North Korean Military.

S

STURM

Well-Known Member
gazzzwp said:
The problem was right there. You said it.
Click to expand...
Right. So what options does the U.S. have with North Korea? Will a military strike and putting a lot of blame on China accomplish anything? Trump can blame China all he wants but the fact remains that China has not been idle and there is no solution without Chinese participation.
 
C

colay1

Member
Trump tried bullying the Chinese President via Twitter. Sad and lame, but a step up from chcolate cake. In reply, Xi Jinping reviewed a massive parade of China's military might. They just gave Trump the finger and I can only imagine the low regard in which they hold POTUS.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
The plain fact is that Trump has no idea as to how to deal with the Chinese whom as a whole understand the Americans and the North Koreans much better. The idea that China is not doing enough is preposterous. The Chinese have their own concerns, have their own way of dealing with the North Koreans and have taken certain measures to punish North Korea. Is China expected to resort to measures that will benefit the U.S. but will be damaging to Chinese interests? Reading the Trump and the State Department narrative, one would think that it's only the U.S. that has concerns over North Korea.

That the North Koreans want nukes because it protects them against regime change and strengthens their position in future talks is obvious; the key now is to figure out how diplomacy can achieve results with all sides [not just the U.S.] getting something in return. Yet some still are convinced that talks can't achieve anything and that the better alternative is to resort to military action. It would be simple if the North Koreans could be deterred by U.S./ROK exercises and B1s flying over South Korea but unfortunately they aren't.
 
Last edited:
C

colay1

Member
The US is willing to talk to NK but first the latter has to give up it's nukes. This is a non-starter for KJU. Surely it's just common sense to start talks first then negotiate your respective demands? The US has maintained in the past this will grant legitimacy to NK. This is a stupid position IMO. The US is really in a weak position to dictate and continuing to do so ignores the reality that the longer the impasse goes on the greater the risk of conflict. NK already poses a legitimate threat which will become even more lethal as it continues to make progress in it's WMD programs. Cool heads and steady hands are needed to ratchet down the tension and with some irony I see SecDef Mattis rather than Sec. Tillerson as best-equipped to take point on this issue.



Tillerson says US is willing to talk to North Korea - CNNPolitics.com
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
colay1 said:
America first? If accurate, Trump is apparently willing to throw SK, Japan and others in the region under the bus. This is scary for real.
Click to expand...
Nothing new here. To prevent the possibility of a future nuclear strike on the U.S. the U.S. has plans to launch a strike a North Korea. A strike that will certainly lead to North Korean retaliation and the possibility of civilian deaths not only in North Korea but also South Korea and Japan. The use of U.S. nukes on North Korea could also lead to a radiation fall out on China ......

The State Secretary's announcement to North Korea that the U.S. does not seek regime change is telling. It's an indication that despite previous warnings and rhetoric the U.S. still seeks a diplomatic approach and is doing all it can to avoid a war or a strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities [with no guarantee of success] that will surely lead to a war. The State Secretary's announcement also reinforces the belief of the North Koreans that the only thing preventing regime change is the fact that North Korea has nukes. No doubt, in a perfect world North Korea or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be allowed to have nukes but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

The fact remains that North Korea will only resort to the use of nukes if the survival of its leadership is threatened - the whole idea of having nukes is to prevent regime change an to bolster North Korea's participation in any future talks. The North Korean leadership is under no illusions that the U.S. will not retaliate with nukes should the North Koreans resort to nukes.
 
2007yellow430

2007yellow430

Active Member
colay1 said:
The US is willing to talk to NK but first the latter has to give up it's nukes. This is a non-starter for KJU. Surely it's just common sense to start talks first then negotiate your respective demands? The US has maintained in the past this will grant legitimacy to NK. This is a stupid position IMO. The US is really in a weak position to dictate and continuing to do so ignores the reality that the longer the impasse goes on the greater the risk of conflict. NK already poses a legitimate threat which will become even more lethal as it continues to make progress in it's WMD programs. Cool heads and steady hands are needed to ratchet down the tension and with some irony I see SecDef Mattis rather than Sec. Tillerson as best-equipped to take point on this


Tillerson says US is willing to talk to North Korea - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...
Given Lybia and Iraq the odds on NK giving up its nukes are nil. We aren't prepared to see Seoul nuked. We're never going to attack them. Thats why he has them.
Art
 
Last edited:
T

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
What Next for North Korea’s ICBM? Regime Change in N Korea: Be Careful What You Wish For
Decapitation or an internal coup would also substantially increase the risk of proliferation and use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC) weapons or material. Finding North Korean “loose nukes” would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Renegade factions opposed to the coup plotters or disgruntled military units could try to exploit the chaos and breakdown of state authority to pilfer NBC weapons out of the country using the North’s well-established smuggling networks. Even more worrisome, units in control of these weapons, assuming that the United States and South Korea were behind the attack on their country’s leadership, could retaliate by launching NBC attacks on the South, triggering a larger-scale conflict that would engulf the entire peninsula. There is also a significant risk that a decapitation strike or attempted coup, if it led to a collapse of the regime and US/ROK occupation of the country, would fracture the North Korean military, with many units retreating to wage guerilla warfare. The North Korean military has dedicated units that have been trained and equipped for many years for this kind of warfare. ..Trying to topple Kim Jong Un would very probably precipitate a real crisis even worse than the current one.
Click to expand...
Like with the PLA, the units of future KPA learned guerrilla warfare 1st & excelled at it. Also, perhaps as a side effect, the US plan to create a refuge crisis to destabilize NE PRC & the RFE, similar to European refuge influx from ME & N. Africa?
The US State Dept. asks all citizens to leave NK by 9/1/17.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Tsavo Lion said:
[the US plan to create a refuge crisis to destabilize NE PRC & the RFE, similar to European refuge influx from ME & N. Africa?
Click to expand...
How did you arrive at that? I would suggest that you provide some good reliable evidence to support this and Russian news media along with Wikipedia are not reliable sources.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
[CrossTalk: What Does North Korea Want?]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6X-_NU_prM

Very interesting discussion with several valid points raised. It's often forgotten that it's not only the U.S, South Korea and Japan who feel threatened but also the North Koreans. Takes the South Korean/U.S. exercises as an example; the official narrative is that these are a defensive measure to deter North Korean aggression, demonstrate U.S. resolve to upholding peace and stability, etc, but viewed from North Korea such exercises are provocative and are aimed at North Korea.

No doubt the North Koreans have to cease or freeze what they're doing but the fact remains that only diplomacy can achieve results and that all sides have to agree to certain compromises. Not too long after the U.S. ambassador to the UN declared that talks are over; the State Secretary goes to great lengths to assure North Korea that the U.S. does not seek regime change. This is telling.

[A North Korean ICBM Is A Danger, Not A Game Changer]
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/north-korean-icbm-danger-not-game-changer
 
Last edited:
T

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
ngatimozart said:
How did you arrive at that? I would suggest that you provide some good reliable evidence to support this and Russian news media along with Wikipedia are not reliable sources.
Click to expand...
I said "perhaps". The threat of refugee crisis is real for SK, PRC & RF; the US may exploit it to put pressure on the PRC & RF. If the Korean War restarts (it's now only Armistice), all experts agree that Ms of refugees will be created. The US will only gain if most of them inundate the PRC & RF, although it may not be an end in itself.
If anyone thinks that NK leaders are going to believe the latest US double talk, he should have his head examined. If we are "not their enemy", why not stop sanctions & start directly negotiating a peace treaty & meet them half way? Israel got away with a lot more than NK, but because it was founded by European Jews (I'm from that background myself, so can't be accused of antisemitism) & is still a US ally, it's being "treated with velvet gloves".
 
Last edited:
gazzzwp

gazzzwp

Member
Tsavo Lion said:
I said "perhaps". The threat of refugee crisis is real for SK, PRC & RF; the US may exploit it to put pressure on the PRC & RF. If the Korean War restarts (it's now only Armistice), all experts agree that Ms of refugees will be created. The US will only gain if most of them inundate the PRC & RF, although it may not be an end in itself.
If anyone thinks that NK leaders are going to believe the latest US double talk, he should have his head examined. If we are "not their enemy", why not stop sanctions & start directly negotiating a peace treaty & meet them half way? Israel got away with a lot more than NK, but because it was founded by European Jews (I'm from that background myself, so can't be accused of antisemitism) & is still a US ally, it's being "treated with velvet gloves".
Click to expand...
Surely the difference is that Israel is friendly to US interests not hostile like the DPRK?
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
gazzzwp said:
Surely the difference is that Israel is friendly to US interests not hostile like the DPRK?
Click to expand...
Is Israel friendly to US interests? Or is the US friendly to Israeli interests? ;)

On a side note, the reason the DPRK hasn't gotten away with things is because they're a self-proclaimed anti-American "communist" country. And while their actions towards south Korea are debatably not that bad, when compared to Israeli treatment of their neighbors, their domestic situation is awful.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
gazzzwp said:
Surely the difference is that Israel is friendly to US interests not hostile like the DPRK?
Click to expand...

Really? How? There have been many occasions where the U.S. took sides with Israel - including vetoing UN Resolutions - not necessarily because Israel was right or was threatened but because of its policy of unconditional support for Israel and by doing so damaged the U.S's standing in the region. There have been occasions where Israel undertook actions that were not in the interests of the U.S. If viewed objectively, who benefits more from this arrangement? More recently Israel came close to launching a strike on Iran; the Iranians would have been right to retaliate and the U.S. would have got involved on the side of Israel: how is that in the interests of the U.S?

The Israelis have also been trying to get Jonathan Pollard released. He of course was a U.S. citizen who spied on the U.S. for Israel. If the citizen of any other country had been jailed for the same offence, with his country trying to get him released; imagine the public outcry.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If you want to hear public outcry, just wait until Iran gets the bomb. It will be even louder if the Iranians get one with NK assistance.
 
S

STURM

Well-Known Member
Many believe that Iran's nuclear programme was intended not so much to develop a ''bomb'' but to create the infrastructure to be able to develop a ''bomb'' in a short time span should there be a need. Whilst the current leadership is committed to abiding by the nuclear deal it is under a lot of pressure from various quarters who argue that no matter what Iran does; it will always be treated badly by Uncle Sam. Every time new sanctions are put in place and something negative is said about Iran this provides ammunition to those who say the current leadership is too soft and is giving away too much with Iran getting little in return.

With regards to North Korean assistance; it'll very hard for North Korea to do so without the U.S. finding out given the level of surveillance the country is under. There is also the question of how much external assistance Iran really needs to develop a workable nuclear device.

[Living With A Nuclear Iran | Robert Kaplan]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWKmQa_OJQ

[The Full Story of Iran's Nuclear Program - Robert Fisk]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAL4SaGA0s
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Feanor said:
Is Israel friendly to US interests? Or is the US friendly to Israeli interests? ;)
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Over $100 billion (& a lot more at today's prices) in US military aid to Israel in the last 50 years, the USA making enemies left, right & centre, strong suspicions of US military technology being shared with China, etc. It's not exactly a partnership where both sides benefit equally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top