History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:03 am
Posts: 1629
Question for the team

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.

I expect us to win.

How do you predict it will happen?

What will China and Russia do?

How will it impact the political and global structure?

How will it impact US support in Europe, Middle East and the South China Sea?

How will run North Korea. I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:53 am 
Offline
SAC-trained killer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 3854
Location: CL-56, CGN-37
crazyyank wrote:
Question for the team

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.

I expect us to win.

How do you predict it will happen?

What will China and Russia do?

How will it impact the political and global structure?

How will it impact US support in Europe, Middle East and the South China Sea?

How will run North Korea. I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.



..My take on the matter, of course YMMV.

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.
Honestly, I don't expect one. The choices here are miserable ones:

A)Learn to live with it. As has been pointed out, wanting nuclear weapons is a lot more fun and exciting than actually having the damned things. Maintenance suddenly becomes a life-or-death issue, and trust me - if you think it was expensive to get them, wait till you see what it costs to keep them usable. (NOTE: this is why I don't think Pakistan's and Iran's weapons are/will be as much of a threat as they' like you to believe) Plus, once you know what they can do it's a thrilling new experience when you decide to drop that damage scale on a map of your hometown and know that not only does the other side have them, they have a lot more...and you know theirs work. It's still at least possible that Kim il-Suet only wants the things to insure his name doesn't follow those of Saddam Hussein and Moamaar al-Khaddafi in the 'whatever-happened-to' articles online. Add to that the almost certain likelihood that Japan (and possibly the ROK) will install solid, capable ABM systems - and possibly go nuclear. (The PRC will go absolutely bananas over the first option, and batshit insane over the second - and they know it will leave them with exactly two options themselves) So, we're going to take all that into account, because the only other option is to

B)Start a war.

Launch another ICBM, we shoot it down to prove a point? Act of war by any reasonable standard and actually, we MIGHT be justified in doing so under the '53 armistice - which the Norks have officially disavowed anyways. But we blow one of them out of the sky, and we've fired the first shot, right wrong or indifferent.
Try to take out the Nork nuclear arsenal? Anything short of a WWIII level, Full Tom Clancy-style attack will not work. If anybody could pull it off, we could - but we'd essentially be committing the entire US military to the fight, and nuclear weapons will have to be on the table from the start. It would have to be a 100% perfect operation, taking out every last weapons site and everyone in the chain of command...and I guarantee we'll miss somebody. We'd also be committing our Pacific allies to the fight, whether they want to be or not. And let's not forget the horrors of starting a war like this in the PRC's front yard.

We can 'win' a war like that - but we won't fight it. And in all honesty, I don't think we could get one organized and launched with the secrecy and speed it would require. And once we've won, what the hell do we do with twenty-five million starving, terrified North Koreans? The PRC will not let a single one across the border if they can help it, which means they're mostly either staying put or going south.

I do not believe that McMaster and Mattis - the grownups on the NSC at this point - could in good conscience recommend an all-out attack, and anything less just makes matters worse.

Mike

_________________
Bójcie się Boga, ale strach nikt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:21 am
Posts: 1106
Location: SSN-766, BB-55
MikeKozlowski wrote:
It's still at least possible that Kim il-Suet only wants the things to insure his name doesn't follow those of Saddam Hussein and Moamaar al-Khaddafi in the 'whatever-happened-to' articles online.


What if that's not the only reason?

What if Lil' Kim demands a never-ending fountain of international aid or else?

The Kim Dynasty has gotten an awfully long way by acting while the outside world only responds with words. That simply can't go on forever. They'll keep pushing and pushing and pushing until they do something that gets them crushed.

Jeff

_________________
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6763
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
JPaulMartin wrote:
MikeKozlowski wrote:
It's still at least possible that Kim il-Suet only wants the things to insure his name doesn't follow those of Saddam Hussein and Moamaar al-Khaddafi in the 'whatever-happened-to' articles online.


What if that's not the only reason?

What if Lil' Kim demands a never-ending fountain of international aid or else?

The Kim Dynasty has gotten an awfully long way by acting while the outside world only responds with words. That simply can't go on forever. They'll keep pushing and pushing and pushing until they do something that gets them crushed.

Jeff


OK, we tell them "or else."

Your move, Li'l Kim.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 pm
Posts: 6174
What would China do, if the rumor starts that Japan will allow US Nukes on it soil, or that it's thinking about getting nukes since they have doubts about US reliability?

China doesn't want NK refuges streaming north nor do that want a united Korea. A tame NK leader might be easier for them to do.

If China wants to be a major world player, they need to start paying the freight.

_________________
Faugh a Ballagh


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:47 pm
Posts: 3316
Location: Germany
crazyyank wrote:

I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.


But first they'd have to rebuilt their own country. I expect the Norks to target southern cities. Use the more accurate systems to take out water-/power supply and hospitals, fire the less accurate ones at residential areas?

_________________
trekchu wrote:
It was worse than he had expected. It was so incomprehensibly bad that he'd rather watch Pearl Harbor on a constant, never-ending loop than...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:47 pm
Posts: 438
crazyyank wrote:
Question for the team

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.


I doubt it

We don't really have the manpower and assets to spare, additionally concerns of Chinese or Russian reaction would cool heads

We'll just keep rattling our empty scabbards (a START compliant B-1 as 'show of force', seriously?)

Quote:
I expect us to win.


there's only one way we win, stomachs of the masses are too soft for it

Quote:
How do you predict it will happen?


The DPRK goes through a bit of destabilization..there's a coup attempt, Kim panics and launches his nukes

Seoul is glassed

Japan and South Korea lose overall a couple cities, THAAD coverage being too sparse

GBI nerfs missiles bound for CONUS, Hawaii and Guam aren't so lucky

We then take 2-4 months to mount a conventional response and spend the next 20-30 years fighting KPA Special Forces

Quote:
What will China and Russia do?


My adorable scenario?

short-term nothing, PLA puts on a humanitarian face. Long-term both China and Russia lobby to be heavily invoved in the reconstruction of a new independent North Korea, a unified Korea is out of the question...as is another American vassal state

Quote:
How will it impact the political and global structure?


If Kim blows his nukes and we fail to respond in kind, faith in American power and protection is dashed severely

Both China and Russia become more overtly aggressive in their pursuits, assessing that America is a genuine 'paper tiger'

We can expect the number of nuclear powers to grow exponentially, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran get into a nuclear Cold War...all sorts of fun times ahead

Quote:
How will it impact US support in Europe, Middle East and the South China Sea?


Faith in American protection and support is crippled

Europe: Federalization of the EU would fast become palatable, with America no longer the attack dog it once was and Russia becoming more 'assertive' with ex-Soviet holdings, a Unified European military and the infrastructure & governance to back it would be paramount.

Mid East: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have a nuclear Mexican Standoff, The rest of the region reassesses their relations with America, some go to Russia, other go to China

West Pacific: America is no longer the choice champion, many would flock to China...on the short-term deal seems fair.

Quote:
How will run North Korea. I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.


It'd be a new independent government. Officially UN backed and supported, China and Russia would generally be in charge and western participation marginalized.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:39 am
Posts: 336
Location: UK
MikeKozlowski wrote:
crazyyank wrote:
Question for the team

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.

I expect us to win.

How do you predict it will happen?

What will China and Russia do?

How will it impact the political and global structure?

How will it impact US support in Europe, Middle East and the South China Sea?

How will run North Korea. I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.



..My take on the matter, of course YMMV.

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.
Honestly, I don't expect one. The choices here are miserable ones:

But we blow one of them out of the sky, and we've fired the first shot, right wrong or indifferent.


Strictly speaking they will have fired the first shot by launching a ballistic missile, several in fact; they have already fired many 'first shots' over the decades, from kidnapping Japanese and South Korean civilians to bombardimng a South Koren island a few years ago, now launching ICBMs? In breach of the ceasefire accord they themselves agreed to? (We know they did otherwise there wouldn't have been a ceasefire in the first place.

No case to answer, under international law.

Kim Song Sung Jim Il Jung Wrong Un is playing on the Wests' frankly timid politicians tendency to say "Its North Korea, what do you expect?" and do nothing. I suspect if any Western Leader made it known to the NK generals that the next time will be causus belli you can expect a sudden bout of 'ill health' at the top and non-stop funereal music on Pyongyang FM.

Kim MkIII is a child playing with grown men's toys, and hasn't the wisdom to know when to be quiet. His generals OTOH, will not be so niaive, I think, and will know where the line is and why not to cross it.

_________________
Andy L

"Never trust anything you have to sign for. Look what happened to Neville Chamberlain...."
(Albert Arkright, as reported by Gerald Whiley)

"Leave Us . . . We Are DECORATING!" (Miss Quill, as recounted by Katherine Kelly)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 221
crazyyank wrote:
Question for the team

What are the odd that in six months we will be in a heavy military engagement in Korea.


How do you predict it will happen?

What will China and Russia do?

How will it impact the political and global structure?

How will it impact US support in Europe, Middle East and the South China Sea?

How will run North Korea. I believe South Korea is concerned over the cost of occupation of North Korea.


Odds in the Next 6 months....

Practically zero. The incentive just isn't there for either side. The north has almost 10,000 artillery pieces that are in range of Seoul. A large percentage of these are in mountainside bunkers with blast doors that can close in between shots. While they have been there for decades and thus we probably know where the majority of these are there are just too damn many of them for us to take them out before they are able to level Seoul without using Nukes. (I won't bother explaining why we won't use nukes to take out the artillery. Hint look how close they are to Seoul.)

With a new left leaning government in South Korea there is no way they are going to want to militarily engage North Korea. Thus if we did anything it would be entirely on our own. And lets be brutally honest here. While North Korea is a major contender for most batshit crazy nation of the last 100 years (and if you know much history think about all the absolutely crazy nations there have been in that period) They for the most part are only a minor irritant to us. (Granted they are major irritants to Japan and South Korea but they just aren't worth the cost of removing from power.)

For their side, the equation is simple. If they start a war they will be wiped out. The disparity of forces is so massive they there just isn't much chance of them going all out war.

I expect the same thing that has been going on to continue to go on. The North will continue to irritate everyone. Will continue talking about nuking the USA, the south, and Japan. They will probably continue to do one major incident every 3-5 years. (ie shell an island, sink a ship etc) After all this has been the pattern for more than 60 years.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Wither NKorea ?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
Current reports, based on analysis of NKs latest ICBM launch; NKs could put a nuclear weapon as far as NYC.
Only "good"news is "on the record US Intel Agencies say" it would be about a year before NKs would have
miniaturized one of their nuclear devices to make an operational Nuclear ICBM weapon.
Right! How often has our vaunted, now highly politicized Intel Agencies been disastrously wrong, or working their own agenda?

I am not saying I believe every word in this article. I am not saying there is not an agenda influencing the conclusions. I am saying this is way above a broken down retired E-8's comfort zone.

Your thoughts?



North Korea: The Military Options What would a strike actually entail?
URI FRIEDMAN This is from The Atlantic, BUT Uri has good creds.

The Trump administration claims “all options are on the table” for dealing with North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program—from using military force, to pressuring China to cut off economic relations with North Korea, to Donald Trump negotiating directly with Kim Jong Un. But what do those options look like? And what consequences could they have? This series explores those questions, option by option.

Trump’s Reddish Line

Millions of lives may depend on what Donald Trump means by the word “it.”

At some point, the American president recently told CBS’s John Dickerson, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will develop “a better [missile] delivery system” for its small but growing stockpile of nuclear weapons. “And if that happens,” Trump vowed, “we can’t allow it to happen.”

Behind the seemingly contradictory statement was a hazy hint of what might prompt the world’s mightiest military to use force against an emerging nuclear power, potentially drawing China, Japan, and South Korea into one of the most volatile conflicts in living memory.

The next day, on Fox News, Trump’s national-security adviser offered one answer to what his boss meant by “it.” It’s unacceptable for North Korea to obtain the means of hitting the United States with a nuclear weapon, H.R. McMaster told Chris Wallace, citing a scenario that, according to many experts, could become a reality within Trump’s first term in office. On Sunday, North Korea made a major advance toward that goal by testing a missile that may be capable of reaching U.S. military facilities on the island of Guam and, if you believe the North Korean government, carrying a nuclear warhead.

Wallace mentioned the concern most people raise when they assess the risks of a U.S. military operation: The North Koreans could swiftly bombard South Koreans with artillery guns stationed in the Kaesong area near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)—roughly as far from the South Korean capital of Seoul, a sprawling metropolis of 25 million people, as Baltimore is from Washington, D.C. “What the president has first and foremost on his mind is to protect the American people,” McMaster said. Where that left the South Korean people, McMaster didn’t say.

“If we were to launch a preemptive strike against their nuclear program, their missile program, we’re talking about human catastrophe, aren’t we?” Wallace inquired.

“Well, yes,” McMaster replied.

The Options Within the Military Option

A “military” option need not involve strikes at all. It could mean deploying military assets to deter North Korea from using weapons of mass destruction, just as the United States and its allies deterred rival nuclear states during the Cold War. This might include beefing up missile defenses like the THAAD system in South Korea, which the Trump administration has been rapidly installing. It might even include “the reintroduction of nuclear weapons” to Japan and South Korea to emphasize “that we’re determined to fully deter any [North Korean] attack and, should deterrence fail, that it would result in a prompt and overwhelming response,” just as America deployed Pershing missiles to Europe during the Cold War, according to Wallace Gregson, a retired lieutenant general who served as the assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs in the Obama administration.

But the Trump administration also appears to have not ruled out a “preventive strike” akin to what the George W. Bush administration undertook in Iraq—striking first to neutralize a threat that may materialize in the future, according to Van Jackson, a Korea expert at Victoria University of Wellington. (A “preemptive strike,” by contrast, would be the U.S. government springing into action to stop an imminent attack.)

As Jackson sees it, preventive strikes against North Korea could take three forms:

1) The offshore option: The United States launches Tomahawk cruise missiles from a Navy ship or submarine. This is the least risky option since it doesn’t involve traversing North Korean territory, and would resemble Trump’s strikes against the Syrian military for using chemical weapons, but there’s no guarantee that North Korea would refrain from retaliating.

2) The aerial option: U.S. stealth bombers or fighter aircraft conduct air strikes over North Korea. Such an approach is more conducive to military escalation than the first option. The North Korean government knows that U.S. bombers are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and the United States might need to take out North Korean air defenses to successfully deploy some of these planes. Even if the U.S. operation is limited in scope, North Korea may not interpret it that way.

3) The high-tech options: A U.S. bomber drops a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a bunker-busting bomb that has never been used in combat, on hard-to-reach targets such as underground nuclear facilities. Or the U.S. trots out other new technologies, such as electromagnetic railguns mounted on warships. Using these weapons would set a precedent that other countries could emulate, and it’s unclear whether they would be any more effective than lower-tech options.

Depending on the military assets used and the purpose of the strikes, the Trump administration could hit a variety of targets, including:

1) Facilities for producing and storing nuclear material and nuclear weapons

2) Facilities for producing and storing missiles

3) Missile launchers, particularly North Korea’s expanding fleet of mobile platforms

4) Ports for submarines capable of launching missiles

5) Artillery positions near the DMZ that could be used in a retaliatory attack

Since these targets are dispersed across the country and often concealed underground or undersea, however, U.S. strikes won’t eliminate the country’s nuclear-weapons program, according to Victor Cha, a Korea expert who was serving in the George W. Bush administration when North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon. At best, they’ll set the program back several years.

Daryl Press, a scholar of nuclear deterrence at Dartmouth College, said America’s capacity to inflict severe damage on North Korea’s program shouldn’t be underestimated. But he argued that this capability is best-suited to responding to an outbreak of war between North and South Korea or to North Korea using or threatening to imminently use nuclear weapons, rather than as a preventive measure.

“If there were a conventional war on the Korean peninsula, and thousands of people are dying on all sides, it might be very valuable for the United States to rapidly degrade North Korea’s nuclear forces and also its artillery,” Press explained. A conventional war might encourage the North Koreans to use nuclear weapons, since the U.S. and South Korean militaries are far stronger than North Korea’s and would triumph in a normal conflict. (A 2017 ranking of military powers puts the United States first and South Korea 11th, while North Korea places 23rd.) “If North Korean nuclear escalation seemed likely, even a 90 percent or a 95 percent successful attack on the North Korean delivery systems would be a great victory, because every weapon destroyed is one that’s not detonating in South Korea or Japan.”


But in the absence of war, Press continued, each weapon destroyed is not necessarily a victory: “In peacetime … even largely successful strikes against North Korea’s nuclear program or its conventional artillery could very well leave residual North Korean capabilities that could cause incredible amounts of damage and suffering in South Korea and possibly Japan.” Destroy 90 percent of North Korea’s firepower, and you and your allies still have to reckon with the remaining 10 percent.

How Would North Korea Respond?

Kim Jong Un, like his father Kim Jong Il, appears to view nuclear weapons as the most reliable way to deter foreign aggression. “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 programs of their own accord,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency solemnly observed in 2016.

Given this, Press reasoned, North Korean leaders could interpret any U.S. attack on their nuclear infrastructure as a prelude to invading or overthrowing the government, even if the United States insists otherwise. To force the United States and its regional allies to back off, the North Koreans might carry out conventional attacks on Seoul and U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea, unleash chemical weapons on those targets, or even make use of whatever nuclear weapons survive the initial U.S. strikes. (It’s unclear whether North Korea has the ability to place a nuclear warhead on a missile that can reach Japan or South Korea, but many experts suspect they do.)

Of course, any of these audacious actions would likely invite an enormous U.S. and South Korean military assault on the Kim government. But the limited deployment of nuclear weapons to spook adversaries into a ceasefire—in other words, escalating to de-escalate—was actually part of NATO’s strategy against the superior conventional forces of Warsaw Pact countries in Europe during the Cold War, according to Press.

“Political scientists expect generally that if you have only a small number of nukes, to be able to squeeze political value out of them at all, you need to be able to use them early” in a conflict, Jackson noted.

In the 1980s and ’90s, the image that haunted people contemplating military conflict with North Korea was that of North Korean artillery setting Seoul ablaze, Jackson said. The image endures today, as Chris Wallace’s interview with H.R. McMaster attests. But it is outdated (and unrealistic, since the North would only be able to fire for so long before facing massive counterfire).

In building out its nuclear arsenal, Jackson argued, North Korea is extending its “escalation ladder,” freeing up lower rungs for military maneuvering that might not spell the end of the Kim government. North Korea, for example, could respond to U.S. strikes by launching non-nuclear missiles at the South Korean port of Busan, making it harder for the United States to deploy forces in the region. At the same time, it could threaten to attack Seoul or use nuclear-tipped missiles against South Korea or Japan if the U.S. retaliates for the Busan assault. “They have the ability to hold things at risk while attacking in ways that they could not have before,” Jackson said. (As Press and co-author Keir Lieber wrote in a 2013 Foreign Affairs article, “The key to coercion is the hostage that is still alive.”)

Since the 1960s, the North Korean military’s “theory of victory”—“how they believe military force can achieve political goals and coerce successfully and control escalation, etc.”—has been “highly offensive,” Jackson said. North Korean leaders appear to believe that they have to periodically engage in low-level violence to achieve high-level deterrence, and that they must reflexively reciprocate when attacked.

Consider North Korea’s most aggressive act against the United States since the Korean War: After North Korea shot down a U.S. spy plane in 1969, killing all 31 Americans on board, the North Korean foreign minister recounted the government’s rationale in a conversation with the Soviet ambassador to North Korea. “If the enemy fires on us in [the DMZ] with machine guns we respond with machine guns; when he uses artillery, we also use artillery,” Pak Seong Cheol explained at the time. “When the Americans understand that there is a weak enemy before them they will start a war right away. If, however, they see that there is a strong partner before them, this delays the beginning of a war.”

While the U.S. government has typically responded with restraint to North Korean provocations, U.S. military leaders—who under Donald Trump dominate national-security policy in a way they didn’t under Barack Obama—have a similarly offensive theory of victory, Jackson argued: “They believe that military force has political value, that you have to escalate to de-escalate, and that you can purchase general deterrence through deliberate friction with your adversary—through military posturing and pinpricks.” When two offensive theories of victory collide, and when each is held by a country with an array of fearsome military capabilities, Jackson warned, “It’s very easy to lock into a conflict spiral.”

“It’s certainly true that dictatorships like North Korea—their primary goal is to survive,” Cha told me. “So could you carry out a strike against their nuclear facilities with a threat that if they retaliate we will wipe out the regime? Will a rational dictator then sort of sit still? Possibly. But that’s a big risk to take.” How big? A second Korean war could inflict “millions of casualties,” he said.

Then What?

Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, has been conducting war games involving a Korean conflict for the past 25 years, many while teaching colonels and lieutenant colonels at the National War College.

In a war game organized by The Atlantic in 2005, a year before North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon, experts predicted that, in the event of hostilities with the United States and South Korea, North Korea would draw on its chemical-weapons arsenal, which is one of the largest in the world. The resulting conflict, they speculated, could kill hundreds of thousands of South Koreans and Americans in South Korea—an estimate Gardiner now believes was low given what he’s learned in recent years from the lethality of chemical-weapons attacks in Syria.

Gardiner sent me an essay he’d just composed imagining what war on the Korean peninsula might look like. In the scenario, North Korea conducts a ballistic-missile test and its sixth nuclear test on the same day, prompting the Trump administration to respond to the provocation by launching 20 Tomahawk cruise missiles at North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex.

“The White House meant it to be a limited response with a clear message,” Gardiner writes. “The United States targeted the North Korean nuclear program, not North Korea’s nuclear weapons. The nuclear-research center was hit with five weapons, the radiochemistry laboratory was hit, Building 500 close to that laboratory was hit, and the fuel fabrication facility was hit. The targeting was done carefully to avoid the nuclear-research reactor, the experimental reactor, as well as the nuclear power plant.”

Gardiner envisions panic in Seoul as civilians are evacuated and an eerie lack of response for 48 long hours from North Korea, which is covertly inserting thousands of special-operations troops into South Korea via small boats, light aircraft, and hidden tunnels under the DMZ. The soldiers eventually emerge, striking U.S. and South Korean air bases in South Korea with conventional weapons and sarin gas, and kidnapping a number of American, Japanese, and South Korean officials. Seoul soon comes under fire. North Korean conventional ground troops mobilize as the U.S. and South Korean militaries launch a massive military campaign against the North, with the goal of overthrowing the Kim regime and occupying the top half of the peninsula within 60 days.

“We are less than 24 hours into the battle,” Gardiner writes. “The medical situation in Seoul is in crisis. Some estimates have put the casualties from conventional shelling and chemicals at over 1 million. It will be a long time before we really know.”

What Does the U.S. Actually Want?

One of the lessons Gardiner learned from his war games: “If you don’t know what your objective is, it’s not possible to find military options to achieve it.” And, at the moment, he’s not sure what to make of the Trump administration’s objective for North Korea. McMaster and Vice President Mike Pence have said that America’s goal is to rid the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons, but Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis have instead stressed that North Korea isn’t behaving, “as if there is some form of behavior that we expect them to achieve” rather than a renunciation of nuclear weapons. With these shifting messages, Kim Jong Un wouldn’t necessarily know how to avoid a military conflict with the United States even if he wanted to. Which brings us back to what Donald Trump means when he says “we can’t allow it to happen.”

“I’ve lost faith that North Korea will ever voluntarily denuclearize,” Gregson said. And “the question’s gotta be asked: Do we ever get denuclearization without regime change? If not, what are we—we, collectively … our allies South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam—prepared [to do]?”

Even if the Trump administration had a coherent objective, the mission could evolve in the course of a war. “In most [war] games, once there has been an exchange which causes serious casualties in the South, the objective of the South Koreans and the Americans changes, and they begin to think, ‘You have to have regime change,’” Gardiner told me. “Let’s say there are 10,000 Americans killed in just a conventional strike [by North Korea]. The pressure from the American people would be, ‘It’s time to eliminate this guy.’ The casualties force you to lose control of the situation.”

It’s therefore worth asking whether the potential upside of military strikes is worth the potential downside. Is a North Korea with nukes that can reach the United States “really the threat that the administration implies it is?” Gardiner wondered. “There is no reason to believe that a North Korea with nuclear weapons doesn’t end up being stable”—or, at least, as stable as a North Korea with chemical weapons and biological weapons and ballistic missiles and loads of artillery has been for the past several decades.

I asked Gardiner how his Korea war games typically ended. “They ended 60 to 100 days into a conflict where the U.S. and South Korea are beginning to attack towards [the North Korean capital of] Pyongyang,” he said. At that point, U.S. troops are occupying North Korea, they don’t know where the nuclear weapons are, and they’re suddenly responsible for a starving population. “You step back and say, ‘My goodness. What have we done?’”

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
Gordan Chang has advice for POTUS Trump to get the ChiComms to take care of N. Korea for us.
I really like his ideas about the PRC banks being a very key lever of POTUS Trump's arsenal.

A trade war with China, IMO, is far less "Horrific" than an actual War with N.Korea.
I absolutely believe a trade war with China will hurt us, probably no where near as much of as the Obama regime's policies, but it will absolutely devastate the ChiComm economy.
I absolutely believe the leaders of China know this and, being the pragmatists they are, they will give up Kim and his Nuclear ICBM program rather than allow us to devastate their economy.
Like all commie leaders these men fear their own people more than anyone else.

That said, I think the chances of POTUS adopting these tactics in a big way is fairly small but my crystal ball has never been all that clear and I would never underestimate Donald Trump.

Gordan outlines how we should do this.



US needs stronger sanctions on China: Gordon Chang

Author of ‘Nuclear Showdown’, Gordon Chang said Wednesday that President Donald Trump should increase the cost of sanctions on China in order to send a message to the Chinese the United States is serious about its own security.


“Bank of China, one of China’s big four banks, not a small fry was also engaged in money laundering for the North Koreans, and Trump could impose some costs on that,” said Chang.

Chang believes that Trump needs to privately and publicly question China on why the North Koreans have access to Chinese equipment, after launching a missile from a Chinese launcher.

“Going forward every solution is going to cost us,” Chang said referencing the fact that China is at times the second largest foreign owner of the United States’ debt and one of the largest exporters to the U.S.

Though, Chang believes it will cost the Chinese more, “they’ve got an economy geared to selling things to us, we don’t have an economy geared to selling to them.”

Chang believes the U.S. hasn’t used its leverage, saying that we have an economy twice the size of China’s. He believes there will be a trade war with China and said, “the Chinese have been engaging in increasingly predatory practices against American companies.”

Chang also believes the U.S. has a responsibility to try these tactics first because he said, “war with North Korea would be horrific.”

Could sanctions on the Chinese affect the U.S. economy?
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5493618779001

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:47 pm
Posts: 3316
Location: Germany
Quote:
A trade war with China, IMO, is far less "Horrific" than an actual War with N.Korea.


Like cancer is less deadly than AIDS.

Jokes aside, the "Capitalist" People's Republic of China probably likes Norks with nukes even less than we do. Without them and with the PRC's bland of "communist" economy they'd be a perfect buffer state. Economically useful but still potentially deadly enough, thought only to SK.

_________________
trekchu wrote:
It was worse than he had expected. It was so incomprehensibly bad that he'd rather watch Pearl Harbor on a constant, never-ending loop than...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
Old navy adage. Sometimes there just aint no good options!
Looks to me like we are getting damn close to that point. Someone want to tell me how I'm wrong, PLEASE!

North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say

By Joby Warrick, Ellen Nakashima and Anna Fifield August 8 at 5:58 PM
North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.

The analysis, completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country’s atomic arsenal. The United States calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts think the number is much smaller.

The findings are likely to deepen concerns about an evolving North Korean military threat that appears to be advancing far more rapidly than many experts had predicted. U.S. officials concluded last month that Pyongyang is also outpacing expectations in its effort to build an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the American mainland.

President Trump, speaking Tuesday at an event at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., said North Korea will face a devastating response if its threats continue. “They will be met with the fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” he said.

Earlier Tuesday, North Korea described a new round of U.N. sanctions as an attempt “to strangle a nation” and warned that in response, “physical action will be taken mercilessly with the mobilization of all its national strength.”

Although more than a decade has passed since North Korea’s first nuclear detonation, many analysts thought it would be years before the country’s weapons scientists could design a compact warhead that could be delivered by missile to distant targets. But the new assessment, a summary document dated July 28, concludes that this critical milestone has been reached.

“The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. Two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment verified its broad conclusions. It is not known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially claimed last year that it had done so.

North Korea considering firing missiles at Guam, per state media

North Korea is seriously considering a plan to fire missiles at Guam, state media said Wednesday, hours after President Trump responded to reports of nuclear threats by saying the regime "will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen before."

North Korea's army said later that its missiles would create an "enveloping fire" around Guam.

A ballistic missile operation unit for the regime will review a plan to fire a mid-range ballistic missile at the U.S. island territory on September 9, according to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency.

In a statement released by state-run media, the Korean People's Army claimed it was looking into striking Guam to subdue the U.S. military bases there, particularly the Anderson Air Force base where nuclear-capable bombers are stationed.

A different statement released said that North Korea "could carry out a pre-emptive operation if the United States showed signs of provocation," Reuters reported.

Trump responded to reports of nuclear threats on Tuesday afternoon, saying the dictator Kim Jong Un "has been very threatening beyond a normal state," adding that the regime "best not make any more threats to the United States."

The president's remarks come after a report -- confirmed by Fox News -- which showed that North Korea has produced a compact nuclear warhead that can be placed inside one of its advance missilies, which are already believed to be capable of reaching half of the U.S.

The Washington Post published partial contents of a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis that reportedly was verified by other U.S. officials.

“The [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” an excerpt of the DIA analysis stated.

TRUMP: NORTH KOREA 'WILL BE MET WITH FIRE AND FURY LIKE THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN' IF MORE THREATS EMERGE

Defense officials have said they believe North Korea has achieved the miniaturization of nuclear warheads -- one of three things U.S. officials previously said the regime needed to do in regards to their long-range missile tests.

Officials said North Korea also needed to be able to hit a target and demonstrate the ability to "re-enter" the earth's atmosphere.

In early July, North Korean state media criticized a practice bombing run conducted by two U.S. B-1B bombers on the Korean peninsula, accusing the U.S. of "reckless military provocations."

More from Fox News
An Abilene, Texas police officer died Sunday evening when a pickup truck ran into her stopped vehicle, officials said.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 12:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:54 pm
Posts: 201
Should the US not be capable of performing a suprise attack? It was planned but not very plausible for the Soviet Union. But NK seems like a much more reasonable target.

With no warning:
500 ground bursts on the 500 most likely targets
In the week after that 5000 strikes with conventional cruise missiles, bombings carried out by Japan, the US, South Korea.

Numbers from my a**, fallout, political fallout, suffering all granted.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5014
Location: EGUD
IMHO the Chinese are far more likely to intervene in North Korea, albeit most likely in the form of 5.8mm Regime Change. The current regime isn't one they like very much, but the consequences of a restarting of the Korean war are absolutely catastrophic for them. That means they'll take all necessary measures to stop him from starting a war, while Mike's reasoning as to why the US won't start one is spot on. It'll just be a load of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm
Posts: 2576
pdf27 wrote:
IMHO the Chinese are far more likely to intervene in North Korea, albeit most likely in the form of 5.8mm Regime Change. The current regime isn't one they like very much, but the consequences of a restarting of the Korean war are absolutely catastrophic for them. That means they'll take all necessary measures to stop him from starting a war, while Mike's reasoning as to why the US won't start one is spot on. It'll just be a load of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


It is possible that the Chinese have agents in place ready to perform a decapitation strike. However they would need to act very, very quickly to stop the Fat Leader launching ballistic missiles against Guam.

The problem I foresee is that the North Koreans will now start threatening the US and treating the US like South Korea. They've certainly previously had the capability to hit US troop formations and bases, and of course they've had the ability to bluster and talk bombastically. Unlike previously they now have the capability to hit US territory: certainly Guam and Hawaii, possibly Alaska and even California, Oregon and Washington. The issue from them treating the US like South Korea will come if they try a stunt on the level of shelling a South Korean island heavily or sinking a South Korean warship. It's possible that they consider this Guam threat on the level of what they did to Yeonpyeong in 2010. If they do then they don't realise the peril they are in.

It's the cultural differences that can cause the biggest problems. The US is not used to having its territory threatened. After all the last time anyone foreign did serious damage in open warfare against US territory was Japan in 1941. We all know the results of that particular action. Prior to 1941 it was the UK in the War of 1812. The South Koreans somewhat wearily accept that the North Koreans will occasionally throw their toys out of the pram and murder a few. The US will never accept that and the result would be war. That's the biggest danger in this situation I believe: as always it's the miscalculations that get you, particularly the cultural ones in this case.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:24 am 
Offline
SAC-trained killer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:40 pm
Posts: 3854
Location: CL-56, CGN-37
CosmicalStorm wrote:
Should the US not be capable of performing a suprise attack? It was planned but not very plausible for the Soviet Union. But NK seems like a much more reasonable target.

With no warning:
500 ground bursts on the 500 most likely targets
In the week after that 5000 strikes with conventional cruise missiles, bombings carried out by Japan, the US, South Korea.

Numbers from my a**, fallout, political fallout, suffering all granted.



CS,

You have to keep in mind that 500 ground bursts in someplace as small as the northern Korean peninsula means that we're going to drop all that fallout on the PRC, RoK, and Japan...for starters. The Prime Minister would be the expert on this, but you're going to have a fallout pattern that will - not could, not might, but will - come down on some of the most densely populated cities on the planet, cities that happen to belong to our allies and are filled with hundreds of millions of people who we're supposed to be protecting.

It's one thing if the Norks fire a nuclear weapon that hits us or an ally, or they get a misfire after an attempted nuclear attack - then a rational retaliatory target set is justified. (And probably already in the computers of a couple of Trident boats, I might add.) But five hundred strikes? That's overkill far beyond any reasonable level. Keep in mind also Kozlowski's Theorem:

Quote:
The number of nuclear weapons required to finish a nation as a functioning entity goes down in direct inverse proportion to the level of centralized control in that nation.


For the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, my feeling is that's going to be about a dozen warheads. After that, Kim will command only what is within hearing of his own voice.

Mike

_________________
Bójcie się Boga, ale strach nikt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:59 am 
Offline
Mockingbird

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:29 am
Posts: 3854
Location: BB-16, BB-62
MikeKozlowski wrote:

For the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, my feeling is that's going to be about a dozen warheads. After that, Kim will command only what is within hearing of his own voice.

Mike



Assuming that there's anyone left alive within hearing of his voice, and also assuming his voice is alive as well.

Belushi TD


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm
Posts: 4054
Location: UK
From open-source info, are there Patriot or equivalent anti-missile whatsits stationed on Guam ??

_________________
'P for Pleistocene' A camp-out goes impossibly wrong...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Korea
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3501
Location: CIVLANT
David Newton wrote:
pdf27 wrote:
IMHO the Chinese are far more likely to intervene in North Korea, albeit most likely in the form of 5.8mm Regime Change. The current regime isn't one they like very much, but the consequences of a restarting of the Korean war are absolutely catastrophic for them. That means they'll take all necessary measures to stop him from starting a war, while Mike's reasoning as to why the US won't start one is spot on. It'll just be a load of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I put vert little faith in these Robert Ludlum wet dreams to get to fatboy.

It is possible that the Chinese have agents in place ready to perform a decapitation strike. However they would need to act very, very quickly to stop the Fat Leader launching ballistic missiles against Guam. To the best of my knowledge fatboy's IRBMs and ICBMs are liquid fueled, like the old Soviet birds right? If so you can't really keep them spun up and ready to go for extended periods of time. Only solid fuel birds have that capability. So there may be a window for a massive first strike before the Nukes fly. There is still all the short range tactical missiles ,conventional artillery and SpecOps conventional, chemical and biological rounds. That said ISA I put vert little faith in these Robert Ludlum wet dreams to get to fatboy.

The problem I foresee is that the North Koreans will now start threatening the US and treating the US like South Korea. They've certainly previously had the capability to hit US troop formations and bases, and of course they've had the ability to bluster and talk bombastically. Unlike previously they now have the capability to hit US territory: certainly Guam and Hawaii, possibly Alaska and even California, Oregon and Washington. The issue from them treating the US like South Korea will come if they try a stunt on the level of shelling a South Korean island heavily or sinking a South Korean warship. It's possible that they consider this Guam threat on the level of what they did to Yeonpyeong in 2010. If they do then they don't realized the peril they are in. Been a long time since I was in Guam.
My ship was taking on Nav distillate when the fuel pier caught fire that day and that is God's own truth. Gunnery O and two of his GMs got medals for activating the fire suppression system after the Guamanian civil servant bolted and ran. Oh yah they had to charge through the fire to get to the fireproof booth that mother abandoned.
But I digress :lol: :lol:


It's the cultural differences that can cause the biggest problems. The US is not used to having its territory threatened. After all the last time anyone foreign did serious damage in open warfare against US territory was Japan in 1941. We all know the results of that particular action. Prior to 1941 it was the UK in the War of 1812. The South Koreans somewhat wearily accept that the North Koreans will occasionally throw their toys out of the pram and murder a few. The US, under a Trump administration, not the case under Obama and you know that I'm right, will never accept that and the result would be war. That's the biggest danger in this situation I believe: as always it's the miscalculations that get you, particularly the cultural ones in this case. Damn good points David but we also have a better chance every day of the fatboy wiping out a US city and that goes well beyond cultural incompatibility.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group