Military Action Against North Korea

[stompie]

total juddshanks brilliant! but all military has to be Chinese and then a China friendly NK.UN sanctioned USA agree,,, hurt and hatred would pass with China but if the USA was the military deliverer the poison is there forever. But NK must change regime!

Another way to look at it is that America has no interest in regime change in Nth Korea. The threat of the Nth Koreans is great for persuading the Japanese and South Koreas to maintain American military bases. I forsee lots of talk about the danger, but no action to remove the danger.

 

[plugger47]

Because if China doesnt attack/stop NK, the US/UN will. The lesser of two evils is for China to either replace Kim with a more compliant puppet or stop him testing or watch the US/UN do so and bring the ''West'' closer to surrounding China

China has a strict foreign affairs policy of co-existence.
The game is up. The US is now so overstretched in the Middle East that it cannot launch another war without mass conscription, which is just not going to happen, as it will sign the Repub's poltical death warrant.
If you want an invasion I take it you will be joining up champ?

 

[medusala]

The problem isnt so much that NK will use its nukes because that would result in certain destruction for them. The problem is that NK has shown its extremely willing to sell weapons of all kinds to other states as when it was caught selling scuds to Yemen.

This was also the problem with Pakistan. Their nuke technology got exported to a couple of other countries.

 

[plugger47]

Right. I think their first rocket was a failiure o I doubt they could hit Australia.

Their longest range missile could hit Sydney if Papua New Guinea allows it to refuel in Rabaul

 

[Scratcher Gillespie]

Its a funny situation, China lost a lot of face when the DPRK went against them this week, and they'd be seriously questioning the value of an ally who, far from providing a buffer on their border the way they intended when they stepped in to save them during the Korean War, has caused them a heap of embarassment, cost, difficulty and in fact made the region less stable.

I don't think China would be prepared to launch unilateral military action against North Korea. Too risky for them, and it would be an unknown quantity whether they could do it efficiently and quickly, ROK and Japan would get toey, just too much risk and not enough reward.

Similarly, there is no way the US could handle another regime building exercise. They absolutely could topple KJI, and destroy the North Korean military though- probably with the speed and efficiency which characterised the actual military campaign in Iraq rather than the utter shambles of the subsequent peace keeping.

China's major objection to a US assault on North Korea would be the same one which led to them intervening in the Korean War- they don't want a US sponsored regime camped on their border. That's not unreasonable. From the US's perspective things have changed a lot since the 50s, they'd probably be a lot happier with a more pragmatic, less absolutely barking, Chinese dominated government in North Korea.

Does anyone see a potential solution there?

Say a UN endorsed, US led military strike, knocks out KJI and the North Korean Army. Contrary to general perspective, this is something the US absolutely has the capability to do, and probably in a matter of weeks once they got under way.

As the operation changes from conventional military conflict to peacekeeping and regime building, China assumes the bulk of the contribution and responsibility of the UN force. They aren't exactly short on manpower, logistics would be a lot easier for them in a geographical sense, and the DPRK population hasn't been indoctrinated to view them as enemies. Pragmatically, they'd be in a position to ensure that the new government would be pro-China rather than pro-US.

To summarise-

US gets- to see the last of a dangerous nutcase and a massive threat to the region with nuclear weapons. They knock another member of the supposed axis of evil, without getting involved in the kind of quagmire that their military is learning to loath all over again. South Korea and Japan might not exactly be chuffed to see China flexing its muscles, but compared to the present situation, they'd much prefer a rational neighbour who can be spoken to compared to an out and out nutcase

China gets- a massive increase in their international prestige and responsibility, with their soldiers going in under the UN blue beret. They eliminate an embarassment on their borders, and avoid the prospect of a US sphere of influence on their doorstep. With the bulk of peacekeeping responsibilities, they also get the chance to ensure a pro-Beijing government.

North Korean people get- to not live under KJI. Chinese rule might not be lovely, but it's paradise on earth compared to the present situation in North Korea.

Would never happen, but the way I see it, everyone would win under this arrangement- it's also probably the only practical and ultimately successful way it could be done.

The way I see it, no military solution is possible. NK has 10,000 heavily fortified artillery units trained on Seoul. This doesn't leave a lot of scope for risky options. They don't have a deliverable nuclear warhead at this stage, lets see where diplomacy goes first. It has the potential to get VERY messy.

The US has in no way the capacity to defeat NK. Absolutely no way. They are stretched to breaking point as it is, and Vietnam is fresh in the memory banks. War games scenarios require the NK army to launch a full offensive in SK, where they are vulnerable to be attacked by US air power. If they stay entrenched behind the DMZ, operations could take months, months that the inhabitants of Seoul wouldn't have.

 

[- PC -]

If you want an invasion I take it you will be joining up champ?

Sure ..if they want a 41 year old half deaf centrist

 

[IntheNet]

and Bush has had 6 years to do something and so far has done absolutely nothing too. Whilst Clinton was naive on the issue, Bush was just plain stupid.

So enlighten us what should have been done, in your opinion, in regard to North Korea?

I have a $5.00 bet you don't have a clue or a alternative plan and when pressed you'll respond with the same diplomatic overtures which our President and our Secretary of State has engaged in for the last six years.

In fact, while convenient for you to blame the United States for this fiasco, the simple fact is that our President's early assessment of and condemntation of Kim Jong Il being a member of the Axis of Terror, while unpalatble to you, is in fact, a spot on assessment borne out in fact. But go ahead with your Bushy-bashing... it is what you do and what we expect of you...

 

[- PC -]

So enlighten us what should have been done, in your opinion, in regard to North Korea?

Possibly difficult to do so without inflicting hindsight on it all. But instead of going into Iraq...agree Afghanistan may have needed regime change etc... by targetting NK with the same diplomatic and international condemnation that was forced on Iraq the immediate nuclear concerns could have been averted. This could have been done by using China to initiate regime change in exchange for the 2008 Olympics.. makes good face for China. Remember how they lost the 2000 Olympics because of Tianeman Square? They would not want to lose it again because of a tinpot 5' dictator. China is the key in all of this.

By doing this they could have sent a stronger warning to Saddam to co-operate ..thereby saving the current mess we are in now in Iraq.

As I said ...its easy with hindsight but I am confident it would have worked

 

[camsmith]

If you want an invasion I take it you will be joining up champ?

Why is it always the ignorant that use the above line?

 

[medusala]

..by targetting NK with the same diplomatic and international condemnation that was forced on Iraq the immediate nuclear concerns could have been averted.

Its hard to put sanctions on a mob that earns stuff all (and much of what is does is via some very dodgy practices) and cant feed themselves.

You would also then get the situation similar to Iraq where claims of sanctions were murdering children were made etc.

 

[- PC -]

I agree and Kim has shown he is impervious to sanctions. I was more talking about after sanctions when the international community used the UN and intermediaries ie the French to put pressure on Saddam

 

[Sydneyfan]

The last thing South Korea would want is for China to go into North Korea. China has spent the last couple of years stamping their view of history in the Northeast Asian region via the Northeast project, whereby they say that Chinese people have had a continued presence in the northern half of the Korean peninsula. Many people, especially Koreans, see this as China trying to legitimise any claims they may develop in the future in regards to North Korea (a la Tibet, East Turkestan) and that if the Chinese move into North Korea they will never leave with North Korea becoming another outlying province of the Middle Kingdom.

I also doubt that China really wants to go in and mop up the mess that is North Korea, not without very, very substantial economic and logistical aid from the UN, US and other nations. North Korea is an economic mess with a brainwashed, starved population and aging, crippled infrastructure. I doubt China would want to pour billions into the country with relatively little gains. I believe China, for now at least, would much rather focus on developing their economy even further on its drive towards being a superpower.

North Korea is an absolute example of a failed state. It's GDP is 17 times less than that of South Korea, a major reason why despite the rhetoric of one nation, many South Koreans are very reluctant to have North Korea collapse and have a possible deluge of refugees. Unification is a long way off and will only ever be fully accomplished once North Korea has recovered economically and psychologically, which will take huge amounts of aid and decades to be fulfilled if indeed it ever is.

By the way, despite living in South Korea for three years being surrounded by Koreans and becoming accustomed to the Korean way of thinking, I still have no idea how exactly to deal with Kim Jong Il and North Korea, the stakes are so high and the regime is so irrational and unstable.

 

[- PC -]

I also doubt that China really wants to go in and mop up the mess that is North Korea, not without very, very substantial economic and logistical aid from the UN, US and other nations. North Korea is an economic mess with a brainwashed, starved population and aging, crippled infrastructure. I doubt China would want to pour billions into the country with relatively little gains. I believe China, for now at least, would much rather focus on developing their economy even further on its drive towards being a superpower.

So isnt now the perfect time for them to put themselves in the ''saviours'' seat and then hit the international community for recompense?

China is going corporate , why not take control then utilise industries and businesses to fix the infrastructure ( for a slight share of profits) and to right the economy.

I will note that reunification would be very difficult unless Chinese controlled

 

[Moo]

Look on the bright side ....a new series of MASH is just around the corner.

 

[Dry Rot]

Look on the bright side ....a new series of MASH is just around the corner.

If we have to land at Inchon again it will be nasty. Where's McArthur when you need him?

Post Korean War, the South rebuilding it's capital at Seoul wasn't a bright move, in a military sense after it got trashed 3 times.

 

[unstable punt]

Absolutely, but a far more effective sanction would be to send Bill Clinton to North Korea, since it was he and his lightwater reactors and the policy under his Administration, courtesy of Madeline Albright, that gave North Korea the expertise for a weaponized nuclear device.

surprise surprise the fascist wants to get his gun and go over and take care of those mean norf careans just like you did to that nasty suddamn, what is it with fascists and killing???

 

[GuruJane]

Something about this NK detonation just doesn't ring true

.... was it a nuke or wasn't it? Nobody seems to be able to say with certainty, not even W.

Except that if it was a nuke it was very low level and din't go off very well.

So why did the NK's do it?

Possibly because:

Stalking the Hermit

By Josh Manchester :

North Korea has announced via several state-run press agencies that it will shortly conduct a nuclear test. What is going on? What should the US do?


Why This Is Happening Now


American policy against North Korea is working. That policy, in a nutshell, is this: use all methods short of war to harm the economy of North Korea, making it impossible for that government to raise revenue from illicit activities, and thereby more and more difficult to retain power or fund its nuclear ambitions. This creates cascading effects that work in the favor of the US: the possibility of a North Korean collapse forces China and South Korea to consider changing their stances in the six-party talks, making it more likely that the six will agree on a unified plan to de-nuke the peninsula, and that North Korea will have no choice but to accept.


The on-the-ground keystone of this policy is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). An article in the Times of London over the summer described these efforts in more detail than had previously been reported:

"Intelligence agencies, navies and air forces from at least 13 nations are quietly co-operating in a "secret war" against Pyongyang and Tehran.

It has so far involved interceptions of North Korean ships at sea, US agents prowling the waterfronts in Taiwan, multinational naval and air surveillance missions out of Singapore, investigators poring over the books of dubious banks in the former Portuguese colony of Macau and a fleet of planes and ships eavesdropping on the "hermit kingdom" in the waters north of Japan.

This pressure has slowly been tightening a multi-lateral, multi-pronged grip on North Korean power. And it's about to get even tighter. The International Herald Tribune notes that "since last September, the U.S. Treasury Department has persuaded 24 banks in China, Mongolia, Singapore, Vietnam and other countries to shut down North Korean accounts. Last month, Australia and Japan ordered their financial institutions to block transactions by companies suspected of having links to North Korea's weapons programs."
Got that? A new tightening of the screws from last month. And there's even more. The South Korean paper Chosun Ilbo reported last month that "The U.S. has told partners in stalled six-country talks on North Korea's nuclear program that it will take punitive measures against the North under the UN Security Council resolution condemning Pyongyang's July missile tests, officials say."

And there's even more. The same paper, in another article last month, reported that "the U.S. recently sent out official dispatches from its legations around the world informing UN member nations of the steps it will soon take against the North, and asked for their cooperation in adapting similar measures. The U.S. has included stiff measures to stop the purchase and sale of weapons of mass destruction, searches of North Korean vessels, and financial sanctions. Washington apparently made it clear it is determined to crack down on any trade that looks likely to be related to WMDs."

So why is North Korea announcing a nuclear test? Because last month the United States made it clear the world over that the measures which have circumscribed North Korean power are only going to be increased and made more painful still.

Consider: did Pakistan or India announce their nuclear tests beforehand back in the 1990s? No. Then why is North Korea? Because Kim hopes to get something. This is his way of bargaining. Announcing a nuclear test is meant to goad the US into overreaction, split the members of the six-party talks, and bring the entire issue into the front pages of newspapers, gathering publicity for his cause. So what should the US do?

......


Begin a conversation domestically about a new nuclear doctrine. The Bush Doctrine, announced at West Point in 2002, promulgated a policy of preventive war should the US be threatened by terrorists or rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction. This doctrine needs a corollary of some kind, inspired by the principles of both non-proliferation and deterrence, which sets certain triggers for preemptive nuclear strikes against states that knowingly or not pass nuclear weapons material or know-how to terrorist organizations or other states. Elaborating such a position is beyond the scope of this article, but it's clear that no matter how robust policies like the PSI are, they are still largely defensive in nature, and at some point nuclear weapons, materials or knowhow could slip through. It would be best to attempt to curb this behavior from the get-go by offering severe disincentives for engaging in it.

Such a policy might sound drastic: destroy a state for shipping some nuclear materials? But at its formulation, mutually assured destruction was no less drastic and no less frightening. Consider reports that Iranian officials were present at Pyongyang's missile launches this summer. There's no reason to think they won't be eager observers of North Korea's test. It is just such exchanges in the shadows that most threaten the world's civilization and it's time to develop a policy that addresses them.

The article goes on at: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=100606A

Seems to me to be the way to go .... without fanfare, behind the scenes, inexorably ratcheting up the pressure.

The regime gets a never ending squeeze but has room to cave in eventually without losing face.

Wonder if the same thing is happening with Iran? I bet it is.

 

[Corpuscles]

Yep this for me or a UN sanctioned attack by China.

Oh and yes I will drag Iraq into it and what I see as the differences because I know some will ask why the change in attitude

NK is led by a mad man
NK is led by a man willing to starve his people
NK has weapons of MD
NK has shown a willingness to use them or at least hint at using them
NK is a buffer zone between China and the ''West'' and any US led attacks will increase Chinas anxiety in much the same way as Iran now feel surrounded.
Kim is not supported by the West but tolerated

PC, what are ya smokin

USA is led by a mad man
USA is led by a man willing to invade and aid other countries when many of his own people live in poverty
USA has the MOST weapons of MD
USA is the only country to have used them and has shown a willingness to use them
USA has interfered with the most volitile area in the world the middle East where willingness to engage war is fact, not just suspicion or speculation
Dubbya is not supported by the majority of his own voting public in the USA but tolerated (only just)

nuclear weaponry is overrated to the extent that a cheap shot can be made but if say NK made a nuclear attack then it would bring unilateral worldwide condemnation and retaliation ..... why would NK or any other country do it it is only useful as a bluff to deter aggressive conventional warfare, or bargaining chip. That is not to say that development of nuclear capability is not a deplorable act, but how does USA and allies justify having them and insisting that no other "unapproved"country can?

Australia is in the box seat with a large percentage of uranium to release it for power generation ( unfortunately the only short term solution to global warming crisis) but insist on a world wide policing of what it is used for including disarmourment of nuclear weapons!

 

[CoggaRules]

PC, what are ya smokin

USA is led by a mad man
USA is led by a man willing to invade and aid other countries when many of his own people live in poverty
USA has the MOST weapons of MD
USA is the only country to have used them and has shown a willingness to use them
USA has interfered with the most volitile area in the world the middle East where willingness to engage war is fact, not just suspicion or speculation
Dubbya is not supported by the majority of his own voting public in the USA but tolerated (only just)

nuclear weaponry is overrated to the extent that a cheap shot can be made but if say NK made a nuclear attack then it would bring unilateral worldwide condemnation and retaliation ..... why would NK or any other country do it it is only useful as a bluff to deter aggressive conventional warfare, or bargaining chip. That is not to say that development of nuclear capability is not a deplorable act, but how does USA and allies justify having them and insisting that no other "unapproved"country can?

Australia is in the box seat with a large percentage of uranium to release it for power generation ( unfortunately the only short term solution to global warming crisis) but insist on a world wide policing of what it is used for including disarmourment of nuclear weapons!

now that is totally unfair dude. Dont forget they did it to save lives.

 

[- PC -]

PC, what are ya smokin

If I wanted to compare the US and NK I would have. I compared my feelings on why I feel force IS necessary in NK and it wasnt in Iraq

 

[Sydneyfan]

So isnt now the perfect time for them to put themselves in the ''saviours'' seat and then hit the international community for recompense?

China is going corporate , why not take control then utilise industries and businesses to fix the infrastructure ( for a slight share of profits) and to right the economy.

I will note that reunification would be very difficult unless Chinese controlled

I could be wrong but I very much doubt that China wants to be a saviour in this case. Going into North Korea involves a hell of a lot of costs and risks with little reward which will take decades to materialise. At the moment, China's far too pre-occupied on developing its wealth and influence through the globe, and wouldn't want to divert a significant amount of valuable funds and energy into the black hole that's North Korea. Perhaps in five years it will be a different story, but I just can't see it at the moment.

China wants what's best for China. If going into North Korea and helping restructure it is what's best for China, which I'm not convinced it is just at this moment, then they will do it, if not they won't.

 

[Chase the Ace]

I read in todays paper that the Pentagon planners estimate 50,000 US troops and 1 million civilians would die if the US invaded NK.
And that 500,000 US troops would be needed.

 

[Andre]

I read in todays paper that the Pentagon planners estimate 50,000 US troops and 1 million civilians would die if the US invaded NK.
And that 500,000 US troops would be needed.

I doubt the US would want to invade NK. I'd imagine they'd be more pragmatic and defend the south and bomb the crap out of the north with planes and missiles. South Korea would be left with shouldering the burden of dealing with the flood of refugees and rebuilding the North post-war.

As for China, what would they want less? A unified pro-west Korea on their doorstep or the Japanese getting nuclear weapons? Given the choice I think they'd rather the former.

 

[Corpuscles]

If I wanted to compare the US and NK I would have. I compared my feelings on why I feel force IS necessary in NK and it wasnt in Iraq

PC I did not mean to be disrespectful... just pointing out that sometimes our western bias points the finger at others but is often arrogant and hypocritical!

There will be no proactive force this time.... there is no "texas tea" in NK!

I would be interested in your others thoughts on the following:

IMO it is time for the West esp USA to stop being proactive war mongers and using military force (unless prevoked by the same) and attempting to be international police and a ultimately a law unto themselves. Unfortunately addage "you got to be cruel to be kind" ... ie stepping up economic and diplomatic sanctions will harm the pubic of NK who are already deplorably treated.... but these countries need to have their internal uprising against regimes first and must desperately want and need help. Any action should be unnanimously agreed by the rest of the world, or at least all major players directly effected by actual aggressive acts not potential or threats!

I fully support military action if prevoked ala WWII but not any interference with soverign states that have shown no direct military aggression to the West and all they have done new is acquire a teaspon full of what USA and others have in tanker loads!

 

[CoggaRules]

I read in todays paper that the Pentagon planners estimate 50,000 US troops and 1 million civilians would die if the US invaded NK.
And that 500,000 US troops would be needed.

wow, so they released that stuff to the papers for eveyone to read huh?
Funny, so the Pentagon Planners were endeavouring to plan what when they released this classified information?
Did they release any of the same type of stuff just before Iraq? naaaa, that was top secret.