North korea threat poll

[crewcutkid reincarnated! 0]

This poll is for my independent study for High School, and involves the Joint Chiefs of Staff's response to a probable threat from N. Korea. Involved in the response process is the United Nations respons to such a threat. I am seeking to gain an international perspective on this, and would greatly appreciate all responses. Please keep in mind that all posts, poll results, and personal messages, etc. can be used in my report, so please be mature with your responses. The scenario involves a general buildup of North Korean Forces along the border, and the construction of several new small airfields, hardened bunkers, and naval facilities. Sources say border clashes between N. Korean civilians and US and UN troops have been escalating. NKPA artillery units have been moving into positions in the mountains north of the DMZ. If you need more info, PM me and I'll do my best to respond in a timely and organized fashion. Thanks a heap!

-Crew

[edc 0]

I definately think if there was an imminient threat of the DPRK coming south, we should conduct a pre-emptive strike.  We could not wait for Kim Jung's artillery units to level Seoul and possible attack other cities in the region (Tokyo for example) with SRBMs/IRBMs, I think we would have to act, and act quickly.

[Milkman 1]

The only way to defeat North Korea and protect innocents from retaliation is a preemptive strike on artillery, silos, naval yards, military headquarters... The usual targets.

[ozanzac 0]

Usual security measures should be maintained, or beefed up a bit on a higher alert status

An independant pre-emptive strike by US/ROK forces would spark a second Korean War, not a smart move, considering DPRK may be bluffing in order to gain humanitarian aid and such, as it has done so in the past.

This would be a risky war to fight for the US, given the peninsulars proximity to China.

Any actons would have to be approved by the UN. Unilateral strike is unnacceptable, given the concequences it might bring should the build up of DPRK been bluffing.

Never the less. The US should make ensure a pacific carrier group is in the region to persuade Kym Jong Ill to not invade or cross the border.

[denoir 0]

Considering that NK is close to producing nukes (if they don't have them already - which is quite possible) and that they have a long range delivery missile system that can reach the west coast of the US, a pre-emptive strike would be a very bad idea.

If it looks like NK is about to invade SK then you put a large international force to defend SK. You make it very clear that the UN will not accept an invasion.

Furthermore you kindly explain to NK that should they even think of the word "nuclear weapons" that USA, Britain, France and Russia will immideately use their nuclear ballistic arsenal to turn NK into a parking lot.

[Major Fubar 0]

I think if NK pushes things too far, it would be a good chance for the UN to show the world that it isn't the "toothless tiger" that TBA would like to have us believe...

[crashdome 3]

Yeah..sure.. let's strike first, because of course that's how the Cold War was won...

It never ceases to amaze me that the afterglow of WWII still has a grip on people about what war should be.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Usual security measures should be maintained, or beefed up a bit on a higher alert status

An independant pre-emptive strike by US/ROK forces would spark a second Korean War, not a smart move, considering DPRK may be bluffing in order to gain humanitarian aid and such, as it has done so in the past.

This would be a risky war to fight for the US, given the peninsulars proximity to China.

Any actons would have to be approved by the UN. Unilateral strike is unnacceptable, given the concequences it might bring should the build up of DPRK been bluffing.

Never the less. The US should make ensure a pacific carrier group is in the region to persuade Kym Jong Ill to not invade or cross the border.

excellent point.

If NK attacks, then rest of the world will turn NK into a parking lot. NK stands no chance against rest of the world, and China doesn't want war right next to its neighbors.

[Grizzlie 0]

Situation is more complicated as far as i know, because Korean war still goes on. Now we have only armistice, not peace. So even if US/ROK would attack, it wouldn't be pre-emptive strike, but just continuation of war, with UN "blessing" (well, old one, but still).

Other problem is China's reaction. In 50's China was "linked" only with Soviet Union, now has trade with most western countries, so it is higher risk for them for restrictions, and i think they would think twice before helping NK. Of course they still can use "veto" right to block any UN resolution.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Situation is more complicated as far as i know, because Korean war still goes on. Now we have only armistice, not peace. So even if US/ROK would attack, it wouldn't be pre-emptive strike, but just continuation of war, with UN "blessing" (well, old one, but still).

armistice means, that they are halting war, but not commit to peace. in other words, they are basically holding fire.

the problem with pre-emptive action is that neither will get out of it without a big loss. NK can pound Seoul without much hassle and NK capital can be bombed by SK too. so neither side will go for full scale war.

Quote[/b] ]Other problem is China's reaction. In 50's China was "linked" only with Soviet Union, now has trade with most western countries, so it is higher risk for them for restrictions, and i think they would think twice before helping NK. Of course they still can use "veto" right to block any UN resolution.

china is still linked with NK, and if war breaks out, that would affect China, which will affect western trading partners in negative manner. it goes both ways

[Grizzlie 0]

china is still linked with NK, and if war breaks out, that would affect China, which will affect western trading partners in negative manner. it goes both ways

True. But question is: would China "sacrifice" their good contact with western countries for one crazy man?

And what product of China cannot be bought elsewhere?

[ralphwiggum 6]

good luck trying to beat mass production of china. furhter more, if NK falls, there won't be any buffer to cushion western influence from SK. so for China, survival of NK is crucial.

more over, the amount of shock that will go from china to western world is higher than vice versa. China can live on its own to certain extent, while most wester countries need china's cheap production ot run things. there can be substitutes, but the cost will be higher.

[EiZei 0]

Who knows what might happen to Taiwan if the relations between the west and China would worsen..

[Badgerboy 0]

Situation is more complicated as far as i know, because Korean war still goes on. Now we have only armistice, not peace. So even if US/ROK would attack, it wouldn't be pre-emptive strike, but just continuation of war, with UN "blessing" (well, old one, but still).

Other problem is China's reaction. In 50's China was "linked" only with Soviet Union, now has trade with most western countries, so it is higher risk for them for restrictions, and i think they would think twice before helping NK. Of course they still can use "veto" right to block any UN resolution.

When did China get their permanent seat on the security council? After the Korean war possibly?

[Grizzlie 0]

@RalphWiggum

U r right about "bufer".

But buffer is good when it is not pain in ass - vide Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Quote[/b] ]more over, the amount of shock that will go from china to western world is higher than vice versa.

Well, today problem is to sell not to buy. I think there is alot of countries who would love to sell their products replacing Chinese ones with blessing of most governments (and workers unions - more votes )

And no sell = no money, and China spent a lot of money to buy for instance Russian weapons...

[ralphwiggum 6]

so far, NK has proven to be some pain in the ass, but not that big considered to what it does as a buffer. last thing china needs is SK or other nation right next door, and NK's action has not been such a big deal that it overshadow's influx of western influence.

when china stops manufacturing the goods, and people start producing within their borders, you can expect the price to go up, and that would leave consumers unhappy. and there are many more consumers than union members.

china has capability to sustain itself. reason why Deng Xiaoping experiemented with capitalism is because they were not making progress, not because they were not able to sustain itself.

[crewcutkid reincarnated! 0]

Good stuff so far, folks! Keep up the good replies!

(Thrusts arms in air in triumph) I could get an A for this poll alone! J/K I'll keep this poll open another week or two, sound good?

-Crew

[theavonlady 2]

Well, what should you do with a country that gases its own people to death, Nazi experiment style?

Quote[/b] ]Witnesses have described watching entire families being put in glass chambers and gassed. They are left to an agonising death while scientists take notes. The allegations offer the most shocking glimpse so far of Kim Jong-il's North Korean regime.

[denoir 0]

Well, what should you do with a country that gases its own people to death

Yes I agree, gas chambers are nasty. Is it California and the states around there that use it, or do they use injection?

Well, anyway, better than the electric chair, I suppose.

[Pipski 0]

I'm not sure that the threat of nuclear retaliation would stop Kim Jong Il from letting his birds fly. He's not exactly obsessed with the welfare of his people. And these ****-up dictators often have unhealthy fantasies about making grandiloquent gestures and going out in blazes of fire anyway.

[denoir 0]

And these ****-up dictators often have unhealthy fantasies about making grandiloquent gestures and going out in blazes of fire anyway.

You never know, Saddam was found in a hole and surrendered immidiately. And he faught his way to power. Kim Jong Il on the other hand inherited his throne.

[Balschoiw 0]

Back when a US delegation was invited to visit some nuclear sites I´ve seen the faces of the american delegation right after they visited a nuclear installation. They didn´t look very happy, in fact they looked pretty worried. I am sure NK already has nuclear weapons and the will use them in case of a troop gathering in the region that would indicate a preemptive strike.

NK by now has very big problems with feeding their people and a UN deal has been made last week to send food to NK.

A military intervention at this time will ignite a fire that is bigger than Iraq and can only be bad for the whole world.

Again North Korea is a souvereign country, like Iraq was. If they have nukes they play in another league now and that has to be respected when talking about a preemptive strike.

Plutonium extrated from 8,000 spent nuclear-reactor fuel rods

Interesting that Pakistan , the osama-hunt-brother, gave them the equipment to build the nukes:

Quote[/b] ]New Yorker, in 1997 Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and how-to data on building and testing a uranium-triggered nuclear weapon. (Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are based on a Chinese implosion design that uses a core of highly enriched uranium.) In return, North Korea gave Pakistan missile technology and parts.

North Koreas nuclear career

[EiZei 0]

Quite ironic that couple of buried chemical mortar shells in Iraq gets plenty of airtime while Kim gets to openly perform experiments with chemical weapons on his own people.

[aj_addons 0]

I think its the fact we havent incaded there yet has something to do with it

[theavonlady 2]

Well, what should you do with a country that gases its own people to death

Yes I agree, gas chambers are nasty. Is it California and the states around there that use it, or do they use  injection?

Well, anyway, better than the electric chair, I suppose.

Seems blood is cheap lately in Sweden.