The North Korea Problem

[Airbrush]

Although I haven't heard this in the news, I am making the educated guess that North Korea has had all the time they need to set up thousands of artillery pieces all along their side of the border pointed directly at Seoul. If we do anything to destroy their nuclear program or long-range missiles, they can press a button that will rain down total ruin on the city of Seoul, completely destroying it a few minutes. Am I wrong? Anti-missile batteries can't do anything against artillery shells.

 

Maybe it's time to relocate Seoul and its occupants to the southern tip of the peninsula.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Airbrush

[Tom O'Neil]

We would launch a sneak attack from a submarine off its coast smoking the North Koreans with an EMP weapon rendering their weapons useless.

[LabRat1]

No nation would have any doubts doing that but its best to look at the consequences. The fact that North Korea's main ally is China is what stops other nations. China being a permanent member in the security council has the power to dismiss many such attempts. Also China currently controls world trade, and it wont hesitate to use its powers to manipulate economically as well politically. There can be rise in disputes and can also escalate to a full fledged war. And PLA being the military of the most populated country can try to impose its will.

 

[iNow]

Bigger issue tight now is the impeachment of South Koreas leader, the uncertainty and chaos that transition creates, and what North Korea may do to show off during this time.

[LabRat1]

The fact of the matter is that China needs North Korea for its expansion in the South China Sea, if it wants to lay claim on all that oil and somehow gain more power.

[Airbrush]

What is going to prevent N.Korea from smuggling a nuke into Seoul in a car or truck? A spy just drives the car-nuke around a bit occasionally, so it doesn't look abandoned. Then if we try to take out their nukes, they set off their car bomb(s).

 

Best thing we can do is secretly disable their nukes using a computer virus or something else?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Airbrush

[LabRat1]

What is going to prevent N.Korea from smuggling a nuke into Seoul in a car or truck? A spy just drives the car-nuke around a bit occasionally, so it doesn't look abandoned. Then if we try to take out their nukes, they set off their car bomb(s).

 

Best thing we can do is secretly disable their nukes using a computer virus or something else?

China is already providing the technology to make North Korea a state capable of producing such warheads.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Let's cut back on the conjecture. We'll write the movie scripts after it happens. Stick to the topic, please.

[DrP]

The 'North Korea problem' was created by China. North Korea wouldn't even exist without them, it would just be Korea as it is today in the south but united across the whole country. The Chinese saw to that when they joined North Korea in the war and reset the border to before the war even happened. It was over before they stepped in. I cannot reason why really, only that they did not want friends of the USA on their border. Fear and paranoia winning out again I am afraid.

 

Frankly the Chinese are responsible and should be embarrassed by what is happening in North Korea, although it seems like they don't care. I would be interested to know what popular opinion about the Koreans is in China.

[CharonY]

This comment befuddles me. North Korea was split after WWII and zoned (like Germany) between Soviet and US powers. The Korean war was one of North Korean invasion and while it is possible that Chinese may have helped the sustain NK I am not sure how China (which was funded a year after North Korea) was responsible for its existence.

[DrP]

What I mean is ChY, that the war (in the 50's? before my time) was won - the North were defeated and it was all but over when China joined the war and pushed the borders back to what they were before it started. If they hadn't of done that then things would be very different.

 

Disclaimer - this is how I read into it when I watched a couple of documentaries about it a few years back and done some reading. The actual chain of events are probably more complicated. What I got from it was that the North had been beaten, but China stepped in to 'save' them.

[CharonY]

As is usually the case, the situation is quite complex and one dimensional answers are tricky, at best. I have very limited knowledge about the conflict, but one has to carefully contextualize the situation. As in, even if the Northern army had been defeated it is not clear what ultimately the fate of the states could have been. After all, the world was well into the cold war and there were sizeable groups (People's comittes) in the South that were in favor of a revolution. And one should note that after WWII Korea was coming out of Japanese occupation. So there were numerous venues for nation building and there were significant misgivings regarding an US-backed government.

Then, China had a significant investment into the war. For one, strategies were being discussed to partially extend the invasion into Chinese territories (while the war went close to the Sino-Korean border).

 

Overall, it is the culmination of a long series of events and there is no telling what would have happened without Chinese involvement (not to mention that MacArthur's decision to push further North was not undisputed). There are many scenarios including a subsequent invasion of China (as proposed by some more hawkish US factions) a stronger involvement of the Soviets with a risk of a hot war and so on. A successful reunification is only one of the many potential scenarios.

[MigL]

IIRC after early set-backs the UN forces mounted a counter-offensive at Inchion in late 1950 which pushed the Northern forces all the way back to the Yalu at the Chinese border. This triggered China's entry into the war and the back and forth war of attrition that lasted two more years.

 

China may have entered the Korean war as a result of being an extremely isolationist nation at the time and having a foreign army at its border may have caused concern, but today they are becoming more and more 'global'. I don't imagine that they are too pleased with the 'shenanigans' of the North Korean ruling dynasty as the 'nuts' factor is way beyond even D Trump.

I would not be surprised if, one of these days, they cut the N Koreans loose and tell them they're on their own.

[Airbrush]

Is there a way for the US to detect all N.Korean artillery and missile batteries along the border? All those aimed at Seoul and other targets within reach?  Could the US assign one cruise missile for each battery?  In the event that N.Korea unleashes total attack on Seoul, all their artillery and missiles within range could be destroyed within minutes.

Maybe the people of Seoul should practice evacuating the city, so in the event N.Korea unleashes an attack, all the people and most of the pets are removed to safety.  There would be terrible physical damage to Seoul, but the retaliation against N.Korea for the attack would totally annihilate the N.Korea government permanently.  How would China feel about that?

 

[Evgenia]

Seoul population itself is more then 10 mln of citizens, with Incheon is more then 23 mln, which is almost a half of a republic. It's quite impossible to imagine how to evecuate a half of a contry,especially surrounded by mountains and with a sea at the border. As i saw from the highest skyscrapper the territory of US army base is 1/6 of a Seoul. Hopefully, the thing you are talking about will never happen.

I visited a Samsung Innovation Center and i love the approach and passion for progress of korean people. Yes, Samsung is a great competitor of Apple. Koreans deserve the best as they work so hard for it

[Ten oz]

On 3/13/2017 at 11:26 AM, Airbrush said:

What is going to prevent N.Korea from smuggling a nuke into Seoul in a car or truck? A spy just drives the car-nuke around a bit occasionally, so it doesn't look abandoned. Then if we try to take out their nukes, they set off their car bomb(s).

 

This seems like a scenario South Korea should be gravely considered by more so than one the U.S..I don't understand why you think the potential threat of North Korea and various imagined scenarios lands at our (U.S.) feet more so than there neighbors  and our partners in the region:South Korea, Japan, and China?

 

I agree Kim is a bad person, I agree the people of North Korea have a bad situation,  I agree our govt should be exploring options, and etc. I even started a thread about what should be done about North Korea back in April http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104943-north-korea-paradox/

All that said I disagree that now is the time for the U.S. to independently use force against North Korea. I do not fell legitimate diplomacy has been attempted. Rather there has been an uptick is saberrattling to which North Korea has responded to in kind.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I don't understand why you think the potential threat of North Korea and various imagined scenarios lands at our (U.S.) feet more so than there neighbors  and our partners in the region:South Korea, Japan, and China?

Historical commitment.

[Airbrush]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:18 AM, Tom O'Neil said:

We would launch a sneak attack from a submarine off its coast smoking the North Koreans with an EMP weapon rendering their weapons useless.

How about the idea of EMPs set off all along the border to render the North's artillery and missile batteries useless?

But that won't take out their secret "car-nukes" hidden in Seoul.

What would be the appropriate response by South Korea, Japan, and the US, if the North initiated a significant attack on Seoul that killed thousands of people and a Billion dollars in damage?

Edited July 31, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

 

What would be the appropriate response by South Korea, Japan, and the US, if the North initiated a significant attack on Seoul that killed thousands of people and a Billion dollars in damage?

Defending oneself and ones allies after being attacked is very different than preemptively killing thousands and choas billions in damge. The U.S. should not, in my opinion, go around preemptively attacking everyone we feel maay eventually do something bad. Lets be honest; we are only discussing preemptive attack because the asssumption is it would be easy. The U.S. would never casually consider preemptively attack China or Russia. Per the Budapest Memorandum we (U.S.) is suppose to have Ukraine's back vs Russia yet when push came to shove in crimea we deployed sanctions and not bombers. I don't recall anyone arguing we need to bomb Russia to ensure Kiev would be safe. Per the Taiwan Relations Act the U.S. is suppose to have Tiawan's back against China yet push come to shove we don't denouce China's One-China policy. No one argues we should bomb China to protect Taipei. The assumption is that we (U.S.) could easily beat North Korea and remove Kim with little loss of American life our treasure. Such foolish thinking played a role in Iraq as well and the result have cost several times more lives and treasure than anticipated. War is a big step that always comes with great risk and produces down hill challanges hard to imagine in advance. The assumed ease at which we'd (U.S.) would defeat North Korea shouldn't in itself be a reason to launch an attack.

[Carrock]

On 13/03/2017 at 8:18 AM, Tom O'Neil said:

We would launch a sneak attack from a submarine off its coast smoking the North Koreans with an EMP weapon rendering their weapons useless.

The possibility of pre-emptive defence by USA etc is unfortunately a very good reason for non nuclear countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

Once there are viable ICBMs in North Korea the possibility they would be protected against EMP ( or just stored underground) would discourage the above as North Korea would likely launch them, confusing pre-emptive defence with an act of war.

[Area54]

9 hours ago, Carrock said:

The possibility of pre-emptive defence by USA etc is unfortunately a very good reason for non nuclear countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

Alternatively it is a very good reason for universal nuclear disarmament.

[DrP]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:50 PM, Airbrush said:

 would totally annihilate the N.Korea government permanently.  How would China feel about that?

 

This is what I was saying about the previous war (1950's?) -- The North invaded....  The USA/UK and the South pushed them right back all the way to china and the war was pretty much over.... who knows what would have been negotiated, a united Korea?, A negotiated peace? North run by the south or by China? A regime change? No-one knows. But, at the 11th hour, the Chinese joined the North Koreans and pushed the border all the way back to the North South divide.

 

On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 9:08 PM, CharonY said:

As is usually the case, the situation is quite complex

 there is no telling what would have happened without Chinese involvement...

 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Area54 said:

Alternatively it is a very good reason for universal nuclear disarmament.

Agreed. Now, what is your recommendation for getting Russia, North Korea, Israel, Iran, and all the others to also agree?

[zapatos]

On 7/28/2017 at 2:50 PM, Airbrush said:

Is there a way for the US to detect all N.Korean artillery and missile batteries along the border? All those aimed at Seoul and other targets within reach?  Could the US assign one cruise missile for each battery?  In the event that N.Korea unleashes total attack on Seoul, all their artillery and missiles within range could be destroyed within minutes.

I doubt we have that many cruise missiles, and certainly not enough launchers to accomplish the task in minutes. NK has something like 13,000 artillery pieces.

Quote

North Korea experts Victor Cha and David Kang posted on the website of Foreign Policy magazine late last month that the North can fire 500,000 rounds of artillery on Seoul in the first hour of a conflict.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-no-one-in-korea-wants-war-2013-4

[Ten oz]

Can someone provide an example of a preemptively being wage war and it not being considered a bad ideal in hindsight?