Hurricane Irma

[AU64 10,122]

The negotiation approach is always appealing but we have been negotiating for a good part of my adult life....and the outcome of each step by each US president has been an increase in NK's nuclear capability.   Saw the famous Clinton speech  from 1994 a few days ago....sounded like Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" speech from the 1930s and like England in those days, the country's leader believed what they were saying in the deal ....and subsequent deals made with a succession of NK leaders...different men but each having the same goal.

: NK is not Russia or even China as far as it's nuclear ambitions are concerned.   I see them more along the lines of Iran who have a short list of enemies and are looking for an opportunity to strike them....and maybe without as much concern about what happens to their people and countries as we would hope.  It's debatable whether either country's leaders cares much about their populace.....both seeming to have an apocalyptic view of their futures.

Don't like the idea of first strike but on the other hand don't like the idea of making a retaliatory response after some US city is in ruins either.   Obviously this isn't the 1940s when we can absorb a Pearl Harbor.

So sounds to me like the prevailing sentiment on this site is to keep talking and let the NK's keep moving along with their rockets and nuclear program?  One more generation ready to pass the really serious problems along to our children.

[Strychnine 1,802]

40 minutes ago, AU64 said:

The negotiation approach is always appealing but we have been negotiating for a good part of my adult life....and the outcome of each step by each US president has been an increase in NK's nuclear capability.   Saw the famous Clinton speech  from 1994 a few days ago....sounded like Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" speech from the 1930s and like England in those days, the country's leader believed what they were saying in the deal ....and subsequent deals made with a succession of NK leaders...different men but each having the same goal.

: NK is not Russia or even China as far as it's nuclear ambitions are concerned.   I see them more along the lines of Iran who have a short list of enemies and are looking for an opportunity to strike them....and maybe without as much concern about what happens to their people and countries as we would hope.  It's debatable whether either country's leaders cares much about their populace.....both seeming to have an apocalyptic view of their futures.

Don't like the idea of first strike but on the other hand don't like the idea of making a retaliatory response after some US city is in ruins either.   Obviously this isn't the 1940s when we can absorb a Pearl Harbor.

So sounds to me like the prevailing sentiment on this site is to keep talking and let the NK's keep moving along with their rockets and nuclear program?  One more generation ready to pass the really serious problems along to our children.

 

Even Clinton expected that the collapse of North Korea was imminent.  Kim Il-sung died and the Soviet Union (North Korea's chief source of energy) collapsed.  That said, a deal was brokered, that North Korea actually adhered to, and then it broke down due to opposition in the United States.  The fuel oil and the light water reactors did not materialize.  I cannot fault the North Koreans for a lack of infinite patience.  Our negotiating position with North Korea has always been one of delay and wait until collapse.

Your assertions about North Korea's nuclear ambitions are little different from PT's.  Why would North Korea deploy nuclear weapons against anyone?  It is an entirely losing scenario, and they are not stupid, they know that they die after the first launch.  We have over 50 years of North Korean observation.  They have always acted provocatively, but in their own best interests.  Do you actually believe the North Koreans intend to deploy against the United States or someone else?

North Korea is absolutely Russian or China with regard to its nuclear ambiitions.  They look at history.  We have continually rattled sabers at them.  We deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea.  We frequently conduct war exercises in preparation against them.  We are the giant bully that picks on the tiny socialist state.  North Korea as a nuclear power ensures security of their regime, as no one with nuclear weapons has been attacked by another nation.

North Korea wants actual dialogue with the United States (which they have not had).  They want normalization of relations with the United States.  They want sanctions to go away and their regime to be legitimized.  In that last regard, they are much like Iran.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Amen. It amazes me that anyone still believes what liars our enemies are. They agree to something that benefits them and then ignore it. Iran and NK are clssic examples. When do we learn that?

 

Once again I will ask you to deal with the argument put forth in the Atlantic article on this preemptive strike notion.  Both you an AU64 are advocating for an action but not dealing with what many experts have been saying not just now, but for decades.  You guys are acting as if you believe we can do this pristine strike that magically wipes out all their weapons and doesn't end with tens or hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens dead.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

The negotiation approach is always appealing but we have been negotiating for a good part of my adult life....and the outcome of each step by each US president has been an increase in NK's nuclear capability.   Saw the famous Clinton speech  from 1994 a few days ago....sounded like Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" speech from the 1930s and like England in those days, the country's leader believed what they were saying in the deal ....and subsequent deals made with a succession of NK leaders...different men but each having the same goal.

: NK is not Russia or even China as far as it's nuclear ambitions are concerned.   I see them more along the lines of Iran who have a short list of enemies and are looking for an opportunity to strike them....and maybe without as much concern about what happens to their people and countries as we would hope.  It's debatable whether either country's leaders cares much about their populace.....both seeming to have an apocalyptic view of their futures.

Don't like the idea of first strike but on the other hand don't like the idea of making a retaliatory response after some US city is in ruins either.   Obviously this isn't the 1940s when we can absorb a Pearl Harbor.

So sounds to me like the prevailing sentiment on this site is to keep talking and let the NK's keep moving along with their rockets and nuclear program?  One more generation ready to pass the really serious problems along to our children.

Have you read the actual responses on this thread?  Or did you jump to a conclusion because no one was saying we should opt for a preemptive strike?  Because I think if you'd reread homer and my exchange earlier in the thread you'd see that we were discussing other options not named "keep talking" or "preemptive strike."

[AU64 10,122]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Once again I will ask you to deal with the argument put forth in the Atlantic article on this preemptive strike notion.  Both you an AU64 are advocating for an action but not dealing with what many experts have been saying not just now, but for decades.  You guys are acting as if you believe we can do this pristine strike that magically wipes out all their weapons and doesn't end with tens or hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens dead.

I am in favor of heavy duty sanctions immediately including China.  Many object to DTs proposal because it would be so economically destructive...as if the current path would be less so.

I would support whatever sabotage we could manage and if it makes them mad...to me at least it is a realization that NK is already at war with us (cyber) and we have not accepted that fact.

Comments like..."we cannot allow" ..or "we must make clear"....are just more diplomat-speak which has been going on for decades.

Our sanctions are meaningless unless China imposes real sanctions.   Otherwise.."continuing to talk " seems to be the popular proposal.

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

51 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I am in favor of heavy duty sanctions immediately including China.  Many object to DTs proposal because it would be so economically destructive...as if the current path would be less so.

I would support whatever sabotage we could manage and if it makes them mad...to me at least it is a realization that NK is already at war with us (cyber) and we have not accepted that fact.

Comments like..."we cannot allow" ..or "we must make clear"....are just more diplomat-speak which has been going on for decades.

Our sanctions are meaningless unless China imposes real sanctions.   Otherwise.."continuing to talk " seems to be the popular proposal.

 

 

That is actually the biggest, most overlooked, and more interesting threat to nations today:  cyberattacks by state actors.  Our society (and most others) relies on so many things that are extremely vulnerable.  Should any of the world's major nations ever go to war again, I foresee a barrage of cyberattacks targeting infrastructure preceding the actual fighting.  Imagine the chaos when transport and financial systems alone are taken offline.

EDIT:  Fuel for that fire:  https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/hackers-lie-in-wait-after-penetrating-us-and-europe-power-grid-networks/

[TitanTiger 20,482]

20 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I am in favor of heavy duty sanctions immediately including China.  Many object to DTs proposal because it would be so economically destructive...as if the current path would be less so.

I would support whatever sabotage we could manage and if it makes them mad...to me at least it is a realization that NK is already at war with us (cyber) and we have not accepted that fact.

Comments like..."we cannot allow" ..or "we must make clear"....are just more diplomat-speak which has been going on for decades.

Our sanctions are meaningless unless China imposes real sanctions.   Otherwise.."continuing to talk " seems to be the popular proposal.

 

Ok, this is different than what it sounded like you were saying before.  But we haven't been just engaging in diplomat-speak for decades.  We have put in place sanctions that have tightened greatly over the years.  China is about the only country that trades with them at all anymore.  The NK regime doesn't care that the result is that their country is an economic and technological backwater.  They don't care that their population is starving and suffers.  

I tend to lean toward various versions of options 2 and 3 from The Atlantic article.  Turn the screws would be the main modus operandi - start implementing limited strikes against their military assets whenever they fire a missile near us or an ally, or test a nuke.  Ratchet up the economic sanctions and get China on board to do it as well.  Make limited use of naval blockades.  Whatever you need to do to get their attention.  In the meantime, seek a way to take out the regime.  This dynasty needs to die and the country be run by someone that it's a complete wacko.

But third, use those things to do at least some of what Strychnine is saying - get them to the table and figure out a way to talk them down from the ledge.  

I just think that a preemptive strike where we try to decimate their defenses, take out all their launch sites and so on will be seen as an act of all-out war.  And if you do that, the regime will see it as a "nothing to lose" scenario and just try to wreak as much destruction as they can to make us pay.  If you're gonna die anyway, go out in a blaze of glory will be their mentality.  And the blood of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, over 30,000 American servicemen and women, and possibly tens of thousands of Japanese citizens will be on our hands, if not American lives as well.

 

[AU64 10,122]

I tend to lean toward various versions of options 2 and 3 from The Atlantic article.  Turn the screws would be the main modus operandi - start implementing limited strikes against their military assets whenever they fire a missile near us or an ally, or test a nuke.  Ratchet up the economic sanctions and get China on board to do it as well.  Make limited use of naval blockades.  Whatever you need to do to get their attention.  In the meantime, seek a way to take out the regime.  This dynasty needs to die and the country be run by someone that it's a complete wacko. -Titan Tiger

I'm on board with that.....but as to negotiation.....I disagree with some....we've been negotiating with them forever....but maybe the better term is that we have been responding to their extortion ...three US presidents thus far....until DT.   Call it negotiation or not....we have been "arriving" at some kind of agreement that required the  US to pay them something in exchange for them giving up something in the future....none of which has done much to slow their programs.

So maybe the miss-calculation that we risk is the NK expects DT to cave in just like his predecessors have done which he does not seem inclined to do. 

Already folks are on DT's case because he's not doing what hid predecessors have done....buy them off once again, inflict a little pain perhaps but don't do anything that might upset our allies whoever they might be in this case....which of course is how we have gotten to this point.  

Three presidents have basically kicked the can down the road since to a great extent it appeared that the real danger from NK was some unknown number of years in the future....during some future president's term.   But seems we are now at the "future" and it's stupid to think we can just kick the can again...for how long?    I'm pretty sure that if HC were in office she would reach an Iran-like deal and consider that she had done the job....and that someone else would do the dirty work when the time came.   

Like it or not however, I think it is up to DT and the US to do dirty work now.....or IMO, Japan or some other neighbor will eventually take it upon themselves to do it..... and that country might be primarily concerned about defending it's own citizens ......possibly considering South Korea to be collateral damage in the process....especially since recent SK governments have been less than stellar on the subject of NK

Just an afterthought.....NK is likely much less interested in defending itself (as it claims)  than being able to blackmail SK into unifying the peninsula under some kind of "joint" control....which since NK has the military might,.... would leave NK in charge and give them access to the well developed SK manufacturing infrastructure.....and then it would be impossible to sway them with embargoes.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

59 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I tend to lean toward various versions of options 2 and 3 from The Atlantic article.  Turn the screws would be the main modus operandi - start implementing limited strikes against their military assets whenever they fire a missile near us or an ally, or test a nuke.  Ratchet up the economic sanctions and get China on board to do it as well.  Make limited use of naval blockades.  Whatever you need to do to get their attention.  In the meantime, seek a way to take out the regime.  This dynasty needs to die and the country be run by someone that it's a complete wacko. -Titan Tiger

I'm on board with that.....but as to negotiation.....I disagree with some....we've been negotiating with them forever....but maybe the better term is that we have been responding to their extortion ...three US presidents thus far....until DT.   Call it negotiation or not....we have been "arriving" at some kind of agreement that required the  US to pay them something in exchange for them giving up something in the future....none of which has done much to slow their programs.

So maybe the miss-calculation that we risk is the NK expects DT to cave in just like his predecessors have done which he does not seem inclined to do. 

Already folks are on DT's case because he's not doing what hid predecessors have done....buy them off once again, inflict a little pain perhaps but don't do anything that might upset our allies whoever they might be in this case....which of course is how we have gotten to this point.  

I don't think they are on his case for that reason.  I think they are on his case because his rhetoric is ratcheting up the likelihood of all-out war.  And no one who has any understanding of the things in play here things going to war with them is a good idea.  It's not that we wouldn't win, it's that we aren't dealing with a totally rational adversary.  Deciding that you're willing to sacrifice 30,000 American service people and hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens, along with the economic disaster such a move would result in is a cynical play.

 

Quote

Three presidents have basically kicked the can down the road since to a great extent it appeared that the real danger from NK was some unknown number of years in the future....during some future president's term.   But seems we are now at the "future" and it's stupid to think we can just kick the can again...for how long?    I'm pretty sure that if HC were in office she would reach an Iran-like deal and consider that she had done the job....and that someone else would do the dirty work when the time came.   

Like it or not however, I think it is up to DT and the US to do dirty work now.....or IMO, Japan or some other neighbor will eventually take it upon themselves to do it..... and that country might be primarily concerned about defending it's own citizens ......possibly considering South Korea to be collateral damage in the process....especially since recent SK governments have been less than stellar on the subject of NK

South Korea is a huge trading partner with us.  A major ally and bulwark against not only NK, but China in the region.  You serve them up as a sacrificial lamb because you can't be bothered to play the longer game, and our allies will abandon us in droves.  We will signal to the world we cannot be trusted as a partner.

 

Quote

Just an afterthought.....NK is likely much less interested in defending itself (as it claims)  than being able to blackmail SK into unifying the peninsula under some kind of "joint" control....which since NK has the military might,.... would leave NK in charge and give them access to the well developed SK manufacturing infrastructure.....and then it would be impossible to sway them with embargoes.

As strong as NK's military is compared to other dictatorial states, South Korea's is better and better equipped.  SK would beat NK in a straight up fight on their own, much less with us as their backstop.  There's no plausible scenario where NK is able to blackmail SK into such a unification.  Period.

[AU64 10,122]

As strong as NK's military is compared to other dictatorial states, South Korea's is better and better equipped.  SK would beat NK in a straight up fight on their own, much less with us as their backstop.  There's no plausible scenario where NK is able to blackmail SK into such a unification.  Period.

Gotta disagree here...last I looked SK was looking for an opportunity for a joint Olympic games or team...and has been much more willing to give in to NK...certainly to not appear threatening as if that would make a difference.  Rejecting some US defense equipment recently did not help in my view.   

I'm not serving SK up as sacrificial lamb.     More that I see them voluntarily taking that step on their own.    Maybe SK thinks like you do and figures they are militarily strong enough to " manage" some type of unification plan to their own advantage. ?    Gotten where I don't trust SK leadership much these days...JMO..

•  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

12 minutes ago, AU64 said:

As strong as NK's military is compared to other dictatorial states, South Korea's is better and better equipped.  SK would beat NK in a straight up fight on their own, much less with us as their backstop.  There's no plausible scenario where NK is able to blackmail SK into such a unification.  Period.

Gotta disagree here...last I looked SK was looking for an opportunity for a joint Olympic games or team...and has been much more willing to give in to NK...certainly to not appear threatening as if that would make a difference.  Rejecting some US defense equipment recently did not help in my view.   

I'm not serving SK up as sacrificial lamb.     More that I see them voluntarily taking that step on their own.    Maybe SK thinks like you do and figures they are militarily strong enough to " manage" some type of unification plan to their own advantage. ?    Gotten where I don't trust SK leadership much these days...JMO..

•  

That's not what military experts say.  South Korea has double the population.  It's population is in better health, better fed, has better technology.  Their military is considered the 12th strongest in the world, while NK's sits at 23rd.  

Now, South Korea certainly wants unity just as West Germany wanted unity with East Germany.  But not on NK's terms.  There is zero chance of South Korea unifying with North Korea under a communist regime or any regime that involves keeping the Kim dynasty or its allies in place.  They are more inclined to reach for peaceful resolutions as they are the ones with the most skin in the game if things get hostile, and an Olympic team is a nice olive branch gesture that costs them nothing but might reap some benefits.

And the only equipment some of their citizens objected to was a missile defense system that they feared would only escalate tensions with an unstable regime.  The SK government accepted the US defense systems and they are in place now.

[homersapien 11,373]

It's amazing to me how people are willing to go with their "feelings" while simply ignoring the actual consequences.

This is exactly what worries me about Trump.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

The little a-hole is asking for it and I think he is about to get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/08/north-korea-warns-us-will-pay-for-haleys-hysteric-fit.html

Some here have posted that I have a reading comprehension problem. I suggest they read the OP. I simply asked what posters here thought.  I didn't ask for the opinion of the author of  a lengthy maga zine article  who likely  has little intelligence connecttions.

We posted what we thought.  Then I posted some articles from folks who have extensive experience in this arena.  Who've studied the geopolitical dynamics involved.  

As far as the articles being written by people with little intellegence connections:
 

Quote

Jon Wolfsthal is a globally recognized expert on nuclear weapons and nonproliferation policy. A nonresident fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he was President Barack Obama’s special assistant and senior director at the National Security Council for arms control and nonproliferation. He is the former deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. He has served on site in North Korea, helped negotiate an arms control agreement with Russia, and served as Vice President Joe Biden’s nuclear security advisor from 2009 to 2012.

and

Quote

Mark Bowden is a national correspondent for The Atlantic, and a best-selling author. His book Black Hawk Down, a finalist for the National Book Award, was the basis of the film of the same name. His book Killing Pablo won the Overseas Press Club's 2001 Cornelius Ryan Award as the book of the year. Among his other books are Guests of the Ayatollah, an account of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, which was listed by Newsweek as one of "The 50 Books for Our Times." His most recent books are The Best Game Ever, the story of the 1958 NFL championship game; Worm, which tells the story of the Conficker computer worm, based on the article "The Enemy Within,"published in this magazine; The Finish: The Killing of Osama bin Laden; and Huế 1968.

Neither of them sound like dummies or neophytes to foreign policy and geopolitics.  But beyond that, the article from The Atlantic was full of quotes from people with plenty of intelligence/foreign policy bonafides:

- a high ranking U.S. military officer who commanded U.S. forces in the Korean theater.

- Jeffrey Lewis, an arms-control expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

- "As tensions flared in recent months, fanned by bluster from both Washington and Pyongyang, I talked with a number of national-security experts and military officers who have wrestled with the problem for years, and who have held responsibility to plan and prepare for real conflict. Among those I spoke with were former officials from the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon; military officers who have commanded forces in the region; and academic experts.  These include:

- Abe Denmark, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia under Barack Obama

- Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration and currently the CEO of the Center for a New American Security

- Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who specialized in conducting war games at the National War College

- Jim Walsh is a senior research associate at the MIT Security Studies Program and a board member of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

-  Sydney A. Seiler, a North Korea expert who spent decades at the CIA, the National Security Council, and elsewhere,

- John Plumb, a Navy submarine officer who served as a director of defense policy and strategy for the National Security Council during the Obama administration

- Scott A. Snyder, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

- A former senior adviser to the White House on national security, who asked not to be named

- A retired senior U.S. military commander.

I mean, some of them might not have intelligence connections but you'd have to be going to total faith to believe none of them do.  These are armchair QBs tossing out hot takes uninformed.

 

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Some said I was ready to bomb now. Fact is I haven't said what I would do.

Well, you certainly insinuated it when you said...

Quote

PT:  We don't have to nuke him. We can wipe him out with conventional bombs. I just don't want to wait until he strikes first, kills a lot of allies (and maybe us) and say gosh I wish we had done something.

So I replied and asked you to discuss your thoughts in more depth...

Quote

Titan:  I think you should read the article I posted from the Atlantic on how launching a conventional attack on them would go down.  If you disagree with their assessment of that option, then let's discuss that.  But to think we can just "wipe them out" without catastrophic loss of life and destruction in South Korea and possible Japan as a result, I think, is extremely naive. 

and 

Quote

Titan:  Again, PT, you seem to be advocating for "doing something" like a preemptive strike to take them out...

I've been giving you opportunities to expound on what you think and offered the caveats of "if you disagree...:" or "you seem to be."  If anyone's misreading your intentions, it's only because you've refused up until now to engage the subject.

 

8 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

But FWIW I would send in a Navy Seal team and take Kim out. I  understand that he has a few very loyal generals but below that is hated because many in the military have relatives or freinds in his cruel prison camps or have already been tortured and killed. We have insiders in their military who would support a well planned Seal strike. If the strike failed then I would attack post haste with fire and fury like that have never seeen and watch his military run to surrender.

First, this sounds different from your initial response that indicated we could "wipe him out with conventional bombs."

But now your follow up if the decapitation strike fails is to do exactly what everyone says would inevitably result in the most catastrophic loss of life and destruction of NK's neighbors and our biggest allies in the region.  The experts all seem to believe that it is fantasy to think that we could completely decimate his offensive capabilities without him going down in a blaze of glory and murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of civilans and wreaking havoc on the world economy in the process.  But to my admittedly inexperienced mind, just using some logic here and putting two and two together, if you fail on the assassination and then follow up with an all out attack, you've validated every rationale he's had for pursuing nukes - that our intent all along has not been peace or whatever else we say, but regime change.  What at that point does he have to lose?  If you know you're going to die no matter what, and you're a sociopath like him, you've now lost any reason for considering restraint.  May as well lob a nuke or two at Seoul, bombard it with everything you have left and go down guns blazing.

What, other than mere hunch and wishful thinking, makes you so confident that your scenario wouldn't end up like that?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

The little a-hole is asking for it and I think he is about to get it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/09/08/north-korea-warns-us-will-pay-for-haleys-hysteric-fit.html

Some here have posted that I have a reading comprehension problem. I suggest they read the OP. I simply asked what posters here thought.  I didn't ask for the opinion of the author of  a lengthy maga zine article  who likely  has little intelligence connecttions.Some said I was ready to bomb now. Fact is I haven't said what I would do.

What you have done is belittle or dismiss diplomatic options as being futile.

That leaves you with.........?

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

But FWIW I would send in a Navy Seal team and take Kim out. I  understand that he has a few very loyal generals but below that is hated because many in the military have relatives or freinds in his cruel prison camps or have already been tortured and killed. We have insiders in their military who would support a well planned Seal strike. If the strike failed then I would attack post haste with fire and fury like that have never seeen and watch his military run to surrender.

Setting aside the impossibility of a seal team to accomplish such a thing, how do you control what happens upon his death?  

How do you know that wouldn't put someone even worse than Kim - or even more importantly -  trigger a reactive attack on SK and others? 

You've watched too many Chuck Norris movies.

[homersapien 11,373]

5 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

That is actually the biggest, most overlooked, and more interesting threat to nations today:  cyberattacks by state actors.  Our society (and most others) relies on so many things that are extremely vulnerable.  Should any of the world's major nations ever go to war again, I foresee a barrage of cyberattacks targeting infrastructure preceding the actual fighting.  Imagine the chaos when transport and financial systems alone are taken offline.

EDIT:  Fuel for that fire:  https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/hackers-lie-in-wait-after-penetrating-us-and-europe-power-grid-networks/

If you are interested in this I suggest reading Lights Out by Ted Koppel of all people. (Yeah, I was a little surprised about how well researched it was.)

He explains the technical vulnerability is great detail.  Due to the unique and varying design aspects of some of our major transformer/switching  sites, it's possible that a specific region could lose power for months by eliminating these key distribution points!   Think about what that would mean for a congested city like NY.

[Strychnine 1,802]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you are interested in this I suggest reading Lights Out by Ted Koppel of all people. (Yeah, I was a little surprised about how well researched it was.)

He explains the technical vulnerability is great detail.  Due to the unique and varying design aspects of some of our major transformer/switching  sites, it's possible that a specific region could lose power for months by eliminating these key distribution points!   Think about what that would mean for a congested city like NY.

 

The results of WannaCry and Petya should have served as more of a wakeup call than they did.  Governments, healthcare, international shipping, and transportation were all affected, and that was not even the malware's intent.  Stuxnet showed how malware can target industrial control systems, and then made its way into the secure facility that was its target.  In all honesty, our society's vulnerabilities to crippling cyberattack concern me much more than North Korea having nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

[AU64 10,122]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you are interested in this I suggest reading Lights Out by Ted Koppel of all people. (Yeah, I was a little surprised about how well researched it was.)

He explains the technical vulnerability is great detail.  Due to the unique and varying design aspects of some of our major transformer/switching  sites, it's possible that a specific region could lose power for months by eliminating these key distribution points!   Think about what that would mean for a congested city like NY.

"One Second After"....Fortchen.....written several years ago is a fictional account of what an electromagnetic pulse weapon could do to the US.  If's fiction and drama but as noted in the story, when the US loses it's power grids regionally or nationally, the death toll will be in the millions pretty quickly.  People in the large cities re not able to feed themselves beyond what they can buy or steal from local stores, transportation will be shut down, communication will be limited, etc. etc.  and it takes very little imagination to picture a city like New York or Chicago...or you name it.... without power in the winter for several months....or longer since it's possible that rebuilding the electrical infrastructure could take years. 

In response to another comment further up the page...what makes SK vulnerable is not NK's million man army...it's the fact that the NKs have the possibility to destroy the SK capital and a great many people without ever crossing the border of SK    JMO but a war between them would probably not be fought with foot soldiers considering that NK has ( or soon will have ) nuclear capability and a willingness to use it. .

[TitanTiger 20,482]

45 minutes ago, AU64 said:

In response to another comment further up the page...what makes SK vulnerable is not NK's million man army...it's the fact that the NKs have the possibility to destroy the SK capital and a great many people without ever crossing the border of SK    JMO but a war between them would probably not be fought with foot soldiers considering that NK has ( or soon will have ) nuclear capability and a willingness to use it. .

NK could do that but would still lose to SK.  For one, many believe SK already has nukes of its own.  Pyongyang would be on the target list shortly after anything like that was launched at Seoul.  Second, SK's advantage in military tech is substantial.  I'm not saying it would be easy or short, but South Korea wins a battle straight up with the commies up north.

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

NK could do that but would still lose to SK.  For one, many believe SK already has nukes of its own.  Pyongyang would be on the target list shortly after anything like that was launched at Seoul.  Second, SK's advantage in military tech is substantial.  I'm not saying it would be easy or short, but South Korea wins a battle straight up with the commies up north.

If true,that might partly explain NK's determination to go nuclear.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

5 minutes ago, AU64 said:

If true,that might partly explain NK's determination to go nuclear.  

NK's main reason for going nuclear is the US.  They believe it's the only real deterrent force that will keep the US from attacking them to oust the regime.  The paranoia is real over there and they look at situations like Gaddafi who gave up his nuclear ambitions for concessions from the US and then was left hung out to dry when unrest hit his country.  That's why what Strychnine mentioned has some weight to it.  The NK regime is all about nothing else except staying in power.  They are not suicidal.  They don't care about their country or its citizens.  They just fear being overthrown, especially by the US or a US backed coup and they believe the only surefire way to prevent it is to have nukes.

[Strychnine 1,802]

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

NK's main reason for going nuclear is the US.  They believe it's the only real deterrent force that will keep the US from attacking them to oust the regime.  The paranoia is real over there and they look at situations like Gaddafi who gave up his nuclear ambitions for concessions from the US and then was left hung out to dry when unrest hit his country.  That's why what Strychnine mentioned has some weight to it.  The NK regime is all about nothing else except staying in power.  They are not suicidal.  They don't care about their country or its citizens.  They just fear being overthrown, especially by the US or a US backed coup and they believe the only surefire way to prevent it is to have nukes.

 

Gaddafi was not just left out to dry either, there was NATO military intervention that ensured he fell from power.  If you are a despot outside of the United States' good graces, that got your attention.

[AU64 10,122]

6 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Gaddafi was not just left out to dry either, there was NATO military intervention that ensured he fell from power.  If you are a despot outside of the United States' good graces, that got your attention.

There was waaaay more to Gaddafi that just not being "in our good graces" and certainly you know that.    

Shoot, for the most part the US has been willing to deal with despots about anywhere in the world as long as they left the U S alone and confined their atrocities to their own countries or adjacent neighbors.   JMO but Seals should have taken Gaddafi out about 15 years earlier than when he was finally dealt with in what was it....2011 or so?  

NK and others might use Gaddafi  as justification for NK's actions but that's pretty much BS.   Check your history books and you will see that NK's nuclear ambitions began in the late 1960s and early 1970s.     US was no threat and Gaddafi was not even in power and it was years afterward that he began supporting terrorists all over the world...not to mention promoting attacks on US interests.  

As someone suggested ,the Gaddafi approach might be a good solution to the NK problem too.    but linking Gaddafi and NK's paranoia is a huge stretch.

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

There was waaaay more to Gaddafi that just not being "in our good graces" and certainly you know that.    

Shoot, for the most part the US has been willing to deal with despots about anywhere in the world as long as they left the U S alone and confined their atrocities to their own countries or adjacent neighbors.   JMO but Seals should have taken Gaddafi out about 15 years earlier than when he was finally dealt with in what was it....2011 or so?  

NK and others might use Gaddafi  as justification for NK's actions but that's pretty much BS.   Check your history books and you will see that NK's nuclear ambitions began in the late 1960s and early 1970s.     US was no threat and Gaddafi was not even in power and it was years afterward that he began supporting terrorists all over the world...not to mention promoting attacks on US interests.  

As someone suggested ,the Gaddafi approach might be a good solution to the NK problem too.    but linking Gaddafi and NK's paranoia is a huge stretch.

I think Strychine was saying Gadafi's fate was an exemplary message, not a direct link to their strategy..

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I think Strychine was saying Gadafi's fate was an exemplary message, not a direct link to their strategy..

OK..that could be ...but if so, the message should be...."don't screw with the US or it's people in other countries"    Gaddafi.....that night club in Germany and PanAm 103.....the SOB should have been killed by some US organized effort by 1990.   Thus far NK has been more careful though it's habit of kidnapping and mistreating US citizens for questionable reasons has moved him up the list of people who deserve an early death..JMO