-
Features
This looks very, very bad. U.S. May Launch Strike If North Korea Reaches For Nuclear Trigger
- Thread starter braces_for_impact
- Start date
Speakpigeon
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,317
- Location
- Paris, France, EU
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationality (i.e. facts + logic), Scepticism (not just about God but also everything beyond my subjective experience)
I think the general idea is both to get China moving as much as possible and to create a permanent state of international crisis under the cover of which some opportunity may present itself. Somewhat in the general line of what they've already done in Syria and Afghanistan. Which they probably saw as limited in scope. Sort of sailing close to the wind and see what comes off it.
So they don't know what is going to happen but they are prepared to seize the moment.
Which could indeed be very dangerous.
But they feel justified because doing nothing would also be very dangerous.
In other words, they don't know what they are doing but they've decided to do it.
Because they can.
A yes-we-can Trump's style.
EB
So they don't know what is going to happen but they are prepared to seize the moment.
Which could indeed be very dangerous.
But they feel justified because doing nothing would also be very dangerous.
In other words, they don't know what they are doing but they've decided to do it.
Because they can.
A yes-we-can Trump's style.
EB
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Do cabinet meetings every have 'an off-site?'
Or, more importantly, does Trump's cabinet know for SURE that they do not?
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
I feel really torn on this. NK's posturing, it's outlandish threats to wipe the U.S. off the face of the earth made for good comic relief in the news cycle a couple of times a year before they had nukes. It isn't funny anymore.
This is a question of sustainability, as in, how long before NK develops a missile that can carry a nuke that can Japan or the U.S. west coast?
With other nuclear nations, you could always argue that MAD was in play, which would prevent rational actors from launching. Is a 32 year-old who orders James Bond style hits on his immediate family members outside of his border a rational actor? Does this guy believe his own bullshit? The answers to those question could be yes or no. Arguments can be made for both sides, but in the final analysis, no one knows for sure. And it's that uncertainty that may force this to a violent conclusion.
Then of course, there's Trump, who, in this context is nothing more than a rubber stamp for what the military wants to do. Does the military finally want the NK problem overwith? If so, they can make that decision with only token oversight. Therefore, Kim Jong Un's real plans and motivations may not matter one fucking wit. If the U.S. military tells SK that they're going to attack NK, that's that. The ROK army, a very capable, if not outright bad-ass military force, will have to go to war because a U.S. attack would trigger a NK invasion of the South.
Then there's China. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
This is a question of sustainability, as in, how long before NK develops a missile that can carry a nuke that can Japan or the U.S. west coast?
With other nuclear nations, you could always argue that MAD was in play, which would prevent rational actors from launching. Is a 32 year-old who orders James Bond style hits on his immediate family members outside of his border a rational actor? Does this guy believe his own bullshit? The answers to those question could be yes or no. Arguments can be made for both sides, but in the final analysis, no one knows for sure. And it's that uncertainty that may force this to a violent conclusion.
Then of course, there's Trump, who, in this context is nothing more than a rubber stamp for what the military wants to do. Does the military finally want the NK problem overwith? If so, they can make that decision with only token oversight. Therefore, Kim Jong Un's real plans and motivations may not matter one fucking wit. If the U.S. military tells SK that they're going to attack NK, that's that. The ROK army, a very capable, if not outright bad-ass military force, will have to go to war because a U.S. attack would trigger a NK invasion of the South.
Then there's China. Fuuuuuuuuuuck.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
The fortunate thing is that the generals know they have to have the South Koreans and Japanese on board. I doubt they'd strike just because Trump gets upset from watching Morning Joe.
ElectEngr
Member
From what I saw (many decades ago in the military), there will be some generals and admirals that will try and talk Il Douchebag down off the wall and risk getting fired while others wil say "How many nukes, Mr President?"
Very rarely do they think about the Geneva Convention until after the defecation hits the ventilation system.
Later,
ElectEngr
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
I wasn't thinking of defiance so much as clueing Trump in to the fact that it's the Koreans and Japanese who'll take it on the chin.
Elixir
Made in America
I have a very simple view on this:
- Trump got elected.
- He's dumb as a box of rocks.
- We're fucked.
He is the president, has no regard for or knowledge of the limits of presidential power, and lacks the mental processing power to foresee consequences. Either he goes - very soon - or we ARE fucked, one way, the other, or both.
ETA: Possible bright spot: If we survive, maybe Uncle Vlad will think twice before electing another moron to the US presidency.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Agreed, but worse, IMO, is his habit of flinging down the gauntlet.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Elixir
Made in America
Yeah, that's part and parcel of electing a moron. Maybe he starts WWIII, maybe other countries realize that thrown gauntlets can't hurt them... we lose either way.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, that would require a system that ensures there is only one moron in charge a country at any given time. Like, a group at the UN where there's only one Stoopid Stick, and when your turn is over, you give it to somene else.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 40,033
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Well, it's Saturday in N. Korea, the big day. Will Kim light the birthday candle?
Quit insulting rocks.
Philos
Veteran Member
Hi,
I'm not taking sides on this one, but am interested in the tactical options available to the North Koreans. If they have a missile capable nuke, then that is obviously the option. However, what if they don't? We know that they have nuclear bombs.
Seoul and the highest populated areas of South Korea are near to the border. This invites:
1. A ground invasion of South Korea.
2. A ground invasion of South Korea and planting (defended) nuclear bombs in the areas of high population as an insurance policy against a US nuclear strike on the homeland.
3. If an invasion isn't successful, then placing nuclear bombs along the border and use them as a defensive minefield.
4. Placing nuclear bombs on submarines and take them into harbours on the coast of South Korea in kamikaze attacks.
These are just some of many possibilities, but the Beeb news reports today that NK is in a state of readiness for immediate war. No doubt they have strategies in play that have been prepared and practised many times over the years.
What of China? All indicators are that China does not want war. However, a ravaged NK with US ground troops on their Southern border should pose an unacceptable military outcome for them. An early option would be to send a naval strike force to NK waters and shadow the US ships one for one. The safest option, internationally, might be a joint strike force with their ally Russia, but this would be difficult to organise on such short notice.
Who knows?
A.
I'm not taking sides on this one, but am interested in the tactical options available to the North Koreans. If they have a missile capable nuke, then that is obviously the option. However, what if they don't? We know that they have nuclear bombs.
Seoul and the highest populated areas of South Korea are near to the border. This invites:
1. A ground invasion of South Korea.
2. A ground invasion of South Korea and planting (defended) nuclear bombs in the areas of high population as an insurance policy against a US nuclear strike on the homeland.
3. If an invasion isn't successful, then placing nuclear bombs along the border and use them as a defensive minefield.
4. Placing nuclear bombs on submarines and take them into harbours on the coast of South Korea in kamikaze attacks.
These are just some of many possibilities, but the Beeb news reports today that NK is in a state of readiness for immediate war. No doubt they have strategies in play that have been prepared and practised many times over the years.
What of China? All indicators are that China does not want war. However, a ravaged NK with US ground troops on their Southern border should pose an unacceptable military outcome for them. An early option would be to send a naval strike force to NK waters and shadow the US ships one for one. The safest option, internationally, might be a joint strike force with their ally Russia, but this would be difficult to organise on such short notice.
Who knows?
A.
zorq
Veteran Member
Regarding China, I think that the monied interests in China have started valuing their trade partnership with S. Korea (without even considering their trade with the US) at least as much as their slave labor supplier in N. Korea. China definately doesn't want conflict because right now they get the best of both Koreas.
But if conflict does break out there is a fair chance that they might stand by and do nothing despite their previous political promises to N.Korea. Afterall, they have been signaling their displeasure with N.K. for a few years now. They might decide that they would benefit more from selling food, supplies and rebuilding materials to S.K. (after the devistation) than they would from continuing to prop up an unpredictable nuclear power on their boarder and risking an escalation with the US. Even factoring in their loss to "sphere of influence" abstaining from action is still likely in China's best interests.
China has changed considerably more than N.K. has since the armistice ending the Korean War in 1953.
But if conflict does break out there is a fair chance that they might stand by and do nothing despite their previous political promises to N.Korea. Afterall, they have been signaling their displeasure with N.K. for a few years now. They might decide that they would benefit more from selling food, supplies and rebuilding materials to S.K. (after the devistation) than they would from continuing to prop up an unpredictable nuclear power on their boarder and risking an escalation with the US. Even factoring in their loss to "sphere of influence" abstaining from action is still likely in China's best interests.
China has changed considerably more than N.K. has since the armistice ending the Korean War in 1953.
Philos
Veteran Member
zorq,
Yes, I think this is what Trump will be betting on and what might embolden him in this theatre. The long term outcome of such appeasement would be loss of face for China and aggrandisement for Trump, hence his excitement.
However, China's concerns over Taiwan and the South China Sea indicate that they are not natural appeasers. IMHO, such strategy is never in the appeaser's "best interests" although it may seem attractive in the short term.
Interesting times.
A.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
The most concerning thing is that Seoul, with 25M people, is within artillery range. And NK has a lot of artillery, or so the read.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
I thought that was the MO of the military.
Ultimately, the US can NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise.
Right now, Trump isn't saying the right things and the military is showing a bit of bravado. The Syrian strike didn't mean much, the MOAB strike was needed to help give Afghanistan troops a bit more spine back, but North Korea is an explosive charge. Striking at North Korea is not the same thing and Trump has shown no indication he understands nuance.
I would not rule out China invading.
braces_for_impact
Veteran Member
Any large scale invasion, whether from North to South, South to North, China over the border, etc. I would think would be easily noticeable by satellite imagery. Thus it would be difficult to keep such an action a surprise to all the parties involved. Much more likely most damage would come from artillery and missile fire. Since NK has no nukes on missiles yet, they would have to use them defensively, or fly a large and heavy bomber out to the target. Using them defensively is problematic. How quickly can they set up a defensive nuke and deploy it to the desired location? Even using a nuke defensively would make an already shit country even worse off to be in, and would have awful effects on SK and the surrounding area. Unfortunately, a NK bomber making it through the fog of war to get even somewhat close to a SK target seems pretty likely to me. We should have command of the skies pretty quickly, and the seas too I would imagine, so the question seems to me is how much damage could be done n the area by the NK before control is seized by us and our allies. I think the predominant damage here would be via NK artillery on Seoul.
I wonder what the human side of all this is? Kim Jong rules as a tyrant, and I wonder once the shit really, truly hits the fan, how many of those generals will stick with him? I know the regular populace by and large is affected by his Cult of Personality (although there seems to be less of that than with his father or grandfather) but I wonder how well his military would hold together?
I wonder what the human side of all this is? Kim Jong rules as a tyrant, and I wonder once the shit really, truly hits the fan, how many of those generals will stick with him? I know the regular populace by and large is affected by his Cult of Personality (although there seems to be less of that than with his father or grandfather) but I wonder how well his military would hold together?
ideologyhunter
Contributor
I see no cause for optimism. None. The Constitutional remedies are so caked with inertia as to be useless. The hegemony of the Crazy Right tells us that there's no chance at present to contemplate those remedies. Besides, Trump's stupidity and hubris don't stand up as impeachable -- he's allowed to play with missiles, in our system. We've now seen about one sixteenth of his term -- this is the deep shit. Only the randomness of his attention and the unpredictability of his power lust suggest that he won't be in office in Jan. 2021. The capacity for damage is boundless.