Good analysis of NK dynamic?

[Buzz]

52 minutes ago, KL2004 said:

Why not just embrace that nuclear weapons are a thing that all industrial countries now can arm themselves with, and start dealing with that as a reality and settling things based on that new context rather than making the transition between conventional and nuclear weapons a massive problem in human history?

 Please re-review What Would War With North Korea Look Like?    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

Multiply this embrace of nuclear weapons and multiply non state / corrupt state actors reality(s)   embrace of nuclear weapons

Buzz

[KL2004]

28 minutes ago, Buzz said:

 Please re-review What Would War With North Korea Look Like?    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

Multiply this embrace of nuclear weapons and multiply non state / corrupt state actors reality(s)   embrace of nuclear weapons

Buzz

The resultant being we don't go to war.  Sorry if I missed what you meant!

 

I figure you're saying that there are people who will initiate nuclear war anyhow, even if state actors don't. 

 

Before I respond, is that correct?  If so can you help me before I respond with some argument or link to why they would? 

Edited September 20, 2017 by KL2004

[Buzz]

"The whole problem seems to be based on the fact that some states don't like what other states do with their people."

I can help you.  Heading off on the road soon so brief (respectfully) a quick response.

Your comment in my bold above ... ^  illustrates you are missing a full and complete understanding of why nuclear deterrence is important for people / planet survival.

Unlimited nuclear proliferation would allow any state, non-states, terror states, to develop, possess and use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear, Chemical Biological, etc. . WMDs. 

Please re read this... and understand why nuclear proliferation limits are in place.... NOT... because "some states don't like what other states do with their people."

If WMDs are OK for anyone (developed or purchased) that can arm themselves with WMD weapons  ... 'something the world would embrace'  ... suggested proposed Wars of Thought, Education, Culture, detterence are (IMO) ineffective and impotent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

The world has a long way to go to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament... but it should be clear that allowing everyone / anyone to obtain  nuclear weapons and use and weapons technology is a bad idea for people / planet survival.

☮️ Buzz

[KL2004]

45 minutes ago, Buzz said:

"The whole problem seems to be based on the fact that some states don't like what other states do with their people."

I can help you.  Heading off on the road soon so brief (respectfully) a quick response.

Your comment in my bold above ... ^  illustrates you are missing a full and complete understanding of why nuclear deterrence is important for people / planet survival.

Unlimited nuclear proliferation would allow any state, non-states, terror states, to develop, possess and use Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear, Chemical Biological, etc. . WMDs. 

Please re read this... and understand why nuclear proliferation limits are in place.... NOT... because "some states don't like what other states do with their people."

If WMDs are OK for anyone (developed or purchased) that can arm themselves with WMD weapons  ... 'something the world would embrace'  ... suggested proposed Wars of Thought, Education, Culture, detterence are (IMO) ineffective and impotent. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

The world has a long way to go to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament... but it should be clear that allowing everyone / anyone to obtain  nuclear weapons and use and weapons technology is a bad idea for people / planet survival.

☮️ Buzz

That leaves totally overwhelming and defeating, now, those who are pursuing them, and the casualties that would incur.  Is that suffering worth it? 

And as far as NK, they already have it. 

I get what you're saying.  My response (be it worthy or not) is that we either stop everyone by force or start accepting it. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Not exactly my preferred source for an article, but this does cover a number of important bases:  http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-china-could-invade-north-korea-22417

Edited September 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sublime]

Sgt. Sqhead- of course the N Koreans have reason to hate us. However they invaded the South in 1950 not us. They.ve been the provocateurs in countless border raids kidnappings shellings etc.

Not to mention assasinations overseas, torture of foreign and domestic prisoners. A gulag archipelago, etc etc etc.

The fact of the matter was Im sure we.d be happy to leave well enough alone. Since 1953 there were long periods of inactivity until the Norks started another incident. Whether the Pueblo, the DMZ beheading incident, shelling offshore islands, kidnapping Japanese and S Korean nationals etc.  Tell me how you can justify their stance - if they just developed nukes itd be one thing. Yes thered be much crying and wailing but you could make simple nukes and put them on arty shells or make nuke landmines - items just to keep the regime in power.

What the DPRK doesnt undeestand is official govt statements that they.ll destroy the US, Australia, Japan, S Korea, etc etc etc coupled with missile launches that violate the territory of their neighbors do nothing but motivate US opinion that "enough is enough"

Sad to say but we probably should have gone in in 1994 

[sburke]

I am not sure why you think he is justifying their stance. Understanding an enemies position is important to project your actions. It doesn't mean you agree. 

As to actions, right now S Korea is going to pay the price for any action we take. Unilateral action by the US ignoring the risk to S Korea is not exactly behaving like an ally.

[Michael Emrys]

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

I am not sure why you think he is justifying their stance. Understanding an enemies position is important to project your actions. It doesn't mean you agree. 

As to actions, right now S Korea is going to pay the price for any action we take. Unilateral action by the US ignoring the risk to S Korea is not exactly behaving like an ally.

True. Unless and until NK makes an overtly aggressive military move, we can't go throwing bombs around. We can continue to apply economic sanctions, but there is no guarantee that that will bring about an end state that we can be satisfied with.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

6 hours ago, sburke said:

I am not sure why you think he is justifying their stance. Understanding an enemies position is important to project your actions. It doesn't mean you agree.

Exactly. 

Likewise it is of extreme importance to at least attempt to analyse how one's own actions might be perceived (and thus how they might be countered) by an adversary.....The US has, by reason of little more than hubris IMHO, consistently failed to do this since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Michael Emrys]

21 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The US has, by reason of little more than hubris IMHO, consistently failed to do this since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Oh, it goes back a lot farther than that. The US has meddled in the governments and affairs of other countries, especially in Latin America, for over a century. It is one of the less commendable parts of our history. The fact that many other nations were far worse and for longer is really not a good excuse since we also have claimed over that same period to conduct ourselves on a much higher level. I think that is what gripes our critics the most. They generally understand realpolitik well enough and realize that they have their own dirty laundry. But we should stop taking bows when no one is applauding.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

[Sublime]

Oh I dont think hes supporting the Kim regime. Of course understanding your enemy is important. The enigma with Kim is whether he.s mad or being very rational. I wouldnt have taken the provocations as far but if I were in his shoes I would have developed nuclear weapons as well.

My post was really just delivered from an Americans perspective on something a large amount of Americans feel should never have been our problem.  As such I felt it necessary to point out that whilst they may have reasons to hate us the DPRK seriously seriously make it worse for themselces every single time, and unfortunately seem to be the biggest likely catalyst of a WW3 scenario atm

And frankly with a 6 year old its hard not to resent the Kim regime for that

 

P.s. Im also pretty sure sburke and emrys know Im well aware of the Americas dirty actions around the globe going back to the USS Maine... And beyond.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Sublime

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Don't worry fella, we all want your little one to grow up healthy and happy (alongside our own).   

IMHO speaking truth to power is sometimes a necessary part of the public's duty as citizens/subjects.....Despite what they might like to believe, governments are still responsible to their employers and that my friends, is us. 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Michael Emrys]

6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Despite what they might like to believe, governments are still responsible to their employers and that my friends, is us.

Which also means that ultimate responsibility for their actions and inactions also lies with us. If we continue to put criminal meatheads in office, we will probably get what we deserve. Which is a pretty goddamn scary thought.

Michael

[Sgt.Squarehead]

So.....Fingers out lads, we've work to do. 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So.....Fingers out lads, we've work to do. 

you dotard!  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[KL2004]

Enjoying the dialogue too.  Thanks.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Same s**t, different day:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41375302

Could some of you American guys maybe point out to your representatives that NK is well aware of "the military options available to defeat any threat", that's exactly why they are currently building nuclear weapons. 

 

[Sublime]

Unfortunately I dont think the election of meatheads is going to stop Emrys. Theres so much political disiveness here in the US, South Park put the choice crudely but aptly - turd sandwich or giant douche.

I really didnt like either major candidate but certainly less the one in office.

I truly dont have the answers to solve this problem Its just clear to me at least that something drastically different has to be done... For all our youngsters

Thanks btw sgt

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Unfortunately I dont think the election of meatheads is going to stop Emrys.

Quite right. The election of meatheads will never stop me!

Michael

[John Kettler]

I think anyone with an interest in what NK artillery can realistically do to Seoul would do well to read this. It pretty much shatters the prevailing "wisdom" regarding the annihilating power of NK's artillery vs a sprawling major city. Would further point out certain military fundamentals have changed regarding the survivability of the NK HART (Hardened Artillery) sites. Back in my Hughes days (early 1978-late 1984) they were practically invulnerable. The best we could hope for, in our assessments, was to jam the immensely thick sand filled doors, since even the mighty Maverick couldn't pierce that much de facto siliceous cored armor. But as we saw in Desert Storm vs Saddam's once practically untouchable HAS (Hardened Aircraft Shelters), we now have munitions, such as the I-2000, which can pierce heavy protection almost effortlessly and destroy the asset behind or beneath it. There has been enormous work done already to figure out where the HARTs are, and the various shellings of the South have doubtless firmed up that picture. Thus, if NK opens up, it's going to start losing HARTs, cannon and MRLs very rapidly to JSOW and JDAM airstrikes, as well as tube and MLRS counterfire, by the SK, the US or both. IF NK uses chemical munitions, I wouldn't want to be in NK. 

Could North Korea Annihilate Seoul with Its Artillery?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-north-korea-annihilate-seoul-its-artillery-20345

Kyle Mizokami is no lightweight, either. Can't get the text to cooperate on appearance.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009, he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 24, 2017 by John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I disagree on several levels, firstly he's just another blogger, secondly he ignores the possibility that NK might use chemical weapons, a fairly massive omission.....The commenters in that thread are vastly better informed than its author IMHO. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[KL2004]

If they did, that would be the last they could ever expect help from Russia or China I hope.  Still not much consolation for the families of Seoul.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

From their perspective this is a struggle for continued existence, if fighting starts, all their cards will be brought into play.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead