North Korea fires on South Korea

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Diplomacy has indeed worked since the DMZ was established; worked to allow the norks time to develop the capabilities you mention.

Won't further diplomacy just serve to give them time to develop weapons capable of rendering CONUS as a viable target? No reason for them to stop development... So, do we deploy tactical nukes one day when we wake up and they can hit Denver?

Please by all means, volunteer to press the button. Though I would advise you familiarize yourself with the potential consequences before doing so...


Travis

[akv]

Originally Posted by Dusty

The only future that looks certain to me is the denigration of respect our enemies have for us due to the weakness our administrative leadership continues to show.

BTW, have you ever worked with ROKs, especially the ones out of Bupyeong?
They are cowboyed up.

Dusty,

I would certainly defer to your opinion of ROK troops, I have heard they are very tough, but I was actually referring to the South Korean leadership. As you know in a democracy , even with a capable military, the civilian leadership has to first have the sand to do what's right instead of easy/popular. IMHO the South Korean leadership has not displayed the hard heart required to pay the price for their security.

As for the denigration of respect from our enemies, Zero is certainly a cream puff in their eyes, however he is not America, consider the midterm results and 2012 isn't that far away. Iraq was a clear message to despots everywhere, America has the ability and will to come in, thrash your large army, and replace your regime with one of our choosing if we feel its in our best interest. All the despots in that region are survivors, they were reminded what we can do. If in time democracy is successful in Iraq it changes the balance of power and politics in that whole region, just like we did with Japan and Germany.

South Korea has prospered with democracy and industry since the war, they have the means, and as you mentioned the toughness to defend themselves, I'm not saying we shouldn't honor our word to our allies, just that if the South Korean government doesn't have the fire in the belly to combat blatant aggression, why waste one drop of American blood for this?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

Please by all means, volunteer to press the button. Though I would advise you familiarize yourself with the potential consequences before doing so...


Travis

It's not that easy; I'm ineligible to apply for that position, or I would.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the potential consequences of continuing to allow our enemies to expand their military capabilities...and not only the Il klan.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by akv

Dusty,

I would certainly defer to your opinion of ROK troops, I have heard they are very tough, but I was actually referring to the South Korean leadership. As you know in a democracy , even with a capable military, the civilian leadership has to first have the sand to do what's right instead of easy/popular. IMHO the South Korean leadership has not displayed the hard heart required to pay the price for their security.

As for the denigration of respect from our enemies, Zero is certainly a cream puff in their eyes, however he is not America, consider the midterm results and 2012 isn't that far away. Iraq was a clear message to despots everywhere, America has the ability and will to come in, thrash your large army, and replace your regime with one of our choosing if we feel its in our best interest. All the despots in that region are survivors, they were reminded what we can do. If in time democracy is successful in Iraq it changes the balance of power and politics in that whole region, just like we did with Japan and Germany.

South Korea has prospered with democracy and industry since the war, they have the means, and as you mentioned the toughness to defend themselves, I'm not saying we shouldn't honor our word to our allies, just that if the South Korean government doesn't have the fire in the belly to combat blatant aggression, why waste one drop of American blood for this?

You make sense, and that's a good question.

I've gotta say, though-it's what the norks can do to the US later on down the road that offends my sense of rationality as to how we're dealing with them diplomatically at this juncture.

Not that I'm not concerned about the ROKs; we did, after all, put ourselves in the role of protector for that country.

[kgoerz]

It amazes me that in this day and age of global Communication. A place like NK exist. You would think the people would start a revolution. I heard he made his Son a General even thou he never served in the Military.
Imagine the uproar if Obama made Rev Wright a General. Or appointed his Mom secretary of Defense. We would think he lost his freakin mind. But over there it's just business as usual.

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Dusty

It's not that easy; I'm ineligible to apply for that position, or I would.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the potential consequences of continuing to allow our enemies to expand their military capabilities...and not only the Il klan.

Japan, South Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.

If the deployment of tac-nukes are included in this discussion, then the sacrifice of one or more of the aforementioned locales has earned the right to be included as well.


Travis

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

Japan, South Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.

If the deployment of tac-nukes are included in this discussion, then the sacrifice of one or more of the aforementioned locales has earned the right to be included as well.


Travis

I think maybe you're considering nuclear payloads quite a bit larger than I am.
I'm not talking about taking out the enire Pacific rim, bro. Nor the DMZ.

Did we have to send all the Hawaiians into bomb shelters when we hit Nagasaki? Did we brief the Eskimos?

We could take out exactly what we needed to, and not even inconvenience Seoul.

Not all nukes are Death Stars.

[Wolf07]

Not all nukes are Death Stars.

So you would be willing to assume the risk of a nuclear strike on Seoul?

You speak as if these things just "happen" on their own. As if we could shut down North Korea before they could garner any response whatsoever. If they knew the game was up, God only knows what they wouldn't try.

Just my $.02...

[Dusty]

I know that the current leadership will maintain the status quo based on historical action by the North Koreans. I know, as someone posted earlier, that we're stretched too thin to resource a ground assault; and I know we won't resort to nuclear attack to settle the latest iteration of saber-rattling.

I don't want innocent civilians to be killed in a generalized bomb attack; no sane person would. I'm not happy about the horrors of the Japan bombings.

But I have a gut feeling that it may be different during this episode of Ni Hao Kim Jung. The kid (-un) has zero military experience, and undoubtedly has inherited the megalomania of his father without the respect for the might of the U.S., and why not? We're no longer projecting might.

We need to teach Pyonyang not to jack with us, most ricky tick.

How else are we gonna do it?

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I think maybe you're considering nuclear payloads quite a bit larger than I am. I'm not talking about taking out the enire Pacific rim, bro. Nor the DMZ.

It's not the size that matters.

Did we have to send all the Hawaiians into bomb shelters when we hit Nagasaki? Did we brief the Eskimos?

Would you like to rewrite this for the sake of an equitable comparison or was it intentionally callus?

We could take out exactly what we needed to, and not even inconvenience Seoul. Not all nukes are Death Stars.

Dusty, I am simply trying to illuminate the very plausible consequences derivable from the deployment of any nuclear weapon, regardless of size; against North Korea.

Pulling the trigger is easy, living with it is not always so.


Travis

P.S. FYI, I am Native Hawaiian.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

It's not the size that matters.Would you like to rewrite this for the sake of an equitable comparison or was it intentionally callus?


Dusty, I am simply trying to illuminate the very plausible consequences derivable from the deployment of any nuclear weapon, regardless of size; against North Korea.

Pulling the trigger is easy, living with it is not always so.


Travis

P.S. FYI, I am Native Hawaiian.

Who told you size don't matter?

No, bro, it wouldn't be easy to live with. I don't even like to think about it.

But, and not just regarding NK, we have GOT to do SOMETHING soon other than be diplomatic, don't we?

What would you suggest?

(To answer your question: No, I'm not trying to be callus, I should have punctuated the "Eskimo" crack with a .)

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Who told you size don't matter?

No, bro, it wouldn't be easy to live with. I don't even like to think about it.

But, and not just regarding NK, we have GOT to do SOMETHING soon other than be diplomatic, don't we?

What would you suggest?

HELLO CHINA!
The elephant in the living room is hard to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, there is NOTHING that the US can do to the DPRK, when compared to China's influence. Unless Beijing has an ulterior motive, then reigniting the Korean War is bad for business.
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our State Dept are probable smoking their phones trying to deesculate this situation.

As of right now, I would prefer that the State Dept remains in the lead, while consulting with Defense for options.

(To answer your question: No, I'm not trying to be callus, I should have punctuated the "Eskimo" crack with a .)

Cool.


Travis

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

HELLO CHINA!
The elephant in the living room is hard to ignore. In the grand scheme of things, there is NOTHING that the US can do to the DPRK, when compared to China's influence. Unless Beijing has an ulterior motive, then reigniting the Korean War is bad for business.
Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our State Dept are probable smoking their phones trying to deesculate this situation.

As of right now, I would prefer that the State Dept remains in the lead, while consulting with Defense for options.


Cool.


Travis

Well. It's all in Hillary's hands, now. She'll know what's best.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Wolf07

So you would be willing to assume the risk of a nuclear strike on Seoul?

IIRC the North Koreans have never needed nukes to level Seoul within a few hours. Seoul is unfortunately only 35 miles from the border and the North Koreans are believed to have the largest concentration of artillery in the world along the DMZ.

This trump card has likely factored heavily into the decision cycle for both sides, if the balloon goes up the South Korean leadership knows their capital city, the hub of their industry, government, and culture, and home to at least a quarter of their population faces this threat. This possibility fosters both South Korean caution and North Korean audacity IMHO.

While I maintain, the South Koreans should take the lead for their security before we shed more US blood in their defense, if we faced this same proportionate dilemma back in the States, we might be wary too. Yet, the bullying will not stop and will likely get worse until South Korea makes a tough choice, or somehow the North Korean regime is destabilized or overthrown.

The Chinese influence in the region is undeniable. Even if it was in their interests to stifle North Korean aggression, if US nukes start going off in a country on their border, their response and concern would likely be similar to our own if the same thing happened along our own borders.

[Green Light]

In order for the DPRK to launch a massive artillery prep/pre-emptive strike they would necessarily tip their hand before it happened. This arty strike on the island was small potatoes and could easily be done without signalling their intent.

The US (if there is the will at the NCA) could preempt the preemption with surgical strikes of our own. The nuke option probably wouldn't be necessary.

IIRC, the DPRK has neither the warhead technology nor the delivery systems to make a nuke strike anything other than a exercise in suicide.