N. Korea nuke threat

[audtatious]

So, N. Korea has warned S. Korea of a 'sacred war' and says it is 'fully prepared' to use nuclear weapons against its neighbor.

More empty threats? Should we just continue to allow them to hit and hide? China seems to have their back so are we willing to back down and let them continually kill S. Koreans?

I honestly don't think China will go to war if the UN (more empty threats) decided to lock things down with huge sanctions.

[bigbadberry3]

I don't think China and N Korea are that buddy buddy, and I don't think China is looking to go to war after all it's been through to become a world power.

[96Qowner]

North Korea would not have a nuclear weapon if China didn't want it to have a nuclear weapon.

And no, China does not want a nuclear exchange on the Korean peninsula. It's all posturing and hot air.

[heliochrome85]

[audtatious]

So, what should be done?

[bigbadberry3]

Well we can't afford another Iraq. Let it be South Korea's problem, munno I am honestly not that concerned about it.

[R/T Hemi]

Our obligation to South Korea comes from the “act to meet the common danger” now manifest in North Korea as defined by a defense treaty, between the US and SK signed in 1953. Even if President Obama wanted to stay out of Korea, he couldn’t do so without breaking America’s obligation to it's democratic ally. That would have long reaching consequences.

The fact that the above obligation is longstanding sould not be lost on Kim Jong-il. Neither should he assume that the US nuclear submarines surrounding Kim won't be targeting his likely residences, whether or not the nuclear option has been approved for the skippers. One could easily argue that he (Kim)is not possessed of sufficient intelligence to appreciate the foolishness of his actions, however, China certainly is. It's Kim's dependency on China that will ultimately save this meathead from his own destruction.

My suggestion, get China to set his @$$ straight.

[audtatious]

I don't think China is willing to "set them straight" as it may look to the world as if they caved under US pressure.

[R/T Hemi]

I wouldn't expect it to be a publicized. But nonetheless, I suspect that the general opinion in China is that the meathead needs to be on a short leash.

[BusyBadger]

So, what should be done?

I'd suggest a two pronged attack of Magnaporthe grisea (an rice fungus) on the crops and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace. Something more common like typhus, dengue fever or meliodosis could be used to further increase deniability. It's difficult to be a threat when all the people are sick and starving.

No, I'm not kidding. Earlier this month Russia called for talks to ease the tensions there, what we really need is for Hillary to loan PBO her set of balls for a while and then he and Putin can lean on China for a bit. Is there really any country other than China that thinks North Korea is in the right here?

China has always acted like the big brother in the corner, not holding North Korea to task and letting the country act like a spoiled child, threatening retaliation when other countries want to hold North Korea accountable for its actions. But I expect when it all comes down to it China would favour it's newfound economic status and darling of the media image rather than risk poor world opinion by protecting some loose cannon of a leader that's not going to live much longer anyway. China's leaders have to be tired of all the undue attention and hassles they've gotten from North Korea, I'm actually surprised China hasn't tried some Gerald Bull stunt on Lil' Kim already just to be done with everything.

[R/T Hemi]

So, what should be done?

I'd suggest a two pronged attack of Magnaporthe grisea (an rice fungus) on the crops and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace. Something more common like typhus, dengue fever or meliodosis could be used to further increase deniability. It's difficult to be a threat when all the people are sick and starving.

No, I'm not kidding........

I hope you're being sarcastic here. Punishing a population for the crimes of its leader is something I could never support.

[BusyBadger]

I hope you're being sarcastic here. Punishing a population for the crimes of its leader is something I could never support.

No, I'm not kidding........

A few facts in case you're not up to speed on the North Korean (I refuse to say and actually shake my head in disgust at the notion that the country calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea") military...

They have the fourth largest standing army in the world.
20% of the male population aged 17-54 is active duty or about 50 out of every 1000 people (by comparison the United States has 5 active duty military per 1000 people), reserve military strength is 8 million - 400 out of every 1000 people (United States - 8 out of 1000)

The Taepodong I missile has a range of 2500km with a 1000kg* (2000km with 1500kg).
The Taepodong II missile has a range of 6700km with a 650-1000kg payload (that puts Alaska within striking distance).
The Taepodong II-A (3-stage) has a range of 8000-12000km based on payload (that puts Hawaii and America's west coast at risk).

The accuracy of the NK guidance systems have been questioned, but what country wants to test that accuracy and how accurate do they really need to be to be a risk?

The country has repeatedly threatened South Korea, launched an unprovoked attack against them and continues to rattle its sabre with a warning that South Korea and the United States are risking nuclear war because of military drills. That's a highly restrained response to a direct attack, even the strike that I propose isn't nearly as damaging or lasting as a nuclear attack.

I'd be open to other alternatives but nothing has ever worked - China has subsidized NK through years of various sanctions, Kim Jong doesn't care about his people and the people don't have the will to change their situation. I think it will have to get worse for the North Korean people before they stand up to the "leader"of their country. If the idea of punishing a population for the actions of it's leader leaves a bad taste in your mouth think of it as motivating the people to make a positive change for the future.

While you can't support the actions I would propose, I can't tolerate the hostile acts and credible threats of a rogue county. If I have to choose between North Korean casualties or South Korean (or Japanese, or even American if NK could manage the rocketry involved) I choose North Korean.

*For an idea of a weight to damage ratio the W56 warhead, a relic of the Cold War, weighs in at 680 lbs. and has a yield of 1.2 megatons. I imagine even North Korea's damage to weight ratio would be an improvement over a warhead with architecture dating back to 1963.

[R/T Hemi]

I was afraid you were serious. How is your "kill the innocent" philosophy different than the philosophy the 9/11 terrorlst employed in their attack against America? Do you find any hypocrisy in condemn the September attacks (which I'm assuming you do) against our lifestyle, while supporting similar attacks against foreign civilian targets?

Supporting "revenge" against innocent people by employing means designed to maximize pain and suffering is a chapter out of the "terrorlst's Handbook." Additionally, advocating the destruction of a country by disease and famine puts an advocate in a select group of people who, throughout history, have earned a place in infamy.

One final question. Would you agree that a similar action against the US would be condemned as barbaric?

[BusyBadger]

How is your "kill the innocent" philosophy different than the philosophy the 9/11 terrorlst employed in their attack against America? Do you find any hypocrisy in condemning the September attacks (which I'm assuming you do) against our lifestyle while supporting similar attacks against foreign civilian targets?

On killing the innocent, I have no doubt innocents would die. Recall my earlier post with population percentages in the military…the NK armed forces are, and should be, the primary targets of any attacks. The strikes I would advocate would target military concentrations and war-making facilities. But I have no illusions that civilians would die. War is ugly and repugnant, the day it's not and is made to be clean, and even accepted, I fear for mankind.

If North Korea would be willing to group all of its military resources in centralized locations for more efficient targeting we could forego a lot of collateral damage. Somehow I think that NK will never make it so simple. However, in hindsight I would not use the anti-rice attacks as in addition to the undue suffering (isn’t the current state of affairs in NK undue suffering?) it would cause, it would also make the eventual recovery of the country (and potential reunification) that much harder.

I have speculated about how difficult it would be for North Korea’s own military to take over the country if they truly wanted to, which begs the question, “How many in the military have compassion for the civilian population that they were once a part of and how many see themselves as above them and therefore removed from them?” How culpable is the military for hostile actions both against enemies both foreign and domestic? Is it just the senior staff that’s on board with Kim Jong? Mid-grade and junior grade officers? Front line soldiers? Where do these snipers killing refugees along the Chinese border fit into the rank and file? Are all NK soldiers merely “following orders” because failing to do so is risking death?

One final question. Would you agree that a similar action against the US would be condemned as barbaric?

If you mean to say…

If the United States government starved the population (while building military food reserves), shot citizens seeking to leave unfavourable conditions within the country, continually defied international pressures, was unresponsive to sanctions, threatened nuclear war, attacked a neighbouring country without provocation and were consequently attacked by that country’s allies to in both retaliation to past attacks and as a pre-emptive measure towards future ones.

…would I consider that barbaric? No.

[R/T Hemi]

The strikes I would advocate would target military concentrations and war-making facilities...

I'd suggest a two pronged attack of Magnaporthe grisea (an rice fungus) on the crops and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace...

*****

...the NK armed forces are, and should be, the primary targets of any attacks...

I'd suggest a two pronged attack of Magnaporthe grisea (an rice fungus) on the crops and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace...

*****

Supporting "revenge" against innocent people by employing means designed to maximize pain and suffering is a chapter out of the "terrorlst's Handbook."

On killing the innocent, I have no doubt innocents would die.

*****

The strikes I would advocate would target military concentrations and war-making facilities.

I'd suggest a two pronged attack of Magnaporthe grisea (an rice fungus) on the crops and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace...

But I have no illusions that civilians would die.

*****

Agreed, I've snipped and mixed a few of your quotes here, but your original statement so conflicts with your attempts to clean it up that it needs flagging. My good man, I'd suggest you spend some time in that corner you're in here waiting for the paint to dry.

[WDRacing]

If anything does happen, North Korea will destroy Seoul and most of the surrounding area. They have wanted to destroy Seoul for a long time. When I was stationed there we had all kinds of scenario's we practiced for and I can say with a fairly decent amount of certainty that after the North attacks and we counter, there won't be much of the North left. I'm pretty sure we have plans in place to assassinate everyone in the "Royal Family" right from the jump.

So, massive loss of life, followed by 3-4 more military bases in the new Republic of Korea.

[R/T Hemi]

I think the surgical removal of Kim and his inner circle of henchmen would be a logical first strike and as such, it might be the end of the conflict. It's obviously the best move in my opinion.

[BusyBadger]

My good man, I'd suggest you spend some time in that corner you're in here waiting for the paint to dry.

I'll sit tight and order you some reading glasses from my laptop while I’m waiting on the paint.

In hindsight I would not use the anti-rice attacks as in addition to the undue suffering (isn’t the current state of affairs in NK undue suffering?) it would cause, it would also make the eventual recovery of the country that much harder.

You either missed that bit or omitted it. I’m betting on the former.

I did rush the original post a bit, ok a lot, and failed to connect the dots about how much of what I call general populace are also military personnel, either active or reserve and did try to clean (clear?) it up with the second by citing numbers. I suppose if I was the Machiavelli that I purport others to be I’d have edited my original post and then made the second. To clarify, I’m not advocating laying waste some farmers (or his crops) in the middle of nowhere because frankly, his own military is more of a threat to him than he is to us.

Onward - I'd love to see a surgical strike aimed at removing Kim and if I thought it had a real chance of working it would be my first choice. But there are a couple of problems…

First, everyone subscribing to Kim’s playbook and not just Kim that has to be removed. There’s no guarantee that if Kim is removed someone worse doesn’t step into place, as difficult as that may be to imagine. You said inner circle, but getting all of them would not be easy. And even if we did I don’t see a Wicked Witch scenario where everyone throws down arms and instantly changes once they are gone.

Second, imagine the hue and cry should we, or anyone other than China, get caught in the act. That’s why I mentioned earliest post about China pulling a Gerald Bull after being fed up with Kim’s actions and eventually saying enough. I think China is really the only country that can pull it off without throwing the entire region into massive (more massive?) turmoil. But does China really want to?

It’s been talked about in other threads about the predicatable unpredicatability of NK and how China is seen as the country that really can’t be trusted. Could China just be waiting for the right time to step into (really “step into”) NK. NK has an infant mortality rate of 48 per 1000 and the average lifespan has dropping since the late 80’s. China has always wanted a buffer between itself and the “west”, what’s better than a buffer that they directly control?

Another hazard of any strike against NK is the potential presence of individuals from Iran and/or Syria, reminiscent of the attack on a Syrian facility by Israel back in 2007. I doubt that either Iran or Syria would protest much, but there's always a chance.

The biggest problem of all though isn't so much the seemingly inevitable war, but what to do once it's over. The NK people have been so stifled in their development that trying to incorporate them into modern society would be about as easy as handing a caveman a computer and expecting a productive outcome. A reunited Korea won't be nearly so simple as a reunited Germany and will take decades longer.

If anything does happen, North Korea will destroy Seoul and most of the surrounding area. They have wanted to destroy Seoul for a long time. When I was stationed there we had all kinds of scenario's we practiced for and I can safe with a fairly decent amount of certainty that after the North attacks and we counter, there won't be much of the North left. I'm pretty sure we have plans in place to assassinate everyone in the "Royal Family" right from the jump.

So, massive loss of life, followed by 3-4 more military bases in the new Republic of Korea.

It's nice to see someone that was on the DMZ stepping in. Here’s a good I’ve read about how a second Korean War might play out. Thoughts?

I was looking for this and couldn’t find it earlier, and had someone email me the link. It’s a good piece by Christopher Hitchensabout his trip to North Korea. It would have been easier to find if I could have remembered who wrote it.

[R/T Hemi]

Maybe it's because I've lost my reading glasses, but did I missed the post where you backpedaled on this part too?

..and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace...

Never mind that this pesky little thing called the Biological Weapons Convention,(BWC), or Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, (BTWC) prohibits this. I'm trying to remember, but wasn't that very thing part of the moral high ground reasoning GWB used to justify invading a foreign country?

[BusyBadger]

Maybe it's because I've lost my reading glasses, but did I miss the post where you backpedaled on this part too?

..and an indigenous strain of anthrax (non-weaponized for deniability purposes) on the general populace...

Never did. Do keep in mind the relationship I established between the general populace and the military.

Never mind that this pesky little thing called the Biological Weapons Convention,(BWC), or Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, (BTWC) prohibits this.

I'm not a supporter, for a variety of reasons. It must be the barbarian in me. But then I also don't believe that all of the signers (not just the United States) are either, and that depending on the circumstances some would not hesitate to use what's remaining in their arsenals. I suspect that there are still some deeply held secrets at Ft. Detrick.

Furthermore, there's this telling statement made by South Korea when they signed the BWTC:

"The signing by the Government of the Republic of Korea of the present Convention does not in any way mean or imply the recognition of any territory or regime which has not been recognized by the Government of the Republic of Korea as a state or government."

Nice exclusionary clause being that both North & South Korea each see themselves as the only legitimate Korean government and don't recogize the other as anything other than an enemy and an obstacle to a unified Korea.

I'm trying to remember, but wasn't that very thing part of the moral high ground reasoning GWB used to justify invading a foreign country?

Come now, that sort of self-abasement doesn't suit you. And yes, it was. For the record I never thought we should have gone in the first place, I guess we were ok with Saddam being a thug in power as long as he was our thug.

In any case it certainly served to stabilise that region, didn't it. But that's topic enough for another two or three threads.

[IBCoupe]

Ignore it. The North Korean government is posturing to keep its citizens happy. I'm not entirely convinced that the population of North Korea is as unhappy with the government as we often say - the only sources of that kind of reporting we have are from people who have been so unhappy with North Korea as to leave it. That's not exactly unbiased.

South Korea probably is only slightly less gung-ho about a war with the North as vice versa. The only thing keeping a war from happening is the presence of American troops in the DMZ, even if it's a mostly symbolic duty. North Korean propaganda says that the only reason they haven't blown South Korea off the face of the Earth is the fact that we're there. Nevermind the fact that we know and the North Korean Government knows that they could never sustain a drawn-out confrontation - they just use us as an excuse to keep the population from throwing them out of power and replacing them with, perhaps, someone a bit worse (at least from our foreign policy perspective).

As one commentator recently put it, the situation in Korea is that we've got a fairly nationalistic population glaring at an ultra-nationalistic population, who glares right back. Keep our troops in the DMZ, let them play cards and watch DVDs, and there won't be a war. Pull them out, and things go bad - NK is forced to follow through on their propaganda (even if they don't really want to), and SK more than willingly fights back.

[audtatious]

Should the aggression of NK be ignored? They've sunk a ship and shelled an island within the last 6 months or so. Nuke threats are simply icing I guess.

[HashiriyaS14]

So, what should be done?

Nothing, really.

The only real way to attack the problem is by squeezing China to do something about it, but we don't want to squeeze China on anything, so nothing will get done.

S. Korea is on their own unless the North actually initiates a real conflict, which they won't.


/war

[audtatious]

Pretty much.

Unless NK attacks SK again. Not sure how that would fly again.

[IBCoupe]

North Korea isn't likely to do too much more. That was the new kid showing off so the generals don't off him when his father dies.

And if you don't like the answer "Ignore it," then I'll reply, "Pay as much attention to it as you want, but there's nothing we can do about it." China's a good route, but China's not too keen on messing with NK, either, not just because they're not us, but because NK is NK.