North Korea- World War 3?

[bethanygm]

Anyone have an opinion?

I am so sick of these stupid f***ing wars. I can't wait til my husband gets out of the military. I could rant on and on about how much I hate the military, but I won't. My husband went to Iraq last time when he had been set to go elsewhere for deployment, and now he'll be near North Korea where that stupid f***tard is with his dumbass threats. This stuff brings out the F in me, I guess. I would like a logical discussion, though. Maybe it'll help the fears I have about this stuff.

[fripping]

they're posturing. kim jong il is kim jong ill, it's a cover bluster and an attempt at legitimacy. two birds with one stone.

[Neville]

They haven't been in the news for a while. They needed some attention. They did what they could.

[bethanygm]

Well I sure hope it stays this way. I think he is crazy and so, unpredictable.

[jyng1]

He's just after some more aid. America will give him some money for dismantling his missiles (till next time).

With 28,000 American troops in South Korea and the Pacific fleet bobbing around, plus Japan, your man is probably safer over there than you are. He is developing "long" range missiles.

Anyway, you live in the wrong hemisphere. Time to move.

[Zephyrus055]

Obviously the US can't allow minor powers to disrupt the balance of power and acquire nuclear weapons. Though personally, due to the strategic and geographic position of North Korea, I am less worried about them than I am Iran. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, it isn't so much that they would fire a nuclear missile at Europe or something, but that the balance of power would shift in favor of Russia/China.

My bets are that a war would start if Iran neared completion of a nuclear weapon, that is if Obama has any measure of decisiveness.

[Neville]

My bets are that a war would start if Iran neared completion of a nuclear weapon, that is if Obama has any measure of decisiveness.

Good ol' Israel would take care of that.

[Technical]

This one scares me, unlike most potential threats. Kim-Jong Il is wacked out, and I wouldn't be shocked if he did something really screwy if, say, N. Korea was attacked. Nuking Tokyo would be pretty f'n bad.

[Neville]

This one scares me, unlike most potential threats. Kim-Jong Il is wacked out, and I wouldn't be shocked if he did something really screwy if, say, N. Korea was attacked. Nuking Tokyo would be pretty f'n bad.

Who would attack North Korea?

[jyng1]

Who would attack North Korea?

Well, you know. Being involved in three major conflicts sounds like a great idea. Best way to stimulate the economy.

[Faust06]

Well, you know. Being involved in three major conflicts sounds like a great idea. Best way to stimulate the economy.

It's worked before!

But a "major" conflict among superpowers is really another cold war, these days. Cold War 2!

[80b]

He's just after some more aid. America will give him some money for dismantling his missiles (till next time).

And in the down economy, prices go up. It takes more threats to get the same amount of aide.

[Anonymous]

I've posted this before, but can they attach nukes to rockets yet? I seem to remember reading that they were quite a few years off from that sort of technology. Remember, they've tested long-range rockets, and they've tested nukes, but not the two together. So they would have to use planes, and we can shoot those down.

As for starting anything, I don't think that they will. But if they do, I genuinely hope that the U.S. stays out of it unless they target Japan. They're the only people we have a responsibility to protect, the rest of it can fall on China. If they want some mad dog of a neighbor, blowing everything to hell in their region, so be it. But I doubt that they do.

[foodeater]

Kim Jong Il is a megalomaniac looking for more attention, I doubt they'll actually do anything. I don't know what would happen if they invaded South Korea though..

[Anonymous]

Kim Jong Il is a megalomaniac looking for more attention, I doubt they'll actually do anything. I don't know what would happen if they invaded South Korea though..

I don't think they'd have an easy time of it. South Korea has the 15th largest economy in the world (or did in 2008), and though they may not have as much of a military as North Korea does, they're reasonably strong, and probably have a much better morale.

[Ferrus]

My bets are that a war would start if Iran neared completion of a nuclear weapon, that is if Obama has any measure of decisiveness.
Really? The US will just let Israel do the dirty work for it, just as it did in the 80s with the Osirak project in Iraq.

[80b]

I don't think they'd have an easy time of it. South Korea has the 15th largest economy in the world (or did in 2008), and though they may not have as much of a military as North Korea does, they're reasonably strong, and probably have a much better morale.

Except that a Korean War would not just be North and South Korea. Certainly that would mean South Korea wouldn't just be walked over in a matter of days (long enough for foreign military aide to show up).

I'm confident a number of countries would hop in to defend South Korea. But the real question comes down to North Korea. Without support, its essentially suicide to actual engage in an invasion of the south. China and Russia haven't seem to be doing much to keep the North from acting up... but China and Russia also benefit from relations with many of the nations that support South Korea.

In my mind, the big question is what do China and Russia do if North Korea aggressively attacks and invades the South.

[Ferrus]

In my mind, the big question is what do China and Russia do if North Korea aggressively attacks and invades the South.
Russia doesn't care so much about N. Korea and whilst it will refuse to actively punish it, it won't raise a finger to protect it from the USA-S. Korea-Japan troika either. China on the other hand would regard any military action as being a direct threat to its security, much as it did in the Korean war.

[Feops]

China's in an odd spot.

I'm sure the Chinese do not want an increased American presence, or Japan to arm themselves moreso, but if NK does something stupid I don't see China stepping in to support/defend that. Ideally they should be dismantling this locally... does NK care what China wants even?

[Google Monster]

Self Defense people, leave them be.

They just wanna say, hey! We got power to smack ya back baby, so back off!

Everyone knows if ya send a nuke out, your bound to get one back. US used theirs when they had the only one, not so much the problem these days. Nukes are just safety devices to prevent being nuked yourself.

[nonperson]

War won't happen because it would cause a humanitarian disaster. Millions would try to cross the Yalu into China.

The state is an abstract. Sometime it suits actors to pretend that states are products of nature. Consequently at this moment North Korea is more secure in its statehood than less secure. Remember if you threaten somebody else's sovereignty you are setting a precedent that allows others to trespass on you.

[nonperson]

I've posted this before, but can they attach nukes to rockets yet? I seem to remember reading that they were quite a few years off from that sort of technology. Remember, they've tested long-range rockets, and they've tested nukes, but not the two together. So they would have to use planes, and we can shoot those down.



The verb is to weaponise.

[nonperson]

I don't think they'd have an easy time of it. South Korea has the 15th largest economy in the world (or did in 2008), and though they may not have as much of a military as North Korea does, they're reasonably strong, and probably have a much better morale.

More simple than that South Koreans are just better fed.

One observer new to Korea on his first visit to the DMZ asked his hosts (while surveying the north through binoculars) how long the North Koreans had been deploying child soldiers. They weren't children he was looking at just malnourished adults; the off spring of another malnourished generation.

[msg_v2]

How come every time some sort of incident like this occurs in another country, people talk about how it's going to be World War III?

I remember people telling me how Bush was going to get us into WWIII if he got re-elected. (And of course, more recently, that McCain would do the same). It didn't happen.

That beings said, I think this is a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. We've demonstrated that if you don't have WMD's, we will invade you. To any third world dictator with sense, it becomes obvious that the safest thing to do is to start getting some WMD's. Nobody wants North Korea to start attacking Japan or South Korea.

[C.J.Woolf]

Who here remembers deterrence? The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction meant that no matter how bad the Cold War got, it never got nuclear. I like to think that Unilaterally Assured Destruction, which is what any minor nuclear power would get if it attacked the US or a US ally, would be at least as effective. Some people talk like deterrence wouldn't work with Kim Jong-Il because he is a madman. Deterrence works with people who have something to lose. Kim might be a madman, but he has plenty to lose.

[thod]

Korea isn't in the West's sphere of influence. The global campaign against communism that got us involved last time is no longer present. It is China's back yard and they will have to sort it out. A bunch of Asians kicking the crap out each other is off no more interest than when the Africans do it, Korea has no oil.

[msg_v2]

You're forgetting we still have a strong military presence in Japan and the South. Furthermore, we have strong trade relations with many Asian countries.

[CEOofRawness]

Self Defense people, leave them be.

They just wanna say, hey! We got power to smack ya back baby, so back off!

Everyone knows if ya send a nuke out, your bound to get one back. US used theirs when they had the only one, not so much the problem these days. Nukes are just safety devices to prevent being nuked yourself.

Good point. What gives us the right to prevent anyone else from having nukes when we have enough to blow up the world many times over? That's what I expect the North Koreans are saying to themselves. It makes sense to a certain degree.

The reality of the situation is that we're not worried about any organized country having nuclear weapons. What we're worried about is having those nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people, either by accident or by "accident". Yea, we can nuke back any country that tries to nuke us. But what about if it's a criminal or terrorist organization that pulls it off? Who do we nuke then? Deterrence will no longer be a factor in that case, and if that's all we've got to prevent people from nuking us, then it's not a big surprise as to why we're so paranoid about other countries having nukes.

I say we let anyone have nukes, but with a lot of strings attached. The entire world should be able to monitor the nukes that everyone has. Any secret production of them should be assumed as the intent to use it, and should result in the rest of the world ganging up on you.

The reality is that countries with the capability of making nukes will do so regardless, so we might as well regulate it under tight scrutiny, just like marijuana use in the US (yes, I managed to tie in an MJ legalization line in a WW3 thread, :P).

[C.J.Woolf]

(yes, I managed to tie in an MJ legalization line in a WW3 thread, :P).
Godwin's Law for the 21st century? ;)

[Sureshot]

Good point. What gives us the right to prevent anyone else from having nukes when we have enough to blow up the world many times over? That's what I expect the North Koreans are saying to themselves. It makes sense to a certain degree.



The point has validity and preferably no country should have a right to WMD in the first place. But that isn't reality. The less countries that have nuclear capability the less chance of there being a nuclear holocaust. A nation is allowed to take almost any means necessary to safeguard its people.



The reality of the situation is that we're not worried about any organized country having nuclear weapons. What we're worried about is having those nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people, either by accident or by "accident". Yea, we can nuke back any country that tries to nuke us. But what about if it's a criminal or terrorist organization that pulls it off? Who do we nuke then? Deterrence will no longer be a factor in that case, and if that's all we've got to prevent people from nuking us, then it's not a big surprise as to why we're so paranoid about other countries having nukes.

Which is why the less countries with nuclear capability; the safer we are.



I say we let anyone have nukes, but with a lot of strings attached. The entire world should be able to monitor the nukes that everyone has. Any secret production of them should be assumed as the intent to use it, and should result in the rest of the world ganging up on you.



And who would be the monitor? The United Nations? The "consequence" would be trade sanctions, which won't deter covert manufacture. No, we must avoid this predicament by nipping it at the bud.

[Sureshot]

North Korea won't do shit. They are stirring up a storm so they can get more foreign aid and to fill Kim Jong Il's ego. They may have nuclear capability but until they have ICBM's they aren't a direct threat to the United States. And, even if they invaded ROK, they would not use nuclear arms because the threat of overwhelming retaliation. DPRK is a small country and making it a glowing piece of radioactive slag wouldn't require any movie magic to pull off. No, the only somewhat realistic scenario I can see is if NATO invades DPRK, the regime is on its last legs and throw some nukes around to stall the enemy advance. Even then I'm not 100 percent.

[nonperson]

He has a point, well several actually.

My favourite argument that gets tagged on to these discussions is "who are we to say they shouldn't have them?"

Well we are the ones with the effective nuclear weapons system. In an anarchic system the realist ideology still dictates conduct.

[nonperson]

North Korea won't do shit. They are stirring up a storm so they can get more foreign aid and to fill Kim Jong Il's ego. They may have nuclear capability but until they have ICBM's they aren't a direct threat to the United States. And, even if they invaded ROK, they would not use nuclear arms because the threat of overwhelming retaliation. DPRK is a small country and making it a glowing piece of radioactive slag wouldn't require any movie magic to pull off. No, the only somewhat realistic scenario I can see is if NATO invades DPRK, the regime is on its last legs and throw some nukes around to stall the enemy advance. Even then I'm not 100 percent.

They have no weaponised devices. As I said above the reason why nobody wants to invade or topple the Northern regime is that it would create a humanitarian disaster. The UN latest sanctions are more to do with signalling intent.

From a military point of view the greatest threat is from the North's artillery. They have several thousand pieces pointing south. I wonder how many shells they could get off before the South hit back, how much damage they would cause, and how long the North's army would remain a cohesive force once the South and the US started to reply. I don't think there is much danger of the North getting beyond the truce line. You must remember the North run the risk of mass defections.

It would sure put a few mortar shells falling into empty Israeli desert into perspective.

[Sureshot]

They have no weaponised devices. As I said above the reason why nobody wants to invade or topple the Northern regime is that it would create a humanitarian disaster. The UN latest sanctions are more to do with signalling intent.


I know, I was just outlining the probability of the possibilities of DPRK using nukes. Dropping bombs on their own country to slow down encroaching enemy divisions seems the most probable.



From a military point of view the greatest threat is from the North's artillery. They have several thousand pieces pointing south. I wonder how many shells they could get off before the South hit back, how much damage they would cause, and how long the North's army would remain a cohesive force once the South and the US started to reply. I don't think there is much danger of the North getting beyond the truce line. You must remember the North run the risk of mass defections.

It would sure put a few mortar shells falling into empty Israeli desert into perspective.


North Korean arty will devastate Seoul. One of the most densely populated cities of the world with 24 million inhabitants is roughly thirty miles away from the DMZ. I do believe the N. Koreans are capable of crossing the 38th parallel though I'm unsure they are capable of reaching Seoul. Although the N.Koreans have superior numbers by several hundred thousand, their equipment is adapted from Cold War era technology (when I last checked). The American forces stationed in Korea would help but I doubt it'd be enough to push them back to prewar lines. Until, a carrier strike force arrives within the week and tips the tide.

[bass_n_treble]

I heard someone on the news refer to North Korea as No Ko... I almost vomited in horror that a situation so dire could be likened to J.Lo, A-Rod, etc. etc.

[nonperson]

North Korean arty will devastate Seoul.

Yes. Exactly. Without wishing to sound too sick I am just wondering how many shells they will get off before counter battery comes into effect. Or the North will to fight breaks.

I don't think many Northern troops are physically up to going to war. I think the South and US are more likely to be swamped by prisoners than active combatants. Think of the Iraqi army mass surrenders. Northern commanders will be to busy keeping their own troops in order to face the South. All very, very fascinating. Let us hope it stays a matter for conjecture.

[CEOofRawness]

I agree that less nukes = less chance of nuclear holocaust. But by harassing whoever even attempts to develop nuclear weapons won't always work. What if multiple North Koreas (or "No Kos") were to suddenly start developing nuclear weapons? Would we sanction half the world if it came to that? This is of course the worst scenario. More believable would be that countries would develop nuclear weapons in secret, or in "secret", like NK.

Or maybe they're scared shitless of the US and are just feigning having nuclear weapons. After all, we included them in the "axis of evil", including Iraq, which we've already invaded for whatever reason (I honestly don't know the "official" one).

I do agree with the general consensus that NK isn't much of a threat to the US, or even the world, regardless if they actually have nukes or not.


I am so sick of these stupid f***ing wars. I can't wait til my husband gets out of the military. I could rant on and on about how much I hate the military, but I won't.

It's not the military, but the government. The government is who sends them to war. Remember the saying in the military that "shit rolls down hill".

[nonperson]

The biggest nuclear problem at the moment is keeping track of Pakistan's 70 to 80 deployable devices.

Nuclear weapons aren't difficult to build in theory. It is the practice that is the problem. You need specialised machinery and quite rare substances (not only for the device itself but also to facilitate its manufacture.) And as I have said weaponising the technology is extremely difficult. As a comparison look how many nations aspire to ownership of nuclear submarines but have yet to manage to build their own vessel. China's own boats are that noisy they are constantly tracked by the US.

Oh yes. Feigning owning a device now that is interesting. North Korean tests are sub terrain. Now this could be for covert reasons (there is no bomb) as much as practical reasons (blast containment.) What you have to ponder is how effectively isotopes will promulgate themselves and whether those isotopes can be traced to North Korea. If I were you I would look at US test's in the Nevada desert for answers......

And yes seismic data. A nuclear device would go pop a lot, lot, lot, lot quicker than the equivalent amount of HE (even if the HE were contained in say an underground cavern.) I love the phrase sympathetic detonation.........