectively win a war and defeat an enemy, boots on the ground are needed (a lot of em) and with that unfortunately the good guys will lose more lives.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I agree with points 1 thru 3, but I'm a bit puzzled at #4.

Why would he use nukes? Even if NK has any nukes, it is likely no more than a few and there is much doubt if he has the ability to strike at any distance. Our military could wipe them off the map without ever putting any boots on the ground, let alone using a nuke.

Your statement seems to indicuate you think it is a weakness not to use nukes. Was Eisenhower weak? Nixon? Ford? Reagan? Bush 1 and Bush 2? Was it their affinity for social justice that compelled them to restraint in the face of the respective major conflicts during which they served as commander-in-chief? Why didn't any of those gentlemen use nukes? You consistent, desperate reaches to vilify Obama no matter the topic are getting absurd.

It was a far-reaching hypothetical...the need for use of nukes. Comparing those past presidents with the current president and NK is apples and oranges. I wouldn't call any weak, and I didn't call Obama weak. My point was I have a hard time imaging him pulling the trigger on a nuke, and I even mentioned a 4% chance of the need to do it.

I know you're infatuated with him, he's the victim, he can do no wrong, and he's the "change" you've been waiting for. My criticisms of his policies and attitude toward this country is no more absurd than some of the racially motivated comments and stereotypical labels you've thrown at a few people on here in the last month.

In summary, let's agree on 1-3 and pray we don't have to see the scenario of #4, for everyone's sake.

 

[GoIrish41]

It was a far-reaching hypothetical...the need for use of nukes. Comparing those past presidents with the current president and NK is apples and oranges. I wouldn't call any weak, and I didn't call Obama weak. My point was I have a hard time imaging him pulling the trigger on a nuke, and I even mentioned a 4% chance of the need to do it.

I know you're infatuated with him, he's the victim, he can do no wrong, and he's the "change" you've been waiting for. My criticisms of his policies and attitude toward this country is no more absurd than some of the racially motivated comments and stereotypical labels you've thrown at a few people on here in the last month.

In summary, let's agree on 1-3 and pray we don't have to see the scenario of #4, for everyone's sake.

As recently as yesterday and many times you have suggested that I "assume too much." If you would review my posts you would know that I'm not a huge fan of Obama, and believe the GOP has gone so far off the rails that they made him the only logical choice in the election, not only for me but for the country. I'd much rather have Hillary as president (I guess I can wait three more years). That said, there are some things I like about Obama and some things I don't and in both instances I point those things out. You don't do that. We could be talking about barbeque recipes and you'd find some way to disparage Obama. It's silly.

The fact of the matter is that I have a hard time imagining ANY president pulling the trigger on a nuke because of the catystrophic consequences that would surely follow. It would ruin our standing with most of the rest of the world and kill far too many people. That is not a specific weakness of Obama, it is a fact of life. But, you felt the need to swipe at him as you made a point about the use of nukes as if his "social justice" ideals (as if that is a bad thing) are what would keep him from doing what every president since Eisenhower has done as a matter of course, even when national security events were staring them in the face.

 

[PraetorianND]

Obama's drone strikes and my position on them are well documented on this site. I was talking about a full scale nuclear scare, not air strikes or drone strikes. He'd give the green light on that one in a second.

How can you possibly determine Obama's potential for response to a "full scale nuclear scare" and how it compares to other presidents' potential responses? Isn't it just conjecture at this point? I mean, we didn't do anything about Russia did we? They had larger and more powerful nuclear weapons than we did and we didn't go to war with them even AFTER the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You're saying Obama is unlikely to act because of his belief in "social justice." I don't get it. Because of his left leaning politics he's less likely to react in the face of potential nuclear threats? This is a pretty weak connection given Obama's use of force all over the globe, willingness to violate other countries' sovereignty to protect Americans, and willingness to use unconventional methods to get the job done. Consider that under the Clinton administration North Korea's rhetoric was reacted to by CANCELING joint training operations with South Korea. Obama on the other hand has done the opposite by sending forces to the region.

Using this situation as a way to express your discontent with Obama's political stance seems fairly inappropriate because a) he hasn't had a chance/good reason to use force b) using force doesn't necessarily mean the president is acting intelligently or effectively.

I have no doubt that if the time comes (praying it doesn't) Obama will use appropriate force.

Wasn't Truman a Democrat? He believed in universal healthcare and pushed civil rights.... Sound familiar?

 

[sparkyND]

This bothers me, because history has shown that no war can be one without boots on the ground. If we went but air power alone, Vietnam would have been a victory and even Afghanistan now would be a victory (yet to be determined but not looking good). To effectively win a war and defeat an enemy, boots on the ground are needed (a lot of em) and with that unfortunately the good guys will lose more lives.

I think you are spot on. Strategic bombing has largely been ineffective at best throughout modern warfare. The incendiary bombing both in the European and Pacific theater did not see the civilian morale dropping but rather hardened the general populace to "fight on" until the bitter end. The idea behind strategic bombing was/is to avoid another bloody trench warfare and frontal assault; that is, to defeat the the will to fight before taking over the enemy's territory and defeating it's armed forces (classic Clausewitz). That has been continuously been preached since the days of Douhet and Mitchell. This, unfortunately, has been strengthened due to the current RMA as well, perhaps a blind belief in shiny new weapons.

The First Gulf War has largely been a success story for those who placed their bets on strategic bombing. However, closer scrutiny reveals otherwise and military historians and policy analysts (both within the academia and the War College) have challenged this view on multiple grounds.

As you mention FLDomer, majority of the times you need boots on the ground and the examples you give are classic cases where weapons did not decide warfare. Perhaps another reason why less-developed states and non-state actors have resorted to unconventional warfare to fight the US.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Surgical strike please.

 

[GoIrish41]

This bothers me, because history has shown that no war can be one without boots on the ground. If we went but air power alone, Vietnam would have been a victory and even Afghanistan now would be a victory (yet to be determined but not looking good). To effectively win a war and defeat an enemy, boots on the ground are needed (a lot of em) and with that unfortunately the good guys will lose more lives.

This is a fair point, but North Korea's system of dikes could be targeted to flood their agricultural lands. Coupled with a blockade and sanctions that are already in place, I don't think it would be difficult to starve them into submission. Their antiquated military equipment would be no match for the air superiority of the US military, with their food supply dessimated, and their only hope for re-supply cut off, they would have no choice but surrender or starve.

Plus, if they used a nuke, the international community would be lining up to slap NK around and any boots on the ground could be worn by other nations -- perhaps some within closer proximity who have a more vested interest in dismanteling NK than we do.

 

[sparkyND]

Surgical strike please.

I am not sure surgical strike is the answer in the case of N. Korea.

One, the probability that it will work is not that high. It was attempted in Iraq and Saddam stayed alive until he was caught after the major fighting was over. Second, there is just too much collateral damage one needs to take into consideration; civilians always get killed in such operations. Not the best situation to be in for Obama and the US after the debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, context matters. If you are going to go to war with N. Korea then I suppose it could be used at the operational level. However, if surgical strike is attempted and supposedly it fails then you have a state of unwanted belligerency with N. Korea and definite instability within the region which has other great powers or potential powers. Fourth, if N. Korean leadership is solely based on Kim Jong Un then it could be worth a shot. However, with the N. Korean military organization firmly in power, I doubt that taking out one man will resolve the situation. Not only does Kim Jong Un have other siblings but that military can just take over power as it might deem the situation to be one of "emergency".

 

[BobD]

With all the violence amongst the giant lizards, I'm surprised that this region of the world has time for these shenanigans.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This is a fair point, but North Korea's system of dikes could be targeted to flood their agricultural lands. Coupled with a blockade and sanctions that are already in place, I don't think it would be difficult to starve them into submission. Their antiquated military equipment would be no match for the air superiority of the US military, with their food supply dessimated, and their only hope for re-supply cut off, they would have no choice but surrender or starve.

Plus, if they used a nuke, the international community would be lining up to slap NK around and any boots on the ground could be worn by other nations -- perhaps some within closer proximity who have a more vested interest in dismanteling NK than we do.

I would target military installations first, else the goodwill of U.S. would suffer disasterously in the international community. There's a reason why Sally Struthers uses pictures of starving children to get people to give money.

 

[FLDomer]

This is a fair point, but North Korea's system of dikes could be targeted to flood their agricultural lands. Coupled with a blockade and sanctions that are already in place, I don't think it would be difficult to starve them into submission. Their antiquated military equipment would be no match for the air superiority of the US military, with their food supply dessimated, and their only hope for re-supply cut off, they would have no choice but surrender or starve.

Plus, if they used a nuke, the international community would be lining up to slap NK around and any boots on the ground could be worn by other nations -- perhaps some within closer proximity who have a more vested interest in dismanteling NK than we do.

North Vietnam and the Viet Cong disagree...

 

[GoIrish41]

I would target military installations first, else the goodwill of U.S. would suffer disasterously in the international community. There's a reason why Sally Struthers uses pictures of starving children to get people to give money.

No question. I'm not advocating the strategy I outlined. Doing that would be a horrific afront to humanity. I'm simply saying it is possible to take NK out without using nukes or American "boots on the ground."

 

[GoIrish41]

North Vietnam and the Viet Cong disagree...

Actually, I don't think we ever fully pulled that trigger in Vietnam. The outcome might have been different if we had.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I am not sure surgical strike is the answer in the case of N. Korea.

One, the probability that it will work is not that high. It was attempted in Iraq and Saddam stayed alive until he was caught after the major fighting was over...

My personal view is a strike is in order, but not to kill the kid (killing one leader is pretty tough from 1000's of miles away). We need to target and cripple their nuclear projects and missile installations. This would not be like the Gulf conflicts, in my view, because we wouldn't be targeting people or achieving a political change, but rather just destroying infrastructure.

 

[FLDomer]

Actually, I don't think we ever fully pulled that trigger in Vietnam. The outcome might have been different if we had.

I don't think we did either and agree. Finessing it with air strike is good but brute force is also needed to mop up the whats left behind by the air strikes. The US has not fully pulled the trigger on an enemy since mid way in the Korean Conflict. We need more generals like Patton and MacArthur and Commander and Chief strong enough to back em.

 

[tadman95]

A little food for thought that some of you may have some insight or expertise in:

I saw a story the other day about dirt from China landing on the west coast after being blown up in a big storm in China.

My question is could N. Korea, even with crude nukes and somwhat reliable mid-range missiles, launch and explode nukes high enough to in effect create a dirty bomb heading to the US?

 

[Andy in Sactown]

A little food for thought that some of you may have some insight or expertise in:

I saw a story the other day about dirt from China landing on the west coast after being blown up in a big storm in China.

My question is could N. Korea, even with crude nukes and somwhat reliable mid-range missiles, launch and explode nukes high enough to in effect create a dirty bomb heading to the US?

I'm no nuclear weapons expert, but my understanding is that:

1) Yes, they could, BUT
2) Without uranium enrichment programs making weapons grade material, the plutonium reserves they would be utilizing would make a dirty bomb that would disperse far and wide enough to be largely ineffective. To say nothing of pissing off the Chinese with about every other nation on the planet.

Do you fear the radiation you get from an X-Ray at the dentist? Cell phones?

Without enriched uranium the best hopes they could have would be a so called "suitcase bomb", but then they come into problems with miniaturization. They would not be able to build one small enough without help no one is crazy enough to provide that three chinned ****.

 

[sparkyND]

I don't think we did either and agree. Finessing it with air strike is good but brute force is also needed to mop up the whats left behind by the air strikes. The US has not fully pulled the trigger on an enemy since mid way in the Korean Conflict. We need more generals like Patton and MacArthur and Commander and Chief strong enough to back em.

Patton I am mixed. I am not sure you want a general like MacArthur in the future. Forget the fact that he was a very political leader and at times he supported his cronies rather than promotion based on meritocracy. But he made some dubious decisions both in the Pacific and Korean War. His insistence on taking Philippines, pushing upwards the 38th parallel despite Chinese warnings seems problematic or strongly advocating the use of nukes in Korea.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

Little side note, talked to some of my friends still on the deck plates and was told we're adjusting deployment schedules and pulling ships with Ballistic Missile Defense capability from their groups and sending them to the region (for a JTF, presumably). I know of at least 2 such ships that left their home ports in the last 48 hours.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Actually, I don't think we ever fully pulled that trigger in Vietnam. The outcome might have been different if we had.

This.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't think we did either and agree. Finessing it with air strike is good but brute force is also needed to mop up the whats left behind by the air strikes. The US has not fully pulled the trigger on an enemy since mid way in the Korean Conflict. We need more generals like Patton and MacArthur and Commander and Chief strong enough to back em.

We showed the world what small amounts of American ground forces and heavy amounts of smart bombs can do in the Iraq, twice, and Afghanistan.

You don't need 300,000 men to take out North Korea. We showed that with Iraq. You need 500,000 men to hold and rebuild North Korea.

There's a good TED talk out there about bifurcating the military forces. A small force of "slightly-off" young guys backed with all of the might of the US military, who go in and wipe anything out; and a huge multi-national force that comes in immediately that keeps the peace and rebuilds, made up of the older men and women from various NATO/UN participant countries.

 

[GowerND11]

We showed the world what small amounts of American ground forces and heavy amounts of smart bombs can do in the Iraq, twice, and Afghanistan.

You don't need 300,000 men to take out North Korea. We showed that with Iraq. You need 500,000 men to hold and rebuild North Korea.

There's a good TED talk out there about bifurcating the military forces. A small force of "slightly-off" young guys backed with all of the might of the US military, who go in and wipe anything out; and a huge multi-national force that comes in immediately that keeps the peace and rebuilds, made up of the older men and women from various NATO/UN participant countries.

I'm going to have to find that TED talk. Sounds great.

 

[FLDomer]

We showed the world what small amounts of American ground forces and heavy amounts of smart bombs can do in the Iraq, twice, and Afghanistan.

You don't need 300,000 men to take out North Korea. We showed that with Iraq. You need 500,000 men to hold and rebuild North Korea.

There's a good TED talk out there about bifurcating the military forces. A small force of "slightly-off" young guys backed with all of the might of the US military, who go in and wipe anything out; and a huge multi-national force that comes in immediately that keeps the peace and rebuilds, made up of the older men and women from various NATO/UN participant countries.

With both of those example, there is still heavy enemy activity in the regions. It was successful in taking out the conventional army in Iraq but the # of ground forces were to low to completely control the ground. It does take a enormous amount of presence to to control and rebuild any country but why spend lives and money taking a region only to give it back to the same problem that was their the first time? There is no easy answer I guess to the problem. Just pray we don't have to go to war at all.

 

[alaskandomer]

First, since there is a chance that the so-called DPRK's missiles could reach Alaska, this is more than an academic discussion for me. Also, having spent a year less than 50 miles from the DMZ, working in a joint USAF/ROKAF unit, I do not share the unbridled optimism some of you have expressed. Would we win a second Korean War? Yes, without doubt. Understand though, NK's military is large, and, by their standards, well fed, clothed, etc. (Hence loyal). If you expect that they will be deterred by high casualties, and simply surrender, you underestimate how thoroughly they have been indoctrinated. Seoul is only 40 miles from the DMZ, so is extremely vulnerable to attack. If the NK forces were to cross the border, once the attack was halted/repulsed by US/ROK forces, it will be nearly impossible to prevent our ROK allies from sweeping north. They will be so angry, we will not be able to restrain them. This would not be a 48-72 hour war, and a lot of people would die.

 

[arrowryan]

I could be wrong but I would think that our military would try to kill this guy, correct?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Technically, the specific targeting of high-ranking political or military leaders is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

Doesn't mean we can't do it though...