North Korea Testing Nuclear Bomb

Zarcath · 10-03-2006, 06:20 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as...ear/index.html

So, when are we invading N.K.?

AngryGerbil · 10-03-2006, 07:08 PM

Never.

Kuro · 10-03-2006, 08:04 PM

If NK gets severely out of line, China will drop the fist of god on them.

Faltigoth · 10-03-2006, 08:05 PM

North Korea is a giant fortress, with terrain that negates alot of US/European technological superiority in the area of armor and aircraft. They've been preparing for an invasion for 50 years. The casaulties that would be suffered invading North Korea would probably be WWII-esque in scale as opposed to the relatively tiny number of casaulties we are suffering in Iraq.

I wouldn't be surprised if China got pissed off and flexed a little muscle if North Korea starts detonating nuclear weapons - unless, of course, China gave them the weapons, which changes alot of things somewhat.

Or, instead of invading, China could just starve them - I think they are the last nation on Earth that sends them any significant amount of food/commerce; I could be wrong about that though. There's no way anyone in that part of the world will be happy with that goofball dictator having nuclear weapons.

Eomer · 10-03-2006, 08:20 PM

South Korea still sends them a ton of food aid, as do a lot of other countries.

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if China got pissed off and flexed a little muscle if North Korea starts detonating nuclear weapons - unless, of course, China gave them the weapons, which changes alot of things somewhat.

Are you fucking kidding? China is probably as pissed as anyone else that North Korea might have some nukes. They live next door. North Korea does anything stupid and gets their asses nuked in return, that shit is wafting over their way.

This and the Iran thing goes to show how fucked up and dysfunctional international diplomacy can be when you're dealing with countries run by crazies, and the people trying to get them back in the rubber room can't agree on whether you just ask them nicely, beat them senseless, or hop them up on drugs.

Asmadai · 10-03-2006, 08:55 PM

China is merely using North Korea as their microphone to the world. Since North Korea is talking the shit however, we can't get mad at China. If we dared tried to invade North Korea, China would be all over our shit in a heartbeat. True story.

Communist fuckers.

Blaezenfury · 10-03-2006, 09:51 PM

I believe as mr john titor said it, russia will be nukeing North korea?. ..somthing like that anyways!

go go russia!

Rythonn · 10-03-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faltigoth

North Korea is a giant fortress, with terrain that negates alot of US/European technological superiority in the area of armor and aircraft. They've been preparing for an invasion for 50 years. The casaulties that would be suffered invading North Korea would probably be WWII-esque in scale as opposed to the relatively tiny number of casaulties we are suffering in Iraq.

You really have no clue how vastly superior our military is. Ruling out nukes the only threat is China and only due to numbers. This wouldn't be like Iraq where we are trying to save the country, this would be all out destroy NKs ability to make nukes. Two words Air Superiority. I doubt troops would even step into the country(maybe a few SF units).

Millie · 10-03-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarcath

So, when are we invading N.K.?

We did. Back in 1950. It didn't go very well. That's one of the primary reasons why we won't do it again. Also, there's no oil in North Korea.

AngryGerbil · 10-03-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rythonn

You really have no clue how vastly superior our military is. Ruling out nukes the only threat is China and only due to numbers. This wouldn't be like Iraq where we are trying to save the country, this would be all out destroy NKs ability to make nukes. Two words Air Superiority. I doubt troops would even step into the country(maybe a few SF units).

If we had a full-on slugfest with NK no-holds-barred and with no outside interference (videogame theory-craft style), yes, we would stomp them to the ground whilst yawning and playing tiddlywinks. Is this the part where I condescendingly say "duh" and roll my eyes at you? I think it is.

But sadly for you, Millie is correct. Without a free-pass to do that (which we don't and likely never will have), any action against NK will be deeply mired in not only domestic, but foriegn politics to the Nth degree.

The fact is that we are already commited to the middle east. We do not by any means have a free pass to do as we please in Korea. Nevermind China (who I agree is likely even more unhappy about this than we are but still, they haven't been put to the real test yet), these days I'm more worried about UN/French "sympathizers" who might not be so ready to support action against a "poor and oppressed" North Korea (rollseyes again). Then we have the fact that we do not really call the shots in that region. Japan, Russia, and China could all agree that "this is fine, no big deal" and we'd be left impotent. (Again, not saying that they would, just that they could). And last but not least, yes, we tried this once (halfassed) and failed.

At best right now, any solo action by the US against NK would be half-assed.

Again I fall back on my (3 year?) old idea. A united NATO/UN could crush and obliterate anything we didn't like. But, no, France wants to give peace a chance again, or something.

Actually that's not fair. I don't know what France's reaction to this is yet. I imagine it has something to do with "well, if we weren't so busy in the middle east..." So in that sense, I am operating on an assumption I suppose.

Oh oh, idea! US/UK handle the middle east while Russia/France K.O. Korea! ....yes?

*sigh*

Korea getting nukes isn't exactly a suprise. My biggest question right now is how will the international political community respond? It should prove most entertaining to say the least. My prediction: Noone agrees on anything and the US gets blamed.

Immy · 10-03-2006, 11:00 PM

Just send in Chuck Norris, Rambo, and Jack Bauer. Problem solved.

Oh, and the A team

Tirinal · 10-03-2006, 11:14 PM

I don't even see the point. As long as NK remains led by a monolithic leadership cult they're not going to nuke anybody, due to how predictable the response would be from other nations. Top-heavy political institutions value survival over anything else.

It's a bargaining chip. It may fuel an arms race and it flaunts US impotence but there's a difference between being crazy and being stupid.

Immy · 10-03-2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tirinal

I don't even see the point. As long as NK remains led by a monolithic leadership cult they're not going to nuke anybody, due to how predictable the response would be from other nations. Top-heavy political institutions value survival over anything else.

It's a bargaining chip. It may fuel an arms race and it flaunts US impotence but there's a difference between being crazy and being stupid.

Yep, it's totally political. Any country that has the power to wipe out an entire city within seconds automatically will have a larger voice and more political clout and it will be used as leverage. Countries like NK/Iran/Iraq, it goes without saying, that you do not want them to have WMD's due to their instability.

Zarcath · 10-03-2006, 11:37 PM

Some of John Titor's predictions seem to be coming true.

Quote:

"Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. [...] The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause."

I wouldn't be inclined to agree until that Israel invading Lebanon thing happened.

Millie · 10-03-2006, 11:53 PM

There are a vast number of problems at play with a nuclear-armed North Korea, and pretty much none of them has anything to do with North Korea's use of its nuclear arms:

1) Given the landscape and defensibility of the North Korean area, a conventional ground invasion is outside the scope of US capabilities*. We learned this the hard way between 1950 and 1953.

2) Air strikes against North Korea will be the military equivalent of sticking a band-aid on a bullet wound: they'll do some good, but will not be enough either to oust Kim Jong Il or to maintain control over the North Korean region.

3) Ergo, the only way to win a flat-out war against North Korea will be by way of a nuclear strike. The problem with this tactic (moral considerations aside) is that any nuclear detonation on North Korean soil will blow its fallout across a large portion of Asia -- including into China. This is bound to drag us into a full-out war with China (which is a lot more than we'd have bargained for).

4) Furthermore, there are no viable resources in North Korea. From a pragmatic/amoral standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by controlling that territory.

Thus, we see that the costs of attacking North Korea outweigh the benefits by an order of magnitude. Kim Jong Il knows this, and that's why he knows he has carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants. Testing nukes is in his best interest, because it gives him bargaining power in the international arena.

In my opinion, China is the key to controlling North Korea. We need to rally the Chinese to our cause, and use them to contain Kim by proxy. Kim may thumb his nose at empty threats by the United States. But he will be much more willing to play ball if his direct, giant, angry neighbor is poised to attack him. Plus, you'd have to be an idiot to oppose a coalition of US and Chinese forces, regardless of your real or imagined nuclear capabilities.

Admittedly I'm no military tactician, but I am a student of history and world politics. And historically speaking, China is the only way to keep the North Koreans in line.

*Yes, we could theoretically invade and take North Korea by force, via ground invasion, if we threw our entire army behind the effort. But this would be an extremely costly maneuver, and would almost certainly require the reinstitution of a draft. Politically speaking, this is a very unlikely scenario. Unlikely enough that we can pretty much discount it offhand.

10-03-2006, 06:20 PM	#1 (permalink)
Zarcath Read Farmer Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Hawaii Posts: 5,208 +19 Internets	North Korea Testing Nuclear Bomb http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/as...ear/index.html So, when are we invading N.K.?

10-03-2006, 07:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
AngryGerbil zero signal Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 3,549	Never. __________________ Doesn't speak the language. Holds no currency.

10-03-2006, 09:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
Blaezenfury Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ontario, Canada. Posts: 1,503 +8 Internets	I believe as mr john titor said it, russia will be nukeing North korea?. ..somthing like that anyways! go go russia! __________________ Blaezen Feanturi. 65th Halfling OverLord of the Vallon Zek Sever.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-03-2006, 08:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
Kuro Support Beam Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,471 +14 Internets	If NK gets severely out of line, China will drop the fist of god on them.

10-03-2006, 08:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
Faltigoth Army Football forever!! Who needs wins, anyway?!? Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: PA Posts: 781 +0 Internets	North Korea is a giant fortress, with terrain that negates alot of US/European technological superiority in the area of armor and aircraft. They've been preparing for an invasion for 50 years. The casaulties that would be suffered invading North Korea would probably be WWII-esque in scale as opposed to the relatively tiny number of casaulties we are suffering in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if China got pissed off and flexed a little muscle if North Korea starts detonating nuclear weapons - unless, of course, China gave them the weapons, which changes alot of things somewhat. Or, instead of invading, China could just starve them - I think they are the last nation on Earth that sends them any significant amount of food/commerce; I could be wrong about that though. There's no way anyone in that part of the world will be happy with that goofball dictator having nuclear weapons.

10-03-2006, 08:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
Asmadai Monolith - Area 52 Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sealab Posts: 2,356	China is merely using North Korea as their microphone to the world. Since North Korea is talking the shit however, we can't get mad at China. If we dared tried to invade North Korea, China would be all over our shit in a heartbeat. True story. Communist fuckers.

10-03-2006, 11:00 PM	#11 (permalink)
Immy Right there above you. Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 700 +0 Internets	Just send in Chuck Norris, Rambo, and Jack Bauer. Problem solved. Oh, and the A team

10-03-2006, 11:14 PM	#12 (permalink)
Tirinal Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 721 +0 Internets	I don't even see the point. As long as NK remains led by a monolithic leadership cult they're not going to nuke anybody, due to how predictable the response would be from other nations. Top-heavy political institutions value survival over anything else. It's a bargaining chip. It may fuel an arms race and it flaunts US impotence but there's a difference between being crazy and being stupid.

10-03-2006, 11:53 PM	#15 (permalink)
Millie Loves the Powerglove. It's so bad! Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 5,782	There are a vast number of problems at play with a nuclear-armed North Korea, and pretty much none of them has anything to do with North Korea's use of its nuclear arms: 1) Given the landscape and defensibility of the North Korean area, a conventional ground invasion is outside the scope of US capabilities. We learned this the hard way between 1950 and 1953. 2) Air strikes against North Korea will be the military equivalent of sticking a band-aid on a bullet wound: they'll do some good, but will not be enough either to oust Kim Jong Il or to maintain control over the North Korean region. 3) Ergo, the only way to win a flat-out war against North Korea will be by way of a nuclear strike. The problem with this tactic (moral considerations aside) is that any nuclear detonation on North Korean soil will blow its fallout across a large portion of Asia -- including into China. This is bound to drag us into a full-out war with China (which is a lot more than we'd have bargained for). 4) Furthermore, there are no viable resources in North Korea. From a pragmatic/amoral standpoint, there is nothing to be gained by controlling that territory. Thus, we see that the costs of attacking North Korea outweigh the benefits by an order of magnitude. Kim Jong Il knows this, and that's why he knows he has carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants. Testing nukes is in his best interest, because it gives him bargaining power in the international arena. In my opinion, China is the key to controlling North Korea. We need* to rally the Chinese to our cause, and use them to contain Kim by proxy. Kim may thumb his nose at empty threats by the United States. But he will be much more willing to play ball if his direct, giant, angry neighbor is poised to attack him. Plus, you'd have to be an idiot to oppose a coalition of US and Chinese forces, regardless of your real or imagined nuclear capabilities. Admittedly I'm no military tactician, but I am a student of history and world politics. And historically speaking, China is the only way to keep the North Koreans in line. *Yes, we could theoretically invade and take North Korea by force, via ground invasion, if we threw our entire army behind the effort. But this would be an extremely costly maneuver, and would almost certainly require the reinstitution of a draft. Politically speaking, this is a very unlikely scenario. Unlikely enough that we can pretty much discount it offhand.