Old Forum - webDiplomacy

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID# of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker, then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

KingCyrus (511

)
01 Dec 17 UTC

Preventative Action In North Korea

Writing a paper on this... Curious what other peoples' thoughts are.

Page 2 of 2

goldfinger0303 (3157 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

I was just watching a video that claimed it wouldn't be as bad for Seoul as we think. For the majority of their artillery systems, there's only a relatively small area they have to be placed in where they could reach Seoul. And with air superiority, the majority of those systems could be knocked out early since they'd be clustered together. And will they really fire on Seoul instead of offering support to their army fighting along the DMZ? Even if they threw a nuke, they'd need 20 nukes to flatten Seoul - at least of the previous sizes they've had. So without nukes, Seoul might see a few thousand dead.

Their army can be pretty much dismissed. They have no reliable counter for our armor or counter-artillery fire. Basically they shoot a gun once and a minute later we land a round right where they shot from.

As for where they get their cash, they are notorious counterfitters and drug runners. They also do a fair bit of arms trade stuff.

I don't think the US has tried to overthrow NK before. But their goal is probably that of every dictatorship - to stay in power. But they also want sanctions removed and aid given them. The pattern of NK has always been to rattle their sabres until the West caved and gave them what they wanted. I do not think that this pattern and practice, established for over thirty years, will change. All that will change is that their sabres now have nuclear tips. I don't want that kind of stress in my future. Just the headline of "NK threatens nuclear strike unless US cedes to their demands" makes me nervous

ksako8 (1433 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

Is that a sufficient reason for war?

Octavious (2802 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

I remember distinctly being told about the overwhelming superiority of NATO technology and training back in the Balkans conflicts, and how our smartbombs were making it something of a turkey shoot. Then afterwards we find out that most of the successful bombing videos we saw on the news were targeting decoy tanks. I am less inclined to assume our overwhelming superiority these days.

Two questions for you, Goldie. How do you manage the risk of nuclear mines, and how do you gather enough forces in South Korea to launch an overwhelming initial attack without making it painfully obvious that you're gathering your forces in preparation of an attack?

goldfinger0303 (3157 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

It would mostly be South Korea's army. All they have to do is call up their reserves. We already have three aircraft carriers floating offshore.

And I'm thinking less Balkans and more Iraq. Iraqi army went from being top 10 in the world to a pile of rubble in a few weeks.

Honestly I have no answer for nuclear mines. The thought of them hadn't occurred.

goldfinger0303 (3157 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@ksako - is the prospect of being threatened by a nuclear bomb ever 5 years so Kim can get his payment for holding the world hostage enough? Yes, to me it is. NK will never hold itself to the standards the other nuclear nations do.

Octavious (2802 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@ goldfinger

You might find it interesting to research Operation Blue Peacock, which was an unpleasant British initiative to deter the Soviet advance by placing nuclear mines in Germany. It was eventually dismissed as a bad idea because of the potential for allied contamination... and being rather unsporting from a German perspective.

Your idea does assume a South Korean enthusiasm which I'm not sure exists...

Jeff Kuta (2066 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

It is worth noting that technically the United States and South Korea are still at war with North Korea.

Octavious (2802 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@ Jeff

Not really. It might in the distant past have been have been a useful negotiation tool in terms of offering the North the peace treaty and recognition they wanted, but we're a long way beyond that now.

goldfinger0303 (3157 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@Octavious - I'm vaguely aware of that plan. I knew tactical nukes we're stationed in Germany. But has there been any indication that NK has this capability or plan? Kim Jong-Un doesn't seem the type who would nuke his own land when he could nuke someone else's instead.

And no, certainly at it's leadership that does not exist. But how many would be okay with the prospect of one war to put this all to rest and reunite the peninsula and stop living in fear with a heavily armed border.

eturnage (500 )
01 Dec 17 UTC
(+1)

@Goldie the ability of N. Korea to strike at the US is grossly exaggerated by the USG and neocon elites. There missiles are no way capable of reaching us. Their nuclear stockpile is very small. A nuclear attack on us would certainly result in their extinction. The threat is overblown and I think you need to step back and recognize that our own past policies have created the need for States like N. Korea to develop nuclear capability. Dick Cheney's inclusion of N. Korea as the axis of evil was irrational except only to avoid being portrayed by the international community as anti-muslim. We need to step back from all of our war mongering, pro israeli policies and become a country that stands for peace instead of war and death.

eturnage (500 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@Jeff, i was unaware that Congress declared war on N. Korea. If so, we are not at war with them . . . at least not a Constitutional war. If you like the loose definition of war, we're pretty much at war with most of the world.

brainbomb (295 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

^ my man

eturnage (500 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

By "we" I mean the USG. I do not support it. I want it dismantled.

brainbomb (295 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

To clarify tho, were not at peace with north korea. Were in a 50 year cease fire. The korean war never technically ended. Had we listened to the general (as you know how much these chucklehead republicans gush over anyone of rank) we wouldve followed lunatic General Douglas Macarthurs strategy of nuking china.

brainbomb (295 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

North Korea is just sabre rattling. It always was and always will be. Its a despotic state with nothing to gain from nuking anyone and clearly just wants to appear tough

Call it napolean syndrome

brainbomb (295 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

The more frightening nuclear state is always Iran. As Iran has actionable motive to pass a nuke off to a surrogate terror cell like hezbollah and then, as much as I dislike the Israeli Government, the prospect of a nuke being used on them is frightening and quite likely in the next fifty years. Theres far too many states in the middle east that want the total destruction of Israel.

Octavious (2802 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@ goldfinger

The capability required to make a nuclear mine is considerably less than that required to put it on a missile. It's essentially not a lot different to their testing under the mountain, just without the mountain.

As for Kim not being the type, the family has not shown a huge amount of concern for the wellbeing of the people. Pretty much none at all, in fact. They've probably already scripted propaganda news reports in which they tell their people it was a US nuclear strike. If we are invading it's very much the end game for the regime. If they lose it's over for them, but if several US divisions are taken out as they advance into the country, that may well be enough to convince them to stop. Democracies don't handle losses well.

Hellenic Riot (1626 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

@brainbomb

The Israel question is quite interesting actually. Whilst 30 years ago you'd be correct in saying most countries want its total destruction, nowadays that's not quite the same. Saudi-Israeli co-operation is quite advanced, though publicly denied by the Saudis, but both of them have united against Iran. Egypt is often a go-between for this, too. The Palestinian cause has fallen rather low on the priorities of the Arab states now.

Hellenic Riot (1626 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

As for North Korea, the entire problem is that the mindset of the world is based on the reality of 15-20 years ago and has not changed to match current events. North Korea has won. It's got nukes, and it will never be undone. Reality trumps idealism. Further sanctions do nothing, and slowly trying to bring them into the international fold is the only long term solution. China, Vietnam, even Cuba have managed it. It's no coincidence that the PRC only replaced the RoC as the widely officially recognised China internationally after getting nukes, too.

Of course, defusing the Korean peninsula will be far harder. The only way of actually managing to do that would be to let the North annex the South, which ain't all that realistic. But if we can calm down Israel-Palestine, for the most part, we can do the same in Korea. If, and only if, we engage with BOTH of them.

bo_sox48 (5202 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

Israeli's missile defense system is the best in the world. Shooting any projectile at Israel is a massive risk in that you bring upon yourself the wrath of Israel's allies, especially the United States, and your missile is not likely to even make it there before it gets intercepted.

Hellenic Riot (1626 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

The Iron Dome is very good against short and medium range missiles, sure, but ICBMs are another ballpark entirely.

Of course, Israel is far more of a target for terrorist smugglers though, rather than direct state action. But neither Hamas nor Hezbollah particularly want to nuke Palestine as far as I'm aware.

bo_sox48 (5202 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

I was talking about Arrow 3, but the Iron Dome is a damn good missile defense system on its own. I don't expect any nuke to ever fly within any range that could even be interpreted as targeting Israel.

CAPT Brad (40 )
01 Dec 17 UTC

you're all a bunch of warhawks now? by the way two of the carrier battlegroups have left the area

53 replies

WyattS14 (100

)
29 Nov 17 UTC

Anyone else about to reach $10k?

I heard one special, little snowflake was getting there. Any other miserable sobs about to reach $10k?

9 replies