Nuke North Korea?

Those can easily be destroyed or minimized before the bombing starts. Japan had a lot more of that but we still were able successfully bomb Tokyo and any target in Japan we wanted. Our military is so much more than it was in WWII,

 

You understand there are shoulder fired SAM's yes? Any one of those than easily bring down a C-130.

Japan didn't have radar directed weapons or guided weapons.

 

MAD applies to everyone, rational or not. MAD is like two people standing in a room filled with gasoline up to their ankles and each threatening the other with a box of matches, that's not really a rational proposition for anyone to begin with.

If we don't nuke Kim it is POSSIBLE he will continue to escalate his activity until he actually starts something, that is true, but it is not at all LIKELY given his past actions and present circumstances. What IS becoming increasingly likely is that he will be overthrown very soon. He has already made the one mistake most paranoid dictators make that is invariably fatal, he has killed people who were loyal and close supporters. Anyone high up in NK government now knows that loyalty will not save them, they are not safe and will never be safe until Kim is gone, so how long do you think he has?

 

My guess is he has one more major screwup and China comes in and takes over

 

MAD does not apply to everyone. I believe Kim is a very disturbed individual with no conscience. History contains examples of leaders who prefered death and destruction to life.

The territorial integrity of NK is guaranteed by Russia and China and by the fact that no one wants a war against NK. Nobody wants to try to overthrow the stalinist regime of NK by invasion. This means that his acquisition of nukes has a reason, and that reason is most likely to force the reunification of NK under his rule using nuclear blackmail someday in the future. He calculates that someday, when he has enough ICBMs to destroy the U.S., the U.S. will not sacrifice itself to protect SK. He will threaten SK and the U.S. with nuclear destruction if they fight him. His dream - and his father's dream - of reunification under the North will be complete when SK and the U.S. simply capitulate without a fight.

I hope you're right that someone gets rid of him.

 

History should have taught us- but as usual,much of it gets ignored.
We have a leader in N Korea that (according to reports we get from defectors, including military and prison guards) treats his own people worse than Hitler treated Jews in his prison camps. To assume, on any level that this person would shift his values and objectives regardless of any deal made would be blind stupidity. The only thing that will change in the future is that his power and his confidence to use it will grow. We have already placed millions at dire risk, because we have failed to act in the past. In my mind, he will eventually use his nuclear devices; his character leaves no other probable conclusion. The only question is when and on who. One way or another, I believe that there will be no resolution by diplomatic means- at best, a delay based on worthless agreements that will allow him to gain more power. Hitler did exactly that.

When does it become acceptable to strike first? In this case I think the threats have warranted it for many years. However, the political situation, particularly the treaties NK has with China, make this a difficult situation. China says if we strike first they will help NK. If NK strikes first, they will stand down. Given the massive trade we have with China- they obviously do not want to be at odds here, but must at least appear to he honoring their treaty. If it came to helping the NK, it could well be that their help would be token, but we don't know.

Today- I would endorse diplomacy with teeth. A total isolation of NK if possible. This could be economic, but could also be blockades to shipping or trade. We are doing that now, but with less than total effort. At the same time, having in place whatever technology we have to bring down any rocket that leaves NK airspace. Of course what the public knows and the military has are usually a bit different, so we don't know exactly how good the ability is.

I would also like to see an effort to develop and support resistance within NK. The right thing would be for the NK people themselves to overthrow the government, but they are virtual captives as well as being isolated from the real world. It would appear most of the NK people do not have any idea how the rest of the world lives; perhaps if they had that to compare too they would revolt.

Presently we say "We do not seek a regime change" in NK. Bullshit. Of course we do, that would be the ideal answer. I suspect we are working on that, but conditions Kim has created are intended to minimize that possibility. This is an incredibly ruthless dictator, convinced of his own invincibility- which makes him fearless. Enemies don't come more dangerous that this.

But the bottom line is that sooner or later, one way or another, he will have to be destroyed, because he will not have it any other way- he will dominate all or die trying.

I believe that regardless of how military action starts, we should again learn from history and utilize a tactic of Hitlers, called the Blitzkrieg, or lightning war. That means that your strike is a surprise, it is lightning fast, overwhelmingly powerful, and ruthless. This actually minimizes the total losses because it ends quickly.

We would hope that our intelligence is very good and we know where all the potential launch platforms, nuclear facilities and storage and concentrations of power would be- and where Kim himself would likely be. All of those would be hit simultaneously with the objective of decapitating the leadership and reducing it's ability to counterattack to the greatest degree possible. And unlike Bush calling off the destruction of the Iraqi convoy out of Kuwait, this should wipe out every aspect of NK military that does not surrender.

Must we go nuclear? I certainly hope not- but the world has changed a great deal since 1945 when the Japanese did not have nuclear weapons. In this case, I question if doing less would prevent the launch of nukes by the NK and then a nuclear response to that. As far as I know, there is nothing available in conventional arms that can cover the range of vital targets quickly and completely enough to prevent a counter-launch of nukes.

Kim is creating the situation. If there are to be military consequences, I would hold all losses as at his hands.



If we must do this...

 

We'd have some time, probably 10 minutes to respond in kind and I have no doubt that we would.

 

Shoulder fired SAM's can be thwarted with countermeasures like chaff. Our military can handle anything NK can muster and if the generals handle the war and not the politicians we should be able to easily win it. Just give them a clear objective with no limitations or interference, except maybe no nukes, then they should be able to do it.

 

No countermeasures are 100% effective. How many C-130 crews are you prepared to sacrifice so you can commit genocide?

How many South Korea civilians are you willing to sacrifice under North Korean nerve gas retaliation?

 

Mmmm. Well, maybe after reading all this it is best that we use tactical nuclear bombs delivered by missiles after all.

It is true that we would not want to be trying to use only C-130 aircraft to drop them on North Korea -- that probably would be disastrous. But, we perfected the art of developing and deploying tactical nuclear weapons decades ago. So, use your best tools, and you'll get the job done.

 

However many it takes to destroy their nuclear capability. Allowing them that capability is the same as committing suicide.

 

Using nukes that close to China and Russia is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

We don't need to carpet bomb North Korea with MOABs to destroy their nuclear capability. That's just you wanting to commit genocide.

 

You are right. Unfortunately, so is North Korea in possession of an arsenal of thermonuclear hydrogen bombs with a fleet of ICBM's to deliver them with.

Nobody was willing to get rid of Hitler in the 1930's... and we got World War II as a result. All the great 'diplomatic minds' of the time thought that they could TALK Hitler to death, and have "peace in our time" by having him sign a sheet of paper. The history books are full of descriptions of how well that worked out.... But World War II was a mere garden party compared to what a NUCLEAR war would be like....

Nothing about any of this is pleasant, sanitary, or clear-cut. But we can take action now. In another four years, we not be able to....

."Yeah, the Brits are sending some jerk named Chamberlain over... what fun!"

 

I agree it could be a better situation than the actual one but the parties don't trust each other; both parties deserve to not be trusted, sadly.
Are you suggesting that it would be best if all parties involved would remove Kim, let Korea unite and the US withdraw from the peninsula, keeping a presence only in Japan?
I think Russia and China could agree with that, but not the US; they could have done that in the past 50 years. Moreover, they don't trust each other.

 

That would be a good idea but only if the reunified Korea were free and able to choose their own leaders and the kind of government they would like to have.