N.Korea nuclear test

[desertoasis]

Will it be a repeat of the Korean War, where the Chinese fight against the US? It is plausible. Make no mistake about it, China wants to be a superpower.

That's true that China wants to be a superpower, but it's a different world now that it was during the Korean War. We were fighting against the 'scourge of Communism' and all that propaganda. Today the weapons are economic, not military. The reason for this is because everyone knows that if a war escalates enough, someone's going to light off a nuke and THEN everyone dies, not just some people. Say North Korea does manage to build and launch a nuke, one of three things will happen.

1. NK launches nuke, the entire world mourns the loss of South Korea, but in the end takes no further action short of blockading. The US, being involved in two other wars already, can't do much more than send a strike group to hopefully destroy any more nukes that come shooting out of Chongjin.

2. NK launches nuke, the United States allied with whatever's left of South Korea (or Japan) invades and eventually succeeds against North Korea, and also against China, who is supporting their southern neighbor, at great loss of life and equipment on both sides. A completely pyrrhic victory that will hopefully cause the world to take nuclear disarmament seriously.

3. NK launches nuke, the entire world supports the complete destruction of North Korea, including China, whom the US graciously allows to fly their flag over Pyongyang rather than the US forces. Hopefully China and the US continue as allies and the Far East calms down a whole lot.

Unfortunately I think that second scenario is the most likely one.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

That's true that China wants to be a superpower, but it's a different world now that it was during the Korean War. We were fighting against the 'scourge of Communism' and all that propaganda. Today the weapons are economic, not military. The reason for this is because everyone knows that if a war escalates enough, someone's going to light off a nuke and THEN everyone dies, not just some people. Say North Korea does manage to build and launch a nuke, one of three things will happen.

1. NK launches nuke, the entire world mourns the loss of South Korea, but in the end takes no further action short of blockading. The US, being involved in two other wars already, can't do much more than send a strike group to hopefully destroy any more nukes that come shooting out of Chongjin.

2. NK launches nuke, the United States allied with whatever's left of South Korea (or Japan) invades and eventually succeeds against North Korea, and also against China, who is supporting their southern neighbor, at great loss of life and equipment on both sides. A completely pyrrhic victory that will hopefully cause the world to take nuclear disarmament seriously.

3. NK launches nuke, the entire world supports the complete destruction of North Korea, including China, whom the US graciously allows to fly their flag over Pyongyang rather than the US forces. Hopefully China and the US continue as allies and the Far East calms down a whole lot.

Unfortunately I think that second scenario is the most likely one.

I think you've got it all wrong quite frankly.

If someone is dumb enough to drop a nuke on American soldiers they better be prepared to face annihilation. The only thing that would prevent their immediate annihilation is the unwillingness of our leaders to take action. And I think if a country wiped out thousands of US soldiers with a nuke America would probably be pretty pissed off.

My reasoning for that is the last time some ignorant asshole decided to kill 2,345 of our military we responded by later testing our atomic bombs on their cities.

But hey what do I know?

 

[desertoasis]

I think you've got it all wrong quite frankly.

If someone is dumb enough to drop a nuke on American soldiers they better be prepared to face annihilation. The only thing that would prevent their immediate annihilation is the unwillingness of our leaders to take action. And I think if a country wiped out thousands of US soldiers with a nuke America would probably be pretty pissed off.

My reasoning for that is the last time some ignorant asshole decided to kill 2,345 of our military we responded by later testing our atomic bombs on their cities.

But hey what do I know?

Read it again. I never said that NK was going to drop a nuke on Americans...they're stupid, but they're not THAT stupid. Their strategy is most likely to see who the lowest-value target is to us, and nuke them instead. The North Koreans want us dead, yes, but they want South Korea and Japan dead more. Plus, Japan and SK are close (Seoul is only 31 miles away from the DMZ) My money is on one of them getting nuked before they try to target Americans. They're going to be banking on our not responding...and on that part, yes, I agree with you. (And for the record, I'm not 100% on POTUS responding with military kick-assery, and that scares me a little.)

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Read it again. I never said that NK was going to drop a nuke on Americans...they're stupid, but they're not THAT stupid. Their strategy is most likely to see who the lowest-value target is to us, and nuke them instead. The North Koreans want us dead, yes, but they want South Korea and Japan dead more. Plus, Japan and SK are close (Seoul is only 31 miles away from the DMZ) My money is on one of them getting nuked before they try to target Americans. They're going to be banking on our not responding...and on that part, yes, I agree with you. (And for the record, I'm not 100% on POTUS responding with military kick-assery, and that scares me a little.)

If they drop it on South Korea they're bound to kill some American soldiers especially if they pull back from the DMZ and drop it on the line.

 

[desertoasis]

If they drop it on South Korea they're bound to kill some American soldiers especially if they pull back from the DMZ and drop it on the line.

If North Korea is going to nuke the South, they'll bomb Seoul first. It's a high-value target, massive casualties, strong political statement, not to mention the center of government for South Korea. Panmunjeom and the nearby JSA is minimally manned, at least compared to Seoul, and its destruction would be largely symbolic rather than tactical. If Kim Jong-il was going for maximum fear and suffering in the South, he'd bomb Seoul.

 

[eddie]

The North Koreans want us dead, yes, but they want South Korea [...] dead more.

Do they really?

If Kim Jong-il was going for maximum fear and suffering in the South, he'd bomb Seoul.

Why, pray tell, would he / any NK military government possibly want that?

 

[gaijin6423]

To say that nuclear weapons are a merely an economic bargaining tool is not only misguided, but also more than a bit naive. True, their possession (and by extension, threat of use) does elevate the stakes in that realm, but to say that devices, designed and perfected to not just destroy, but obliterate large and hardened targets are only used as a bargaining tool for more aid shipments and funds is off the mark somewhat. Have you, by chance, been listening to too much Chinese rhetoric on the benefits of a multipolar* world? If so, I suggest you reexamine your point of view, because I'll wager that even the Party officials in China are rethinking that mindset right now, especially with PDRK, India and Pakistan already in the game.

I also think that your choice of Seoul for a target is a bit naive. As eddie quite plainly stated earlier in the thread, someone would likely wind up nuking Japan. I think that's a pretty rational statement, actually. Given the Japanese expansion prior to and during WWII (although it goes further back than that), and their subsequent treatment of nearly all the nations in the region, is Seoul, which would provide the North with any number of benefits if taken relatively unscathed, still such a viable target for a nuke? I don't think so. Japan is probably much more of a juicy target, both for historical and rhetoric purposes.

*--The multipolar argument is one which states that an international relations system which has multiple (vice just two, as in the US--USSR bipolar one) is inherently more stable than many other systems. While there is some truth to that argument, the context in which it has often been presented is in that of possession of nuclear weapons. Merely acquiring and maintaining something is not necessarily indicative of being able to responsibly use it, and countries like North Korea are a prime example. To be fair, though, even the US is guilty of this.

 

[raptor10]

Some interesting rhetoric out of Pyonyang
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2319/lick-the-carrot

And an interesting piece on the Chinese view of nuclear weapons as instruments of coercion.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2323/li-bin-on-strategic-stability

What is the DPRK thinking?

Is this whole series of events a way to strengthen the ruling party's control while they prepare for a succession to Kim Jong Il as some pundits have postulated.

Or does the DPRK have some ambitious military intent that they intend to forment, and are using these acts to gauge a response from a new administration and a war weary, economically volatile, and unfocused, international community?

Or should we take it at face value when they say that it was the international communities condemnation of the DPRK's satellite launch, that forced them to these "self-defense" measures.

Pyongyang is correct in asserting that "exceptional acts require exceptional response," Hopefully we see some exceptional diplomacy out of Washington.

 

[Brett327]

Jesus Fucking Christ!

I've tried to resist posting here because of the unbelievable swarm of moronic comments. For all of you cowboys out there who are, in one way or another, suggesting that we initiate some kind of military action against NK, would you please, PLEASE stop being ridiculous. Here's a little dose of reality for you: It's never going to happen - not even in your wildest "I just saw Full Metal Jacket for the 25th time and I wanna get me some" prepubescent fantasies. Just about everyone here is demanding that something be done, yet when asked, nobody has a fucking clue as to just what that something might be. "Well, it's above my paygrade..." Damn straight, so STFU, why don't you (looking at you Ken). Why do you assume that we're doing nothing? Why would you presume to have the first clue about what our overt and covert policies might be? Armed with as few knowledges as many of you likely are, why would you assume that our current policies aren't, in fact, the very best course of action in an unbelievably complex set of multi-lateral issues? Bottom line - don't criticize what you don't understand. It only highlights you as an idiot.

Let's review: Our policy towards NK has been pretty similar throughout the past 30 years. Bush 43 didn't attack them, and we all know he was not shy about the haphazard use of military force. Even Reagan, the paragon of strength and virtue didn't attack them - what gives? I'll say that I'm a fan of Reagan, and he fought the good fight in the Cold War, but most of the other military actions were "no contest" situations. Grenada? The Sandinistas in Nicaragua? Libya? Hell, Reagan didn't even pursue the factions responsible for the Beirut embassy bombing - even when he had a chance, so let's knock off this Reagan would have already kicked NK's ass" bullshit.

Now (this caveat is for you Bevo), I don't have all the answers or I'd be sequestered to some SCIF in the basement of the White House, but will all of you please put your cranks back in your pants before you step on them again? Naval Officers should neither behave like, nor think like war mongers - we're better than that.

Discuss

Brett

Edit: Bevo, the AW spell checker wants to replace Bevo with BevMo, so you can't be all that bad.

 

[mmx1]

I also think that your choice of Seoul for a target is a bit naive. As eddie quite plainly stated earlier in the thread, someone would likely wind up nuking Japan. I think that's a pretty rational statement, actually. Given the Japanese expansion prior to and during WWII (although it goes further back than that), and their subsequent treatment of nearly all the nations in the region, is Seoul, which would provide the North with any number of benefits if taken relatively unscathed, still such a viable target for a nuke? I don't think so. Japan is probably much more of a juicy target, both for historical and rhetoric purposes.

Perhaps they're interested in nuking Japan for revenge, but from a realist point of view it's suicidal. The only thing holding back Japan's potential military might is their huge guilt complex from WWII, as manifested in their left wing and their unwavering support for Article 9 of their constitution. An unprovoked nuke would solve that problem pretty quickly.

Not a can of worms I'd want to open up.

 

[raptor10]

Well one way of looking at our engagement with the DPRK over the last thirty years is that our actions (or inaction) in the diplomatic arena has not had any real impact in dissuading them from being a weapons proliferation threat to the US, a nuclear threat to the region, or a nuclear proliferation threat to the world. Think Syria 2007, and the Bush administrations claim that their was NK involvement - the level of response by the US towards the DPRK was neglible, very surprising if in fact the accusations are true. The DPRK has in the past sold Taepodong missiles (as reliable as those are...) to other nations, and undoubtedly provided other aid and support to destabilizing regimes... The six-party talks do not produce the sort of results that are amenable to the long term security of the region, although one could say that the bilateral talks between the US and NK have produced limited successes and actions facilitated through the six-party talks.

My point being that in what you have admitted is a lack of transparency on our governments engagement with the DPRK, it is only natural that the American people (of which ths website represents a small swath) hunger for any solution one of which being military engagement.

I for one am ABSOLUTELTLY NOT advocating a military response to NK but even Russia and Japan are meeting to come up with a "serious response" to North Korea's nuclear test, something that has been lacking in the UN's unconcluded war with the DPRK.

 

[Junkball]

The reason for this is because everyone knows that if a war escalates enough, someone's going to light off a nuke and THEN everyone dies, not just some people.

Everyone thought all wars would end in various mushroom clouds post-WWII, and look how that turned out. So much so that some conventional military capabilities were crippled in favor of the all out nuclear war with the Commies.

 

[Flash]

Think Syria 2007, and the Bush administrations claim that their was NK involvement - the level of response by the US towards the DPRK was neglible, very surprising if in fact the accusations are true.

Again, what could or should we have done?

The DPRK has in the past sold Taepodong missiles (as reliable as those are...) to other nations, and undoubtedly provided other aid and support to destabilizing regimes...

Actually they sell No Dong missiles among others, not Taepo Dong missiles. Details.......

And who cares that they support destabilizing regimes, a lot of countries do.

My point......it is only natural that the American people (of which ths website represents a small swath) hunger for any solution one of which being military engagement.

We can't solve every problem in the world, nor should we try.

 

[raptor10]

Again, what could or should we have done?



Actually they sell No Dong missiles among others, not Taepo Dong missiles. Details.......

And who cares that they support destabilizing regimes, a lot of countries do.



We can't solve every problem in the world, nor should we try.

1.
The devil is in the details, I was under the (mistaken?) impression that the Taepo Dong 2/2A was the Shabab-5, and the Taepo Dong 2C/3 was the Shabab-6.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-6.htm

2.
While I will reluctantly agree that we should not try to solve all the worlds problems, the threat of escalating nuclear proliferation from a country that has already gotten away with it should be near the top of the list of things we should do something about... Well global warming/climate change might be a more imminent threat

3. To not very well thought out options driven by desperation:
a.
In a time where the question of sucession has been raised (Kim Jong Il had what appears to be a major stroke) covert and mostly overt overtures (heh) towards NK should be made indicating a substantive change in posture towards the next regime should they be of a viewpoint more amenable to the interest of the world - speak as if the king is dead and let what may be imperturable cracks in the bamboo curtain develope.

b.
If you cant beat them, join them - extend to NK serious economic partnership with the goal of influencing their behavior through the myriad relationship of economic developement - face it, sanctions against NK haven't worked, and they are guarenteed to work less now than at any point in its history simply because there really is no commerce with NK and anyone outside of China (who has pursued economic engagement with NK to some degree of success). The economic powerhouse of the US is our greatest soft power resource. Lets put it to use. And don't give me that bull about dealing with impressive regimes, we've done it before with the prospect of less impressive reults (Riyadh and Cairo anyone?) The people of NK could use the work, and we could use the stability.

Now these proposals are certainly shortsighted - could destablizing the NK regime lead to violence on the peninsula? Will "rewarding" nuclear coercion lead to a new arms race? I say possibly and no, and there are good reasons to believe positive results could arise out of these policies. Its a long shot but Soderling did beat Nadal today!

 

[Bevo16]

Now (this caveat is for you Bevo), I don't have all the answers or I'd be sequestered to some SCIF in the basement of the White House, but will all of you please put your cranks back in your pants before you step on them again? Naval Officers should neither behave like, nor think like war mongers - we're better than that.

Discuss

Brett

Edit: Bevo, the AW spell checker wants to replace Bevo with BevMo, so you can't be all that bad.

Not sure exactly what you were trying to tell me. And I mean that as "I am not sure exactly what you were trying to tell me." Not "F-you" or anything like that.

I have been pretty short on policy suggestions or even commentary on this thread. Mostly I have been throwing turds from the peanut gallery along with a few news stories. Doing nothing (in public anyway) is fine and dandy with me. Sometimes putting the whiny 4 year old in a corner to scream himself purple is a course of action in and of itself (while packing up all of his toys an putting them on the top shelf of the closet).

I will give Obama credit that he did not make an ass of himself this time around the way he did with the missile launch.