I'm going to avoid playing the blame game. This much is clear. Sanctions have had no impact. China has failed to reel in Kim Jong Un. Military action against North Korea would be devastating to American troops stationed in South Korea as well as its civilian population. It is impossible to evacuate the civilian population without North Korea noticing and launching an attack on its own. South Korea's new government favors engaging North Korea, and may actually oppose a pre-emptive strike. Japan may be more supportive.
I favor an all-out attack, one aimed at degrading North Korea militarily and replacing its leadership. This could mean a nuclear response by North Korea. Its conventional artillery alone will cause 30,000 casualties in the three to four days it would take to overwhelm them.But continuing on the current course guarantees far more casualties, and in the continental United States.
So I advocate an all-out attack,and just as soon as the necessary fire power can be brought to bear.
What do you think? Please don't play the blame game. I'm curious whether you agree that we need to attack, or whether we should continue to pursue a diplomatic solution.
36 comments:
An all out attack on N. Koreas brings in the Chinese. So you may end up with a land war in Asia. General and President Eisenhower warned that the last thing the US wants is a land war in Asia.
for starters --so he has a nuclear weapon.
so what
he can be reminded that at any time his country can be turned into radioactive glass.China should also be reminded fallout does not care about borders on a map.
as to an ICBM one problem is accuracy.
it will be crude compared to the 100 meter accuracy of the US weapons.
that means interception would be easier then say Russian weapons.
as to a conventional war remember how many US troops will die.
not to mention if we break it we own it.
how did that work in Iraq?
instead remind China that their buddy is getting on our nerves and they have to quiet his ass.
remind China that if North Korea was to fall and the South Koreans took it over the South Koreans would need twenty years to rebuild the north allowing China to grab some of the market share South Korea has right now.
that would be the incentive for China
in other words show China that they would be better off with North Korea going the way of East Germany.
The world runs on $$$$ The North Koreans need it.
Cripple North Korea financially by hitting every nation that deals financially with North Korea by sanctioning their banks from doing any business with the United States. Yes, this includes Communist China.
Although this might upset Tim Cook that he can't manufacture his iphones using Chinese Slave Labor any longer.
Agree with comments so far...war is not an option here that should be considered. Far too dangerous. The little man wants guarantees he can keep his realm, let him have it. If he shows his ambition to be beyond that China and Russia will take him out, they want stability there even more than we do.
One Ohio-Class missile sub could turn North Korea into Trinitite within 30 minutes. However, that's not the answer.
The quietly, or non-spoken fact is that the United States Cyber Command is the best in the world in what it does. It's mission on a daily basis is to protect the United State's information systems from foreign cyber attacks. It works quietly in the shadows and doesn't like to be in the public limelight, but it has very effective offensive capabilities as well. Ones that can be put to use in North Korea. Turning the lights out in Pyongyang, for example, would be a clear, unambiguous message.
Donald Trump is president and a liberal blogger is recommending nuclear war. These surely are the end of days.
A conventional war would be devastating all around. However, threats that Japan will become nuclear and we are retargeting 100-nukes that will be heading your way might get this mental midget's attention.
Arranging a nuclear "accident" in North Korea would help, I'm sure.
When you play with fire, you may get burnt. I wonder how Kim would handle a Chernobyl ?
Just 30K Koreans would die. My god man. No, war with NK is insanity.
We could use a new war comedy series, hogans hero's, MASH, ????.
I thought global warming was the world's greatest threat.
The US will not overwhelms North Korea in three or four days even if China or Russia do not intervene. Look at the geography and understand that their military forces are far better trained, equipped and most importantly motivated that what we encountered in Iraq. I have no idea if war is our best available option but I am absolutely convinced that a conventional war with North Korea will not be decided in any short period of time and will be incredibly costly in terms of lives and resources. It gets even more complex if nukes become involved because of the proximity of both allies like South Korea and Japan as well as nations like China whose reaction will be unpredictable. Perhaps war is inevitable and in that case the sooner the better, but it will likely to be a war of costs and casualties unseen in the world for decades.
Why don't we wait until the next time they have one of those big military parades in Pnongyang where they have thousands of soldiers and lots of military assets as well as that goofball leader and drop a few bombs on them right there and then and be done with it?
Opening volley of 'raining fire' on Northern part of Seoul from NK s KOKSAN 170MM self propelled guns and their 240 and 300 mm multi launch rockets would most likely cause havoc with 25 millions people in range.Then you get the Chinese -- -I agree with poster above the little mental midget needs an 'accident ' . His civil population is starving yet he exports more missile parts than Iran. Need to out tech him and shut him down for a awhile. He still has accuracy problems according to Stratfor analysis.For now atleast he out of reach on point targets. So NO -should not attack him in the big picture at this time. A cruise missile in his grandstands during parade,maybe.
Agree with many of the posts above. Globally, we've managed to avoid significant conflict in Korea because we all know that at the end of the day, North Korea is a spastic, petulant little child essentially alone in its room. Is it annoying? Yes. Does it agitate and aggravate its neighbors? You bet.
China of course makes a little money off of them and has the added side benefit of the routine distractions diverting attention away from them in the region so they will give them enough leash to where they can shrug their shoulders and shake their heads. I do think they know there are limits and would prefer the status quo over most other regime change options that could play out. Neither a healthy unified Korea or a smoldering wasteland on its border with accompanying refugee crisis is in their best interest.
So far, only one commenter has tried to play the blame game, and I deleted him.
Interesting cover story in The Atlantic this month on the various options for dealing with North Korea. All options, the author notes, are bad. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/
War should not be the primary option at this time. Far too risky, and deadly. Not just for SK but for Japan as well. We need to continue to apply pressure through China and Russia. There is still time to avert an all-out war in that region. The great dealmaker needs to think of a deal that would sideline their nuclear development in exchange for trade and further personal negotiations. Naive, maybe. But we have enough conflict around the world and need to calm things down in that region.
Maybe one of those exploding cigars that they tried on Castro.
The sanctions there were put in place in 2002 under the Trading with the Enemy Act worked. After push back from the Chinese, Bush agreed to lift the sanctions once North Korea started allowing inspections and working with the Chinese.
The sanctions worked. We need to put them back on the enemies list.
Tough one. I am reminded of a line of Richard Perle in "Why we fight", along the lines of: if someone were pointing a gun at you, you would not think twice about taking him out. I don't understand what the big fuss is about pre-emption.... or something like that.
Problem is, pre-emption could quickly escalate with neighbors like China, and slightly (but enough to give them justification) Russia. Also, as we saw in Perle, Bush,et al's war of choice in Iraq, sometimes you make matters even worse. Negotiations with NK have been fruitless, as they have gained (extorted) from earlier negotiations under prior presidents, and yet obviously continued with their ambitions. Sanctions against China? They would likely look tougher on paper, with no real results.
Realpolitik: should Japan fully re-militarize, with US cooperation, including short-range and intermediate range nuclear missiles as a viable counter-balance in that region, much as NATO/US was in Europe during the Cold War? As we (and China) knows, Japan was once a military powerhouse. That would be more of wake up call to China to reign in the Kim family, then anything we would do unilaterally. It could also cool China's advances in disputed territorial waters. Otherwise, the US is either goaded by NK into unwise unilateral military strikes, or on the flip side, the US is exposed as not really willing to do anything and further emboldening Kim.
And yet, most Americans, especially those of "fighting age" are oblivious. Part of me has long wondered if we should reinstate the military draft, with no deferrals for middle class college students. That would make Americans have skin in the game, so to speak, and let their government know if they really want to risk a war. It's easy with an all-volunteer (though stretched) military to ponder military action and be all patriotic and gung-ho, and to thank vets at ball-games and airports, and then go happily about life as if nothing is going on. Somebody else we do the dirty work--out of sight, out of mind.
Amazing, sixty five years and we are still technically at war. Just an armistice, not a real peace treaty. Let's rethink this. If North Korea would voluntarily give up nukes and missles to a verifiable inspection and, in turn, the USA withdraws from the peninsula, would we not be better off. That is Jimmy Carter's take. Not that he is a genius, but he recognizes that the US is the threatening actor and our presence will continue to incite the North Koreans. When a suggestion was made that the US should leave several months ago, the North Koreans responded that such a move is illogical. That tells me that the US presence is the factor that keeps the madness going. The only way to stop is leave as long as we get concessions for our security. We left Vietnam and what happened.
The way to resolving North Korea is to painfully tighten the screws on the Chinese through tariffs and make the Chinese decide between a global trade war and the North Koreans.
The Chinese economy is more fragile than it appears. They don't want a fighting war they can't pay for in terms of equipment and refugees. They also don't want to lose their communist bulkhead to the east. However, it also can't win a trade war with the United States and the West.
The Chinese have the power and influence to remove the North Korean leadership peacefully and install a new just as communist, but less aggressive, leadership. The West just has to make it painful enough for them to carry through with it.
9:11, when I said it would take us three to four days, I refer only to artillery massed near the border. With that removed, civilian casualties would subside. But I agree it would take longer to completely overcome N Korea militarily.
1:04, I deleted an otherwise good comment bc you played the blame game. You ask what interest is served by an attack. It is our own national security. N Korea is now capable of attacking at least a part of the continental US. I'd remove that threat. But I appear to be a minority of one. Most of you would still pursue a diplomatic solution.
It's not whose interests... that would be blaming. It's what interests. I do not believe American interests (including security) are helped by an attack. NK is an extremely backwards and paranoid nation. We would feed into that paranoia and substantiate it by attacking.
Sure we could depose the dictator with military action but at what cost? (again those pesky 25M vulnerable civilians in Seoul and our military in the DMZ)
And then who fills the power vacuum? Would we jump into the nation building trap again? That has never once worked out. But this time with a populace that has been systematically brainwashed for a century. Think Jihadists are a tough nut to reform? It's similar. A religious fanatical worship of a leader. These N. Koreans would perhaps create even tougher problems in a nation building exercise.
It would take a foreign occupation we don't have the stomach for.
The situation is complicated. I don't know the answer. I just don't think it's a pre-emptive attack.
N Korea is now capable of attacking at least a part of the continental US. I'd remove that threat. But I appear to be a minority of one. Most of you would still pursue a diplomatic solution.
So could China and Russia.
My take is that we can drag this out and eventually have possibly hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million dead and wounded if this nutjob launches an actual missile, or we can minimize the losses by doing it now and getting it over with. 65 years with the KrAzY Kim family is enough. When you look at how East Germany evolved when Germany was reunited, I think 15, 20 years down the road you would have that. And China would probably be happy to let us finance ONE Korea. They would have a peaceful neighbor, and I would advocate removal of all U. S. Troops and closure of all military bases in 5 years as part of the bargain with China. As for the NK artillery threat? We have Tomahawk missiles that are accurate within 10 feet. I would launch a thousand of them from the Vinson Battle fleet and in one hour there would be a line of craters across North Korea where the artillery HAD been. We will not get them all in the first wave, but I bet the second an hour later takes them out.
It will be messy, but not as messy as if we let Kimbo dimwit launch a nuke someday
Ground war is a problem unless China gives its blessing. I dont think the Chinese come to the defense of N.K. but it is a worry. If China gives it's blessing it's something I hold in my back pocket, but it's something I avoid. We can get bogged down there for a long time. While we and S.K. have right to conduct readiness drills along the boarder I'm willing to follow the suggestion of the Chinese and hold off on those for a short period of time to see if it cools the situation. I'll be completely honest. I really don't see N.K. EVER launching a missile at the US or our forces. While leadership is very apocalyptic in their talk they know that an unprovoked attack will result in an overwhelming response from the US and our allies. If that would happen the Chinese will care about securing their boarder and they will stay out of our way.
Hank_Hill
NK has not attacked anyone. Its insane to sacrifice the lives of S Koreans and Americans to prevent something that may happen in the future. But it probably won't. NK is doing exactly what Iraq did - flexing muscles. Even they know their country would cease to exist if they tried anything.
Pursuing diplomacy really means threatening China with a trade war if they don't solve the problem.
So the choices are a physical war with an estimated 30,000 deaths, or a trade war.
I wonder how much economic pain a trade war inflicts on the US, in terms of US jobs lost.
get some of Putin's special poison, slip it into one of his drinks. we should just off him.
Post a Comment