North Korea and Iran (re: Nuclear Weapons)

[Smith]

I am all for preparedness, but please let's be cautious in how we discuss it, and keep it in the relevant forum please. Image is important, and let's be sure we project the correct one.

Good job keeping the thread civil, let's keep up the polite discourse!

Your a little late to this party!

[Mr. Brooks]

Speaking of North Korea, I am headed up to the DMZ in the morning. See you all back here in about a week!

*Unless I get nuked*

[Guest SUNTZU]

Say herro to Kim for me!

[Guest Hyaloid]

Your a little late to this party!

Fashionably.

[leroy]

Speaking of North Korea, I am headed up to the DMZ in the morning. See you all back here in about a week!

*Unless I get nuked*

Be careful!! We'll keep you in our prayers.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest Muttling]

about Iran and N.Korea getting nuclear weapons...? can we stop them? how? is there anything we can actually do or just wait and see?

Db

Last I heard, NK already had nuclear weapons and had detonated 2 of them. I'm guessing the answer is no in at least one of the cases.

I really get a kick out of everyone going ape crap over their nukes. They've got a 5,000 ton arsenal of chemical and bio that no one bothers to discuss. BTW, don't go blaming one administration or the other......their WMD program has been on a steady growth chart for decades under presidents from both parties.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Muttling

[G27]

Obama Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea - Political News - FOXNews.com

Genius.

[Guest Muttling]

Obama Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea - Political News - FOXNews.com

Genius.

I agree, it didn't work for Bush either (2004 and 2006 news links below). However, I'm curious as to what other options we have?

Pre-emptive attack? The vast majority of NK's artillery is deployed along the DMZ and within range of Soeul (population 10 million.) I couldn't pop up a reliable link for number estimates but I recall DoD estimates being a sustained fire capability of 500,000 shells per hour and 5000 tons of chemical/biological agents. (I can easily pop up CIA reports to Congress saying they have a LOT of arty on the DMZ and a LOT of chem bio, but actual estimates didn't come up in my short bit of Googling.)

If we go pre-emptive, a large portion of those 10 million civilians will die. We could just nuke the crap out of the north side of the DMZ to shut em down, but that is also going to kill a LOT of civilians.

Continuing our current sanctions? They have backed down from their latest grandstanding and Obama has done as well as any of our previous presidents with NK, but they still aren't giving up the nukes.

NK is an impossible hand to play, our only bet is to try to wait them out and hope they implode like the Soviets did. Their economy is completely broken and they can't feed their own people, but they have brutal weapons capability and are insanely aggressive.

U.S. to Offer North Korea Incentives in Nuclear Talks - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/world/asia/19cnd-summit.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1163998800&en=eb341412b6b398d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

<<They bow in the oriental countries as well. Obama has that on his resume....rock on Obower!>>

...and W. held hands with arab sheiks--how subservient is that? or gay? Seriously, regarding the Iran/N.Korea nuke problem...Kim Jung Il

is dying. We should wait and see if his son is less crazy before we kill more soldiers. The N. Korea and Iran problems got worse after Bush's

"axis of evil" speech. It scared them ****less, and when you're scared you want the biggest, baddest weapons you can get. The recent demonstrations in Iraq over their stolen election indicates that their government may change soon as well. We tried threats, ridicule and war for 8 years....maybe diplomacy will work? I'm not confident that it will, but it's worth a try.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

<<Speaking of North Korea, I am headed up to the DMZ in the morning. See you all back here in about a week! >>

Godspeed my friend, and thank you for your service!

[G27]

How do you deal with them? You deal with them as you would any petulant child - you ignore the temper tantrum until they realize it won't work. If they challenge us militarily, we reign hell down on them, otherwise we ignore them.

It's really very simple, unless your mind is similarly simple.

[Guest Muttling]

How do you deal with them? You deal with them as you would any petulant child - you ignore the temper tantrum until they realize it won't work. If they challenge us militarily, we reign hell down on them, otherwise we ignore them.

It's really very simple, unless your mind is similarly simple.

I agree with you. What's more, it's precisely how Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 (after he got over his hard nosed stupidity), and Obama have been dealing with them.

Are they a threat to regional security....HELL YES

Are they a threat to US National Security.....HELL YES

Can we REALLY do much about it other than wait and hope to choke them out?......HELL NO

It sux to be in this position, but it sux even more to be in NK's position. If they attack, they commit suicide. If we attack, we loose a LOT of people and kill a LOT of civilians but we survive.

For those who haven't seen my other thread, you might want to read the Military.com news report on NK's chem/bio research. Their nuclear capabilities aren't their biggest threat to us.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/24727-north-korea-using-kids-chem-bio-weapons-testing.html

Edited July 25, 2009 by Muttling

[Guest justme]

How do you deal with them? You deal with them as you would any petulant child - you ignore the temper tantrum until they realize it won't work. If they challenge us militarily, we reign hell down on them, otherwise we ignore them.

It's really very simple, unless your mind is similarly simple.

The only military challenge will occur after their tanks and soldiers are already on the move--and any attempt to reign down hell on them will most likely be met by a nuclear detonation somewhere over Japan, or maybe they will use them on the battlefield itself...or on the US navy ships which would be sent to assist any battle--or on Seoul or Inchon...or on all of the above...The Asians think in terms of generations---we think in terms of a single year or maybe two...they would still win if they nuked Seoul or Tokyo--even if we wipe them out in a massive nuclear counter strike, which we would never do--mostly because a nuclear attack so close to the Chinese would draw them into the fight....but even if this administration did have the backbone to destroy the North in a retaliatory nuclear strike--the North would still win....

but we don't have to worry about this simply because this administration, like the one before it--would never start a war with a country that could reign down nuclear weapons on the US, or those we claim to be our allies...

fighting with the North Koreans will not be like the Iraq. By and large I think the west has forgotten what a real war is like--Korea could be a stark reminder.

[G27]

I never suggested this administration had the balls to do what was necessary should it come to pass - but my point stands. NK has done nothing requiring attention thus far. Our allies are our allies but they aren't our men - the sooner we stop acting as a world-wide police state the better we'll all be.

We should sit back and ignore them. If/when they feel froggy, we then respond with everything we've got. There's no need for feet on the ground or a protracted war. Unfortunately, we've not had anyone in the White House in decades that understands dealing with children...

[Guest justme]

Are they a threat to regional security....HELL YES

if they were--they would have attacked

Are they a threat to US National Security.....HELL YES

clarify please, because I don't see how they are

Can we REALLY do much about it other than wait and hope to choke them out?......HELL NO

that is about right. Except for one fact--when it comes to the point that they have nothing left to lose--it is then that they become truly dangerous...you can only choke a country so long before they decide they have nothing left to lose except their lives....

It sux to be in this position, but it sux even more to be in NK's position. If they attack, they commit suicide. If we attack, we loose a LOT of people and kill a LOT of civilians but we survive.

it is more along the lines of --if they attack they commit suicide, but they would also most likely use nuclear weapons on Seoul, on the battlefield or on Japan...and while we destroy them--if this administration has the backbone to counter strike--they still win in the long run.

if we attack--they use nuclear weapons anyway, we get a lot of soldiers and Marines killed, and the fact remains--they still used the nukes, took out maybe one or two cities in south korea or Japan, cost millions of civilians their lives, cause the stock markets to plunge costing investors millions and millions of dollars world wide..and the "UN" in all of it's infinite wisdom issues a statement in which it "condemns and deplores the use of Nuclear weapons by all sides and bemoans the millions killed in the nuclear strikes and resulting counterstrike...."

this is of course after the Chinese and possibly the Russians enter the war and launch on us, and take back Taiwan to boot....and then we launch on the Chinese and both sides are stuck in a nuclear winter with millions dead and our respective countries in ruins....and then you have the NATO invocation of Article 5--at attack on one is an attack on all which brings them into the crosshairs....whether the EU would assist and retaliate in the event of a nuclear strike on the US is very much an open question....

All the while the UN "strongly deplores the use of nuclear weapons by all parties..."

needless to say it would not be pretty.

[Guest justme]

I never suggested this administration had the balls to do what was necessary should it come to pass - but my point stands. NK has done nothing requiring attention thus far. Our allies are our allies but they aren't our men - the sooner we stop acting as a world-wide police state the better we'll all be.

Absolutely agree 100%--we are not the policemen of the world. And I agree--the DPRK has done nothing that requires attention--and yet we won't leave it alone.

We should sit back and ignore them. If/when they feel froggy, we then respond with everything we've got. There's no need for feet on the ground or a protracted war. Unfortunately, we've not had anyone in the White House in decades that understands dealing with children...

I also agree--we should simply ignore them--and then if they attack, we retaliate and hope the Chinese and the Russians don't get involved like they did last time.

But I still agree--leave them be, let them alone, and don't push them into a corner and cause them to lose face...

[Guest Muttling]

if they were--they would have attacked

So you don't consider all the incursions across the DMZ that have killed American and South Korean soldiers or NK's kidnapping of Japanese citizens to be a threat to regional security.

Then theres all their actions on the open seas in the region.

clarify please, because I don't see how they are

They are one of the worlds largest weapons dealers and are the biggest exporter of SCUD missiles. In addition, they have very advanced bio/chem capabilities. It's not too hard to imagine them selling any of these items to our enemies including Iran and Venuzuella who they already sell weapons to.

They also figt asymetrically so why wouldn't they sell their chem/bio to a terrorist organization or deploy their special forces with such weapons to the U.S.

They are one of the biggest threat to US national security that currently exists.

that is about right. Except for one fact--when it comes to the point that they have nothing left to lose--it is then that they become truly dangerous...you can only choke a country so long before they decide they have nothing left to lose except their lives....

it is more along the lines of --if they attack they commit suicide, but they would also most likely use nuclear weapons on Seoul, on the battlefield or on Japan...and while we destroy them--if this administration has the backbone to counter strike--they still win in the long run.

I agree but I think you're missing a couple of very important details.

Why nuke Seoul when they can easily turn it into a chem/bio waste land?

They don't have nuclear missile ability yet (you have to get miniaturization tech before you can do that) so they can't nuke Japan unless they throw the weapon in a shipping container. They'll likely chem/bio Japan with Taepodong missiles.

If they're going to all this trouble, why not pack a few nukes into shipping containers and take out Pearl Harbor, San Diego Harbor, etc.

We win, but we'd take a big hit.

this is of course after the Chinese and possibly the Russians enter the war and launch on us, and take back Taiwan to boot....and then we launch on the Chinese and both sides are stuck in a nuclear winter with millions dead and our respective countries in ruins....and then you have the NATO invocation of Article 5--at attack on one is an attack on all which brings them into the crosshairs....whether the EU would assist and retaliate in the event of a nuclear strike on the US is very much an open question....

A war with NK would be over in a matter of days because it would go unconventional very early. I don't see China or Russia siding with NK in this day n age nor do I see them wanting to get involved. (Cold War politics are long gone)

NATO is also of little consequence in the scenario being discussed unless it degrades into World War III.