North Korea (Superthread)

[Kat Stevens]

Can't we just shove a 20kt tactical nuke up his tailpipe and do the whole planet a favour?

 

[Jarnhamar]

This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/391376/North-Korea-states-nuclear-war-is-unavoidable-as-it-declares-first-target-will-be-Japan

North Korea states 'nuclear war is unavoidable' as it declares first target will be Japan

Am I reading that right?

If North Korea fires a  missile towards Japan and Japan shoots it down then North Korea will get angry and shoot nuclear missiles at them?

Is North Korea just killing anyone on their staff who puts their hand up and says "okay guys, we're being retarded"?

 

[CougarKing]

The National Post has published an interesting graphic about the DPRK's conventional forces. It is far too large to reproduce here!

But, bear in mind, please, that numbers, even HUGE numbers of ships, aircraft, tanks and howitzers means little if there is no fuel, ineffective logistics, poor maintenance and indifferent training.

True. Nuclear or chemical-biological warfare aside, would it be an overstatement to say that it will be an"shooting gallery" for US-South Korean forces if the war is purely conventional?

Even if the DPRK unleashes a devastating, opening artillery barrage that levels Seoul, the follow-up conventional actions will still see North Korean troops as little more than cannon fodder for imminent US-Allied air superiority and better-equipped, better-trained ground troops.

 

[63 Delta]

Would it really be a shooting gallery though... Do you not see some similarities between North Korea, and Japan late in WW2? The US has a supremacy in every way, but still took heavy casualties at every battle. Especially if the North Korean soldiers are even half as fanatical as the Imperial Japanese army was.

I realize the US and allies steamrolled Iraq twice, but the Iraqi army was poorly trained and had low moral for the most part. As well Iraq had favorable terrain for maneuver warfare. Would the terrain of North Korea allow the same type of advantage to the US and Koreans?

 

[Jarnhamar]

If Americans feel their security is at stake due to North Korea's nuclear threat I would imagine they would be less concerned with feel happy rules of engagement and more interested in removing the threat with as much violence as required.

 

[The Bread Guy]

link

North Korea can launch nuclear missiles - U.S. spy agency
Reuters

By David Alexander, Christine Kim and Narae Kim

WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea has the ability to launch nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, although they would likely be unreliable, a Pentagon spy agency has concluded, as the United States and South Korea kept watch on Thursday for a missile test-launch by Pyongyang.

The Defence Intelligence Agency study, dated last month, appeared to be the first time the agency had reached such a conclusion.

"DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles, however the reliability will be low," said Republican U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn, who disclosed the conclusion during a congressional hearing on Thursday ....

A broader assessment from the Director of National Intelligence:

In (yesterday)’s House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Department of Defense budget, a member of the committee read an unclassified passage in a classified report on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities.  I concur with the earlier Department of Defense statement that “it would be inaccurate to suggest that the North Korean regime has fully developed and tested the kinds of nuclear weapons referenced in the passage."  I would add that the statement read by the Member is not an Intelligence Community assessment.  Moreover, North Korea has not yet demonstrated the full range of capabilities necessary for a nuclear armed missile.

 

[Jarnhamar]

China doesn't want anyone to go to war.  They're  too busy making money.

Pick up 10 items in your house and see how many are made in China.

I just picked up my logitech mouse but couldn't find where it was made.
2nd thing I picked up was my laptop-made in china.
3rd thing I picked up a digital blood pressure monitor, made in China.
4th thing, Garmin Oregon 450T GPS- made in Taiwan.
5th thing, little peoples princess castle-made in China.
6th thing, my little pony horse-made in China.
7th thing, kitchen chair- made in Vietnam
8th thing, round wooden table-made in China.
9th thing, New Balance minimus 4mm shoes- made in China.
10th thing,Blue notes jeans- made in China.

Edit: mouse was made in China.

 

[kevincanada]

Am I reading that right?

If North Korea fires a  missile towards Japan and Japan shoots it down then North Korea will get angry and shoot nuclear missiles at them?

Is North Korea just killing anyone on their staff who puts their hand up and says "okay guys, we're being retarded"?

Using Google maps, Seoul is approx 200 km away from Pyongyang,  Tokyo is approx 1200 km away with a big open body of water.  Don't mind my ignorance on North Korea,  I have always known it is a rogue state.  Although I do have a great deal of learning about them still.  Attacking Tokyo just appears silly to me unless it is a distraction, but then to say that as a distraction also appears to be poorly thought through.

I can't seem to find any logic in it looking for arguments for or against if Pyongyang is telling the truth or lying to use Japan as a initial threat.  I understand that nations use propaganda.  I'm a amateur and I'm not fooled....

I guess my question is why issue erratic and possibly baseless threats?  Of course this all assumes that Kim Jong-Un is logical and not suicidal.  He has to know war with the south will likely end with his own demise.  So why even go there...

 

[Kat Stevens]

Because little megalomaniacs like him aren't afraid to die, they're just afraid to die alone, so if he takes a couple million down the shitter with him, job done.  To quote Alfred the Prophet "some men just want to watch the world burn."

 

[CougarKing]

The current balance of power on the Korean Peninsula can be seen in one neat graphic from the National Post. Note that while the graphic states the North Korean Army has about 4.7 million reservists, other news websites say that their reserves could be as many as 8 million.

 

[midget-boyd91]

The current balance of power on the Korean Peninsula can be see in one neat graphic from the National Post. Note that while the graphic states the North Korean Army has about 4.7 million reservists, other news websites say that their reserves could be as many as 8 million.

Saddam had a huge army in the lead up to Desert Storm as well. They had better equipment than the DPRK and still surrendered en masse. And that was on a full stomache with functioning rifles.

 

[CougarKing]

Saddam had a huge army in the lead up to Desert Storm as well. They had better equipment than the DPRK and still surrendered en masse. And that was on a full stomache with functioning rifles.

If you read my reply to Mr. E.R. Campbell's post on the previous page, you would see that I was aware that numbers are just one factor to determining whether a military force wins a battle. Training, logistical reach and equipment are others.

 

[mba2011]

This could explain the whole situation.....


http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/04/kim-jong-uns-wife-if-i-finally-give-you-head-will-you-stop-this/

-Edited when it was pointed out I was replying to a 8 year old post.-

 

[SKBD]

A really good book I would like to promote to those interested in North Korea and their problematic nature is called "The Impossible State: North Korea, Past and Future" written by Victor Cha.

Victor Cha is the former director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council in the United States of America. He has accompanied white house representatives to North Korea and it is evident in his book. That is, his writing has an ethnographic tone and there are a number of interesting anthropological facts that keep the book quite intriguing (for me anyways).

He writes about North Korea's international relations (specifically with China, Russia, U.S.A., South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan), the "bizarre personality cult leadership" (Kim-Il Sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un), how their current economic collapse came about, the maltreatment of the general population, military balances that have maintained peace on the Korean peninsula since the Korean War, and of course the nuclear program and the diplomacy efforts to denuclearize North Korea.

Anyways I thought I would just give everyone a heads-up on a good read!

 

[CougarKing]

Some analysts say China wants reconciliation to destroy South Korea's economy.

Would you please be more specific when you say "some analysts"??? Something tells me you're just making assumptions simply because South Korea and China were adversaries during the Korean War and most of the Cold War.

And why would these "analysts" say that when China has arguably a greater interest in South Korea than in North Korea? For example trade between both countries has increased 35 times since relations were normalized between Seoul and Beijing in the early 1990s, "rising from $6.37 billion in 1992 to $220.63 billion in 2011." (Source: Council of Foreign Relations) If you attend one of the language programs in Beijing and study Mandarin like the waves of other foreigners there, you will see South Koreans as among the numerous students; they often learn it faster seeing how much influence China has had on the Korean peninsula for centuries, including the adaptation of Chinese characters, which the Koreans call "Hanja", aside their own written language.

In China, you will even find evidence of South Korean influence as far into the Chinese heartland as Chengdu, where they even have their own consulate to support the number of Koreans working there and the number of South Korean companies investing in the twin industrial cities of Chengdu and Chongqing.

Take note of Mr. E.R. Campbell's post a few pages back:

I think what Beijing does is opaque; what Beijing thinks is even more obscure.

Beijing, I believe, broadly supports any and all efforts to discomfit the USA and, to a lesser degree, Japan. The Chinese goal, in my opinion, is to expel the Americans from the Asian mainland and to shake Japan's and South Korea's faith in America's promises. I think that China is vehemently opposed to any significant military action against South Korea. South Korea, like Japan, is a major source of both investment and managerial know how for China, and, as always, China is conscious of the impact of its (or the DPRK'd) actions on Taiwan. Thus, while China tolerates, even cooperates in developing the DPRK's missile and nuclear technology, it will not, I suspect, tolerate any military action much beyond sinking a South Korean patrol boat or shooting down a ROK aircraft.

And from here:

China: an exasperated rich uncle to North Korea. It wants and is willing to help pay for 1) a reunified and prosperous Korea, under Seoul's leadership, that is friendly to China, and 2) a withdrawal of US military forces from the Korean peninsula. But, for the time being, it is content to see as high state of tension provided there is no danger of war. Despite media reports there is no official word that the Chinese are building up forces near North Korea and there are plenty of reasons to think that they would not do that - fear of triggering further DPRK madness being just one; and

Nemo, thus your assumption above about China wanting to destroy South Korea's economy makes NO SENSE.

--------------------------------------

Speaking of China, this latest move highlighted below show's Beijing's mutual interest with the US in a stable Korean peninsula:

From Reuters via Yahoo News

U.S., China agree on Korean denuclearization

BEIJING (Reuters) - The United States and China agree that the Korean peninsula must be denuclearized, top diplomats from both countries said on Saturday.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and China's top diplomat, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, made the comments following meetings between the two sides in Beijing.

 

[Nemo888]

I was a voracious reader of North Korean refugees first hand accounts for a few years. Imagine dropping the responsibility for 24 million starving, technologically illiterate, people in need of the most basic medical services on your competitors system without even the basic infrastructure in place to deliver those services. Infrastructure as basic as roads and water in some places. North Korea is not rich enough to afford it and the liabilities outweigh the benefits.

Your argument would mean that because China now has the most English speakers in the world, is the USA's largest trading partner and creditor they must be bosom buddies. Destabilizing a countries economy can cut funds to a military giving you more influence as an example.

 

[CougarKing]

Your argument would mean that because China now has the most English speakers in the world, is the USA's largest trading partner and creditor they must be bosom buddies. Destabilizing a countries economy can cut funds to a military giving you more influence as an example.

How does China have more "influence" in South Korea by destroying their economy??? South Korea is a sovereign state with a modern military and wouldn't allow the PRC to exert any form of "gunboat diplomacy" against it.  South Korea has weathered many financial crises before such as the 1997 Asian Financial crisis- and that one did not put that much of a dent on South Korea's defence spending back then. And the ROK military is still one of the most modern, most professional militaries in the world (albeit one also kept large by mandatory conscription)

Why would China want to destroy an economy in which they themselves have vested interests in?

And correction: you mean China has the most number of English as a Second Language students (ESL) in the world, not the most English speakers. The number of people in China learning English- 300 million- is ironically as large as the whole population of the United States.

But your focus on language misses my point about the volume of trade and you even ignored Mr. Campbell's statements above. You neglect the vested, greater interests China has in South Korea- and which is greater than China's interests in its old protégé state, North Korea.

 

[kevincanada]

Economic, power and technology aside.

If China takes one side or the other they are going to anger nations on both sides of the fence.  How does China support the North when the USA supports the south? A war of that scale would make all economic arguments a mute point especially if nuclear weapons are involved.

Now say China supports the south,  they risk a nuclear strike from the north and upsetting other economic interests, trade with Russia, mid-east oil etc.
I am not surprised if China chooses the sidelines on this one.  Both choices appear to = China looses.  Or China maintains the status quote and possibly come out unharmed and keeps being a big brother to the north, and hopefully knock some sense into them.

Just my view, in no way I am saying I'm accurate.  Opinion only.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Economic, power and technology aside.

If China takes one side or the other they are going to anger nations on both sides of the fence.  How does China support the North when the USA supports the south? A war of that scale would make all economic arguments a mute point especially if nuclear weapons are involved.

Now say China supports the south,  they risk a nuclear strike from the north and upsetting other economic interests, trade with Russia, mid-east oil etc.
I am not surprised if China chooses the sidelines on this one.  Both choices appear to = China looses.  Or China maintains the status quote and possibly come out unharmed and keeps being a big brother to the north, and hopefully knock some sense into them.

Just my view, in no way I am saying I'm accurate.  Opinion only.

Please look at Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's statement about which I posted earlier. The language is very strong in its warnings to all. Wang is, quite firmly and explicitly, telling the DPRK to not conduct military operations against the ROK, Japan or the USA. He is, somewhat more obliquely, telling the ROK and USA that, in the event of a DPRK violation, their responses must be measured, proportionate and must not threaten China.

Wang Yi comments are about as clear and as undiplomatic as I have heard from any Chinese official in memory.

 

[a_majoor]

Going back over some points:

Robert Kaplan predicted that when the North falls, the US and ROK will have to send military forces to seize WMD and prevent DPRK Generals from becoming local warlords (with nukes). China may join the effort to prevent a flood of DPRK refugees from entering China, protect her own interests but leave the bulk of the "dirty work" of stabilization and eventually reunification to the ROK, the US and to a lesser extent, Japan (mostly through financial aid). This is about 2/3 of the ideal Chinese soltion of a Greater Korea beholden to China and with American troops and influence removed; the US, ROK and Japan get embroiled in a "tar baby" for decades, providing stability and reconstruction. The resources are tied in place and reduce the ability of the three nations to exert influence and power elsewhere.

Infographics from NP:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/12/graphic-the-korean-peninsula-balance-of-forces/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/graphic-north-koreas-conventional-arms/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/graphic-dprk-intentions/