Under what conditions would you support war in N.K.?

[Divinus Arma]

Just curious: Would you support war aganst North Korea if it meant that your country would be involved and a large portion of troops would come from your country?

[Avicenna]

Yes or Yes?

:inquisitive:

I vote no, tyvm. ~;)

EDIT: ah, forgot to put reasons in.
Well firstly, like everyone's saying, China's got NK by the balls. Why fight when you can just squeeze 'em with sanctions?
Also, I live with range of their nukes. While they may not be able to make it to Alaska, they probably could make it right to this apartment over here.
What happens when the regime collapses? A flood of unskilled labour into China? NTY. Enough problems with poverty as it is.
Ridiculously high casualties. Reported casualties (probably under-reported) according to a source from wikipedia says China suffered 1.86m casualties last time, give or take. These were against mainly democracies which would have a hard time trying to get more troops in due to public opinion. If against Korea, I suspect Kim do a Stalin would just pour lots and lots of troops, which would maybe even be threatened with death by machine-gun like the Soviets in WWII.

[Fragony]

Yes, but the condition would be full south korean political support, we all know who is going to have to deal with the consequences of such a thing.

[UglyandHasty]

voting option without a no or gah ?


I'd vote no. Flood NK with luxuries, feed them. Over a long run, no dictatorship can stay in power. Be patient. No need to risk a new world war. Most of all, listen to the South Korean and follow their agenda.

[Reenk Roink]

This is getting silly...

Are you trying to get a mod to change your poll options? :laugh2:

Anyway, I'm indifferent... :shrug:

[Ser Clegane]

These are poll options North Korean style ~;)

I currently wouldn't support a war against NK, no matter which country would be involved or supply the troops.

[UglyandHasty]

These are poll options North Korean style ~;)


lol good one !

[Kommodus]

The only way I would support a war against N.K. is if they actually nuked somebody, or invaded S.K. The US has no credibility to push for military action, and is stretched too thin militarily to deal with a third front anyway. From my perspective, the doctrine of preemptive military action has failed, and I won't make the mistake of supporting it again. (I should clarify that - there are very rare cases in which I would support it, but I don't care to identify them here.) We simply aren't going to successfully counter the global challenges we face through traditional military might.

[Divinus Arma]

These are poll options North Korean style ~;)

I currently wouldn't support a war against NK, no matter which country would be involved or supply the troops.

You will also notice that the voter has the options of choosing how many times to vote yes.

The poll is mean to be facitious, but the topic isn't. What conidtions would you willing support war against Kim Jong Il & Co. ?

[Proletariat]

The only way it would make sense is if they attack and destroy Seoul or Tokyo first. Then there wouldn't be a point in holding back since they'd spent their one massive bargaining chip, and a thorough leveling would be in order.

[Geoffrey S]

Ditto. As long as NK directly attacks either state, there's little left to lose then. And if the US decides to all-out, because let's face it, NKs military is massive and it'll be long and rather bloody.

Edit: if I was American. As it is, well, I'd love to see Holland taking on NK on its own.

[Keba]

I would support the war if North Korea struck first, not before.

Otherwise, be patient, NK will collapse, like every other dictatorship did.

[Blodrast]

These are poll options North Korean style ~;)

I currently wouldn't support a war against NK, no matter which country would be involved or supply the troops.

rofl, great poll :laugh4:
Well, the question is a bit pointless, since unless you're an American or a Chinese, it's highly unlikely your country will provide most of the troops in the eventuality of a war.

*screams in high-pitched accusatory voice: Divinus is discriminating against non-Americans and non-Chinese !!*

Seriously though, I agree with some of the above posters - I would support an attack on them if they started anything (bombing something, declaring war, etc).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Under what conditions would you support war in N.K.? If and when there is a clear and present danger that North Korea will attack its neighbours on a large scale.
Or if there's a garuantee of Chinese neutrality or better; South Korea backs the war effort and takes responsibility for the nation building effort afterwards; and Korea will be reunited with democratic Korea.

I'm not interested in starting WWIII over a bizarre regime that can only prolonge its pityful existence by extortion of rice shipments. They'll crumble sooner or later.

[yesdachi]

I would only support a war with NK if they were a direst threat to us or if another country negotiated a deal with us to join them in a war against NK.

[lars573]

I'd support a war against NK if they cross the 38th parallel. They do that it's on!

[Csargo]

I would support the war if North Korea struck first, not before.

Otherwise, be patient, NK will collapse, like every other dictatorship did.

Agreeded.

[Lehesu]

Only if Eclectic/DA stops posting facetious polls. Then I might consider it.

[Vladimir]

Good LORD! Some people here would actually wait until NK nukes a city before taking them down? I'm not sure of the size of their nukes or how many they have but if they were to use them, they may just use them all as even one would bring about their destruction. So loosing Seoul or Tokyo is acceptable to some people? True, if military force was used against them they may retaliate with nukes but then we'd be in a better position to defend against them.

Sorry but if the four-foot-dictator tries to hold the world hostage (for one million dollars] he needs to die. Not that I think that will happen but I'm not willing to wait for him to kill a million people. If you try using the counter argument that many North Koreans would die due to pre-emption, remember that they would also die from the military reaction.

I agree with Louis (yet again), South Korea should take over responsibility for reconstruction. They're always supportive of their backwards cousins, now let's see just how serious they are.

[Ser Clegane]

True, if military force was used against them they may retaliate with nukes but then we'd be in a better position to defend against them.
Quite an assumption - what is it based on?

[Pannonian]

I agree with Louis (yet again), South Korea should take over responsibility for reconstruction. They're always supportive of their backwards cousins, now let's see just how serious they are.
Why should the South Koreans take responsibility for reconstruction if they didn't want a war in the first place? What was Powell's remark about Iraq (made to GHW Bush)? You break it, you own it.

[Keba]

True, if military force was used against them they may retaliate with nukes but then we'd be in a better position to defend against them.

How? A missile fired at that close range is next to impossible to stop. It might (and I cannot stress this might enough) be possible to stop one launched at Hawaii or the West Coast, as there would be enough time to track, target and destroy it.

Seoul is within a hundred kilometers of the border, a missile travelling on average at the speed of sound will cross the distance within moments ... Tokyo would barely have enough time to detect the missile and no time whatsoever to respond.

On top of that, what is stopping North Korea from employing those same nuclear weapons on your advancing troops? Simply wipe out several hundred thousands soldiers ... the civilian population would cave, and anti-war people would gain in strength, you would lose such a land war before it even started.

If Korea strikes first, then it is MAD ... the Western powers have every authority to retaliate in full force.

[Kongamato]

Sorry to hijack, but I'd like to ask what kind of effect a North Korean nuclear attack would have if it were focused on the EMP. What kind of range could it have, and how badly could it harm the West Coast or Japan/SK?

[The Spartan (Returns)]

I currently wouldn't support a war against NK, no matter which country would be involved or supply the troops.I agree.

[Shaun]

I agree.

Why?

[Papewaio]

It will probably take the equivalent of a Pearl Harbour attack on South Korea or Japan to create enough drum beating for a war to be viable.

[cunobelinus]

I would not support a war with out a good reason but i will always support the troops if they are sent to war but not always the goverment.

[Redleg]

Sorry to hijack, but I'd like to ask what kind of effect a North Korean nuclear attack would have if it were focused on the EMP. What kind of range could it have, and how badly could it harm the West Coast or Japan/SK?

Given the unkown nature of the nuclear weapons in North Korea's hands, which according to some sources is around 5 working weapons, it would be hard to predict the effects of EMP. For EMP effects to be the greatest the weapon has to be exploded at a specific altitude (one that I don't remember right now) and there is some thought around the size of the weapon and type (again can't remember the specific data).

But I think we can agree that the EMP effects of a ground burst of a nuclear weapon in Toyoko or Soeul would create increased havoc for civilians - no ability for the civilian authority to communicate via television and radio to the people, civilians will have to evacuate the area by foot, power to hospitals would also be a problem (unless they have nuclear blast harderned backup generators and equipment.) etc.etc. in other words a nightmare scenerio in more ways then one.

[lars573]

Given the unkown nature of the nuclear weapons in North Korea's hands, which according to some sources is around 5 working weapons, it would be hard to predict the effects of EMP. For EMP effects to be the greatest the weapon has to be exploded at a specific altitude (one that I don't remember right now) and there is some thought around the size of the weapon and type (again can't remember the specific data).
I remember reading in the propaganda magazine of the military industrial complex (Pop-Sci :laugh4: ). That for a regular nuke to work as an EMP weapon it would ahve to detonate 10 KM up. And you might get it to affect an area the size of Japan and SK or the west coast of the US. But never both at the same time. To get that kind of coverage it would have to be in orbit. And the atmosphere would absorb it then. But this is all IIRC.


But I think we can agree that the EMP effects of a ground burst of a nuclear weapon in Toyoko or Soeul would create increased havoc for civilians - no ability for the civilian authority to communicate via television and radio to the people, civilians will have to evacuate the area by foot, power to hospitals would also be a problem (unless they have nuclear blast harderned backup generators and equipment.) etc.etc. in other words a nightmare scenerio in more ways then one.
IIRC the EMP wave of a Nuke doesn't go much farther than the radiation wave. But with modern multi-megaton warheads that's still a hell of a lot of area covered. :dizzy2:

[Vladimir]

Holy cow, I guess I should respond.

The answer is simple: Ser, Keba; Which is worse, a sucker punch or a hit to the jaw when you fighting? The answer is simple. When you're on a war footing or in a fighting stance you're more prepared to take a hit.

As to South Korea: Pannonian, my comment was mostly directed at the youth of the country who feel closer to North Korea than us. The older generations know better but I don't appreciate the attitude of the younger ones.

[Redleg]

I remember reading in the propaganda magazine of the military industrial complex (Pop-Sci :laugh4: ). That for a regular nuke to work as an EMP weapon it would ahve to detonate 10 KM up. And you might get it to affect an area the size of Japan and SK or the west coast of the US. But never both at the same time. To get that kind of coverage it would have to be in orbit. And the atmosphere would absorb it then. But this is all IIRC.


The height sounds familiar - and the coverage sounds about right. Given your second statement.



IIRC the EMP wave of a Nuke doesn't go much farther than the radiation wave. But with modern multi-megaton warheads that's still a hell of a lot of area covered. :dizzy2:

Yes indeed - the radiation wave is important when discussing EMP. For instance if the blast damage radius of the weapon is say 1 KM, the radiation wave has a lethal dose effect lets just say for discussion, a radius of 5 KM - however the radiation wave travels farther then the lethal does effect, now the radius for that effect could be significantly different. (now I am not using actual numbers - there is a bit of variance in the actual data.)

[lars573]

In global history (a grade 12 course we had to take) there was a section on Hiroshima. The text book included a break down of the blasts effects. Closest to the flash point is the "fireball" that vapourizes anything organic and levels or severely damages most buildings. Then comes the leathal radiation layer. Then the less and less harmful radiation layers. The EMP wave is in these waves. It preceds (or trails can't remember which that was 8 years ago) the radiation by a second or two. But it dies out around the limit of the radiation zone.


But the pop-sci article also asserted that with modern nuclear physics it would be possible to rewire (so to speak) a suitcase nuke to be mostly an EMP weapon. Or even a sort of "dirty bomb" to be an EMP weapon.

[Vladimir]

I'm not sure if the physics in Golden Eye, that Bond movie, are sound or not, but it looks interesting.

[Redleg]

In global history (a grade 12 course we had to take) there was a section on Hiroshima. The text book included a break down of the blasts effects. Closest to the flash point is the "fireball" that vapourizes anything organic and levels or severely damages most buildings. Then comes the leathal radiation layer. Then the less and less harmful radiation layers. The EMP wave is in these waves. It preceds (or trails can't remember which that was 8 years ago) the radiation by a second or two. But it dies out around the limit of the radiation zone.

This is indeed very similiar to what I learned - except my training was more intensive - something to do with having been in the Artillery back when battlefield nuclear weapons were on the gun line. And most of it dealt with small weapons - effects would of been less then 10KM in total for all aspects of the weapon. Some of what I knew - I on purpose forgot because of the security requirements of the training, other parts I remember but only in the vague general aspects of it.



But the pop-sci article also asserted that with modern nuclear physics it would be possible to rewire (so to speak) a suitcase nuke to be mostly an EMP weapon. Or even a sort of "dirty bomb" to be an EMP weapon.

The effects of the weapon would not be an EMP devices if it was blown on the ground. To be an EMP device it has to be blown at height to get the desired effect. I remember seeing an article very similiar to that - but it also discussed the delivery method being a passanger airline or other plane flying at the proscribe height designated for commerical aircraft. Somewhere around 30,000 ft.

The nuetron bomb (I think that was the name of it) was built as a radiation killing bomb - with limited blast damage. And even that weapon would of created blast damage if it was not denotated at the required height for its radiation function.

But I think we are going into more detail then most would want to know.

[lars573]

But I think we are going into more detail then most would want to know.
OK then. :shakehands: I understand that nuclear war is not pretty, or practical. :skull:

Let's turn this around. Who then, realistically, has to worry about a NK nuclear first strike? I mean besides Seoul. The US and SK troops on the DMZ are too close to the NK troops to be a first target for nukes. And right now NK missiles don't seem to be unable to get across the sea of Japan. Which has the jucier targets. Like the 3(?) US bases plus the beating heart of the far east economy, Tokyo. However I don't think even Kim is crazy enough to use his nukes first.


Any yank who thinks that NK can strike anywhere in the continental US obiviously expresses that view in between wavinbg around an assualt rifle and yelling "Goddamn commies." :help:

[Redleg]

OK then. :shakehands: I understand that nuclear war is not pretty, or practical. :skull:

Let's turn this around. Who then, realistically, has to worry about a NK nuclear first strike? I mean besides Seoul. The US and SK troops on the DMZ are too close to the NK troops to be a first target for nukes. And right now NK missiles don't seem to be unable to get across the sea of Japan. Which has the jucier targets. Like the 3(?) US bases plus the beating heart of the far east economy, Tokyo. However I don't think even Kim is crazy enough to use his nukes first.


The first way to answer your question is to make an assumption on the size and type of the weapons available to North Korea. For Instance the South Korean forces on the Sea of Japan coast could be a target for nuclear weapons. If the weapon is of small enough yeild the it could be used to prevent a counterattack by those forces on the east, as well as destroying them. Yes some risk would be present for North Korean forces along the DMZ on near the Sea of Japan, but in hardern postions their risk can be minimized to acceptable levels that leaves them intact as a defense force.


Then one has to make some assumptions for the Manuever Avenues in the West. Churon (SP) Valley and the Highway network that runs through it, and the other Manuever avenue that is slightly smaller that is just east of it. A possibility of using nuclear weapons in the second avenue exists since it is a limited avenue, and it provides for the South Korean forces a great avenue of advance into the flank of the Churon Valley. Using a nuclear weapon on the secondary avenue is a possiblity given the overall aim of North Korea. I doubt if they will take this course - unless they believe an overwhelming counter-attack will threaten their main avenue of approach down the Churon Valley and Highway 1 into Souel.

Now that is about the only two tactical uses I can safely predict for a use in the area immediately around the DMZ. Depending on the risks North Korea is willing to take, and the ability to deliver the weapon other possiblities can also occur, for battlefield use.

However given that I believe the weapons that North Korea has are the basic entry level nuclear devices - the most likely course of action to me would be a missile strike in the Pusan Area to completely cut off the ability to re-inforce via that sea port. Several in the Taejun (SP) area south of Souel which is the known depot for United States and South Korean Reinforcement equipement, the airbases, and Hwy 1 just as it enters from the south into the Souel Metro area.



Any yank who thinks that NK can strike anywhere in the continental US obiviously expresses that view in between wavinbg around an assualt rifle and yelling "Goddamn commies." :help:

Correct - it will be a lucky shot for them at this time to even get a missile near our West Coast. That leaves limited targets available for them in Hawaii and Alaska. Which even then given the failure of their missile test stands a good chance of having the missile go into the ocean with no denotation. (Of course this would depend on how the weapon is armed.)

[Keba]

The answer is simple: Ser, Keba; Which is worse, a sucker punch or a hit to the jaw when you fighting? The answer is simple. When you're on a war footing or in a fighting stance you're more prepared to take a hit.

True, however, the civilian population does not allow war readiness at any moment. Even so, if losses mount to high enough numbers during war, your civilian population will turn against you.

The problem is, will you take the blame for the millions of dead if you start the war? How will you handle the population dissent when they see hundreds of thousands of young soldiers die during the first hours of invasion alone? What about the fighting afterward? Iraq is turing the US' population against the state, NK would be ten times worse ... you wouldn't be facing badly trained, under-equipped insurgents, you'd be facing army trained, well-equipped and skilled soldiers.

It is true that NK can blow up Seoul and Tokyo within moments, but they know that if they do, they will be wiped out to the last man, woman and child. They might be crazy, but I doubt they are suicidal.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It is true that NK can blow up Seoul and Tokyo within moments, but they know that if they do, they will be wiped out to the last man, woman and child. They might be crazy, but I doubt they are suicidal.

I don't disagree with your arguments, and as usual, Redleg's analysis is excellent.

Nonetheless, we should always be aware in these situations that it is not the people that take these decisions but leaders insulated from reality by a culture of yes-men and a perception of having boundless power.

Kim is perfectly capable of believing that his missiles could wipe out Tokyo and/or Seoul with little impact on his own survival. The loss of millions of his people is clearly not a concern to him as many starve already. There's no-one around him to challenge his illusions.

Why for example, did Saddam Hussein, previously the darling of the US for his war against Iran, make the immense mistake of thinking he could invade Kuwait with no penalty? After being thumped and yet surviving, how could he then tweak the nose of the US so constantly (even to the extent of getting rid of his WMD but not allowing anyone to prove it, even when he faced annihilation)? Even now, he seems to believe he will escape punishment and be acclaimed again to rescue Iraq. Any normal fella would have been quite content with the immense bank balance, the harem and the kind thanks and support of the world's superpower for being a bastion against the Axis of Evil. Why chuck it all away for Kuwait?

There's many other examples from history that show dictators (and others) become immune to sense. They can be crazy and suicidal.

[Papewaio]

The situation would be even worse if the NKs had access to neutron bombs. ~:eek:

[Redleg]

I don't disagree with your arguments, and as usual, Redleg's analysis is excellent.

Thanks



Nonetheless, we should always be aware in these situations that it is not the people that take these decisions but leaders insulated from reality by a culture of yes-men and a perception of having boundless power.

Kim is perfectly capable of believing that his missiles could wipe out Tokyo and/or Seoul with little impact on his own survival. The loss of millions of his people is clearly not a concern to him as many starve already. There's no-one around him to challenge his illusions.

There was a real fear in 1994 that North Korea had a nuclear device, very crude and more likely a dirty bomb versus a true nuclear weapon, but with the old man dying, and his vow to re-unify Korea before his death, it was tense for a while. Now the old man was a little wacko - but compared to his son, he was a saint. There is some question about several coup attempts that might have happened - but with the closed society of North Korea - no real intelligence has been released that I no of. But in my opinion your dead on about Kim. If he comes to the belief that he has absolutely everything to gain and nothing to lose in re-unification of Korea - he will do so. That is one of the reasons why South Korea maintains a decent relationship with North Korea in spite of the rethoric coming from North Korea and the United States.



There's many other examples from history that show dictators (and others) become immune to sense. They can be crazy and suicidal.

Very true - the more power they gain, the more crazy some of them become

[itchrelief]

Sometimes I have this pipe dream that Seoul had been built in Pusan, and the bulk of the Southern population lived out of reach of DPRK artillery range. Then there would be little to fear from N.K. short of a full on invasion or an actual nuke strike, both of which would be pretty suicidal for them at this point.

S.K. could twiddle its thumbs at whatever shenanigans Kim pulls, and the U.S. would be more free to impose sanctions, undertake military strikes, or whatever it felt it needed to do.

None of this B.S. "oh we're afraid they'll shell Seoul, so we need to appease them with these food shipments, and please don't do anything that would set them off".

[Divinus Arma]

According to my poll, more than 160% of Orgahs would support war with NK, even if it meant their country would contribute the most troops.

I would say that is a pretty significant majority. We should forward these results to the leaders of the free world.