What to do about North Korea ?

aord43

The odd thing is that it's not normal to say what you are going to do in advance.  And they are not threatening to attack Guam, just to prove that they could. It's as if they are trying to provoke Trump.

NickBotfield

I suspect both Trump and NK are both using the beef to distract their supporters from domestic issues.  The horrible conditions for most in NK seem fairly well documented, so having a bogeyman to look strong at probably plays well with the NK top brass.  For Trump I think the Congressional and Special Counsel investigations into Russia are definitely ratcheting up the pressure - the convening of a grand jury and the FBI raid on Paul Manafort a few weeks ago (but only coming out now) suggests that there is significant evidence to act on.  Trump is slinging mud anywhere to distract from this because that's what he's always done.

Clarky

Haych said:

chillidoggy said:

Looks like things could be hotting up. NK reported as saying they will consider strikes on Guam in days.

Yeah saw that too. They're threatening to fire missiles into the sea about twenty miles from Guam. I guess the North Koreans don't like water sports?

So what happens if they miss by about 20 miles

Emp_Fab

I would suspect 'Pyongyang' would become the name of a new type of glass.

ICBM

Hopefully the US would see sense. Killing millions of innocent North Korean civilians won't solve anything, before or afterwards.

The only logic I can see for North Korea in announcing their intentions before the event is that it is meant as a demonstration *not* an attack, and they don't want to provoke a retaliation by it being mistaken for an actual attack. Then having shown that they have a functioning nuclear weapon, what will they want?

Haych

ICBM said:

Then having shown that they have a functioning nuclear weapon, what will they want?

you don't really think they'll mount nukes on the missiles do you? Genuine question, can't see it myself but I'm naive at the best of times. 

ICBM

Haych said:

you don't really think they'll mount nukes on the missiles do you? Genuine question, can't see it myself but I'm naive at the best of times. 

I honestly don't know. A nuclear explosion out in the middle of the Pacific in international waters not too far from a US territory would certainly send a message that North Korea is not to be messed with, without actually giving a real cause for a retaliation. If you think about it, at least three of the existing nuclear powers (USA, UK and France) have conducted atmospheric tests in the Pacific in the past, so it's not exactly something we could condemn without appearing hypocritical.

For what it's worth, I believe Iran wants a bomb for the same reason - as a deterrent against the US and Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia, who I think they have a legitimate fear of. They would be insane to want it for a first strike, since they must know that the retaliation would be overwhelming. Notice that Iran has always said that it wants nuclear power 'for peaceful purposes'. The two things are not incompatible - a deterrent is to keep the peace… that's exactly what we claim about ours too.

Perhaps North Korea is just paranoid about what happens to regimes the US doesn't like which don't have nuclear weapons.

ronnyb

ronnyb said:

Strangely enough my wife is called Kim. She also likes posturing, sabre rattling and making threats. 

The similarities are getting more worrying, she also gets over excited and bangs the table at the thought of a big projectile.

Haych

ICBM said:

Perhaps North Korea is just paranoid about what happens to regimes the US doesn't like which don't have nuclear weapons.

Nah, the US would never be interested in toppling Pyongyang unless it was sat on a massive oil reserve. 

TimmyO

I take @Clarky 's point about history suggested that significant actions aren't announced, but as a note of caution I'd point out that Kim and Donnie aren't your typical heads of government. 

The more you have a cult of personality (eg Stalin, Amin, and the Kim & Donnie show) the less 'sensible' the planning. 

Even the reckless interview the other day shows it : the suggestion of conflict in that region threatens the security, credibility and economic prospects of both Japan and south Korea, both of whom are *important* allies to the US. Donnie doesn't care. He's a mentally inadequate spoiled brat in the body of a fat man.

darthed1981

ICBM said:

Haych said:

you don't really think they'll mount nukes on the missiles do you? Genuine question, can't see it myself but I'm naive at the best of times. 

I honestly don't know. A nuclear explosion out in the middle of the Pacific in international waters not too far from a US territory would certainly send a message that North Korea is not to be messed with, without actually giving a real cause for a retaliation. If you think about it, at least three of the existing nuclear powers (USA, UK and France) have conducted atmospheric tests in the Pacific in the past, so it's not exactly something we could condemn without appearing hypocritical.

That would be spectacularly dangerous.  Whenever those pacific tests were carried out it was over depopulated areas carefully policed and (in theory at least) kept clear of ships.  There were memorable cock-ups, but generally beyond the general insanity of letting off a nuke just to see if it works, the areas were kept clear.

If NK send one randomly into the ocean near Guam, there could be anything in the blast radius, including US Navy or civilian ships, Chinese Navy, Japanese Navy, Australian.  Just plain old fishing boats or cargo ships.

I don't think Kim is that stupid.  If they let a nuke off near a US base, it will almost certainly lead to retaliation from the US, and will almost certainly kill a bunch of people.

Whatever the US thinks, the international community has decided nobody else gets nukes, we can't uninvent the damn things and if it were possible it would be great to just get rid of them all, in the meantime whatever one may think of the US, NK is a lot worse, and they really shouldn't have them.

Hope really lies in China not wanting a nuclear war in their back garden and intervening.

Deadman

I am quite literally readying myself for the concept that Armageddon may happen sooner rather than later. It doesn't matter that it's on the other side of the world. This could really be it.

Chalky

American chums are very clear that Trump had to respond to NK's direct threat.

If NK detonates a nuclear warhead anywhere outside its own borders then retaliation is almost inevitable.

Axe_meister

Should the US order a nuclear strike on NK my only hope is that China and Russia do not counter launch.
I'd imagine any nukes sent by NK would be shot out of the sky anyway.
The thing is where would that leave the US on the international stage? I'd imagine anti US terrorism would increase 1000 fold.
Some nations may end up toeing the US line out of fear, the rest would isolate themselves.

JezWynd

Wouldn't surprise me if Trump and generals didn't try to take out Kim and his high command. If NK launch on South Korea in retaliation they may think it a price worth paying.

Hurry up Mr Mueller.

aord43

JezWynd said:

Wouldn't surprise me if Trump and generals didn't try to take out Kim and his high command. If NK launch on South Korea in retaliation they may think it a price worth paying.

Hurry up Mr Mueller.

I doubt the citizens of Seoul feel the same way!

Emp_Fab

I'm 90% sure NK won't actually launch anything.  They have lots of form for sabre rattling with no follow up.  If they do, there will be no warheads of any kind.  Note how NK have said they intend to launch missiles into the sea yet this has been exaggerated by a sensationalist media into an "attack on Guam".

Trump would be very foolish to launch an attack on NK for testing a couple of rockets.  If he does though, it will be conventional cruise missiles targeting missile bases.  Trump may be a dick but he's not going to escalate things straight to nuclear weapons.  Even if he wanted to, I suspect the rest of government / military / security agencies etc would intervene before actual nukes started to fly.  It's not in anyone's interest to have nukes flying around, including the US.

I don't blame NK for wanting nukes.  Until the big boys give theirs up, it's just hypocrisy.

quarky

Emp_Fab said:

 It's not in anyone's interest to have nukes flying around, including the US.

Unless you are a cochroach. Hey wait, maybe that is the plan!

darthed1981

Emp_Fab said:

I'm 90% sure NK won't actually launch anything. 

Probably quite right.

A lot of comment on international affairs is based on the principle that people like Kim Jong Un are mad, but he probably isn't.  NK has done very well over the years regularly rattling the sabre but they are fully aware that actually attacking someone would be suicide.  They stand zero chance of a "fait accomplit" invasion of SK, so nothing to gain.

For the US, a war against NK could not be confined to 30 tomahawks against an empty airfield either.  A genuine attempt to topple Kim Jong Un would require a Vietnam level of military commitment it is unlikely the US has a stomach for, and would cost trillions of dollars.  While the NK Air Force and Navy would be quickly wiped out by the US, degrading Kim's massive army and his infrastructure would probably involve a year long air campaign, an invasion without SK support would be exceptionally difficult if not impossible.

Additionally, in any invasion the NK nuclear assets would be the primary targets, along with the artillery batteries around Seoul, of any massive pre-emptive strike.  Unless the US has 4-5 carriers in the area (they don't) they would need land based support from bases in SK.

SK has no motivation to participate.  They know that a NK attack is very unlikely, and they know their capital would probably be destroyed and 100k of their civilians killed in the first hours of any war.  They have been notably quiet through all this.

The Japanese are a possible ally for the US in the region, but they are not set up for, and cannot really take part in constitutionally, a war of aggression.  If Kim attacks Japan they have capable forces to defend it and retaliate, but they wouldnt participate in a first strike.

Basically, a war is at this point staggeringly unlikely.  I'd only believe it if the US military starts calling up reservists, and the US Navy sends 4 carriers into the area.  If that happens, then Kim will have a "use it or lose it" option on his military.  This could spark a war.  This is why the one carrier they did send is now snugly in dock, and not out sailing around in front of NKs subs.

chillidoggy

I imagine Mr. Trump will be closely monitoring this thread in the hope that the Fretboarders will arrive at a solution to the problem.