War Drums: North Korea edition

[Werthead]

Yup. You can try to shoot down a missile and if you succeed, great, but if you fail you reduce public confidence and hand a PR victory to North Korea.

More worrying is the time frame involved. It might be that, each time it's happened, the Japanese and American governments only confirmed a missile launch after the missile had already overflown the target (Japan had just about enough time to trigger air raid warnings in Hokkaido, but the missiles were already right overhead) so intercepting is no longer useful and may not be possible. The geography of the area is incredibly constrained. Seoul is only 25 (ish) miles from the border, Japan is only a hundred miles or so offshore, the Korean peninsula as whole is only slightly larger than the British Isles. Missiles can cross that territory in a few minutes. Interception technology has largely been built around either hitting missiles covering thousands of miles (like ICBMS and SDI countermeasures) or intercepting low-yield weapons as very close range (like Patriot and Iron Dome). This kind of technology is right inbetween.

I'm not sure what other options are available here. The US could fire missiles over North Korean airspace in some kind of retaliatory warning, but it's possible North Korea would panic and attack. In addition, missile firing solutions over North Korea could also be interpreted as firing on China or Russia. Whilst you'd hope they'd realise this wasn't the case, all it takes is one person panicking and things could get out of control.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Yup. You can try to shoot down a missile and if you succeed, great, but if you fail you reduce public confidence and hand a PR victory to North Korea.

More worrying is the time frame involved. It might be that, each time it's happened, the Japanese and American governments only confirmed a missile launch after the missile had already overflown the target (Japan had just about enough time to trigger air raid warnings in Hokkaido, but the missiles were already right overhead) so intercepting is no longer useful and may not be possible. The geography of the area is incredibly constrained. Seoul is only 25 (ish) miles from the border, Japan is only a hundred miles or so offshore, the Korean peninsula as whole is only slightly larger than the British Isles. Missiles can cross that territory in a few minutes. Interception technology has largely been built around either hitting missiles covering thousands of miles (like ICBMS and SDI countermeasures) or intercepting low-yield weapons as very close range (like Patriot and Iron Dome). This kind of technology is right inbetween.

I'm not sure what other options are available here. The US could fire missiles over North Korean airspace in some kind of retaliatory warning, but it's possible North Korea would panic and attack. In addition, missile firing solutions over North Korea could also be interpreted as firing on China or Russia. Whilst you'd hope they'd realise this wasn't the case, all it takes is one person panicking and things could get out of control.

Inform China and Russia in advance (not that they would seriously think the US was deliberately attacking either of them), and hit North Korea with a pre-emptive strike. This situation is just going to get 100 times more dangerous once North Korea can reliably deliver nuclear warheads via missile. Something they have either not mastered yet, or are still at the very early stages of perfecting.

It really is a case of now or never, with now being maybe the next 12 months or so.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Inform China and Russia in advance (not that they would seriously think the US was deliberately attacking either of them), and hit North Korea with a pre-emptive strike.

What, precisely, are you hitting?

The US does not have good knowledge of where the missile launch sites are, does not know where all the artillery is, and has no real idea about what things have nukes and how they're going to be deployed. 

Be specific here: a preemptive strike on what, exactly?

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

What, precisely, are you hitting?

The US does not have good knowledge of where the missile launch sites are, does not know where all the artillery is, and has no real idea about what things have nukes and how they're going to be deployed. 

Be specific here: a preemptive strike on what, exactly?

 

You don't know what they really know or don't know. And yes, this will end up (once again) in a discussion on the cost-benefit of war with a non-nuclear missile armed North Korea now, vs peace with a nuclear ICBM armed North Korea later. We've been there, done that before.

I'm reiterating that war with them now is the lesser of the two evils.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You don't know what they really know or don't know.

We kind of do. But again, I ask - what does a preemptive strike mean to you?

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And yes, this will end up (once again) in a discussion on the cost-benefit of war with a non-nuclear missile armed North Korea now, vs peace with a nuclear ICBM armed North Korea later. We've been there, done that before.

No, I am asking you what a preemptive strike means to you. Does it mean targeted sites only? Does it mean destruction of North Korea's population centers? Does it mean using nukes? 

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I'm reiterating that war with them now is the lesser of the two evils.

How did not going to war with Russia work out?

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

We kind of do. But again, I ask - what does a preemptive strike mean to you?

No, I am asking you what a preemptive strike means to you. Does it mean targeted sites only? Does it mean destruction of North Korea's population centers? Does it mean using nukes? 

How did not going to war with Russia work out?

Not sure what the Russia reference is intended to imply or convey.

As for what a pre-emtive strike means. Not only surgical, no. Some surgical strikes in there, sure, But as extensive as may be necessary. Up to using nukes if required, yes.

WIthout endorsing a viewpoint in its entirety, I kind of share the broad sentiment, if not all the specifics, in this article, below.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/09/heres-how-to-take-out-north-koreas-nukes/

Basically, if you have to take out more North Koreans to prevent them from striking South Koreans or Japanese, then do so.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure what the Russia reference is intended to imply or convey.

It's meant to imply or convey that other enemies of ours have obtained nukes and nothing bad has happened as a result of it. Outside of say The Cuban Missle Crisis. We have yet to engage in a nuclear conflict with a nation that has nukes.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure what the Russia reference is intended to imply or convey.

As for what a pre-emtive strike means. Not only surgical, no. Some surgical strikes in there, sure, But as extensive as may be necessary. Up to using nukes if required, yes.

WIthout endorsing a viewpoint in its entirety, I kind of share the broad sentiment, if not all the specifics, in this article, below.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/09/heres-how-to-take-out-north-koreas-nukes/

Basically, if you have to take out more North Koreans to prevent them from striking South Koreans or Japanese, then do so.

What if your strikes don't end up succeeding in stopping a nuclear attack? What is the threshold for success and failure that you're willing to take here? 

And what are you willing to do afterwards?

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

WIthout endorsing a viewpoint in its entirety, I kind of share the broad sentiment, if not all the specifics, in this article, below.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/09/heres-how-to-take-out-north-koreas-nukes/

Basically, if you have to take out more North Koreans to prevent them from striking South Koreans or Japanese, then do so.

Wait, you agree with this?

Quote

 

Besides, frantic, last-minute evacuation efforts would tip off Pyongyang that a strike was imminent. Now, not later, is the right time to prepare for all contingencies — and to signal that preparedness.

Initially, we’d launch a surprise air and naval campaign

 

He's suggesting sending a strong message to evacuate everyone so that a strike was going to happen Really Soon...and then start with a surprise attack? 

Does the author understand what 'surprise' means? 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wait, you agree with this?

He's suggesting sending a strong message to evacuate everyone so that a strike was going to happen Really Soon...and then start with a surprise attack? 

Does the author understand what 'surprise' means? 

I think the suggestion is to remove vulnerable personnel as a sign that you are preparing to escalate to the next level. Hopefully that makes the North Korean regime realize they need to change course urgently, they back off and war is averted. If not, then you are in a better position to respond forcefully.

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think the suggestion is to remove vulnerable personnel as a sign that you are preparing to escalate to the next level. Hopefully that makes the North Korean regime realize they need to change course urgently, they back off and war is averted. If not, then you are in a better position to respond forcefully.

What does 'back off' entail? You realize that their entire point in getting nukes is so the US can't invade or nuke w/e they want, right? So what about threatened to do just that motivates them to throw away the only thing separating them from the fates of any other non-nuke country the US decided to oppose? 

Or do you believe that they're like mass suicidal just counting down the days before they can go out in a blaze of glory? 

Trump's decided to play nuclear chicken with a country which, unlike the US, has a very real threat of destruction if they blink first. It's fucking insane.

[James Arryn]

On 2017-04-25 at 0:27 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What bothers me is the tone I hear of "lets get this over with" even from people who dislike and distrust Trump.

Yes, it's a combination of complete historical ignorance plus believing the usual pre-war hype about how the other side are raving fanatics foaming at the mouth at the prospect of committing mass suicide because they hate freedom so much.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Yes, it's a combination of complete historical ignorance plus believing the usual pre-war hype about how the other side are raving fanatics foaming at the mouth at the prospect of committing mass suicide because they hate freedom so much.

In this case the enemy are a bunch of brainwashed, raving fanatics believing in the godhood of their megalomaniac leader.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Does the author understand what 'surprise' means? 

The author is Ralph Peters, who doesn't fully understand much of anything.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In this case the enemy are a bunch of brainwashed, raving fanatics believing in the godhood of their megalomaniac leader.

Ah, in this case.

And suicidal, too, I expect?

[Liffguard]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In this case the enemy are a bunch of brainwashed, raving fanatics believing in the godhood of their megalomaniac leader.

C'mon mate, you're really buying into that? Even if that was entirely true of the population, is it true of the North Korean leadership. Is it true of Kim himself?

Serious question, why is it bad for North Korea to have nuclear weapons? Because they might kill millions of people and that would be bad? It would be bad, and therefore the solution is not to kill millions of different people instead.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Trump's decided to play nuclear chicken with a country which, unlike the US, has a very real threat of destruction if they blink first. It's fucking insane.

I was about to write the same thing.
The North Korean regime, unlike the US, is playing for its survival. If the US shows willingness to attack they know they're goners anyway (and Kim stands to end like Saddam did), so they will have little to no incentive to hold back. If anything, they might hope that if they strike first South Korea will sue for peace before the US is able to mobilize its entire military might.

Looks like we might have a fantastic Christmas this year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t039p6xqutU

 

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In this case the enemy are a bunch of brainwashed, raving fanatics believing in the godhood of their megalomaniac leader.

Which side?

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Which side?

That took really long.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I think the suggestion is to remove vulnerable personnel as a sign that you are preparing to escalate to the next level. Hopefully that makes the North Korean regime realize they need to change course urgently, they back off and war is averted. If not, then you are in a better position to respond forcefully.

But it also means that North Korea will be far more likely to harden their resources and make sure that they are as difficult to take out as possible. When the biggest difficulty for a pre-emptive strike is that there are so many unknown targets that are also very likely very hard targets, making that even more difficult seems like a better guarantor of failure.

Honestly, based on that logic what the right call would be to do is to make it look as if we aren't going to go anywhere. Reduce troop strength there, keep families around, and de-escalate those forces while preparing others for attack.