Fair enough. I agree with those calling for diplomacy, so let's hope I am blindingly wrong.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
How about that North Korea?
- Thread starter xj220
- Start date
I can read...
1. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/23/top-us-officer-kim-jong-un-irrational-unpredictable
2. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...el-Farage-lbc-word-war-3-nuclear-strike-video
3. http://www.dw.com/en/us-rejects-calls-for-diplomacy-talks-with-irrational-north-korea/a-37861997
4. https://www.cnsnews.com/video/msnbc-panel-all-agree-trump-borderline-irrational-leader-kim-jong-un (I though you'd like this one).
5. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...lity-cant-be-assumed-in-potential-north-korea
6. https://www.economist.com/news/spec...-his-nuclear-ambitions-two-sides-already-face
...and I have all of your recommendations, mine, and more.
Seems like most folks here believe 1. KJU is rational and would not jeopardize his regime. 2. KJU would not target the USA (see #1). 3. The US would move US persons from the Korean peninsula before any kinetic military action, nuke or otherwise. and that 4. The USA would respond to an attack with devastation.
If KJU is rational, there is still no guarantee that those surrounding him are. It is highly likely in a dictatorship built on a cult of personality that established nuclear safeguards are not SOP. The chances of an accidental or unauthorized attack is much higher in the sort of environment that exists in North Korea. Will it make any difference if the attack is not belligerent? I think it just may. Would it be rational for KJU to use his nukes to degrade a perceived threat and then pass it off as accidental or unauthorized expecting the USA not to respond or in a manner he can survive?
A rational KJU would see any effort to move US persons from the peninsula as a precursor to an attack. As a minimum, a huge escalation. Moving US persons would increase the likelihood of a preemptive attack from NK. The folks living in South Korea are canon fodder. There have been very serious conflicts since the 1950s. Never has an evacuation come close to being ordered. I would not rely on the American government evacuating to prevent American casualties.
We are talking pretty tough. But acting proportionally is a default setting for America. North Korea has played the West for decades. They always get something in return for their seemingly irrational or otherwise bellicose actions. So lets ask ourselves this. How much are we willing to pay? Just how far are we willing to go when North Korea extorts the West with nukes in it's quiver? Wheat, no problem. Oil and coal, sure. Disputed territory, ...maybe. Military technology and weapons transfers from China, ...hum? There must be a limit, where is it? We have already let Russia roll over more than one country. Why wouldn't KJU think he can get away with the same when he has nukes?
If KJU is rational, there is still no guarantee that those surrounding him are. It is highly likely in a dictatorship built on a cult of personality that established nuclear safeguards are not SOP. The chances of an accidental or unauthorized attack is much higher in the sort of environment that exists in North Korea. Will it make any difference if the attack is not belligerent? I think it just may. Would it be rational for KJU to use his nukes to degrade a perceived threat and then pass it off as accidental or unauthorized expecting the USA not to respond or in a manner he can survive?
A rational KJU would see any effort to move US persons from the peninsula as a precursor to an attack. As a minimum, a huge escalation. Moving US persons would increase the likelihood of a preemptive attack from NK. The folks living in South Korea are canon fodder. There have been very serious conflicts since the 1950s. Never has an evacuation come close to being ordered. I would not rely on the American government evacuating to prevent American casualties.
We are talking pretty tough. But acting proportionally is a default setting for America. North Korea has played the West for decades. They always get something in return for their seemingly irrational or otherwise bellicose actions. So lets ask ourselves this. How much are we willing to pay? Just how far are we willing to go when North Korea extorts the West with nukes in it's quiver? Wheat, no problem. Oil and coal, sure. Disputed territory, ...maybe. Military technology and weapons transfers from China, ...hum? There must be a limit, where is it? We have already let Russia roll over more than one country. Why wouldn't KJU think he can get away with the same when he has nukes?
They only border two countries, and thing wouldn't turn out so well if they tied to expand into either.
DPRK borders 3 countries.
What's the 3rd? I'm guessing it's an island.
I learned something today!
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Yeah little piece of a border with just one railroad bridge over the Tumen river, and small unit of Coast Guard from our (Russian) side to look after the water. But given the three-echelons border guard system from NK side (standard legacy from Soviet time - the national border is intended to stop outcoming leaks, whatever people or goods, rather than the incoming ones), this is quite boring part of a border.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Guys, it is China who will stop any nuke escalations maybe desirable for KJU. Not US and not RU will take the main part in the deal. The NK-China border is the weakest point in all KJU strategy, and neither KJU's military leaders could exclude Chinese land assault in one form or another, nor the Chinese military leaders will gladly agree with the nuclear conflict in such a vicinity.
I didn't mean to imply they would expand into bordering countries. The Russian example was an illustration of the limits of pushback against a nation who can do more than bloddy your nose. On the other hand. Every nation will be a target of their nuke extortion. That includes its immediate neighbors.
None are anywhere near as reliable or as responsive as missiles though, especially mobile ones, which is why North Korea has invested so much in their missile development in conjunction with their nuke development.
Have they really gained anything in the past 15 or so years with their escalating actions? It is more of the same, a stalemate that has existed largely unchanged since 1953. With both sides knowing now that while it would be a great cost any full-scale conflict now would almost certainly ensure the end of the North Korean regime as it exists today, and almost certainly for the worse.
Having seen the end of the Iraqi and Libyan regimes, both of them pursued but never achieved their own nuke ambitions, 'lil Kim wants to ensure the survival of his regime above all else and what better way to do that than to have a nuclear arsenal that can directly threaten the country that is the greatest threat to his existence? The most realistic scenario to hope for is deterrence, making sure that our allies in the region know that our nuclear arsenal is there to protect them as well as us and make sure that North Korea knows that as well. Anything more escalatory like striking North Korea without direct provocation, even limited, would likely make things worse.
Completely agree. My point was more a tongue-in-cheek jab at a recent article by one of the forum's favorite internet defense experts.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...st-dangerous-weapons-the-ancient-an-2-biplane