**Yes, and unless it’s going to hit L.A. or New York, it must not be a threat to the U.S. **
Maybe you missed my post saying that while a direct nuclear attack from NK isn’t a real threat, proliferation is.
“Maybe you missed my post saying that while a direct nuclear attack from NK isn’t a real threat, proliferation is.”
Maybe you missed my post about the 30,000some American troops in S. Korea, or the thousands we have in Japan who are in the direct line of fire if Kim Jong Il starts feeling froggy.
Maybe you missed my post about the 30,000some American troops in S. Korea, or the thousands we have in Japan who are in the direct line of fire if Kim Jong Il starts feeling froggy.
No, but I think the odds that Kim is going to nuke Seoul or Tokyo are only slightly greater than LA’s chances. And I also think that just because NK poses a threat to SK, and we’ve chosen to station troops in SK, it doesn’t mean that NK is a threat to the US.
“And I also think that just because NK poses a threat to SK, and we’ve chosen to station troops in SK, it doesn’t mean that NK is a threat to the US.”
Well, I guess I don’t see how the nuking of our troops in S. Korea is any less a threat to the U.S. than if they were somewhere else. American deaths are American deaths. I don’t think he’s likely to nuke anywhere either, but he’s not very predictable, and I don’t think he’ll necessarily be held in check by fear for his people, or by fear or respect for China.
OK. Damn, we were busy today. Now, the fun work, what I went to school for:
The North Korean problem must addressed consecutively through three venues: Diplomatic, Subversive and Military.
Diplomatic: No country can escape the global reach of connectivity and emerging economic interdependence. In this case, globalization may be our best strategy. We need to buy the world a “Coke and a Smile”. Relentless and well intentioned diplomatic intercourse will exert an effect on the current regime, and that effect is likely to be anti-inflammatory in nature. The primary course of action here is containment and pacification. The secondary agenda needs to be some degree of mutual co-exisitence in a new (and hopefully brief) blance of nuclear power. And thirdly, a new age of disarmament that may coincide with the natural expiration of the current regime’s physical life span. The diplomats need to be discreet, repsectful and vigorous here- causing every victory and break through to appear as though it were owned by the North Korean regime and that it serves their national agenda first and foremost.
Subversive: It is a shame the best spys, assassins, saboteurs, special operators and thieves retired after the Berlin Wall came down. A few still teach school, but the majortiy have sadly become normal, or at least appear to be. A new generation of subversives with a powerful infrastructure and extensive resources needs to be leveled against the North Korean threat. This includes relentless surveillance and extensive development of human intellegence assets indigenous to the region. Welcome back to the cold war, where fully 30% of the East German population were engaged in some form of espionage. The good old days. Our intelligence services need to work this problem 24/7 and with massive manpower and technology. The geosyncronus parking lot over Pyongyang needs to be packed with sensors and every street corner should be chalk-marked as a drop sight. Ever micro chip sold to the country needs to be laced and rigged. Every financial transaction shadowed. This provides resources for both our diplomatic effort, our consecutive military effort and opens other options contingent on circumstances. It represents the segueway into our plans C,D and E.
Military: Cut the check for the anti-ballistic missile system, the airborne laser platform and buy a few more shares of Fidelity Select Defense and Aerospace Fund. The planet-smashers are back in business. After chasing dusty terrorists into caves for almost two decades we now have a worthy enough adversary to justify the revitalization of our heavy-hitting strategic forces. Plan for the big one, Dr. Strangelove style, because if this one goes down, it will go down heavy and in the first round. North Korea can deliver one strike, with relative inaccuracy (that means a big city, L.A., Honolulu or San Diego) and then it us up to us to declaw them by retaliating on a level similar to the doomsday plans drafted against “Red” China and the former Soviet Union. No holds barred, the full nuclear trident of ICBM’s equipped with MIRV’s, SLBM’s and a follow on strike of remaining assets using ALCM’s. If North Korea places their finger on the trigger they need to sight into the barrrel of the biggest cannon leveled in the history of the human race, so that the consequences are so horrible no man would dare flinch. If they take up the slack in the trigger there needs to be a response so resolved and practiced the world will draw a collective gasp and hold its breath. If North Korea pulls the trigger it is no longer a matter of retaliation but of of expedient annihilation. We will lose our west coast, they will lose their nation. And this will serve as the occasional and costly reminder that nuclear weapons are of diminished value unless the owner is resolved enough to use them.
The paradox of this is, Il knows this too… And that makes it all the more ominous.
What are our plans “C, D and E”?
You went to school for this? I so wish I didn’t study business, this would have been a far more intriguing topic.
Subversive and Military sure will cost a lot of money!
Plans C, D, and E develop contingent on changes that are inherent in any situation such as an adversarial nation developing nuclear capability.
Diplomacy, in terms of financial (economic) cost can be extremely expensive. Ask Ford, GM, and Chrysler.
The cost of espionage as an effective weapon, especially economic warefare, means it is always your biggest bang for the buck.
The military option is costly from a monetary perspective, but arguably unaffordable by our species from a “cost of life” perspective.
That means we better get either the first or second option right.
And I went to school for computer science.
Tom brings me back to the original point in this thread. There are no good ideas or strategys.
" It is a shame the best spys, assassins, saboteurs, special operators and thieves retired after the Berlin Wall came down"
Don’t be so sure my friend.
Getting spies into East Germany or the USSR is a cakewalk compared to getting them into NK. It’s a totally paranoid society and completely closed from the outside world.
I guess I don’t see how the nuking of our troops in S. Korea is any less a threat to the U.S. than if they were somewhere else.
You can’t see a real distinction between NK being a threat to certain American troops because we’ve chosen to station them in SK, and NK being an actual threat to America? Get real, of course you can.
but he’s not very predictable,
How’s that, exactly? Seems to me that just about everybody has predicted Kim’s behavior pretty accurately. He isn’t doing what we want, that’s all. That’s not the same thing as being unpredictable. He’s prolly the most predictable leader in the world right now.
“You can’t see a real distinction between NK being a threat to certain American troops because we’ve chosen to station them in SK, and NK being an actual threat to America? Get real, of course you can.”
No vitus. An attack on 35,000 Americans is an attack on America, whether those Americans are in Seoul or in Idaho doesn’t matter all that much. An act of war is an act of war, and if 10s of thousands of deaths isn’t a threat to America, then i don’t know what is.
**An attack on 35,000 Americans is an attack on America, whether those Americans are in Seoul or in Idaho doesn’t matter all that much. An act of war is an act of war, and if 10s of thousands of deaths isn’t a threat to America, then i don’t know what is. **
Give it up, already, commodore- I happen to know they gave you a better education than that at Annapolis.
North Korea represents no threat to the American nation, and it never has. We don’t have 35,000 troops in South Korea because NK is a threat to America. We have them there because North Korea is a threat to South Korea.
Does the fact that we’ve decided to place ourselves in harm’s way over there mean that should NK attack SK, we’d consider it an act of war, and launch a counter-offensive? Sure it does. Are the service people stationed in South Korea at a somewhat higher risk of attack than Heartland, USA? Sure they are. None of that means that North Korea is a threat to America. They’re simply not. (Directly, anyway.)
How’s that, exactly? Seems to me that just about everybody has predicted Kim’s behavior pretty accurately. He isn’t doing what we want, that’s all. That’s not the same thing as being unpredictable. He’s prolly the most predictable leader in the world right now.
Vitus is generally right here…KJI is fairly predictable on a macro scale. He wanted/developed nukes betting we wouldn’t have the political/military will to take him out once he got his bomb.
So far, Kim appears to be right…for all our Preznit’s tough talk about how he wasn’t going to “allow” a nuclear North Korea, he didn’t have a lot of will/options to prevent it. Does anyone remember the last time he even mentioned N.Korea?
What IS dangerous is the unpredictability of Kim’s “conventional” craziness, kidnapping Japanese people off the streets of Tokyo, sending rusty subs full of drugged commandos to attack/wash up on South Korea…any of these things raise regional tensions which can spook the N.Koreans into further (non-nuclear) actions that probably make some sense to them, but appear baffling to the rest of the actors.
Probably the most “dangerous” thing about Kim’s nuke shop is the object lesson in how to exempt your nation from the “Bush Doctrine”…build your WMD and you get a free pass, because we’re not going tangle with folks that actually have the bad stuff.
Obviously Iran came to this conclusion years ago, but they have to feel xtra-good about taking that bet now, accidentally dropped F-16 fuel tanks notwithstanding.
Freedom is untidy.
"Give it up, already, commodore- I happen to know they gave you a better education than that at Annapolis.
North Korea represents no threat to the American nation, and it never has. We don’t have 35,000 troops in South Korea because NK is a threat to America. We have them there because North Korea is a threat to South Korea."
I don’t know where you were educated Vitus, but you’re missing the point. As soon as we dedicate forces, and establish a sub-unified command that has existed for 50 years, any attack on the AOR of the command constitutes threat to the U.S. If N.Korea attacks S.Korea, we are going to lose American lives, lose American equipment, and spend American money. If N.Korea isn’t a threat to us, then why o we care if they have nukes. why do we maintain a de-militarized zone. It’s not out of the goodness of our hearts, and a sincere concern for the S. Koreans. It’s because we fear what would happen if NK invaded SK, and the dominoes that would fall after that, whatever those dominoes might be. A country does not have to be a direct threat to the U.S. homeland (and hardly any actually are) to be a real threat to America.
**I don’t know where you were educated Vitus **Once again, I find myself shocked- shocked!- that you’re not paying full attention to each and every one of my posts, commodore.
As soon as we dedicate forces, and establish a sub-unified command that has existed for 50 years, any attack on the AOR of the command constitutes threat to the U.S.
No, commodore, that’s patently wrong. It represents something we’d rightly consider an act of war, and it would represent a threat to some American forces, but it does not at all represent a threat to America.
If N.Korea isn’t a threat to us, then why o we care if they have nukes.
The only reason I really care is that I think North Korea is actually likely to spread the technology or actual weapons to other rogue states, and worse, terrorist groups. If it weren’t for that, I wouldn’t really care much at all.
It’s because we fear what would happen if NK invaded SK, and the dominoes that would fall after that, whatever those dominoes might be.
Oh, my good gawd. You didn’t really just throw the domino theory at me, did you? Thirty years after Viet Nam? And without even bothering to figure out who the next dominoes are after South Korea?
Maybe you missed my post about the 30,000some American troops in S. Korea, or the thousands we have in Japan who are in the direct line of fire if Kim Jong Il starts feeling froggy.
As one of the above here in Seoul within artillery range I am not very concerned that NK is going to attack any time soon. I don’t lose any sleep worrying about it nor do many other US and ROK people who live here. The NKs are in dire straits and they will use every opportunity to try and get aid from the US and others in exchange for some type of concessions. I worry more about the proliferation then anything else.
Barefoot