By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - DPRK possibly mobilizing for war...

Kasz216 on 08 March 2013
Mr Khan said:
mrstickball said:
So what part of what has happened isn't true?

The BBC reported that the DPRK cut communications with the ROK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21709917#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Its very rare that the DPRK has gone to this length with blustering. They may not do anything, but its certain that the steps they've taken have been rather anomalous in the past ~20 years.

Times change, of course, but unless they have become so internally deluded as to believe they can win a full-scale war, then they won't do it. Nobody ever starts a war that they don't think they can win, unless they feel they have absolutely no other choice (and North Korea has lots of other choices for now).

And at the end of the day, North Korea can't win. Unless they had unconditional commitment from China (which they don't) even if they managed to reduce South Korea to cinders somehow, or launch a few nukes at the US west coast, they'd lose a war of attrition.

My belief is that Kim Jong-Un is stepping up his brinksmanship game to demonstrate his capability, both within North Korea and to the rest of the world, that they are still a force to be reckoned with.


Of course, he could be making the same mistake as Saddam.  The Democrats don't want to start another war, and right now the Republicans look budget consious so fighting North Korea... not good on the budget.

A war in North Korea is about the last thing the US wants about now.  Planning to win some slightly increased borders and call it quits before the US invades.

 

I don't think that's the case, but who knows when talking about the most perfect human being on earth.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 08 March 2013

I don't think he would make the same mistake as Saddam. We supported Iraq in their war with Iran, and we never expressed too much interest in Mideastern affairs otherwise before the Gulf War (aside from Carter's Camp David Accord and Reagan's messing about with Lebanon). Tiny little Kuwait, not really worth fighting over, not with Vietnam comparatively fresh in our collective conscious.

Here our unwavering support for South Korea and desire to oppose North Korea should be clear-cut and obvious.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Farsala on 08 March 2013
mrstickball said:
binary solo said:
mrstickball said:

Its getting interesting in Korea...

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/03/06/0200000000AEN20130306003500315.HTML

There was a twitter feed that said that the DPRK was going to nullify the 1953 truce if the military exercises between the ROK and USA were going to continue on March 11th. If the DPRK does a full mobilization... Watch out.

Ha Ha! Watch out for what? More bluff and bluster? Shit even China has had a gutsfull of this petulent child of a country. DPRK are as much of a threat as a kitten. It might biteandscratch a bit, but in the end it can so easily be crushed that it's not going to seek to draw too much blood.

They are run by some Megalomanic tyrants. But one thing you can rely on with these peopleis a very strong sense of self preservation and a desire to remain in power for life. So in the end they are not going to do anything that gives America cause to go ballistic on them.

I think people in RoK living close to the DMZ have a bit of cause for concern and my sympathies are with them. But for any Americans thinking of stocking up their 1950s bomb shelters, wake up from your delusions.

That wasn't what I meant.

I When I said "Watch out", I mean that from the standpoint of hostilities between the DPRK and ROK. It won't effect the US. There is nothing the DPRK can do to the US. However, that doesn't mean that there won't be hundreds of thousands of deaths from the war, mostly on the Northern side of the border.

 

@Farsala - the US would get in far more trouble if we didn't nuke the DPRK if they in fact nuked South Korea. They are underneath of our nuclear umbrella. If we didn't retaliate, it'd send a clear message to every country that America simply will not respond to a nuclear attack on any other nation. This would do far more harm than good (it'd promote probably a dozen countries to develop nuclear weapons, and encourage them to deploy nuclear weapons against eachother, as we wouldn't intervene). Additionally, the US wouldn't have to hit the DPRK with a huge nuke to send a message. A small, tactical weapon against a DPRK research site or nuclear base would be more than enough, and have no long-term effects.

I just feel like if South Korea or Japan got nuked by North Korea then they would retaliate with their own nukes. Would be no use for US to send nukes too. But if US got nuked by North Korea I would hope that US would not nuke them, because then any country would know that if you mess with US then you will get killed. And that is not really the image US needs.



mrstickball on 08 March 2013
Farsala said:
mrstickball said:
binary solo said:
mrstickball said:

Its getting interesting in Korea...

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/03/06/0200000000AEN20130306003500315.HTML

There was a twitter feed that said that the DPRK was going to nullify the 1953 truce if the military exercises between the ROK and USA were going to continue on March 11th. If the DPRK does a full mobilization... Watch out.

Ha Ha! Watch out for what? More bluff and bluster? Shit even China has had a gutsfull of this petulent child of a country. DPRK are as much of a threat as a kitten. It might biteandscratch a bit, but in the end it can so easily be crushed that it's not going to seek to draw too much blood.

They are run by some Megalomanic tyrants. But one thing you can rely on with these peopleis a very strong sense of self preservation and a desire to remain in power for life. So in the end they are not going to do anything that gives America cause to go ballistic on them.

I think people in RoK living close to the DMZ have a bit of cause for concern and my sympathies are with them. But for any Americans thinking of stocking up their 1950s bomb shelters, wake up from your delusions.

That wasn't what I meant.

I When I said "Watch out", I mean that from the standpoint of hostilities between the DPRK and ROK. It won't effect the US. There is nothing the DPRK can do to the US. However, that doesn't mean that there won't be hundreds of thousands of deaths from the war, mostly on the Northern side of the border.

 

@Farsala - the US would get in far more trouble if we didn't nuke the DPRK if they in fact nuked South Korea. They are underneath of our nuclear umbrella. If we didn't retaliate, it'd send a clear message to every country that America simply will not respond to a nuclear attack on any other nation. This would do far more harm than good (it'd promote probably a dozen countries to develop nuclear weapons, and encourage them to deploy nuclear weapons against eachother, as we wouldn't intervene). Additionally, the US wouldn't have to hit the DPRK with a huge nuke to send a message. A small, tactical weapon against a DPRK research site or nuclear base would be more than enough, and have no long-term effects.

I just feel like if South Korea or Japan got nuked by North Korea then they would retaliate with their own nukes. Would be no use for US to send nukes too. But if US got nuked by North Korea I would hope that US would not nuke them, because then any country would know that if you mess with US then you will get killed. And that is not really the image US needs.

Since when does the ROK or Japan have nuclear weapons?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 08 March 2013
Farsala said:
mrstickball said:
binary solo said:
mrstickball said:

Its getting interesting in Korea...

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/03/06/0200000000AEN20130306003500315.HTML

There was a twitter feed that said that the DPRK was going to nullify the 1953 truce if the military exercises between the ROK and USA were going to continue on March 11th. If the DPRK does a full mobilization... Watch out.

Ha Ha! Watch out for what? More bluff and bluster? Shit even China has had a gutsfull of this petulent child of a country. DPRK are as much of a threat as a kitten. It might biteandscratch a bit, but in the end it can so easily be crushed that it's not going to seek to draw too much blood.

They are run by some Megalomanic tyrants. But one thing you can rely on with these peopleis a very strong sense of self preservation and a desire to remain in power for life. So in the end they are not going to do anything that gives America cause to go ballistic on them.

I think people in RoK living close to the DMZ have a bit of cause for concern and my sympathies are with them. But for any Americans thinking of stocking up their 1950s bomb shelters, wake up from your delusions.

That wasn't what I meant.

I When I said "Watch out", I mean that from the standpoint of hostilities between the DPRK and ROK. It won't effect the US. There is nothing the DPRK can do to the US. However, that doesn't mean that there won't be hundreds of thousands of deaths from the war, mostly on the Northern side of the border.

 

@Farsala - the US would get in far more trouble if we didn't nuke the DPRK if they in fact nuked South Korea. They are underneath of our nuclear umbrella. If we didn't retaliate, it'd send a clear message to every country that America simply will not respond to a nuclear attack on any other nation. This would do far more harm than good (it'd promote probably a dozen countries to develop nuclear weapons, and encourage them to deploy nuclear weapons against eachother, as we wouldn't intervene). Additionally, the US wouldn't have to hit the DPRK with a huge nuke to send a message. A small, tactical weapon against a DPRK research site or nuclear base would be more than enough, and have no long-term effects.

I just feel like if South Korea or Japan got nuked by North Korea then they would retaliate with their own nukes. Would be no use for US to send nukes too. But if US got nuked by North Korea I would hope that US would not nuke them, because then any country would know that if you mess with US then you will get killed. And that is not really the image US needs.


The Japanese politcian who decided to start a nuclear weapons program would be removed from office so quickly it would make your head spin.   Heck, ministers who even bother to talk about the historical truth of WW2 basically are forced to resign out of hysterical public outcry.

 

Meanwhile South Korea is nowhere near nuke making capabilities, and China would totally not let us store some of our nukes there.



Around the Network
Farsala on 08 March 2013

Ah yes my mistake guys.



mai on 09 March 2013
mrstickball said:

@Farsala - the US would get in far more trouble if we didn't nuke the DPRK if they in fact nuked South Korea. They are underneath of our nuclear umbrella. If we didn't retaliate, it'd send a clear message to every country that America simply will not respond to a nuclear attack on any other nation. This would do far more harm than good (it'd promote probably a dozen countries to develop nuclear weapons, and encourage them to deploy nuclear weapons against eachother, as we wouldn't intervene). Additionally, the US wouldn't have to hit the DPRK with a huge nuke to send a message. A small, tactical weapon against a DPRK research site or nuclear base would be more than enough, and have no long-term effects.

The question is... do you still have tactical nuclear weapons? W85 equipped Pershings are out of service, nuclear AGM-86s of unkown quantity aren't produced anymore and must be near end of their life-cycle now. So unless you count as free falling nuclear bombs as a threat (AGM-86s aren't smth indestructible either, since they're subsonic), I'm afriad you need to go with full >100kt over the DPRK. The US nuclear umbrella wasn't designed against this kind of threats.



mrstickball on 09 March 2013
mai said:
mrstickball said:

@Farsala - the US would get in far more trouble if we didn't nuke the DPRK if they in fact nuked South Korea. They are underneath of our nuclear umbrella. If we didn't retaliate, it'd send a clear message to every country that America simply will not respond to a nuclear attack on any other nation. This would do far more harm than good (it'd promote probably a dozen countries to develop nuclear weapons, and encourage them to deploy nuclear weapons against eachother, as we wouldn't intervene). Additionally, the US wouldn't have to hit the DPRK with a huge nuke to send a message. A small, tactical weapon against a DPRK research site or nuclear base would be more than enough, and have no long-term effects.

The question is... do you still have tactical nuclear weapons? W85 equipped Pershings are out of service, nuclear AGM-86s of unkown quantity aren't produced anymore and must be near end of their life-cycle now. So unless you count as free falling nuclear bombs as a threat (AGM-86s aren't smth indestructible either, since they're subsonic), I'm afriad you need to go with full >100kt over the DPRK. The US nuclear umbrella wasn't designed against this kind of threats.

This is an excelent question.

We still have tactical nuclear weapons. However, I am unsure if they're (secretly) deployed to Korea, or could be shipped in quickly.

So you're right. We'd have to go with a larger yield weapon if it had to be a quick-response weapon - likely a 475kt sub-launched Trident. However, we do maintain a large stock of B61 tactical nuclear bombs, that are free-fall and can be deployed on stealth bombers. They're either dial-a-yield, or we at least have a few in the tactical range.

This is one area where the Russians have it right. Good on them to keep developing a proper nuclear deterrent. I think the last thing America has built is the Trident... And that was ~25 years ago.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mai on 09 March 2013
mrstickball said:

This is one area where the Russians have it right. Good on them to keep developing a proper nuclear deterrent. I think the last thing America has built is the Trident... And that was ~25 years ago.

Oh boy, there's smth we got right!

Right or wrong is usually depends on... for whom? It's quite simplier actually, Soviet military doctrine assumed the heavy use of TNW during far-reaching assault operations on land and sea. That's why we have them a lot, while there's not much point for the US to make them in the first place.



mrstickball on 28 March 2013

FYI:

There are reports that North Korea is fueling their short and medium range missiles for strikes. If this is true, they've just about passed the Rubicon for mobilization.. They've never gone this far.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.