North Korea (Superthread)

[Jarnhamar]

Park a bunch of icbm subs off NKs coast. Bring in a bunch of ships with missles that can shoot down nukes.

Send the madman a picture from google earth of his little starving empire surrounded with the caption "We dare you, p***y"

 

[Ridgeline]

The only problem with that is they would still attack ...

 

[OldSolduer]

For all those that really want to see the Koreas go at it, bear this in mind:

North Korean MAY have a deployable nuclear weapon.

Give your heads a shake. We DO NOT need this.

 

[Ridgeline]

For all those that really want to see the Koreas go at it, bear this in mind:

North Korean MAY have a deployable nuclear weapon.

Give your heads a shake. We DO NOT need this.

Even if they do have nuclear weapons,  they do not have the capability to get thoes to either North America or Europe.  Therefore Asia is screwed, not us.

 

[OldSolduer]

Even if they do have nuclear weapons,  they do not have the capability to get thoes to either North America or Europe.  Therefore Asia is screwed, not us.

And do you not think that radiation and fallout spread? Its not a good situation for anyone, not us, or Europe or Asia or Africa or Australia.

I really don't give a rats ass if the North Koreans can't get nukes to us, Japan, our ally, isn't far away.,

Wake up.

 

[Ridgeline]

Really, your being quite aggressive (rats ***)  for someone who appears to not understand that there have been over 2000 nukes already detonated world wide from the 1940's  till today. Japan (our allies) were already nuked twice, I do not see a nuclear winter, and Hiroshima looked quite pretty when I visited last summer.  The North Koreans do not have nukes superior to the ones dropped on Japan in 45 (Mark Schella, A Modern Korean War, Pg 18, 2009).  Also their capacity is deemed to be less then 10 workable weapons (Steven Hinder, Nuclear Winter, 2008).  Therefore if the North Koreans do decide to use nuclear weapons, the fallout would be equal if not less then the ones dropped in 45 due to measures already in place by Japan, South Korea, China and Russia. 

Fallout will spread, of course, however fallout of a bomb twice Hiroshima size only has a fall out radius of around 250 miles.  There are plenty of books on the subject, as well as scientific material related to nuclear warfare.  I can suggest some reading material if you would like.

I do not see how a few nukes thrown by Kim Jong-il's into South Korea will disrupt the world in any major economic or social aspects, other then the fact that North Korea will be invaded, very quickly fall, and the Koreans will be once again united.

 

[wannabe SF member]

I'm with Jim on this one, the fewer nukes in the air, the better I sleep. Heck, if one nuke was to hit a major population center, say... Seoul, we'd have a serious humanitarian crisis on our hands. If there's a way of ending this threat peacefully, I'd rather us go for it even if it takes longer lest we jeopardize the lives of so many innocents.

 

[Ridgeline]

I totally agree with both of you, I hope that it never happens.  I just have written so much on the subject of nuclear war for university that I get more into the science of it and forget about the people.

I am just saying that a nuclear war, will not destroy the world.

It is a very interesting topic and will make for an awesome history class one day ... unlike rural Canadian environmental history from 1819 - 1826 ...

 

[midget-boyd91]

For all those that really want to see the Koreas go at it, bear this in mind:

North Korean MAY have a deployable nuclear weapon.

Give your heads a shake. We DO NOT need this.

Right now, they MAY.... ten or fifteen years from now, they WILL.

I don't want to see the Korean peninsula turn into a warzone, but if it is going to happen, sooner could be the better option than later.  (In terms of the possible number of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of deploying said weapons.)

Dissention among the higher ranks of the military, and the government who do not want to come under the command of a twenty-something year old with ZERO experience, combined with famine and the rising risk of revolt of the civilian population can go one of two ways;

The DPRK stage another attack on the ROK in an effort to raise solidarity of the population and take their minds off the poor state of the transitioning government... which will risk igniting a major skirmish, if not the resumption of open warfare.

OR

The dissention among the ranks of the military, combined with an increasingly pissed off and more outspoken population causes the DPRK to break into factions loyal to the Dear Leader, and those seeking a revolution of sorts. A coup, possibly civil war between loyalists and those seeking change is not too far fetched if things turn in that direction..

 

[GAP]

Hmmm.....nice to be so casual with other people's lives.....I wonder how you would feel if it was yours' or your children's lives sitting in the firing line....

 

[Ridgeline]

Hmmm.....nice to be so casual with other people's lives.....I wonder how you would feel if it was yours' or your children's lives sitting in the firing line....

I have lost many friends and a brother to war ... it still does not change my view.  One for one thousand still sounds better to me, and every one of my friends and my brother would agree

 

[AmmoTech90]

I realize this may be construed as a personal attack, but anyone who isn't concerned about nukes flying and is quite happy to see one detonated in anger is a frickin moron.

Never mind the loss of life and environmental damage (yes there have been many detonations during testing, do we really need another one?).  The economic fallout of this would overshadow anything else.  Think the worldwide economy is in the crapper now, wait and see how it performs during and after a nuclear war in an area of the world that not only is economically fragile but also a major manufacturer of goods for the world.

No one thought that the USSR would give up without a fight, look what happened there.

 

[Ridgeline]

The dissention among the ranks of the military, combined with an increasingly pissed off and more outspoken population causes the DPRK to break into factions loyal to the Dear Leader, and those seeking a revolution of sorts. A coup, possibly civil war between loyalists and those seeking change is not too far fetched if things turn in that direction..

A civil war in North Korea would solve a lot of our problems

 

[Ridgeline]

I realize this may be construed as a personal attack, but anyone who isn't concerned about nukes flying and is quite happy to see one detonated in anger is a frickin moron.

I actually did not see that as an attack, I saw it as a debate.  Your point however looses every ounce of credibility when you attack other people and their views.  There are many people who agree with my side.  I never called you a frickin moron because I am ... whats that word .... mature.

Either way, I am not going to argue with you over this

 

[PuckChaser]

A civil war in North Korea would solve a lot of our problems

Unless of course they did have nukes, and an extremist group got a hold of them. I remember thinking that we were all screwed when Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan. They HAVE nukes, and were a couple hundred KMs from me with a whole lot of Islamic extremists inbetween. I wouldn't wish a civil war on a country with a nuclear arsenal no matter how full of BS they are, because there are some smart people out there that want to do bad things to the West and would love a nuclear device.

 

[Ridgeline]

I wouldn't wish a civil war on a country with a nuclear arsenal no matter how full of BS they are, because there are some smart people out there that want to do bad things to the West and would love a nuclear device.

True

 

[57Chevy]

Unless of course they did have nukes, and an extremist group got a hold of them.

This is exactly why the major world powers want to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons including the testing of such.
Quote:
The 2010 NPT review conference defied expectations and produced a consensus final document. Of particular importance, it calls on the nuclear-weapons states to move rapidly toward reductions in all types of nuclear weapons, diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons, enhance transparency, and take steps to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict or accidental use.  The document calls for a conference in 2012 on the establishment of a WMD Free Zone in the Middle East.  It also calls on states to comply fully with IAEA safeguards and ensure that the IAEA has the resources to meet its responsibilities.  It encourages remaining holdouts to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and seek its early entry-into-force, and reaffirms the importance of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT).

Next Steps on U.S.-Russian Nuclear Negotiations and Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Personally speaking, I think nuclear weapons should be banned worldwide. The use of such weapons should be
considered a crime against humanity.

 

[a_majoor]

The Catholic church tried t ban the use of crossbows in the middle ages since they were devastatingly effective against armoured nobility, and we all know how that worked out.

The ROK is making plans and prepping for the worst. The Chinese might be able to pull this one off and get closer to their goal of neutralizing Korea:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/preparing-for-mass-evacuation-from-korea/68276/

In Korea, Planning for the Worst: Mass Evacuation
DEC 20 2010, 11:33 AM ET11

As the Korean peninsula enters what U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calls "a difficult and potentially dangerous time," the long-dormant Korean conflict is rumbling back into the public consciousness. Government officials from the U.S., South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and other states throughout the region are planning for the worst-case scenario: renewed war, perhaps nuclear, and a massive exodus from South Korea. If tensions continue to escalate, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians living in South Korea will flee, sparking one the biggest mass-evacuations since the British and French pulled 338,000 troops out of Dunkirk in 1940.

Even under the best conditions, a mass evacuation is no easy task. In July 2006, as a battle brewed between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah militants, the U.S. took nearly a month to evacuate 15,000 Americans. According to the Government Accountability Office, "nearly every aspect of State's preparations for evacuation was overwhelmed", by the challenge of running an evacuation under low-threat conditions in a balmy Mediterranean summer.

Evacuating a Korean war-zone would be far harder. And the U.S. would likely have no choice but to ask China for help.

If North Korea launches another artillery strike against South Korea--or simply hurls itself at the 38th parallel--the resulting confrontation could trigger one of the largest population movements in human history. According to one account, 140,000 U.S. government noncombatants and American citizens would look to the U.S. government for a way out. And that's just the Americans. Hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens and other foreign nationals would be clamoring for any way off of the wintery, dangerous peninsula.

In the absolute worst case, tens of millions of South Koreans and hundreds of thousands of foreigners, some wounded, some suffering from chemical, biological or even radiological hazards, will flee in the only direction available to them: south. The country's transportation system would be in nationwide gridlock as panicked civilians avail themselves of any accessible means of travel. In this desperation and chaos, the U.S. military has the unenviable mission of supporting and evacuating U.S. citizens, all while waging a fierce battle along the DMZ.

The U.S. does have a plan. In the event of an evacuation, the State Department and U.S. military say that the U.S. will instigate a prepared noncombatant evacuation operation. The first stop for an evacuee would be a prearranged assembly area for registration, a search, and an identity check. Then, assuming transportation is available, evacuees would be sent by whatever means the military can arrange to relocation centers farther down the peninsula to wait for transportation out of South Korea. Finally, U.S. civilians would gather at evacuation points where they will leave by sea or air to foreign "safe havens," such as Japan, or to the United States. The plan openly admits that things won't go smoothly, even instructing civilians to surrender their personal vehicle to the U.S. military upon arrival to an assembly area because the U.S. military may, in desperation, turn to civilian transport.

On paper, everything looks good, but as Korean tensions increase, the U.S. will have to get serious about evacuation planning. A successful wartime evacuation of the Korean peninsula can be done, and has been before. Sixty years ago this month, as Chinese troops pushed United Nations forces back from the Chinese border, an international fleet of 193 ships rescued around 196,000 soldiers and Korean refugees from Hungnam over just two weeks. However, modern-day evacuees would be far slower and more cumbersome than the well-trained amphibious force that made the Hungnam operation possible. Instead, the evacuation will be more like Dunkirk, where, largely unbidden, a disorganized fleet raced into threatened, shattered harbors to pull whomever they could to safety.

Countries around the globe with civilians or officials in South Korea would look to the U.S. first for evacuation support. But with a war to fight; wounded, contaminated, or infectious casualties to deal with; and amphibious lift resources at a premium, there would not be enough space for all who wish to leave.

Ironically, China, for all it has done to enable the present Korean crisis, may pose the best, last hope for many evacuees. With Korean, Japanese and American transport ships likely to be fully committed to the military conflict, the only other untapped Asian source of heavy amphibious sealift is China. Though often dismissed by military analysts as little more than a garnish for a "million-man swim" to Taiwan, China's amphibious assault fleet could rescue many stranded non-combatants. China's massive civilian fleet offers another possible resource. Plenty of Chinese ships will be available, able to respond if allowed to enter South Korean waters.

Over the course of the past month, the Philippines, one of many countries that lack the resources to carry out a timely evacuation of their Korean-based ex-patriots, has been debating how it could meet the challenge of transporting some 60,000 Filipino temporary workers out of a Korean crisis. For cases like this, where evacuation support will fall far short of demand, China's armada of over fifty relatively modern medium-range amphibious vessels, capable of moving over 20,000 people in a single, albeit uncomfortable and slow voyage, would be an enormous boon.

A Chinese rescue fleet poses a political, operational and symbolic headache for South Korea, the U.S., and Japan. Chinese assistance with a Korean evacuation would be an enormous political coup for Beijing. Even modest Chinese support during a high-profile humanitarian emergency could do a lot to blunt wider Asian concerns over China's naval expansion and territorial ambitions. And in the case of the Philippines, a timely humanitarian gesture by the People's Liberation Army's Navy would strengthen Chinese influence there and maybe even reconcile a festering territorial dispute over their contested South China Sea islets - to China's favor. But the defenders of South Korea would not have any other choice than to ask for China's assistance. No other help is available.

Chinese participation in a Korean contingency is the kind of scenario that makes U.S. policy makers in the region wince. But such are the ugly compromises that must be made if the U.S. and other countries fail to plan now, while there is still time to prepare, for how to get potentially-threatened nationals out before the Korean peninsula lurches over the precipice.

Image: Local residents from Yeonpyeong island arrive at the port in Inchon, west of Seoul, on a police vessel on November 24, 2010 after being evacuated the day after a military strike on the island by North Korea. By Yoshikazu Tsnuo/AFP/Getty.

 

[OldSolduer]

I actually did not see that as an attack, I saw it as a debate.  Your point however looses every ounce of credibility when you attack other people and their views.  There are many people who agree with my side.  I never called you a frickin moron because I am ... whats that word .... mature.

Either way, I am not going to argue with you over this

I can't see many people agreeing with you that a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula would be a good thing. You have no humanity. If you regard that as a personal attack, so be it.
I used to teach NBCD in CFRS Cornwallis. I'm aware that Japan was nuked twice in anger.

If you think a nuclear war is good for business, then  you are a moron.

 

[midget-boyd91]

If you think a nuclear war is good for business, then  you are a moron.

I don't think anyone here believes that a nuclear war is desireable.

However if the tensions on the peninsula reach the boiling point, it would seem that it's best to happen in this time frame when the DPRK have a very small number of "weak" bombs with unreliable delivery methods.

Another option would to have this reach the boiling point in ten or fifteen years when the DPRK has had another decade to  produce a higher number of more powerful bombs with much more reliable delivery.

Seoul already has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at it... less than ten years after Japan was bombed, the U.S had already developed a nuclear warhead that could be fired from an artillery gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5jo7aZzTw