North Korean Military.

[STURM]

Reducing tensions with N.Korea will mean they can continue funding their research and conducting tests until they declare they have the capability to strike the major US cities.

Another way of looking at it is that reducing tensions will mean there will not be another unnecessary war which has the potential to go nuclear and kill millions; not only in the Korean peninsular but elsewhere as well.

North Korea will be untouchable militarily and no matter what military coups or revolutions take place in that desperate country's embargo future, there is no way to control who's finger will be on the red button.

It's not as if the North Korean leadership is going to wake up one fine morning and decide out of the blue to launch a nuke at the U.S; especially given that their aim is regime survival and they're fully aware that any use of nukes will result in the destruction of North Korea. Like everyone else; their nukes are intended to be used as a deterrent - in their case a deterrent against regime change. North Korea having nukes is not the best or ideal of situations but the fact remains that military means alone can't resolve the issue.

On another note this might be a book worth reading.

[Destined For War: Can America And China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?]
https://www.economist.com/news/book...rc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/willamericaandchinagotowar

''Graham Allison, a Harvard scholar, thinks the world underestimates the risk of a catastrophic clash between China and the United States. When a rising power challenges an incumbent, carnage often ensues. Thucydides, an ancient historian, wrote of the Peloponnesian war of 431-404 BC that “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” Mr Allison has examined 16 similar cases since the 15th century. All but four ended in war. Mr Allison does not say that war between China and the United States is inevitable, but he thinks it “more likely than not”.''

''China and America could blunder into war in several ways, argues Mr Allison. A stand-off over Taiwan could escalate. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un, might die without an obvious heir, sparking chaos. American and Chinese special forces might rush into North Korea to secure the regime’s nuclear weapons, and clash. A big cyber-attack against America’s military networks might convince it that China was trying to blind its forces in the Pacific. American retaliation aimed at warning China off might have the opposite effect. Suppose that America crippled China’s Great Firewall, as a warning shot, and China saw this as an attempt to overthrow its government? With Donald Trump in the White House, Mr Allison worries that even a trade war might turn into a shooting war.''

 

[USAF77]

I would say US action is now very much unlikely given the actions at G20.

It would seem by default that the US is willing to withdraw out of Asia.

America isn't going to withdraw from anywhere. If this was a simple US vs NK situation the action would be clear but it isn't. Allies are exposed far more then we are and without question would suffer heavy casualties if we put this guy down. Dont forget he has a large stockpile of Chem/Bio's too. Even simple artillery across the DMZ would inflict heavy casualties on the South Koreans.

This is one of those damned if you do and damned if you dont ones. And a President has to explains to his citizens why our sons and daughters should die for "another" part of the map on the other side of the world, since Obama didnt want to.

Nocookies | The Australian
Google search: Failure on north Korea exposes loss of US leadership.

"Retired major general Jim Molan said western allies had to publicly show they were prepared to take military action to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear and long-range missile capabilities “or we’re just pussies.”"

Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said “the US has no strategy for the North beyond trying to make it China’s problem.”

“It’s an extraordinary moment of flux, and weakness … normally you would expect a common *approach on North Korea,” *Professor Barton said.

The comments get more scathing from there on wards. There was some hope either the US mil or the US intelligence communities could make the Trump administration and the broader US political leadership move on this issue, that backfired. It's now clear both are in the cold when it comes to communicating legitimate concerns to the president. The US is going to have to live with the consequences of this inaction for a long time.

So what are these "experts" going to say when the Peninsula, and maybe all of Asia, is on fire? What contribution do they figure Australia will make to this slaughter?

If you are going to stick a pin in the point of US decline as a global power, this is it.

Thats a little dramatic isnt it?

I know that most of the press are focused on the US walking away from the Paris agreement, I would rank the inaction on NK much above that.

I dont think I'd even compare a major war, maybe a nuclear one, to a spat over environmental emissions.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

India, Japan, US begin most complex naval wargames yet in 'Malabar' 2017; PRC Hears a Message

The Clinton Administration almost reached an agreement with Pyongyang when the clock ran out on Clinton’s term. George W. Bush elected to ignore North Korea and then imposed preconditions before being willing to resume negotiations. Pyongyang saw the Bush White House as dealing in bad faith and that the only way to gain American respect was to complete the development of a nuclear bomb. North Korea detonated its first nuclear bomb in October 2006, during Bush’s second term. The Obama administration, unfortunately, followed the Bush line: no negotiations without preconditions. To push for North Korea’s agreement, Washington bandied the threats of sanctions and solicited Beijing for help. In the 16 years since the end of the Clinton administration, Washington and Pyongyang have made no progress in reaching a common understanding. Each has accused the other of acting in bad faith. The US threatened more sanctions; North Korea kept testing weapons with bigger bang and missiles with longer range.

For the PRC, NK is now becoming more of a problem than a solution. For the US, the only feasible alternative to an all out war on the peninsula is to start withdrawing its troops from SK & Japan while allowing both go nuclear. China was actually benefiting from the US presence there as it was restraining them against each other, NK & China. With nukes, no one will risk to upset the new balance.

 

[Ananda]

Well..Japan already have stockpilling enough Plutonioum (which if not mistaken), in the amount that only PRC, Russia, and US has more stockpile then Japan. Basically Japan can go Nuclear the moment (if it's ever come), US withdraw her Nuclear umbrella..

Whille not in simmilar level with Japan, ROK also has the abilities to go Nucklear in very short period..
In sense China has much to gain, if they able to restrain Fat Kim Nuclear ambitions..and they know the best way to ensure it is for US gave North Regime survival guarantee..(at least for time being)..

ROK is not really in the mood to be unified with the North soon..it's simply too expensive for ROK economy to absorb the North in current condition..even with best scenario of the North voluntarilly open their armed to be absorb by their Richer and more powerfull Southern brethern..

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Pl. see my edited prev. post. Japan can go Nuclear in about 1 year after the decision is made, ROK a little longer. The US is stuck in the self-imposed position of denying the NK its nuclear armed status & refusing direct negotiations with it. It's a matter of pride & losing face more than anything else, & the realists here know that NK won't strike the US or Japan 1st lest their country be wiped off the map. All this hype of NK nuclear & missile threat is a PR for domestic consumption to justify the ongoing policy of regime change & preparations for war.

 

[USAF77]

Whats the point of more negotiations when everyone in the past has been broken by them and little more then a gangster shake down?

You remember right? Carter? All the agreements? 2005? All the money and food we all gave them to not build the bomb? and ICBMs?

BTW we already gave this bunch a public/official guarantee we wouldnt invade or attempt a regime change or even interfere in any of their internal affairs. That was in '93, his response was to build his first nuke in '94. Then the whack job kid takes over later the same year and its been even worse.

The bottom line is this guy wants a nuclear arsenal and he'll make up all kinds of excuses to get it. We had every reason to go into Iraq but still most of the world, including many allies, condemned us for it. Imagine the casualties of going into NK? And other then SK, cause they have to, who's going to help us? I have a kid in the service so dont expect me to bang war drums.

Here https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron Look at their History and then tell me what good more "talks" would do?

 

[Tsavo Lion]

The reason given to the public for going into Iraq were bogus. The real reason was to take control of their oil or at least remove Saddam from power, as former NS adviser C. Rice recently stated. No negotiations & compromises take us closer to war. The sanctions against NK were never lifted even as they got humanitarian help. "No matter how much you feed a wolf, he'll keep staring at the forest". NK has no reason to trust the US & any promises it makes- look at its history in N. America, Asia/Pacific, Libya, Syria & Iran, to name a few. Libya was also given a public/official guarantee that we wouldn't invade or attempt a regime change or even interfere in any of their internal affairs" by the West- & Kaddafi bought it! As late R. Reagan said: nations don't trust each other because they are armed; they are arming themselves because they don't trust each other!"
South Korea: North lacks re-entry technology for ICBMs
China says 'China responsibility theory' on North Korea has to stop Like in E. Europe & Syria, Russia is being blamed, in NE/SE/S. Asia, China is being blamed- no wonder, both of them are on the rise while the US is declining after fiascos in Iraq & Afghanistan!

 

[STURM]

The US is stuck in the self-imposed position of denying the NK its nuclear armed status & refusing direct negotiations with it.

And the hypocrisy in ''allowing'' other countries to get nukes and keep them and in the case of none particular country; of having a policy of not saying anything at all about that country's nukes.

You remember right? Carter? All the agreements? 2005? All the money and food we all gave them to not build the bomb? and ICBMs?

Granted but it's 2017 now and the time and need for negotiations has not ended.

Look at their History and then tell me what good more "talks" would do?

So if that's the case; Trump must as well stop wasting time and authorise strikes on North Korea : get it over with and the consequences be damned. The North Koreans will retaliate, maybe with nukes and we'll have another war; one that can lead to the death of millions, not just on the Korean peninsular. And we haven't even got into what China might do to protect its interests but so what? It won't be the first time the U.S. rushed into an ill advised war without fully realising or understanding what it was getting into. The U.S. is already heavily committed in the Middle East, has NATO commitments, is involved in the South China Sea and has obligations to various non NATO allies/partners; what's another war? Even if this war involves a country who actually has nukes - unlike Iraq and Libya.

For the North Korean to cease nuke development; they'll have to get something in return. Most of the narrative is about how various countries feel threatened by the North Koreans, fine but we have to bear in mind that the North Koreans also feel threatened and very insecure. As part of any talks - which must include China - certain compromises will have to be made on both sides. The time has long past when the U.S. can freely impose its will on countries and expect to give away little in return; especially in this case with China involved. With North Korea in its backyard, China will not sit idly if the U.S. undertakes actions that will threaten China's national interests and the Americans are fully aware of this.

We had every reason to go into Iraq but still most of the world, including many allies, condemned us for it.

And rightly so. The invasion was unnecessary. It led to more instability in the region, the death of thousands and thousand of Iraqis during the civil war, more volunteers for AQ, created the conditions for the birth of IS and the U.S. losing focus in Afghanistan [allowing the Talibs to make a comeback].

The Iranians however are happy and are extremely grateful to Bush Jr; thanks to the invasion Iraq is now ruled by a Shia majority government and the minority Sunnis have mostly been sidelined. What the Iranians failed to achieve during the 1980's the Americans did for them.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

Thailand approves $258M purchase of SK fighter jets If SK can produce fighters that Thais would buy, surely they can provide for their conventional defense! OTH, NK doesn't produce any fighters & won't be any time soon; what they have was imported from USSR, China & Kazakhstan.

 

[2007yellow430]

Whats the point of more negotiations when everyone in the past has been broken by them and little more then a gangster shake down?

You remember right? Carter? All the agreements? 2005? All the money and food we all gave them to not build the bomb? and ICBMs?

BTW we already gave this bunch a public/official guarantee we wouldnt invade or attempt a regime change or even interfere in any of their internal affairs. That was in '93, his response was to build his first nuke in '94. Then the whack job kid takes over later the same year and its been even worse.

The bottom line is this guy wants a nuclear arsenal and he'll make up all kinds of excuses to get it. We had every reason to go into Iraq but still most of the world, including many allies, condemned us for it. Imagine the casualties of going into NK? And other then SK, cause they have to, who's going to help us? I have a kid in the service so dont expect me to bang war drums.

Here https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron Look at their History

and then tell me what good more "talks" would do?

As I recall Clinton cut a deal with North Korea. Bush didn't deliver, they withdrew from the NPT and here we are. We also attacked Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents over demonstrably false grounds. The UN authorized a no fly zone over Lybia, and we used it for an excuse to deciminate their military, leading to that failed state. Those are straight up facts.

The lesson here is simple: have nukes equals safe. No nukes equals unsafe. North Korea is safe. We can't artack them because of the fear of the consequences. The world gets it, some of us don't.

We will never attack them. Make noise yes, attack, no way. The rest is just noise.

Art

 

[Toblerone]

I was agreeing with your post until you said the north koreans have nukes and the US can't attack them. Wrong, they cannot deploy these nukes militarily and USA can topple the regime with manageable US casualties and an unknown number of S.korean casualties. The chinese will bark but not bite and will try to take advantage of the situation to get a chinese-friendly regime into power with guarantees that there will be no US presence. Because the Kim regime has purged all chinese-affiliated generals.

And the dozens of bunker busters that their nuclear program related facilities will eat during the first 48hrs will set them back a few years.

 

[Lcf]

I was agreeing with your post until you said the north koreans have nukes and the US can't attack them. Wrong, they cannot deploy these nukes militarily and USA can topple the regime with manageable US casualties and an unknown number of S.korean casualties. The chinese will bark but not bite and will try to take advantage of the situation to get a chinese-friendly regime into power with guarantees that there will be no US presence. Because the Kim regime has purged all chinese-affiliated generals.

And the dozens of bunker busters that their nuclear program related facilities will eat during the first 48hrs will set them back a few years.

The idea that China would not intefere militarily is an illusion. They did it back in 1950. and that was before they had a nuclear hammer under their disposal. Though things are not the same today, one thing's the same and will remain so and that's the fact that they won't allow for a Korea under US umbrella. And who's going to provide enough occupation force other than US? SK? Japan? I don't think so. US would be stuck for a long haul which is the exact opposite of Korea free of US presence.

 

[USAF77]

I was agreeing with your post until you said the north koreans have nukes and the US can't attack them. Wrong, they cannot deploy these nukes militarily and USA can topple the regime with manageable US casualties and an unknown number of S.korean casualties. The chinese will bark but not bite and will try to take advantage of the situation to get a chinese-friendly regime into power with guarantees that there will be no US presence. Because the Kim regime has purged all chinese-affiliated generals.

And the dozens of bunker busters that their nuclear program related facilities will eat during the first 48hrs will set them back a few years.

NKs ability to deliver the weapons is unclear. They have from 13 to 21 weapons in the 10 KT range and its also unclear if they have miniaturized them enough to fit them on a missile, which would be a Theater range missile, since their ICBM program is unreliable. However they did recently successfully test an ICBM so were only talking a matter of time here.

Eventually they will have small enough weapons to attack their neighbors and a halfway decent ICBM to threaten America. It will probably be a liquid fueled missile they will wheel out of a cave due to the easier production and longer range of this type. Who knows? Unchecked they might have a road mobile, solid fueled, two stage fusion bomb and missile in 10 to 20 years. Eventually Mirv'ed with counter measures.

And along with them their patron "Iran" will have the tech. Probably the best way to slow them down is with cyber warfare, the best non-military solution at least. I remember laughing at Military experts Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy's predictions of 50,000 US casualties during the Gulf war. I wasn't laughing at casualties I was laughing at their prediction. A moron would know once we had enough force structure in place that Iraqi army was dead and would probably never even see our faces.

NK is different. It was different before and they learned the Lessons the Iraqi's didnt. Its bad terrain, bad weather, they have to many holes to hide in and it will take to much time to reduce their artillery. There would be heavy casualties in even a conventional war and I wouldn't laugh at this prediction for the peninsula.

 

[USAF77]

As I recall Clinton cut a deal with North Korea. Bush didn't deliver, they withdrew from the NPT and here we are. We also attacked Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents over demonstrably false grounds. The UN authorized a no fly zone over Lybia, and we used it for an excuse to deciminate their military, leading to that failed state. Those are straight up facts.

The lesson here is simple: have nukes equals safe. No nukes equals unsafe. North Korea is safe. We can't artack them because of the fear of the consequences. The world gets it, some of us don't.

We will never attack them. Make noise yes, attack, no way. The rest is just noise.

Art

Kind of forgot all the obstruction of UN inspectors by Saddam and violations of UN resolutions by Iraq eh? 18 overall in fact. NK is playing the same game which is why I mentioned it. They allow inspection of a few sights but not all. They account for "some" of their fuel rods but not all. They are negotiating in bad faith in order to buy time. Just like Saddam.

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN like he said he would in a cease fire agreement he'd probably still be alive. And what does Libya have to do with anything? BTW use your spell checker if you can't spell.

 

[Lcf]

And what does Libya have to do with anything?

Absolutely everything. It shows how much the current order is broken by unilateral US (and wests in general) actions and in certain cases outright agression like in the case of Yugoslavia where UN was totally ignored. Only force is respected and KJU understands it.

EDIT:
I'll just leave this here
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-us-again-learns-intervention-isnt-cost-free-21516

 

[2007yellow430]

Kind of forgot all the obstruction of UN inspectors by Saddam and violations of UN resolutions by Iraq eh? 18 overall in fact. NK is playing the same game which is why I mentioned it. They allow inspection of a few sights but not all. They account for "some" of their fuel rods but not all. They are negotiating in bad faith in order to buy time. Just like Saddam.

Had Saddam cooperated with the UN like he said he would in a cease fire agreement he'd probably still be alive. And what does Libya have to do with anything? BTW use your spell checker if you can't spell.

You might wish to read this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

As an interesting aside, there is a department of energy paper concerning those aluminum tubes. Seems the material wasn't suitable for nuclear use. Published before 3/1/2003. Written by a guy called Norris. Somehow it got suppressed. Ever wonder why?

You might wish to read this:

Leading To War :: a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

Art

 

[USAF77]

I Leave a thread when people start linking "wikipedia" and talking like Lawyers.

I'd say the point of this discussion has gone off the deep end.

 

[Toblerone]

And what does Libya have to do with anything?

The underhanded geopolitical behaviour of the US has convinced the North Koreans that only nuclear power will stop US aggression. And they are correct IMO.

Libya is also a part of that aggressive strategy, you think Libya doesn't have anything to do with the north korean situation but the north koreans themselves disagree:

North Korea cites Muammar Gaddafi's 'destruction' in nuclear test defence - Telegraph

"The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord," it said.

Both had made the mistake, the commentary argued, of yielding to Western pressure led by a United States bent on regime change.

 

[Volkodav]

Absolutely everything. It shows how much the current order is broken by unilateral US (and wests in general) actions and in certain cases outright agression like in the case of Yugoslavia where UN was totally ignored. Only force is respected and KJU understands it.

EDIT:
I'll just leave this here
The U.S. Again Learns That Intervention Isn’t Cost-Free | The National Interest Blog

The bolded and underlined section is pretty much an oxymoron, either the US took unilateral action or the "west" took action together, the "west" being a multitude of sovereign states and definitely not a homogenous or monolithic block.

 

[Tsavo Lion]

North Korea cites Muammar Gaddafi's 'destruction' in nuclear test defence - Telegraph Quote: "The Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programmes of their own accord," it said. Both had made the mistake, the commentary argued, of yielding to Western pressure led by a United States bent on regime change." Pl. see my post #3051 on another thread.
From their long military history, Koreans learned to resist & stand their ground, be it fighting each other, Jurchens, Chinese, Manchus, Mongols, Japanese, etc. well before the event of 1871. To them, "the ends justify the means". Otherwise, they would've been subjugated & assimilated by China &/Japan a long time ago. In modern history, the only country that got disarmed/denuclearized & is being left alone is S. African Republic. Unless the Suez Canal is closed again, it'll remain "out of sight & out mind". Nuclear deterrence worked between USA, UK, France, China, & USSR during the Cold War, & still works between USA, RF, Pakistan, India, & NK now- they learned that the US "doesn't attack nuclear armed countries".
The terrifying truth about North Korea's nuclear weapons