If you DON'T support militaristic action against NK, why not?

[rommelrommel]

South Korea has the most to lose if anyone attacks North Korea. They have to decided if it is worth it to attack North Korea and right now their is no indication that anyone in the South Korean government seriously consider this. The only government that could seriously pressure North Korea is China and so far they really don't seem to want to reign them in. So the situation is really crappy but the power of the UN is very limited and without support from both China and South Korea to act nothing is going to happen.

I disagree, kinda.

North Korea always has the most to lose. Most of the world would like a regime change in NK. Even China has shown some discomfort about NK acting too crazy and are very careful about how they aid them... look at the ancient state of their military. Giving NK access to modern Chinese fighters and air defense would do wonders for their security yet China largely declines to do so, even when the USA dumps support into SK like crazy. South Korea is not going to lose (outside of Chinese intervention) and even if SK loses, so does NK. I simply can't see China doing the same as in the Korean War and launching a massive ground war and then giving the country back to Kim-Jong-Crazy.

 

[theeedude]

Does South Korea support military action against the North?
I am sure NK sucks, but it's probably on par with Stalin's USSR, and we didn't invade it.

 

[rommelrommel]

I don't think this means what you think it means. In the first place, we know little about what is hidden in the mountains of the DMZ. We know they have SOME domestic guns and some Russian guns capable of striking Seoul. We have no idea how many domestic guns may have been manufactured and are now hidden there since access is only by the most loyal military and slave workers (who don't return) and one does not parade rail-mounted artillery. In the second place, there are roughly a million South Koreans in greater Goyang alone, and a LOT of North Korean artillery can reach Goyang. Northwest and west of Goyang are some very high density areas easily within artillery range of the mountains just beyond the DMZ, Gimpo alone housing probably over a quarter million. This is NOT something to be taken lightly. Even beyond war as a rule, even beyond the nuclear question, this area has half a century of artillery build up specifically to punish one of the highest density population centers in the world in case of war by the craziest regime in modern history.

As far as counter-battery fire, North Korean artillery along the DMZ is hidden in caves, supposedly with multiple caves per piece. Conventional counter-battery fire would be largely useless as it has to be very accurate, fire during the North Korean piece's fire mission (i.e. before it is withdrawn deep into the mountain), and match trajectory. Too high a trajectory and the round impacts on the mountain above; too low a trajectory and the round impacts on the peaks below. (Having a looping trajectory firing at a known target the tunnels do not need line of sight to Seoul.) One needs either pinpoint accuracy available on a moment's notice, which would be available only after breaking down North Korea's air defenses in the region (which might not be that difficult but would surely take weeks) to allow us to stack strike aircraft within range, or pinpoint accuracy with thermobaric warheads to allow destruction by igniting ready rounds and/or killing crews before blast doors (where present) are closed. Our thermobaric warheads are typically either relatively short range or gravity bombs. Smaller thermobaric warheads could be adapted to glide bombs and larger thermobaric warheads might do the trick with JDAM kits IF we can exactly place the piece and strike before it is fully retracted, but neither of these are guaranteed effective. Such a conflict would be very nasty for a lot of South Koreans.

Traditional artillery simply cannot hit Seoul due to range, it has to be rockets or rocket assisted artillery. Trying to inflict significant civilian casualties from these isn't possible. given the numbers and the amount of preparations that SK has made. People will be in shelters or moved south within a reasonable amount of time. They only have so many pieces of artillery and so many sites, and you can't saturate a city at the best of times... especially with a non-factor airforce.

I'm not minimizing the fact that a ton of civilians would die. It would be horrible for SK but frankly, they would win, and win big. The whole "NK can level Seoul" is just technically unfeasible unless you think they can deliver a nuke to Seoul somehow. If NK isn't heavily backed by China, they lose badly in any scenario.

And yes, it would be terrible... and practically without China on board, this doesn't happen.

I would love to see a JDAM right up Kim Jong-Un's ass but with the cost in lives it would take... I don't know. We do know that these despotic regimes tend to self destruct at some point... often followed by a worse one although.

As said. It's a shit sandwich either way.

 

[Doppel]

Like how the UN is dealing with Syria right now? China will veto anything against NK in the UN Security Council.

Ideally not, but yes I expect it to be similarly inept with NK.

“A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil.” — Tim O’Brien, The Things They Carried

War is no different than a fight. At times it is absolutely necessary to defend yourself or another. Most wars, like most fights, are a total waste of time. I bet if you had walked up to Tim and attacked him and not let him run away he would have been motivated to respond with violence to protect himself.

In a couple decades we will have mature laser and rail weapons deployed for our military use. Imagine a North Korea where no mortar or missile from their side can journey through the sky because we'd have the capacity to melt ANY number of foreign objects out of the sky.

Our defenses are destined to raise beyond anything imaginable, but we're not yet prepared to face such challenges today. Our advanced technology needs time to mature. Once that happens we can ensure no nuke ever leaves their land. Then we can end them.

That's true, though I don't imagine the will will exist then, either.

As an aside this year the US is deploying its first naval-based laser weapon intended to take out incoming projectiles.

 

[LTC8K6]

The problem is China, not NK.

We can already take out NK without them doing much in return, imo.

The question is what will China do in regards to defending NK? Will they defend NK vigorously? Will they move on Taiwan?

We would have to deal with China. Make a deal of some sort. That will be the way to take out NK without a shot being fired.

 

[Doppel]

The problem is China, not NK.

We can already take out NK without them doing much in return, imo.

The question is what will China do in regards to defending NK? Will they defend NK vigorously? Will they move on Taiwan?

We would have to deal with China. Make a deal of some sort. That will be the way to take out NK without a shot being fired.

I doubt China would but yeah I think to get them on board properly they'd really need a nice deal out of it.

 

[Brovane]

I disagree, kinda.

North Korea always has the most to lose. Most of the world would like a regime change in NK. Even China has shown some discomfort about NK acting too crazy and are very careful about how they aid them... look at the ancient state of their military. Giving NK access to modern Chinese fighters and air defense would do wonders for their security yet China largely declines to do so, even when the USA dumps support into SK like crazy. South Korea is not going to lose (outside of Chinese intervention) and even if SK loses, so does NK. I simply can't see China doing the same as in the Korean War and launching a massive ground war and then giving the country back to Kim-Jong-Crazy.

Because of where South Korea is located any war on North Korea would also hurt South Korea during the process. South Korea just has to much of it's population near the DMZ. South Korea is a modern functioning industrialized democracy with a high GDP. South Korea wouldn't lose during a conflict however they can still be hurt. The US cannot come in as with Iraqi and unilateraly decide that it is time for regime change. South Korea needs to completely supportive of the attack. So far I haven't seen this type of consensus from South Korea on this.

 

[z1ggy]

No President is going to have the sack to attack NK or do much about this. Look how pissed people on both sides of the aisle are at Bush and Obama for their roles in the middle east.

Crazy shit is going on in Syria, but we don't run head first into that now do we?

The truth of it is that the world is messed up. Stuff like what's happening in NK should not have to occur. But it doesn't just happen there...It happens in many places in the world and goes unreported.

We can't help everybody. With our own economy suffering and politicians who can barely pass a budget, the last thing we need is to go fighting NK just to save their people. Hell they might be so brain washed they might not even want the help.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Whatever happens, China is the key player in all of this.

 

[bshole]

America should give China the go ahead to invade and take over North Korea. It is not our problem, it is China's.

 

[soulcougher73]

The question is, how many of the people we're trying to save will we have to kill? I would guess (and it's a wild ass guess) that at least some of the civilian population would fight for the little turd in charge. We'd have to kill all the command and control (a good idea even if nothing else was done), we'd have to kill most of the army, same with the navy and air force. Then we'd have to kill a lot of civilians because they think we're the devil himself. In the end, would it be a better answer than doing nothing?

Well at that point their isnt much left to kill. So just nuke the whole place. Civies and all :whiste:

 

[Texashiker]

If you DON'T support militaristic action against NK, why not?

What is north korea doing that dozens of other nations are not?

If you support striking NK, what about china? China has a much worse human rights record than NK. China is increasing its military budget.

What about Iran? Last week Russia announced it might build a nuclear reactor in Iran in exchange for oil.

Even Saudi Arabia has a terrible human rights record.

 

[Mai72]

I was in South Korea for over 2 years. To South Korea the North is nothing more than an after thought. We make so much more of the North then they do in South Korea.

They don't want us or the world to intervene. They don't want to be unified with the north. It would be a financial nightmare. I've talked to quite a few South Koreans and they have all told me the same thing. The financial cost of unifying both countries would be tremoundous.

 

[Texashiker]

The financial cost of unifying both countries would be tremoundous.

In the short term maybe so. But what about in 50, 75, 100, or even 200 years?

I am pretty sure people said unifying Germany would be impossible. And look at Germany now.

 

[AViking]

Are you asking about US military intervention? Absolutely not. China should take care of it. Or the UN. The US has no business spending treasure on another failed Korean war.

 

[Texashiker]

Are you asking about US military intervention? Absolutely not. China should take care of it. Or the UN. The US has no business spending treasure on another failed Korean war.

There is more to it that just another war with north korea.

There is a theory going around that the United States is trying to encircle China and Russia with military bases with early strike capability. Bases so close Russia and China would have no chance to defend itself.

China will not tolerate more US bases along its borders. We already have bases in the south Pacific, south korea, poland, and several other nations along the borders of China and Russia. If there was a war with north Korea, the government was overthrown, and US bases setup in north korea, china would not like this at all.

If NK was defeated and their government replaced, this could be seen as American imperialism.

 

[bshole]

There is more to it that just another war with north korea.

There is a theory going around that the United States is trying to encircle China and Russia with military bases with early strike capability. Bases so close Russia and China would have no chance to defend itself.

China will not tolerate more US bases along its borders. We already have bases in the south Pacific, south korea, poland, and several other nations along the borders of China and Russia. If there was a war with north Korea, the government was overthrown, and US bases setup in north korea, china would not like this at all.

If NK was defeated and their government replaced, this could be seen as American imperialism.

LET CHINA INVADE NK. All problems then go away. It is a no-brainer.

 

[Mai72]

In the short term maybe so. But what about in 50, 75, 100, or even 200 years?

I am pretty sure people said unifying Germany would be impossible. And look at Germany now.

Tell that to the Koreans who are currently living there. They don't want to sacrifice what they currently have for future generations. They have it great now.

 

[Texashiker]

LET CHINA INVADE NK. All problems then go away. It is a no-brainer.

And take away that buffer zone?

The goal is to have a buffer between US military bases and the China border.

If the UN or the US strikes North Korea, they risk China coming to the aid of NK to maintain that buffer zone.

 

[Anarchist420]

no, because the State cant protect liberty and if it cant protect liberty, then it sure as fuck cant cause an increase in overall happiness.

in other words, we can look back at the history of slavery and its abolition to see that the State does not protect liberty. the State first enforced slavery. then it took away liberty from all to end slavery. then the newly freedmen were not happy. the former owners were not happy. half of the blacks got killed and half of the whites got killed around the time the blacks became free. and the centralization of slavery as well as its centralist abolition reduced self-determination.

 

[Capt Caveman]

no, because the State cant protect liberty and if it cant protect liberty, then it sure as fuck cant cause an increase in overall happiness.

in other words, we can look back at the history of slavery and its abolition to see that the State does not protect liberty. the State first enforced slavery. then it took away liberty from all to end slavery. then the newly freedmen were not happy. the former owners were not happy. half of the blacks got killed and half of the whites got killed around the time the blacks became free. and the centralization of slavery as well as its centralist abolition reduced self-determination.

:biggrin:

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

There's plenty of worse off countries in Africa. Why does nobody care about Africa?

 

[rudeguy]

the longer this goes on, the funnier it gets. NK keeps saber rattling while their saber is really a butter knife.

I vote next time they threaten us, we send a cruise missile in. No explosives on it, just a big ass cruise missile with a middle finger painted on the side. Land it right next to Kim Dumb Ass's palace.

If they threaten us again, we send in more dummy missiles but we let the soldiers and sailors put dick pics on them. Let that continue for a couple months before we start attaching unwanted celebrities to them. Bieber is first.

 

[Texashiker]

There's plenty of worse off countries in Africa. Why does nobody care about Africa?

Because Africa does not border China or the south China sea.

China has ICBMs, I do not know of any nation in Africa that has ICBMs.

Just in case china decides to launch an ICBM, the US wishes to maintain early strike capability against China.

 

[fskimospy]

Because Africa does not border China or the south China sea.

China has ICBMs, I do not know of any nation in Africa that has ICBMs.

Just in case china decides to launch an ICBM, the US wishes to maintain early strike capability against China.

The US doesn't have nuclear weapons in South Korea and we don't need South Korea for a quick strike capability against China.