# The North Korea Problem

## Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

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

Maybe the Chinese thought it was a good idea to join the Korean war on the side of N.Korea? Could that be considered as preemptive? They hit into the allied forces and drove them all the way back to the border 'before' they had a chance to advance on China after we had finished with the North Koreans. (although I doubt that was ever going to happen).

Otherwise there I am sure there must be some proper examples... I'll try to think and look some up later if I get the time  -  Interested to see if there are any examples though as it seems as though there should be. Looking forward to reading some replies to your question. (+1).

PS - Just thought of a possible example - will have to look up the name of the battle/war when I get home. I think that in one of the Israeli wars they went in early and ruined Egyptian air ports so they could maintain air superiority to fight on the other front against Syria. There was a massive tank battle where also they just stormed in and wiped out a large amount of armour too - I do not know if they were purely preemptive though.

Edited by DrP
PS
• Replies 330
• Created

#### Popular Posts

I haven't moved the goal posts, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of doing that. My entire previous point even highlighted things about how hard it is to hide nuclear facilities as compa

This is pretty basic math, Raider. You cannot assert a percentage if you don't know both numbers in your calculation. You do not know how many hidden/secret/unknown nuclear sites exist in No

Fair enough. However, I meant more like modern times. But in truth, I did use "never". So you are very correct on that. Good job on your history. However, in modern times, 1960's to present,

#### Posted Images

2 hours ago, iNow said:

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

I am not a diplomat.

I am not a historian.

I am not a politician.

I am not a person with influence.

I am not a person with power.

I am not exceptionally bright.

Consequently I have next to no idea. I would suggest, as a small step forward, avoid electing Trump for a second term.

##### Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the nuclear problem referenced here existed and was problematic well before the election of the current president.

##### Share on other sites

@ iNow, it seems to me like humans have upped the ante through out history without every once taking a full step back. I believe it can change, will eventually have to change, but sadly I don't expect that change to happen peacefully. Having the right worldwide leadership is important to postponing the precipice of the worlds perpetual arms race but that seems to be the best we can currently hope for.

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately, the nuclear problem referenced here existed and was problematic well before the election of the current president.

For all his failings Reagan did contribute greatly to a reduction in nuclear arms. I don't see Trump achieving the same thing. If I am correct then an alternative to Trump, who sees nuclear arms as a serious problem and acts to attempt to reduce them further is a positive step. (But I refer you to all the limitations identified in my previous post as to why you should completely ignore my suggestions.)

##### Share on other sites

Published a half hour ago:

Quote

On Tuesday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that President Trump is willing to go to war with North Korea to stop it from being able to hit the American mainland with a nuclear weapon.

“There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s nuclear program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the Today show’s Matt Lauer. “He’s not going to allow — President Trump — the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile that could hit America.

“If there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there,” Graham continued. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die over here — and he’s told me that to my face.”

Graham’s press office confirmed that the senator was, in fact, reciting the details of a conversation he had with the president. According to Graham, the president “doesn’t want a war” — but would be willing to start one that would kill millions of people in the region if it came down to it.

Graham went even further later in the interview, saying war between the United States and North Korea was “inevitable” under this president unless North Korea stops testing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). These missiles, Graham says, are an unacceptable threat to the American homeland — so Trump would go to war to stop them

##### Share on other sites

@ Area54, Reagan's admin assisted Pakistand and Israel with there Nuclear programs. So while he did reduce the comical the U.S. had he also proliferated. More of a very mixed bag than something clearly positive.

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Published a half hour ago:

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. - George W. Bush discussion Iraq

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Area54, Reagan's admin assisted Pakistand and Israel with there Nuclear programs. So while he did reduce the comical the U.S. had he also proliferated. More of a very mixed bag than something clearly positive.

Valid point, although your mistyping in the second sentence just before the words "the US" was very arsenal.

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Valid point, although your mistyping in the second sentence just before the words "the US" was very arsenal.

I am the worst. I make many typing errors. It is something I do try to pay attention to but often come up short.

##### Share on other sites
On 2017-03-13 at 1:47 AM, Airbrush said:

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.

Well Americans can shoot down rockets and missiles they cannot shoot down hundreds of rockets and missiles hitting Seoul every minute. It would overwhelm any modern anti-missiles or ant-rockets system.

##### Share on other sites
On 2017-08-01 at 1:06 PM, Ten oz said:

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. - George W. Bush discussion Iraq

North Korea nuclear bombs are very crude so I'm not worried.

##### Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, nec209 said:

Well Americans can shoot down rockets and missiles they cannot shoot down hundreds of rockets and missiles hitting Seoul every minute. It would overwhelm any modern anti-missiles or ant-rockets system.

I believe the US has a missile or radar/artillery system that can instantly track incoming artillery (or maybe missiles?) calculate from trajectory to the starting point, so can quickly fire back at the source of the incoming fire and destroy the sender's location before the sender can move to safety.

If several thousand cruise missiles were launched by the US, and they were all timed to hit all the artillery and missile batteries within range of Seoul simultaneously, would there be enough cruise missiles to take out all targets?  How many targets are there?

Edited by Airbrush
##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

I believe the US has a missile or radar/artillery system that can instantly track incoming artillery (or maybe missiles?) calculate from trajectory to the starting point, so can quickly fire back at the source of the incoming fire and destroy the sender's location before the sender can move to safety.

If several thousand cruise missiles were launched by the US, and they were all timed to hit all the artillery and missile batteries within range of Seoul simultaneously, would there be enough cruise missiles to take out all targets?  How many targets are there?

##### Share on other sites

I remember reading about a global survey in 2004 where the south Korean people regarded the US as being much more dangerous to them than North Korea.  Unfortunately it looks like Google has lost everything but the links with the title only as a reference or those that don't work or have been removed or lead to pages that may be harmful to your pc etc etc.

Can anybody else remember this?

##### Share on other sites
On 01/08/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ten oz said:

America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. - George W. Bush discussion Iraq

Can someone explain why the above does not work just as well as follows:

North Korea must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, imatfaal said:

Can someone explain why the above does not work just as well as follows:

North Korea must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Primarily because the US does not regularly threaten nuclear strikes against North Korea.

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Primarily because the US does not regularly threaten nuclear strikes against North Korea.

Does quite a lot of threatening in general.  And it invades a lot more countries.  I didn't say that it didn't apply in the initial formation too.  It is just that if your government start talking about regime change as the endgame of a large scale military intervention then how can you still claim the moral high ground. And how can you dismiss North Korea's ravings as solely rampant paranoia when said country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened by an elected representative of the highest level.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, imatfaal said:

Does quite a lot of threatening in general.  And it invades a lot more countries.  I didn't say that it didn't apply in the initial formation too.  It is just that if your government start talking about regime change as the endgame of a large scale military intervention then how can you still claim the moral high ground. And how can you dismiss North Korea's ravings as solely rampant paranoia when said country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened by an elected representative of the highest level.

For how long has NK been threatening the US, and for how long has the US suggested regime change? Are you suggesting that the US and NK have been acting in a similar manner all along?

##### Share on other sites
On 2017-08-04 at 7:10 PM, Airbrush said:

I believe the US has a missile or radar/artillery system that can instantly track incoming artillery (or maybe missiles?) calculate from trajectory to the starting point, so can quickly fire back at the source of the incoming fire and destroy the sender's location before the sender can move to safety.

If several thousand cruise missiles were launched by the US, and they were all timed to hit all the artillery and missile batteries within range of Seoul simultaneously, would there be enough cruise missiles to take out all targets?  How many targets are there?

North Korea has hundreds and hundreds if not over a million sites!

The US would have to send up over million artillery every day!! It would be way too much for the system the US has today.

Edited by nec209
##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, imatfaal said:

Does quite a lot of threatening in general.  And it invades a lot more countries.  I didn't say that it didn't apply in the initial formation too.  It is just that if your government start talking about regime change as the endgame of a large scale military intervention then how can you still claim the moral high ground. And how can you dismiss North Korea's ravings as solely rampant paranoia when said country's integrity and sovereignty is threatened by an elected representative of the highest level.

Hot off the press:

Quote

China's ambassador, Liu Jieyi, said the resolution showed that the world was "united in its position regarding the nuclear position on the Korean peninsula".
He welcomed US statements that it was not seeking regime change or prioritising the reunification of Koreahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40838582

##### Share on other sites

Why don't they sanction luxury goods imported into N.Korea?  The great leader and other top officers need their booze, porn, drugs, and other luxury items.  When luxuries are cut off, then the great leader will reconsider, not from sanctioning their exports.

"...The export of coal, ore and other raw materials to China is one of North Korea's few sources of cash. Estimates say that North Korea exports about $3bn worth of goods each year - and the sanctions could eliminate$1bn of that trade."

Big deal, that $1 Billion reduction in cash will mostly hurt the poor N.Koreans. The great leader and his officers always get their cut off the top. Edited by Airbrush ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites On 8/5/2017 at 6:44 PM, zapatos said: For how long has NK been threatening the US, and for how long has the US suggested regime change? Are you suggesting that the US and NK have been acting in a similar manner all along? I think it is fair to say that NK is aware that the U.S. has a superior Military and that any potential war would be on their streets and not streets here in the U.S.. War vs the U.S. would end society as NK knows it. As such the trash talking isn't equal. When someone much bigger and stronger threatens you the sense of urgency it creates is considerably different than when someone much smaller and weaker does the same. In addition to be considerably most powerful Militarily the U.S. also has a long history of removing regimes around the world we (U.S.) doesn't like. So much so that I imagine that every world leader that hears their name mentioned negatively by U.S. politicians have legitimate worries they may be forcibly removed by U.S. force someday. So will NK it acted childish our behavior over the year too has been very threatening. ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 6 hours ago, Airbrush said: Why don't they sanction luxury goods imported into N.Korea? The great leader and other top officers need their booze, porn, drugs, and other luxury items. When luxuries are cut off, then the great leader will reconsider, not from sanctioning their exports. From link above. "...The export of coal, ore and other raw materials to China is one of North Korea's few sources of cash. Estimates say that North Korea exports about$3bn worth of goods each year - and the sanctions could eliminate $1bn of that trade." Big deal, that$1 Billion reduction in cash will mostly hurt the poor N.Koreans.  The great leader and his officers always get their cut off the top.

In perfect world yes!!! But China, Iran and Russia to name some countries hate the US they are  not alliance with US. So North Korea get lot of goods from China, Iran and Russia. The UN embargo does not do much of any thing to stop North Korea fro getting goods into their country.

Edited by nec209
##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think it is fair to say that NK is aware that the U.S. has a superior Military and that any potential war would be on their streets and not streets here in the U.S.. War vs the U.S. would end society as NK knows it. As such the trash talking isn't equal. When someone much bigger and stronger threatens you the sense of urgency it creates is considerably different than when someone much smaller and weaker does the same. In addition to be considerably most powerful Militarily the U.S. also has a long history of removing regimes around the world we (U.S.) doesn't like. So much so that I imagine that every world leader that hears their name mentioned negatively by U.S. politicians have legitimate worries they may be forcibly removed by U.S. force someday. So will NK it acted childish our behavior over the year too has been very threatening.

Also may times leaders in the world will create an enemy to distract people from the real problems and to get military and political support. The trash talking is to make North Korea look big and powerful and to get support by the people and army.

But leader has to walk fine line if the comes across as too crazy the military generals could remove him to seizure power. But looking at history when dictators are removed by force they are normally replaced by other dictator.

Edited by nec209

## Create an account

Register a new account