North Korea conducts Nuclear Test
- Thread starter Aliph Ahmed
- Start date
With the recent nuclear test, is appeasement really what our government thinks is a good idea? "Let's just see what happens." I can't believe this is what we're talking about doing when it obviously didn't work with Hitler in 1939 when he invaded Poland. What it seems to me is we're basically letting Kim Jong Il ramp up his nuclear power for when he does decide to strike. Why are we letting this happen? Just my two cents but I felt I had to say it. I'm sure the advisors who are getting paid good money know this. He's getting old... hopefully Kim Jong doesn't decide to go out with a bang...
Not really. They have ceased talks as of today and are making the same old threats.
This is quoted from FoxNews.com Military Onesource:
U.S. military and other Obama administration officials are calling much of Pyongyang's rhetoric "bluster" even as North Korea appears intent on restarting the Korean War, threatening a powerful military strike against South Korea and claiming it will no longer honor the 1953 Armistice that ended the conflict that divided the peninsula.
They are claiming they no longer honor the Armistice which has been in effect for 56 years. I'd say they are showing all the signs of a nation who could attack or a madman who could go out kicking and screaming.
Another quote:
North Korea called that move a declaration of war, and the country's Central News Agency reported the regime no longer considers itself bound by the 1953 armistice. It also accused the United States, a signatory of the armistice, of "dragging" the South into the program through its "hostile policy" toward the North.
How long before "bluster" becomes action. It's naive to believe that if he did have the capability he wouldn't shoot. He's crazy and crazy people do crazy stuff all the time... (Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin).
@kato, thanks for explaining the yield range for the B61-Mod 11.
BTW, the 1953 MAA is unique in that it is purely a military document and no nation is a signatory to the agreement. On 27 July 1953, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. The commander of the UNC signed the 1953 MAA on behalf of the unified command, consisting of the military forces from 16 UN nations and S. Korea.
During the Korean War, nearly 37,000 American servicemen lost their lives in three years. This is a significantly higher figure per year than the 58,000 American casualties spread over ten years in Vietnam. In reality there is no will in the US to change the status quo (nor can the Americans really do anything to significantly change the status quo, as China holds all the cards). However, there is some American concern that the N. Koreans will try to sell their nuclear/missile technology.
If war breaks out, some Korean analysts estimate that a 2nd Korean war will cost the Americans much more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined (without taking into account the cost to S. Korea too, with Seoul being in artillery range from the DMZ). For some background info, please read Danger Room's article called "Inside America’s (Mock) Attack on North Korea". Further, all N. Koreans have been brain washed since childhood - so the Americans would have to fight the people. It's kind of hard to tell who is not brainwashed by looks alone.
The 6 party talks may have failed to prevent the N. Koreans from testing their nuclear weapons but it has enabled the US, Japan and China to understand the concerns of the other parties - to the detriment of N. Korean interests.
S. Korea learning from the German reunification experience (and having seen the cost) are not keen to prop. up N. Korea in the event of a N. Korean regime collapse. In fact, China and S. Korea have the most to lose in terms of managing a potential N. Korean refugee problem in the event of a N. Korean regime collapse.
IMHO, North Korea has not respected the 1953 Military Armistice Agreement (1953 MAA) long before the 1st or 2nd nuclear test (in 2006 and 2009 respectively) - so the North Korean declaration that they will not respect the 1953 MAA, does not in effect change the actual position of the North Koreans. See Wiki for a list of N. Korean incursions across the DMZ. Therefore, the Fox news report is slightly misleading on the context of the North Korean declaration.
BTW, the 1953 MAA is unique in that it is purely a military document and no nation is a signatory to the agreement. On 27 July 1953, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. The commander of the UNC signed the 1953 MAA on behalf of the unified command, consisting of the military forces from 16 UN nations and S. Korea.
During the Korean War, nearly 37,000 American servicemen lost their lives in three years. This is a significantly higher figure per year than the 58,000 American casualties spread over ten years in Vietnam. In reality there is no will in the US to change the status quo (nor can the Americans really do anything to significantly change the status quo, as China holds all the cards). However, there is some American concern that the N. Koreans will try to sell their nuclear/missile technology.
If war breaks out, some Korean analysts estimate that a 2nd Korean war will cost the Americans much more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined (without taking into account the cost to S. Korea too, with Seoul being in artillery range from the DMZ). For some background info, please read Danger Room's article called "Inside America’s (Mock) Attack on North Korea". Further, all N. Koreans have been brain washed since childhood - so the Americans would have to fight the people. It's kind of hard to tell who is not brainwashed by looks alone.
The 6 party talks may have failed to prevent the N. Koreans from testing their nuclear weapons but it has enabled the US, Japan and China to understand the concerns of the other parties - to the detriment of N. Korean interests.
S. Korea learning from the German reunification experience (and having seen the cost) are not keen to prop. up N. Korea in the event of a N. Korean regime collapse. In fact, China and S. Korea have the most to lose in terms of managing a potential N. Korean refugee problem in the event of a N. Korean regime collapse.
Last edited:
I see what you're saying and I'll take a look at the article you mentioned. I think all sides have a lot to lose in any conflict. This would be the first time since WW2 that the US would have to fight a people/armed force that actually can keep up if in fact it did come to open war. Vietnam was against a vastly inferior technological people and the war we're still fighting (and it is still a war) is against a vastly technological inferior people too. I don't think we could afford this war as you mentioned. However, I still see it coming. We'll see.
I highly doubt that the U.S would have the need to commit major ground forces in a possible conflict with North Korea, ROK has ample manpower with the technology advancements in weapons to back it up. The majority of U.S support that I would envision would come in the form of air and naval assets.
I am not sure you appreciate the humanitarian crisis that N.Korea potentially represents.
There is no half way house here. Any pre emptive action equals a serious and protracted engagement.
Naval and Air 'grunt' is a fool's paradise against a dictatorship willing to starve his own people to enforce ground warfare.
Relationships with China and Russia will be frozen. Progress in the middle east again becomes impossible for Obama.
There is very little patience in the world right now for nations engaging in pre-emptive military action.
Bombing N.Korea given the precarious situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan environment would indirectly threaten more American lives. Furthermore it adds tremendous fuel to the doctrine used to recruit taliban and al qaeda fighters in those regions.
It adds a further layer of complexity to the task of McChrystal to build bridges to local communities.
The probability of the US pre emptively engaging N.Korea militarily is practically non existent in the current context IMO.
I think that I can fully appreciate the refugee/humanitarian crisis that a confrontation will cause, and I did not say anything about the ROK or the U.S initiating a conflict with the North, my point that I was making is that if a confrontation occurs the ROK will handle the ground operation phase and will only need U.S air and naval assets. Sadly I am afraid that this will not end like the reunification of Germany, the North will go down fighting and cause massive casualties on both sides of the DMZ and they will initiate it, it could happen now or in the future but it will happen. China could end it with a regime change if they wanted to and they may not have a choice if Uncle Kim keeps raising the bar.
I'm not sure China at this point can implement regime change. I guess it depends on the level on influence China has with different DPRK officials. I don't see how we can measure this verifiably, and therefore how we can make definitive statements to that regard.
I agree with you here whole-heartedly and that is honestly the problem. I believe we're stuck with our hands tied and someone else like China needs to step up to bat and solve it's local problem. We can't afford to get involved with this problem and it really isn't our problem... yet. If China or Russia do not act... it will eventually become our problem as a world power. That was my original point.
This scenario would be very easy for the Chinese to do and they more than likely have a few moles in place just in case Uncle Kim decided to do something stupid. China will not jeapordize their relations or economy with the U.S or with ROK for a dying fanatics ambitions, when China feels that their influence and control is starting to slip away you can rest assured they will do what ever it takes to regain it, the stakes are too high.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
I guess you heard this on Fox news? C'mon there is a very real and hard geopolitical game being played on the Korean peninsular and China's prime objective is the ejection of US forces and influence from it. China will be prepared to countenance severe developments to achieve that objective.
Back to topic:
I read this on ATOL the other day
Asia Times Online :: Korea News and Korean Business and Economy, Pyongyang News
and while the author is:
and a number of his later points raised a few eyebrows, I did note his opening:
Now is this a bit of clever spin or another inconvenient truth?