My Take on North Korea

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, War Knight said:

I don't know what NEEDS to happen but I think it's pretty apparent what will happen if I had to guess.

It seems that at some point we'll likely allow North Korea to strike a plane or boat. Whether or not we stage it ourselves is the question. Public outrage will follow, Trump support will surge, we'll all be hungry for retaliation and China will be forced to let North Korea take this ass whooping without any support from them. We allow China to essentially rebuild and control North Korea moving forward as a part of the debt we owe them. Russia quits their feigned frustration with us and we just ensure they don't get any more influence.

It's going to be ugly. We'll continue to overextend ourselves geopolitically and the world will continue to spin. Hopefully our defenses and plans will be in place so as to protect Japan and everyone here at home m

Yeah you might have been in the White House before?

[homersapien 11,353]

19 hours ago, Mims44 said:

In what way?

Viet Nam was largely the result of a controlling paradigm (the "domino theory") that was invalid or irrelevant.  

 

[Mims44 1,864]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Viet Nam was largely the result of a controlling paradigm (the "domino theory") that was invalid or irrelevant.  

 

I'm sorry, I meant in what way does Vietnam domino theory seem the same as continuing to defend South Korea in the event that North Korea tries to reunify the peninsula through force?

[homersapien 11,353]

15 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I'm sorry, I meant in what way does Vietnam domino theory seem the same as continuing to defend South Korea in the event that North Korea tries to reunify the peninsula through force?

The assumption was that if North Korea obtains nuclear weapons they will immediately attack South Korea, so we had to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons, by whatever means necessary.

The reality is that we can't afford to attack N. Korea because the likely response would be to create what we are trying to avoid.  

We will likely wind up committing to guaranteeing protection to S. Korea from nuclear attack by the North by promising to retaliate as if it were an attack on us.  (If we don't already have such an agreement - which I am not sure of.)

The same will be true for Japan, as this will be the only way to avoid a nuclear arms race in the region. 

 

 

[Mims44 1,864]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

We will likely wind up committing to guaranteeing protection to S. Korea from nuclear attack by the North by promising to retaliate as if it were an attack on us.  (If we don't already have such an agreement - which I am not sure of.)

I would assume so, unless they have lowered numbers a ton we keep around 30,000 US service members in S. Korea. But I'm also not 100% on wording of any agreements.

[homersapien 11,353]

10 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I would assume so, unless they have lowered numbers a ton we keep around 30,000 US service members in S. Korea. But I'm also not 100% on wording of any agreements.

Agreed.  And from what I little I know, my understanding is that South Korea is capable of defending themselves from a conventional attack even without US troops.  Obviously, they would suffer enormously, but they would hold their country.

So my original point is that we shouldn't just assume that an invasion of S. Korea is inevitable once N. Korea possesses a nuclear capabability as a deterrant to avoid a response.  South Korea will defend themselves against such an invasion and we would presumably help them.

Meanwhile severe sanctions will hopefully weaken them to the point they are even less capable of taking on S. Korea conventionally.

It would be nice if China gets nervous enough about the potential of a nuclear war next door they would initiate a regime change in NK.

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Agreed.  From what I little I know, my understanding is that South Korea is capable of defending themselves from a conventional attack even without US troops.  Obviously, they would suffer enormously, but they would hold their country.

So my original point is that we shouldn't just assume that an invasion of S. Korea is inevitable once N. Korea possesses a nuclear capabability as a deterrant to avoid a response.  South Korea will defend themselves against such an invasion and we would presumably help them.

Meanwhile severe sanctions will hopefully weaken them to the point they are even less capable of taking S. Korea conventionally.

It would be nice if China gets nervous enough about the potential of a nuclear war next door they would initiate a regime change in NK.

 

I know regime change is the preferred solution for everyone (except North Korea), but I am not necessarily convinced that is wise.  What form does regime change take?  Does regime change precipitate a complete collapse of the North Korean government that subsequently leads to a massive refugee and/or humanitarian crisis?

As for military capabilities, unless North Korean forces were bolstered by external powers (as they were in the Korean War), they would be incapable of defeating South Korea (alone) or repelling a subsequent counter-attack.  Of course, North Korea could use chemical and/or biological weapons as part of an invasion strategy, but that ensures they face South Korea and much of the rest of the world, alone.  Once air-superiority is established, which South Korea would do, North Korea's defeat becomes inevitable.

North Korea knows that a war of any kind leads to two inevitable results:  catastrophe all around, and their destruction.  Even their rhetoric is generally based upon threatening some powerful response to United States aggression, rather than threatening to attack outright.  You are absolutely correct that we should not assume a North Korean invasion is an inevitable result of their nuclear program.  North Korea is more worried about the United States orchestrating Operation North Korean Freedom at some point in the future than they are concerned with invading South Korea.  The former is a valid concern from their perspective, the latter is sheer stupidity.