Jump to content

North Korea strike


North Korea strike?  

7 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The DPRK has been participating in the same pattern of Threaten-Bargain-Threaten that it has been instigating for a very long time, long before Twitter came along.

 

Only that more recently its threats have not been met by the same tired concessions that have come from previous administrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's not conceding and then there's making belligerent threats on social media, which the President of the United States or any world leader worth taking seriously should not do. The sooner Trump is gone, the better frankly.

 

While much of the tweeting is nonsense, it is no better or worse than sitting on your hands and letting things transpire into what they are today. I prefer Trump over what Hillary might have done in this situation ... a thousand times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, there's not conceding and then there's making belligerent threats on social media, which the President of the United States or any world leader worth taking seriously should not do. The sooner Trump is gone, the better frankly.

 

While much of the tweeting is nonsense, it is no better or worse than sitting on your hands and letting things transpire into what they are today. I prefer Trump over what Hillary might have done in this situation ... a thousand times over.

 

 

What would have Hillary done about this? I'm just asking as a European.

 

 

By the way: Do we have a good "US intervenes in North Korea" Harpoon scenario? It would be an interesting game to play with lots of possible variables.

 

US with/without South Korea, with/without use of US bases in South Korea, with/without Chinese involvement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would have Hillary done about this? I'm just asking as a European.

Following in the footsteps of those who have gone before, she likely would have went to the bargaining table and gave concessions. (Like Obama did with Iran.)

 

By the way: Do we have a good "US intervenes in North Korea" Harpoon scenario? It would be an interesting game to play with lots of possible variables. US with/without South Korea, with/without use of US bases in South Korea, with/without Chinese involvement...

I do believe there are Korean scenarios. Look in the Westpac database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's not a very nice article. There is no MAD-concept in the case of North Korea.

North Korea can threaten the US, yes. North Korea can attempt to hit the continental US, yes. But North Korea cannot "destroy" the US.

There is actually quite a big chance the US can counter a North Korean strike either by luck (faulty missile/warhead) or ABM systems. Were the US to deploy all its missile interceptors to counter a North Korea strike, it would probably manage to kill off a few missiles. And North Korea is and probably won't be able to launch more than a few missiles during the coming years.

 

What I think the main problem is and one that the author does not describe, is the loss of face. Especially when Donald Trump is the President of the US this loss of face (and credibility) is a major issue for the US. Never before in history was a rogue nation (like North Korea) able to actually threaten the US. The installation of IRBMs in Cuba was considered almost an act of war 50 years ago and the threat removed swiftly, even if those missiles were manned by Soviet personel. And when there were rumors of Iraq developing WMDs this was used as a reason to justify Iraq's invasion, even if Iraq never had the capability of launching any warhead more than few hundred miles away (I fully understand that there were other reasons for the Iraq war, but the threat posed by Iraqi WMDs was the reason put forward at that time).

 

So now the US is going to allow a rogue state to further develop WMD and actually enhance and establish the logistics to use them against the continental US? Donald Trump would consider himself Kim's b**ch (to put it plainly), were he to allow it and his legacy as a President would be ruined.

 

That's why I agree with the author: nuke them and nuke them now.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a very uncomfortable position to be in, to say the least.

 

There is no assurance of safety in this world. Even less so in a nuclear world.

 

You can take some comfort in the fact that deterrence seems to have worked for the past 68 years, but that must come with the admission that some of that period was also very uncomfortable.

 

I think Kim is striving to preserve his regime through deterrence, but he doesn't know how to play the 'game'.

 

Overt threats, blackmail, and criminality do not mesh well with a policy of deterrence. It is, instead, a mutual understanding that must necessarily come with a level of trust, even if that trust is built on something like the fact that both sides believe in MAD.

 

There is no trust in the Kim regime, except a faint hope that he isn't feeling suicidal.

 

Destroying the threat - especially by nuclear means - is a rather desperate option. But if the goal is an assurance of safety from Kim, which as I said does not really exist, what are the other options?

 

None of them are obvious or easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since these discussions tend to spark the creative juices, I have uploaded a scenario of interest.

 

It is my first in nearly two years, so I hope it is enjoyable.

 

It is by no means an easy scenario, which perhaps ought to give pause to the subject matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korea is frankly going to be the least of Trump's legacy problems. He's engaging in the classic practice of sabre-rattling to distract from other failings.

I knew Trump was very good at "triggering" the frailties of the left, the SJWs and the liberal snowflakes of the world, but I honestly had no idea he was capable of wrangling the DPRK regime into acting on his behalf at the very moment he supposedly needed a distraction. Now that is skill, lol. ^_^

 

As for "sabre-rattling" I think it was actually Kim who was ratting the sabre. Or, rather, the transporter-erector-launchers. If Kim actually acts on his threats one of these days, I doubt very much that Korea will be the "least" of anyone's problems. Nuclear war tends to roll like that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs a distraction constantly from his own deranged train-wreck of an administration, the investigation into his possible collusion with V.V Putin and the fact the Congressional GOP are slowly losing patience with him. The DPRK didn't make him make those remarks about 'fire and fury'.

 

Why would Kim follow through on a nuclear first strike? He isn't suicidal; Korea doesn't have that sort of culture, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs a distraction constantly from his own deranged train-wreck of an administration, the investigation into his possible collusion with V.V Putin and the fact the Congressional GOP are slowly losing patience with him.

Nonsense. Trump doesn't need a distraction. Trump IS the distraction. People who don't understand Trump's behaviour now obviously weren't paying much attention before and during the campaign. This is his shtick.

 

The Russia collusion story, meanwhile, has to be the weakest thing I have ever seen. Its laughable in the extreme.

 

The DPRK didn't make him make those remarks about 'fire and fury'.

No, but it didn't exactly call for a soft response. That hasn't worked either. In fact, it has pushed us in this direction.

 

Why would Kim follow through on a nuclear first strike? He isn't suicidal; Korea doesn't have that sort of culture, IIRC.

I never said he would, and I don't think he is suicidal either (I have already said that his driving motive is preservation of the regime), but can you predict where history will turn next? Nope.

 

And, as I've said, the DPRK has no playbook for nuclear deterrence. They have a long history of making threats to extract concessions, but no history of nuclear arsenal. Until now.

 

Great article on that very point:

 

How North Korea Crashed the Atomic Club (National Interest)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...