Does The USA Underestimate North Korea? Nukes A Real Within NK?

The may have the numbers when it comes to people, but we've got the numbers when it comes to nukes. Plus we've used them before

If it had the means to reach the US (which nobody is certain of, but it's unlikely), then yes, it is a potential threat, just like every other country with the same capabilities could be potential threats too... many of which also see the US as a potential threat to them. But "potential threat" is not the same as "OMG, they're about to murder us all in our beds!"

In a practical sense, South Korean and Japanese missile defences are exactly as you might expect - defences for South Korea and Japan; neither country (nor US forces in either country) has the ability to intercept a missile launched from North Korea on a trajectory towards the United States. And, at present, the only defence against such an attack are interceptors in California and Alaska that MIGHT be able to hit an incoming missile, but probably won't, since they would be tiny targets basically dropping from orbit at several thousand miles an hour.

It would be like trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet...while blindfolded; in theory, there is a chance you'd hit it, but I doubt many would be willing to put money on it.

That's a pretty good example of "underestimating the enemy"; the old "we'll all be home in time for Christmas" line of thought that has failed again and again throughout history.

If and/or when you hear officialdom engaging in the same rhetoric, it's probably time to start worrying. Alongside demonising the would-be enemy, exited bellicose claims about how "quick, easy, and painless" killing him would be are usually the first steps towards war (where lots of innocent people die in slow, hard, and (usually very) painful ways).

In a practical sense (again), with the Chinese capital a few hours to the west, and the entire Russian Pacific Fleet a few hours to the east, any attempt to turn North Korea into "a giant parking lot", aren't exactly going to be well received by either (to put in mildly). For example, would the US sit there twiddling it's thumbs if, for example, neighbouring Canada was the big, bad enemy of some foreign power that decided to turn it into "a giant parking lot"... it simply wouldn't happen, so I don't know why anyone would think the Chinese and Russians would not respond in the same way.

Instead of turning their country into a parking lot it might be an idea to kill their leader and high-ranking officials.

Or you could kill millions of innocent people.

Your call...

That isn't actually true.

They know the government talk crap.

I am a recent defector from North Korea, joined by Movements.org and Liberty in North Korea (LiNK)... ask me anything! : IAmA

Yep - if not worse.

A more likely scenario is where the regime collapses and the US sends in troops to secure the country and nukes:

U.S. Wargames North Korean Regime Collapse, Invasion to Secure Nukes - Yahoo!

To respond to Thomas' comments...

I suspect Russia and China would remove North Korea from the "independent country" category themselves. Either that, or declare a "free-fly" corridor for non-nuclear American bombers.

Unless the current regime in NK really is as insane as they want to appear, they'd never do it. It would, one way or another, be tantamount to national suicide. The need to take out any remaining nukes that MIGHT be hidden there, anywhere they MIGHT be hidden, would be felt by every country within range of any missile the North Koreans possessed.

Every military and industrial installation in the country would be fair game, along with any place that was even suspect. And China and Russia would have every bit as much reason to see them taken out as the US.


Paul

Of course people know. You can't be forced to praise someone at the threat of torture or death and not know they are a demon.

People laughed at the idea of creating such things, so we might not have it.

Steve

I don't think they want to remove the Communist system, but rather want to help initiate adjustments much like those that China made. It goes without saying, they have a network within North Korea. Don't be surprised if Kim has an unfortunate accident or sudden stroke.

Do you think it is ok to mislead the public and congress in regards to going to war? The info from the Iraqi Foreign minister wasn't just propaganda and was being validated by the cia at the time. That war cost us thousands of lives, tens of thousands of casualties and trillions of dollars. Now you want to again do the same thing using our "smart" bombs? Sounds so simple before a war. We found out it doesn't always turn out to be so simple didn't we.

You do remember we installed Hussein and armed him in the first place right?
We set him up so he would attack Iran and when that failed we abandoned him (as usual). As for the Kurds we did pretty much the same with them. We armed them and convinced them to go after Hussein. We even told them we would have their back and be there fighting with them. Then when they did attack we just silently watched.
About the only real excuse we had for invading Iraq was to try and clean up the mess we created.

I suppose I see world events a bit differently.

I used to get caught up in the minutia in the past until I realized that almost every country seems to be following the UN Millennium Goals as outlined in 2009:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pd...t_2009_ENG.pdf

So, if I'm ever tempted to be outraged about new laws being implemented or suggested, I just take a look at the UN game plan and it all makes sense at the macro level.

The UN doesn't exactly recognize things like sovereign nations anymore. They have grouped the world's regions into 10 distinct parts and are dealing with each in radically different ways. And although we may "feel" as if we are free and independent as nations, we are mistaken.

Check out page 57 of that pdf to find out which "region" you actually belong to and you'll recognize more accurately why our fearless leaders are now making more and more unusual decisions, even in the face of public protest.

So, what does this have to do with North Korea and nukes?

Well, all of Korea can be either classified as a developed nation or distinctly part of SE Asia. What that really means is that they will be required by the UN to function as a part of US societal structure or the Chinese system. They can't simply choose to be "sovereign". (tsk, tsk, tsk .... silly Koreans)

Unfortunately for the true power brokers and lawmakers, North Korea still actually has physical control over one of the last sovereign nations on Earth. (Iran could be considered as sovereign and rogue too. However, I think the plan may be to make an example of NK first through invasion or destruction, allowing Iran to change their position. Just speculation at this point though.)

In any event, the notion of sovereignty is simply unacceptable to the UN. At least according to their grand design for all of humanity.

So, there are a number of options. China, The US, or a UN coalition of forces could choose to go to war with North Korea, introduce the North Korean people to things like food, electricity, clean water, and of course, UN laws and regulations. The nukes would need to be rounded up, too.

Right now, we are being inundated with news reports detailing just how crazy the North Korean leader is. And while this may in fact be true, it doesn't explain why the media are so focused on telling us about it everyday. Propaganda perhaps?

Truth is, we no longer have to wait for North Korea to attack the U.S. (which I believe to be highly unlikely) or South Korea. All that is required now is to perform an attack on our soil or the South Korean's soil and blame it on North Korea. ie., a false flag attack. That is the American way, btw...

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your guess is as good as mine as to how this will all play out in the end. But, eventually North Korea, Iran, or any other nation will no longer be allowed to function independently as a "sovereign" nation. It's already been decided. North Korea just hasn't read the memo yet.

Today Kim says there is a state of war with South Korea. Now what?

It seems like North Korea is pushing itself into a corner if the US does not do whatever it is supposed to do.

Will Kim just declare the "crisis" is over? Perhaps after a Photoshopped picture of some military success?

Will North Korea attack another South Korean ship?

Or maybe the regime is so sheltered from reality it believes its own propaganda?

I'm not sure what the "end game" is and haven't seen that discussed in the media. It's like poker and Kim's weak hand is being called as a bluff. What does he do?

.

Our troops have the fortitude to win - we just have gov and brass who won't give them what they need to do it. Do you realize how much money some people in our gov, the bank cartels, and the elite are making enormous amounts of money funding both sides of wars. These elites have supported both sides for the whole 20th century. If war stopped, so would billions of dollars - if not trillions to their personal wallets. That won't happen.

We're in more military conflict at this time than Hitler was in 1938 (and don't scream Godwin at me - I'm just giving the true image of how much conflict we're in right now). The whole globe is churning - and the cause is the pure sociopathic greed at the top of the money pyramid.

You might like to read the post where I posted links to the US using napalm in Iraq, and read up on the use of depleted uranium there as well before claiming the US takes the "high road". A viewing of the "Collateral Murder" video wouldn't go astray either. You can go back even further and read up on the My Lai incident to show more examples of not taking the high road.

Before I get accused of "America bashing", I feel the same way about how the current American Empire is being built as I do about how the British Empire was built. It certainly wasn't done by holding afternoon teas with scones, crumpets and cucumber sandwiches being served to the natives. It was done by the most blood thirsty savagery imaginable.

The same is true with all the European empires (Spanish, French, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese, etc.), in fact you can also look back through history at the Roman, Greek, Mongol, Persian, etc., etc., Empires as well.

There was no "high ground" taken by any of them.

It isn't; the protection is intended for pilots and crew escaping from a damaged aircraft... not for paratroopers (who usually jump out of a perfectly good aircraft, as it happens).

It's only a double standard if you see the US Army (a professional army raised by a legitimate government in accordance with the law), the Viet Cong (the armed wing of an unofficial and illegal political organisation), and Muslim extremists (fanatical religious terrorists) as being equals.

For obvious reasons, people don't, which is why organisations like the US Army are, and should be, held to a higher standard.

Steve, you say all that, but, above, complain, that the atrocities of others aren't given equal consideration when compared to US atrocities :confused:

Also, there are two sides in any war; in cases where the US has been on the receiving-end, the logic expressed in your post suggests that the 9/11 attackers didn't kill enough people... or that the Japanese didn't sink enough ships in Pearl Harbour... or that the Koreans and Viet Cong didn't torture enough American POWs. They all should have gone farther... inflicted more torture... killed more people... caused more destruction... basically, "done the job, and gone home".

Going back to the OP, the same logic also suggests North Korea should try to nuke American cities, and do so sooner rather than later! That's the one means they have (or claim to have) to make sure a future Korean war affects one of the countries involved, and make sure it's people experience, first-hand, just how uncivilised and frightening political violence really is.

That's the same line of thought expressed by Steve above. I don't get where it comes from. If you really believe war should be conducted like that, then, for example, there should be no prisoners of war - they should be tortured for information and immediately exectuted. You also don't bother trying to distinguish the civilian population... they're the people who pay for the war effort against you anyway, so why would you? In fact, since nuclear weapons are a much faster way to kill more people, you shouldn't even bother mobilising any conventional forces... at the first sign of conflict you just nuke your would-be enemies major population centres. That way, you eliminate the population and the economy that powers the war effort against you right from the get-go.

Job done... go home.

(Unless, of course, your would-be enemy thinks the same thing, and does all of the above to you first :rolleyes.

Tim I think he's talking about ending Iraq on Bush's schedule and not pulling out of Afghanistan.
Not to mention Libya and the continuing aid in money and weapons to countries in the Middle East that are having issues with each other.
Like giving Israel 3 billion annually in aid and giving their self proclaimed enemies 8 billion a year. We are basically enabling the conflicts in the Middle East.

Conflict is the key word. We hold back, there are no additional taxes to pay for wars, we don't have any shortages of goods or arms. Except for the military members and their families, we aren't directly affected by these conflicts in our daily lives. That's one reason they've been allowed to continue as long as they have.

If we are ever directly attacked - our military can respond effectively. Whether the public can rise to the occasion is another story.

Exactly! This reminds of a line from the movie Troy when the warrior Achilles says to Agamemnon, "Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be something?"

Terra

We were not attacked by Iraq. I'm not going to argue wars and politics here - just gave my opinion of what's been going on...as I see it.

Others are free to have other opinions.

Every year, we have a month of war games with So Korea and it is taken as a threat by NK and they respond with threats and bluster.

The concern is that at some point it will go over the top. Meanwhile, we couldn't afford to send a support ship to the Persian Gulf but we can send a destroyer headed toward NK.

Speaking of "afford" - noticed today "they" have added some new stats to the debt clock (at the top)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

What Clinton (and others) said is that the TERM (the name) Al Qaeda was a coined phrase rather than the name a group gave itself. She did not claim we created the group even though some have decided to make that claim since to promote their own agendas.

It basically means "the base" in English and first use is credited to an ex-intelligence officer in the UK and then was adopted by US intel to refer to this terrorist group.

I was a bit embarrassed when officials loudly patted ourselves on the back after "getting ben laden". I'm glad we found him - but it took ten years so not a lot of bragging rights except for the military personnel who did the deed.

Hopefully, what they'll do is have a mutiny and get rid of their toxic dear leaders responsible for this present mess.

There is definitely a chance this could happen. It will be a tough choice on S. Korea but perhaps they should respond much firmer this time. It may what it takes to depose this regime if its military is shown not to be as strong as it claims.

Kim Jong Un has been very disappointing. Instead of opening up N. Korea to reform, this series of provocations is far beyond what his father did.

can i have the titles please

i like futuristic movies, order them from china

I think we are making a mistake. What we've been doing for the past couple of weeks is reacting to the new leader's threats. I think it's a dangerous path. He threatens, we roll out more planes in "war games" - he threatens, we send destroyers in that direction - he threatens, we announce new securities for Guam.

Problem is - we don't know how far he will go. We need to stop trying to match every threat he makes with some action of our own. We need to make a definitive statement and then stop the public displays of reacting to everything he says. We almost seem to be egging him on by taking some action every time he opens his mouth.

There are rumors that he is not as popular with his own people as his predecessor was. If that's the case, there's no telling how far he might go to bolster his image as a tough guy.

I thought at first China might want to rein him in - but I'm not sure that's the case. China might want him to go off on a tangent and may have an agenda of it's own.

I have to admit, thats some good Photoshop skills Lulz

The citizens in NK blame the US and other countries for their starvation - that's what they've been told and what they believe.

To them, the little despot is a god among men and they will follow him blindly. That's what happens when you have a horde of people who are uneducated and isolated. They blame the enemy they don't know.

Usually when the NK leader does his annual tirade, he ends up with concessions. It's not usual players this year as several countries have new leaders and that changed the dynamics.

If he acts, it may be on the 10th as it's a special day for NK. I think the biggest risk is that he will "act out" by shooting into the sea and the action will be viewed as "an attack" an ignite a real war.

Understandable no one wants to take on NK - if you won you'd have millions of starving people to feed for years to come.

I'm totally confused and can't understand what this means. Why was he locked up? What did he believe? Why would he be locked up because of that? What does, "he turned them into a guy who took all credit so the kid was locked up" mean?

It wasn't, see posts #52 and #54.

How so Derek? I don't see anything remotely close, besides a crazy dictator who makes threats. The difference is Hitler started following through on his threats while NK hasn't and most likely won't.

My bet is that he'll soon be disposed of in ways that don't involved the US.

It isn't blame, it's just stating facts.
As for North Korea, wait till they actually attack or till they show absolute prove that an attack is eminent, they drop a few bombs on his place and his head of military place. Like we did years ago with Kadafi.
What does having been in the military have to do with anything?
Or are you one of those people who think blindly following orders is a qualification for discussing govt. policy?

I wouldn't take it personally; you guys tried to blame the Iranians for that, even though you already knew it was the Iraqis. I'm sure they were as miffed about it as you are, especially since the atrocity was brought to world attention by Iranian journalists in the first place.

And I'm sure you won't want to hear that the US is as good, if not better, than any third-world, tin-pot dictatorship when it comes to dirty tricks. In fact, many of them learned it from you guys (and, by that, I mean they were literally taught the fine arts of torture, extrajudicial execution, targeting civilians, rounding up entire families, etc. by the US Army).

:confused:

You did.

(Cynical addition of adjective noted.)

:confused:

You do.

(But such practices are never limited to "really bad guys", though laws against torture don't say it's actually okay, as long as you think the victim is a really bad guy).

Nope, I never served in any foreign military. That would be illegal.

The US has committed itself to the defence of South Korea; China has committed itself to the defence of North Korea (and would honour that commitment, despite the hopeful claims to the contrary by various war-mongers). So, unless you're willing to see war between China and the United States, both of whom would probably resort to levelling each other with nukes, and draw the rest of the industralised world into the conflict, then I don't think there is a military solution, which is what this whole thread is about.

The 'Korea problem' is a hang-over from WW2 that will only be solved by political compromise, waiting around to see if the North Korean regime eventually collapses, or making it a handy transition point to WW3.

Personally, I like the first option.

going on recent history the usa military loses wars, or let them drag on and on, maybe north korea is just another endless mindgame

a recent tv poll showed 63% did not want to send troops and only 37% did

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/wo...ency-says.html

And with that, I say we flatten every major military and potentially arms-related industrial complex in North Korea. We could do it from SK and offshore, without sending anything into Chinese or Russian air space.


Paul

Yeah. There's that.

Fortunately, the people who have to make the actual decisions have more, and more reliable, information. They can ignore us people who don't have all the facts.


Paul

And they'll dribble out to the public the parts that support what they want to do - and no more.

heysal,

He is putting people in a BAD situation. The USA has allies and possessions there. They could be obliterated or hurt if the US does nothing. But the US won't. HECK, the US military WILL react orders or no! Kerry did about the best he could, and said he would ask China to explain it to that PUNK! He didn't say it quite in that way, but STILL.... You have to be careful, or that punk WILL shoot.

Steve

These are not mutually exclusive you know.

Dan

China's side.

I guess they forgot the aerosol, or is that one of those hydrogen peroxide deals?

Steve

That sounds more like propaganda then actual fact.
Despite the bull our govt. feds us through the media, Iran isn't a threat to us. Also Ahmaninejad is more of a figure head and not the actual ruler of Iran. The Muslim cleric runs Iran not him.

Keep telling yourself that.
Fact is WWII was the last constitutionally declared war we where in and won.
Korea and Viet Nam where called conflicts at the time to get around the constitution. Korea went into a draw (or trusse and we lost V.N. (remember the last helicopters pulling out of the embassy with the Viet Cong at the gate?).
Iraq and Afghanistan where both illegal wars and with the costs of both well into the trillions and bankrupting this country I'd say they where both looses.
My family on my mothers side served in the military going back to the revolution. On my fathers side my family served in WWI and WWII and going back further served in the Prussian Army. There is a very long military history in my family going back over 200 years.
My father convinced me not to join up during Viet Nam because as he said it was an illegal war and had nothing to do with defending this country or our freedoms. But he only spent 8 years fighting for our freedom in WWI and my half-brother only spent 4 years fighting for our freedom in WWII so what does he know, right?
At 60 years old the vast majority of my friends are vets, mostly from Viet Nam and they'll all tell you the same as I.
I'm not a pacifist by any means, not even close to it.
But the truth is the truth and the truth is the last declared war we were in and won was WWII.
Politicians put us into those "conflicts". Those who never fought just recognized the conflicts for what they where and decided not to be apart of the unconstitutional activities.

By STEVE, I hope you don't mean ME. How did I get singled out. Frankly, I am too young to really have fought in a war I would fight in, etc...

BTW if family counts, I have a lot of uncles, and MOST were in the military.

Steve

In the real world we already have over 3 dozen military bases surrounding Iran. IF they ever actually become a real threat we got them covered. We also have the capabilities in place to knock anything out of the sky that N.K. could throw at us.
What we don't need to continue doing is creating problems in the middle east that we then have to put the lives of our service men at risk to contain.
When our unmanned drone strikes are killing innocent children do you think that makes their relatives like us more or want to kill us more. Our actions in the middle east create our enemies there.
And again N.K. isn't a threat because they don't have the firepower, they're not a threat because we have superior firepower. There is no need for us to do anything more then be prepared at this time.

Your reactions to all this seem to indicate that you are more scared of those two countries then we are. Either that or you enjoy senseless fighting and killing.