The G20 summit, and the results thereof

That reminds me about north korea,

some people might find this interessing:

http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1438428757

I found it amazing….. scary… and exciting.

Especially episode 13 that's just craaaaazy.

Very scary, indeed, just through episode three. I skipped to thirteen, then fourteen, and I don't know which was scarier, the image of a land with empty restaurants, hotels and no food spending a king's ransom on useless, incredibly elaborate mass spectacle games, the idea of a country with no cultural references beyond the 1950's, or (less seriously) the karaoke singing.

And those costumes!

After reading all that, let's adjust the plan a bit. Get the bases back into Taiwan because no US bases are allowed here anymore for quite awhile now (don't ask it is a long story) Now since Japan is no longer a the threat they were during WW2, they should start building up their military. South Korea follows suit. This way if it comes down to a worse case scenario. The US can be supported by Taiwanese (not sure about that but I'm sure with some fancy diplomatic footwork they will get their bases back in here at least) Japanese military and the S. Korean military. At least those would be better odds than just the US heading in there again.

China won't launch nukes at any of those countries, because if they did our response would be in kind (and who the hell know exactly what Taiwan has. I've been living here for awhile now and lots of strange stuff happens that just seems odd. Like recently those nuclear parts being sent over here on "accident" LMAO, who ever heard of one nation accidently sending highly sensitive nuke parts to another government. They really should come up with some kind of better explanation next time.

All this is worst case scenario type of deals. First go the diplomatic route and try and get that insane dicator undercontrol before he does something that has severe ramifications for the rest of the world, China included.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
After reading all that, let's adjust the plan a bit. Get the bases back into Taiwan because no US bases are allowed here anymore for quite awhile now (don't ask it is a long story) Now since Japan is no longer a the threat they were during WW2, they should start building up their military. South Korea follows suit. This way if it comes down to a worse case scenario. The US can be supported by Taiwanese (not sure about that but I'm sure with some fancy diplomatic footwork they will get their bases back in here at least) Japanese military and the S. Korean military. At least those would be better odds than just the US heading in there again.

I don't think China would take it lying down if we decided to put troops in a piece of land they consider their territory. And out of curiosity, everyone here realizes that even if North Korea never touched any of their nuclear weapons that they have enough pieces of artillery trained on Seoul to pretty much wipe it off the map, yes? I'd be pretty confident in guessing the North Koreans would overrun most of the peninsula before the U.S. could bring up reinforcements from elsewhere (unless the Chinese intervened on our behalf for some reason).

Japan would have to change parts of their constitution to re-arm to a state where they could actively participate in a conflict against North Korea (or China) and it would take time for them to re-train and equip themselves.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
China won't launch nukes at any of those countries, because if they did our response would be in kind (and who the hell know exactly what Taiwan has. I've been living here for awhile now and lots of strange stuff happens that just seems odd. Like recently those nuclear parts being sent over here on "accident" LMAO, who ever heard of one nation accidently sending highly sensitive nuke parts to another government. They really should come up with some kind of better explanation next time.

Well, if we start exchanging fire over Taiwan who knows what the Chinese would do. Besides, they probably wouldn't have to resort to nukes to severely damage the US/its allies in the region. A war with China would not end happily for the United States (not that it would end happily for China, either).

It was just a thought. You know instead of the US shouldering the full brunt of any kind of military action. Why not get some help this time around (if it came to that which I highly doubt it would)

That was my whole idea for these posts. We have seen what happens when the US goes in with little support from others, although Britian was a major player.

You guys were talking about the US going over there and I just thought "hey wait, been there done that. Get some help before we go Shock and Awe anyone next time.

Check out the Australian involvement, you might be surprised!!

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
It was just a thought. You know instead of the US shouldering the full brunt of any kind of military action. Why not get some help this time around (if it came to that which I highly doubt it would)

That was my whole idea for these posts. We have seen what happens when the US goes in with little support from others, although Britian was a major player.

You guys were talking about the US going over there and I just thought "hey wait, been there done that. Get some help before we go Shock and Awe anyone next time.

I'm all for brainstorming on possible solutions to any conflict. The North Korea situation is one of those times where I think all the solutions are bad - just some are worse than others. I don't think anyone really has a good idea on what to do about it.

Very scary, indeed, just through episode three. I skipped to thirteen, then fourteen, and I don't know which was scarier, the image of a land with empty restaurants, hotels and no food spending a king's ransom on useless, incredibly elaborate mass spectacle games, the idea of a country with no cultural references beyond the 1950's, or (less seriously) the karaoke singing.

And those costumes!

Yeah, you can imagine 120 000 people practicing so hard everyday for such a spectacle… others starving to death…..

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
It was just a thought. You know instead of the US shouldering the full brunt of any kind of military action. Why not get some help this time around (if it came to that which I highly doubt it would)

The idea's nice to a point, the probleem is that a buildup in Japan and Taiwan would result in China doing the same and you'd end up with a arms race across Asia - the chances of being able to conduct some sort of intervention in N Korea in that enviorment without triggering a regional conflict are likely somewhere near zero.

Re N Korea supplies - I'm aware China supports them - on the other hand they can't feed their population and their economy is a mess, given their propensity to eratic behaviour I wouldn't be giving them more than a couple of weeks worth of material at a time, just to keep some leverage.

I'm not suggesting that N Korea is absolutly a push over, but I take with a grain of salt claims that they're as dangerous as is sometimes made out - IMO their real leverage is the capacity to strike at Seoul, the protection from China and the very real mess that would result if the leadership was toppled.

Finally for the 'they're crazy' school of internaitonal relations - its an arguement that comes up pretty much every time America finds a really hostile country on the world stage - I'll grant the Dear Leader and family are frutier than most but the cease fire has held since the 50s and I don't see any evidence to suggest the N Korean leadership doesn't have a very clear sense of self preservation. They'll givve you a poke every now and them for attention but they're not going to start a war without a good reason.

Originally Posted by V7
Finally for the 'they're crazy' school of internaitonal relations - its an arguement that comes up pretty much every time America finds a really hostile country on the world stage - I'll grant the Dear Leader and family are frutier than most but the cease fire has held since the 50s and I don't see any evidence to suggest the N Korean leadership doesn't have a very clear sense of self preservation. They'll givve you a poke every now and them for attention but they're not going to start a war without a good reason.

Much the same commentary that was made about Saddam prior to Kuwait. Hope you're closer to right this time around.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Much the same commentary that was made about Saddam prior to Kuwait. Hope you're closer to right this time around.

Although, We didn't arm N. Korea like we did with Saddam when he was our buddy

@Corwin - Sorry Corwin. I know all about the Australian forces and how they took a large role in this as well. I should of mentioned them as well. Who can forget the hell that there was to pay in Australian politics over supporting the US?

Which leads me back to my original thinking. America just can't do it all by ourselves anymore. We tried and look at the mess it is now. Although if they make permenant bases in Iraq, then some might consider that a huge victory after all is said and done. But that is a topic for a different thread.

What I found interesting in this thread was that no other nation was being thought of as a real option to invade N. Korea. Not the UN or even the EU or Australia It's still, as the old guy in Fallout 3 would say, "The Good ol' USA." People might complain that the US is a bully, but when push comes to shove everyone thinks of us as the first line of defense. I'm not judging here. I just found it interesting.

@V7 The US already supplies Taiwan with weapons. Although the government is trying to figure out whether they want to be buddies with China or not. Not too long ago, under a different president, Taiwan declined to buy weapons from the US. It was insane. The president was stirring up trouble with China left and right back then and they DON'T buy weapons to support themselves…crazy.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Although, We didn't arm N. Korea like we did with Saddam when he was our buddy

True, but I would claim that "benefit" is offset by the fact that DPRK hasn't spent the last 10 years in a truly ugly hot war with its neighbor, like Saddam had done with Iran. So yes, Saddam had some US-supplied toys that DPRK does not, but a large percentage of them were in small pieces in the Iranian desert.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Much the same commentary that was made about Saddam prior to Kuwait. Hope you're closer to right this time around.

Now that's revisionism for you, he may have been your ally but everyone was well aware who started the war with Iran.

I'd add the calculation was very different from where he was sitting - there's still speculation as to whether he got the nod from contacts in the US or just thought he had. For N Korea on the otther hand its pretty clear what would happen if they invaded the South.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
@Corwin - Sorry Corwin. I know all about the Australian forces and how they took a large role in this as well. I should of mentioned them as well. Who can forget the hell that there was to pay in Australian politics over supporting the US?

We're already overstretched, at this point I can't see anything more than a token presence for diplomacy unless we pull out troops out of Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
@V7 The US already supplies Taiwan with weapons. Although the government is trying to figure out whether they want to be buddies with China or not. Not too long ago, under a different president, Taiwan declined to buy weapons from the US. It was insane. The president was stirring up trouble with China left and right back then and they DON'T buy weapons to support themselves…crazy.

Of course, and some of the better stuff at that - not that it makes much difference China would win a war, its just a question of how much it would hurt and how bad the fallout internationally would be. Better for them to wait until Taiwan is compleatly dependant on china economically and the income gap has closed enough to make reunification under terms like HK look like a reasonable option. that doesn't mean China would sit back if Japan and Taiwan started building up their militaries though, quiet the opposite.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
What I found interesting in this thread was that no other nation was being thought of as a real option to invade N. Korea. Not the UN or even the EU or Australia It's still, as the old guy in Fallout 3 would say, "The Good ol' USA." People might complain that the US is a bully, but when push comes to shove everyone thinks of us as the first line of defense. I'm not judging here. I just found it interesting.

I don't see anyone advocating invading N Korea - quite the opposite - so I'm not sure were you get the idea we're looking to the US to invade.

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I'd be pretty confident in guessing the North Koreans would overrun most of the peninsula before the U.S. could bring up reinforcements from elsewhere (unless the Chinese intervened on our behalf for some reason).

Isnt their capacity pretty much limited to the aformenetioned flattening of Seoul with old artillery (which in itself is reason enough to keep the situation cool)? They dont have modern armour or planes.

At the same time the South Korean military is large, well trained, and well equipped with equipment that is at least or two generations newer than most of what the North can muster. The North's primary MBT is for instance the T-62 while the south uses an Abrams clone, and in the air we are talking Mig-17 through 23 against F-16s and F-15s.

EDIT: The North can probably last a fair bit longer on the defense, but I doubt they can drive south and overrun the peninsula.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Much the same commentary that was made about Saddam prior to Kuwait. Hope you're closer to right this time around.

Kim Jong-Il is a nutter, but this is not an Iraq vs Kuwait scenario. Unlike Kuwait SK is bigger than its neighbour and has a very respectable military.

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Isnt their capacity pretty much limited to the aformenetioned flattening of Seoul with old artillery (which in itself is reason enough to keep the situation cool)? They dont have modern armour or planes.

At the same time the South Korean military is large, well trained, and well equipped with equipment that is at least or two generations newer than most of what the North can muster. The North's primary MBT is for instance the T-62 while the south uses an Abrams clone, and in the air we are talking Mig-17 through 23 against F-16s and F-15s.

EDIT: The North can probably last a fair bit longer on the defense, but I doubt they can drive south and overrun the peninsula.

In terms of gear they're out classed - but the DPRK has about 70% of the KPA (700k soldiers, 8k artillery, 2k tanks) stationed within 90 miles of the DMZ. South Korea has about 560k troops total, 2300-ish tanks, and 5100-ish artillery; granted, South Korea has better stuff and U.S. assistance, but the DPRK would be able to operate for a pretty long period of time before the U.S. would be able to send any significant reinforcements to the region - so we'd be left with our 27k guys in North Korea for the foreseeable future. I don't think the DPRK would be able to take the whole peninsula either but they'd definitely be able to thoroughly destroy a good deal of the population centers of South Korea before they were rolled back (assuming nukes did not enter into the scenario).

Originally Posted by Zaleukos
Kim Jong-Il is a nutter, but this is not an Iraq vs Kuwait scenario. Unlike Kuwait SK is bigger than its neighbour and has a very respectable military.

From what we can tell Kim Jong-Il is insane - but then again, it could *all* be an act. Nixon had government officials spread rumors about him being a complete lunatic prone to frequent bouts of explosive rage so the USSR would be afraid of provoking him.

They'd certainly destroy the area around Seoul (not that there would be any way around a first strike with artillery), but how could they get much further? The South is largely mountainous just like the north. The advance would have to take place mostly along a fairly narrow route along the west coast. This against a defender that has the infrastructure in place to get their assets to where they are needed, and likely would enjoy air superiority and much better recon (even ignoring the Korean satellites/AWACS and whatnot that is something the US could cover relatively quickly).

It is also a fairly open question how much air there are in the NK numbers. How much of their equipment is in mint condition, what is the average level of training, and what kind of mobility do they have? If they are any close to the Chinese or the Soviets of the past then the quality of the troops could be very uneven.

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
From what we can tell Kim Jong-Il is insane - but then again, it could *all* be an act. Nixon had government officials spread rumors about him being a complete lunatic prone to frequent bouts of explosive rage so the USSR would be afraid of provoking him.

True. Playing unpredictable and throwing an occasional tantrum has been their standard negotiating tactic for a while. It could well be a trick to get a desperately needed free lunch.

Originally Posted by V7
I don't see anyone advocating invading N Korea - quite the opposite - so I'm not sure were you get the idea we're looking to the US to invade.

Maybe I misread all of these posts, but it seems to me there are two options being discusses, one diplomatic route as usual and second invasion. No one specifically said the US but what other country are they talking about then?

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Another difference is that if you attempted to attack North Korea without going nuclear, you would stand a real chance of losing. They actually have a military that's capable of fighting a conventional, symmetrical war. They know it, too, which means that saber-rattling against them won't do much good either.

IOW, I think containment while holding open the possibility of engagement is the best policy with regards to them too. No nice, clean, cathartic "solution," but a messy, imperfect, but possible way to manage it.

Originally Posted by V7
Not sure that remains true, afterall we thought the same about Saddam for GWI and it turned out numbers (4th largest in th eworld at the time IIRC) turned out to be not so useful. I suspect in N Korea's case the technological gap is wide enough that a conventional attack would roll over the country in a couple of weeks. Which leaves three problems; cleaning up the mess, if they're got any sense and learned from Iraq I and II they'll have preapred for an asymetric conflict to follow the conventional and finally the real problem - they've got enough artillery in range of Seoul to flatten the city in the first hour which is a pretty effective deterent all on its own.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
North Korea is about more than numbers, though. Unlike Saddam, they're well-trained, the terrain is much better suited for defense, they have massive amounts of rockets and missiles of all types, and they have strategic weaponry capable of reaching the capital of the jump-off point country. Conversely, the USA isn't the power it was in 1991, and its forces are overstretched and dispersed all over the globe.

IOW, at the very least it would be a very risky and very costly operation.

Originally Posted by V7
Iraq had plenty of misslies and rockets too - I don't ddisagree about it being costly though - they'd have to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edit to add, and N Korea has been pretty isolated for years, the military gets prioity but their supply situation can't be good at all.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
That never was the strategic objective. It would be nice, of course, but that's not what containment is about. Containment is about containment — preventing the nasty state from doing major damage beyond its borders.



North Korea hasn't actually *attacked* anyone. If it does, then I'll concede that containment has failed, and humbly apologize to you for advocating it. (Although I would still stick to my position that containment would have continued to work with Saddam's Iraq, which was militarily much, much weaker than North Korea.)

But until North Korea actually *does* attack someone, I'll stick to my position that containment is working.

Edit: This is why we fail to see eye to eye on the question. Our success criteria are different. Your success criteria involve rendering the rogue state either incapable or unwilling to inflict damage on its neighbors, third countries, or its own population; my success criteria are much more modest — simply deterring or preventing it from inflicting damage on its neighbors or third countries, whatever it does to its own population, whatever capability it retains, and whatever lesser (and therefore manageable) mischief it may be up to.

Edit 2: Therefore, by your criteria, America's policy vis a vis the USSR was a disastrous failure, because it never managed to make a dent in the USSR's military capability nor its capability to oppress its own population, nor even the population of third countries within its sphere of influence — until it collapsed of its own accord, due to the fundamental unsustainability of its system. OTOH I consider that very same policy a roaring success, since it prevented the USSR from extending its influence further, or starting a third world war.

Originally Posted by magerette
The whole Chinese position seems a bit murky. They say they don't want to be inundated with refugees if NK collapses, yet they continue to be the primary prop and support of a government that is obviously quite nuts enough to start a major war, nuclear or conventional, with the other area/world powers, which could easily spark a similar situation, as well as far worse things. The policy seems shortsighted at best, and deceitful at worst.



Still, our interests also aren't served by any destabilization in NK (due to our military investment in SK—we're bound to get dragged into any hot war). Here's an article on some of the problems Japan is looking at in trying to respond:
N.Korean Rocket revives Japan pre-emptive strike talk

Hell even Margette talks a little bit of what the response would be like Thanks mags, for posting this. I knew I wasn't crazy when in the earlier posts everyone was talking about how to handle an invasion or diplomatics. In the invasion part I didn't see anyone offering up any other nation to do this other than the good ol' US. If I'm wrong and you guys were talking about Scotland invading, then I apologize

Like I said I just found it interesting no one was discussing, in the invasion part, uniting different countries in the invasion or the EU coming in or anyone else but the US. Not a big deal by the way, just an observation.