Can we bomb them yet?

[guartz]

I must side with Beckwin on this, 510Freeze. The only reason we are at odds with N.K, is it refused Pax Americana.

[MysteryMithra]

America is pretty much the coolest country in the world..

..So says the new Marvel/White House crossover.

http://www.porhomme.com/wp-content/u...book-obama.jpg

[kuronosan]

Speaking of the middle east... I find it ironic that after gas hits a wonderful low that makes it affordable for people to actually drive again... that OPEC halves their production, thereby driving gas right back up to an average of $3/gal.

[Takedown3]

all good to talk about bombing them and getting rid of the problem, but what happens after all the bombs have been dropped?

US based in dozens on areas to control the leftover military? a new terrorist organization based on the remnant military who have nothing to lose since they would be facing war crime charges?

let china deal with it let's not concern ourselves we have enough problems

[Plow]

plow, some articles for you:

North Korea: The War Game - The Atlantic (July/August 2005)
Inside America’s (Mock) Attack on North Korea | Danger Room | Wired.com
Foreign Policy: Is North Korea a Paper Tiger?

Please reconsider your America-fuck-yeah-ism stance. There's no doubt that NK would lose, but there's little doubt there would be carnage on both sides. You're basically asking to fight the VC again, except they have a big opening barrage.

Did you really just link shit about "war games" involving raw physical invasion?


Even the last one, the closest to being reasonable, claims NK is capable of inflicting 200k civilian casualties the first day...

And gives *ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER* to any kind of attack on said artillery banks.


Sure, NK looks scary as hell, if you're operating under the assumption that we shoot some guy and they declare war and we stand there jacking off while they blow up SK.

[Atreides]

What beckwin said is pretty much spot on.

But yeah, a "solution" to the situation in NK is almost certainly going to come from China, either through diplomacy, cutting off aid, or providing a united front to Pyongyang.

The problem is that we're not really sure how deep China's support of NK actually goes, the main reason they got involved in the Korean War to begin with was to provide a buffer between a US-sponsored/controlled regime and their own territory. Now, 50 years after the fact, that mentality does still hold a small amount of influence but for the Chinese the situation is a great deal more marginalized and insignificant than it used to be. I would hazard a guess that China is more concerned about an influx of refugees and having to spend money on restoration/welfare programs should NK's regime actually fall, which is probably why they have such a strict policy of sending captured NK escapees back to NK. They would rather just not deal with the problem (which is relatively easy since missles aren't pointed at them).

I think people look at the US's military might and view that as the only factor determining success or failure in the Korean peninsula when in reality, China is holding all of the cards. Given the relative strength of the Chinese military/economy, the fact that the US holds less sway over Chinese politics due to massive debt, and the fact that the Chinese are about the only people the NK will actually listen to, it's pretty clear that the reason the U.S. hasn't already dealt with the problem is because they are, for lack of a better term, impotent.

The way to affect change in North Korea is to make China care about what goes on there, simply put.

[Plow]

The "let's just be nice and do it politically" idea is great... until you realize 2 things.

We've been trying. It's literally only made the situation worsen.


And, one of these days, someone's going to try something political that actually has an effect on them, and when they realize it, they're going to actually go nuts on SK with their full capabilities.


I wouldn't support attacking them if I didn't think not attacking them is going to result in the really bad version of Beckwin's "here's what happens if NK launches an attack and we haven't destroyed their offensive capabilities" scenarios.

[Atreides]

The "let's just be nice and do it politically" idea is great... until you realize 2 things.

We've been trying. It's literally only made the situation worsen.

And, one of these days, someone's going to try something political that actually has an effect on them, and when they realize it, they're going to actually go nuts on SK with their full capabilities.

I wouldn't support attacking them if I didn't think not attacking them is going to result in the really bad version of Beckwin's "here's what happens if NK launches an attack and we haven't destroyed their offensive capabilities" scenarios.

That's kinda my point, NK is pretty obviously acting so provocatively in an attempt to egg everyone on. I doubt they hope for war but we only view them as unstable because we know so little about them. The only way an all-out war will happen is if someone else fires the first shot, so I can agree with you that they're certainly guilty of escalating the situation and sowing the seeds for the tension that would lead up to war, but I don't see a war starting over recent events.

And yes, we've tried very hard to appease/please them with diplomacy. The problem is we're trying too hard-- NK hates us enough that they're going to view anything the US says/does as disingenuous and do exactly the opposite or not listen, as has happened already.

That's why it's so important to involve China. Not only are they NK's biggest (only?) ally but they provide a more united picture than a handful of capitalist countries that they view as imperialistic and attempting to encroach on their sovereignty.

[Plow]

The only way an all-out war will happen is if someone else fires the first shot

This is they key:


They're essentially saying any kind of real political action that produces tangible effects on them is going to be considered a "first shot."

Not even just "essentially," really, they're pretty much screaming it at the top of their lungs.


I, for one, believe they're as crazy as they say they are. And one of these days they're going to snap, and if we don't stop it first it's going to have some pretty seriously nasty results.

[Beckwin]

Did you really just link shit about "war games" involving raw physical invasion?


Even the last one, the closest to being reasonable, claims NK is capable of inflicting 200k civilian casualties the first day...

And gives *ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER* to any kind of attack on said artillery banks.


Sure, NK looks scary as hell, if you're operating under the assumption that we shoot some guy and they declare war and we stand there jacking off while they blow up SK.

you think that if we start dropping bombs that there's no possibility of NK moving troops across the border?

you're also ignoring the quotes of generals and various experts agreeing that there would be rather large civilian casualties on both sides. but hey what do they know, you're the political science major. on that note, I'm now calling out your assertion that "given our current intelligence, we could take out all of NK's means to inflict harm before they could react"- sauce or gtfo with your unrealistic, unsubstantiated arguments. I don't think I've seen one source or figure or anything not originating from your ass to back it up.

[Correction]

I, for one, believe they're as crazy as they say they are. And one of these days they're going to snap, and if we don't stop it first it's going to have some pretty seriously nasty results.

I'm not sure why you're so convinced we can avoid a catastophe by 'striking first.' There's little historical precedent for the success of such a strategy, for one. For another, our military is stretched thin and our remaining allies in a pre-emptive military strategy even thinner. How on earth are in any position to stop them from inflicting substantial damage/civilian casualties?

[Plow]

you think that if we start dropping bombs that there's no possibility of NK moving troops across the border?

You think we can't bomb troops attempting to move across the DMZ?

you're also ignoring the quotes of generals and various experts agreeing that there would be rather large civilian casualties on both sides. but hey what do they know, you're the political science major. on that note, I'm now calling out your assertion that "given our current intelligence, we could take out all of NK's means to inflict harm before they could react"- sauce or gtfo with your unrealistic, unsubstantiated arguments. I don't think I've seen one source or figure or anything not originating from your ass to back it up.

You yourself gave links that proclaim to be pretty damn exact on what NK has and where.


Now consider that's the public side of things.


Now consider this incredibly in depth strategy of... blow them the fuck up.


Complex, eh?

[510Meeze]

I hope you're trolling at this point; your assessment of the non-white world is bigoted, grossly generalizing, and disgusting.

Western world doesn't mean white people, you're putting words into my mouth. I acknowledge there are great people that come out of third world countries, Mandela, Ghandi, Che (questionable) etc, but the fact is, that the western world for the most part looks to resolve conflict amongst themselves diplomatically. There are exceptions to the rule, as there are exceptions of third world countries who resolve things peacefully, but you can't argue the africa and the middle east are at war with each other, civil and between countries. And to be honest, the western world could give a fuck about Africa, and the only reason the Middle East makes news is because of the oil in that region. Take away that oil and we would let Africa and the Middle East kill themselves off and deal with the winner at the end (Seems like the world is doing that with Africa already).

You talked about poverty and standard of living in your post, and thats the problem. These people are uneducated as a whole. An uneducated mass can't move forward, and the leaders exploit the fact and turn it into violence. Just look at Iran in the news, more people dead in Palestine, car bombs, suicide bombs, etc etc. And look at whats happening in Africa...well, I don't actually know cause it doesn't make headlines. But I'm sure someone is writing about it.

Edit: Chechnya, Bosnia and "various Russian conflicts" are hardly western world.

[Plow]

I'm not sure why you're so convinced we can avoid a catastophe by 'striking first.' There's little historical precedent for the success of such a strategy, for one. For another, our military is stretched thin and our remaining allies in a pre-emptive military strategy even thinner. How on earth are in any position to stop them from inflicting substantial damage/civilian casualties?

I just don't get it.

The problem is with the cleanup, not with the initial assault. Proclaiming "but they're holding SK hostage!" is not a reason not to stop them.


I'm just saying, if you want to argue against doing it, argue the shit that's actually valid, not "we can't disable their military fast enough!"


Did the Iraq war teach no one anything?


I want to see the argument for how it *won't* be a lot worse when NK just decides to go nuts in response to sanctions or whatever. Actually, no, I take that back, I'd much rather see arguments for other strategies that might actually work.

[Therin]

There is no way a preemptive strike will knock out Nk's artillery. Not nearly all of it anyway. First Gulf War is probably the best example of a well-executed, large scale preemptive airstrike. The first targets were mostly infrastructure: radar sites, palaces and airfields. Iraq fired Scuds into Israel as a reprisal, and it took weeks to destroy all the Scud launchers, some even requiring ground operations.

Now add 13,000 pieces of artillery to the short-range missiles, and you're fucked. Artillery's just as mobile as Scud launchers, their firerate is much higher, and NK is not an open desert/shooting range like Iraq. You can't even hope for bad accuracy like the Scuds on Israel, the range is much shorter, and artilelry will likely be trained on Seoul year round.

At the very, very best it'll take days to knock out NK, and artillery doesn't need nearly that much to blow the hell out of Seoul.

The Gulf War was nearly 20 years ago. Technology has evolved tremendously since then, and the US has received primary benefit of that evolution. This conflict would need to be conducted much more swiftly and violently. There would be more civilian casualties, but the conflict would end with a lot less non-NK casualties. To add to that, the opposing belligerent in the Gulf War was Iraq, a force with very little potential for destruction on the massive scale. NK has the potential to flat out destroy half of SK if the campaign was done incorrectly, so if the US were to attack, our only choice would be to essentially decimate their entire military force in one fell swoop.

I think it could be, and should be done, but I don't think the US would never do it, especially not with Obama involved (no offense!). Too many civilian casualties. Note that I'm not saying a republican would do a better job; our last republican president would've been too stupid to pull this off even if he had wanted to.

[510Meeze]

our last republican president would've been too stupid to pull this off even if he had wanted to.

He woulda blown up SK.

[MoogleAura]

I don't think Kimmy is stupid enough to do anything, because he knows if he trys something he will have the U.S., EU, China, SK, Japan etc all ready to retaliate.
It's not like he has some kind of super weapon that can guarantee him even the slightest chance of victory.

[Plow]

Even Bush could've handled N. Korea.

Nobody'd be complaining about the Iraq war Hussein was launching missile tests, and proving nuclear capabilities regularly.


We're all just skittish now because of the whole "boy who cried wolf" conundrum.


edit: there's a slightly key "if" missing there... I'm sure you can see where

[Vekta]

The scale of the assault needed to bring about an effective preemptive strike would require the roles in Afghanistan and Iraq to be over. Not to mention that the build up for such and attack would be pretty obvious. The question isnt can we destroy NKs military capabilitys because thats a simple answer. Its more can we destroy their attack capability before they have a chance to cause serious devastation with it.

[archibaldcrane]

The Gulf War was nearly 20 years ago. Technology has evolved tremendously since then, and the US has received primary benefit of that evolution. This conflict would need to be conducted much more swiftly and violently. There would be more civilian casualties, but the conflict would end with a lot less non-NK casualties. To add to that, the opposing belligerent in the Gulf War was Iraq, a force with very little potential for destruction on the massive scale. NK has the potential to flat out destroy half of SK if the campaign was done incorrectly, so if the US were to attack, our only choice would be to essentially decimate their entire military force in one fell swoop.

We aren't going to be able to know where -all- the artillery is in our "one fell swoop", much less any missile launcher locations. We'll get a bunch, but that means a bunch will be left. I found the Gulf War argument to be very well thought out. When it comes down to it, we still have to locate, and then shoot it down. Technology only helps so much. Seoul would be decimated by the barrage as we tried to clean up the remaining artillery, and remember that NK has a 1.1 MILLION person standing army. That's nothing to sneeze at when the nearest target is a jog away.