How dangerous is North Korea now?

[Beriallord]

Mist - I'm going to pick and reply to a few of those points.

 

 

BerialLord, the key to any debate is good research. What are your sources that NK has missile or artillery capable nuclear weapons? A good researcher has to back up their statements with sources. We have went from Nk raining 1000s of artillery rounds onto Seoul to NK firing nuclear artillery at Seoul. That is wild and unfounded at this point. I politely ask that you please prove your statement. If you can't, its no big deal. I seek the truth, even in debate.

 

Its pretty much a given that if you have nuclear capability and missiles that you can put 2 and 2 together to make it happen. The USA had delivery methods for nuclear weapons via artillery shells in the 1960s, its ancient technology. North Korea obtaining that know how shouldn't be very difficult. Guessing otherwise would be underestimating them.

 

Suppose you show me a video of a bird jumping out of a tree that then flaps its wings, then the video cuts off and you ask me to prove whether that bird was flying or not? That is like trying to prove whether or not North Korea can deliver a nuclear payload with a missile or artillery, for the same reason its safe to assume that bird in that video was flying.

 

 

For the sake of argument, I don't believe anyone but the Chinese has any reliable intelligence about too many things in North Korea. The US is limited to mostly what they can gather from satellite images.

 

 

3. I am thoroughly amazed at how people are hung up on the now primitive artillery capabilities that the NK possesses.

 

Guess what? Guns are primitive technology, and they can still inflict massive amounts of destruction and death. You think just because artillery are 19th century technology that they aren't capable of inflicting massive amounts of destruction? If you have thousands of artillery pieces aimed at a large target, for example a city, you could inflict massive destruction in a matter of minutes. If your target is as big as a city, and you are remotely skilled at aiming it, then you basically can't miss. Whether each one kills someone isn't certain, but what is certain is massive amounts of property/infrastructure damage. Also as primitive as artillery are, no weapons defense systems can intercept artillery shells. WIth thousands of Artillery spread out, they can't exactly take them all out with a few conventional bombing runs either.

[TRoaches]

Doesn't all of that artillery sort of vaporize when the guided missiles come into play? I'm no military strategist, but it seems like the side with the live satellite coverage linked to the massive over-funded naval fleet loaded with flying computerized explosive-tipped long range supersonic death bots would have a fairly solid advantage as far as artillery is concerned. If artillery is the North's main offensive asset it would be near the top of the "Things that shall receive the gentle caress of ordnance" list if a fight broke out. Thats not to say they wouldn't get some shots off and do some damage, just that they wouldn't get very many off before the missiles start landing.

 

I suppose there is the chance that an EMP weapon could be used but it seems unlikely that a modern nuclear military wouldn't take some steps to protect itself to some extent against such a tactic, or maintain a readiness plan to deal with such a situation. I imagine that the person who runs the computer that controls a produces the firing solutions for a given missile platform is also required to know how to find those solutions with a pen and paper if he really has to.

WIth thousands of Artillery spread out, they can't exactly take them all out with a few conventional bombing runs either.

I'm confident that the South knows the location of every single big gun on the other side, watches from the sky as they move them around and cover them with camo, and has been fine-tuning a plan to systematically destroy them as quickly as possible if/when necessary for about the last 60 years.

Edited April 11, 2013 by TRoaches

[TRoaches]

I was thinking more about this and feel like sharing.

History shows that any monarchy or dictatorship, no matter how loyal the subjects may appear, stands on very thin ice. Dynastic power transfers are never guaranteed to happen the way that the ruler wants them to. Any ruler can be toppled by the people who control his military. In feudal Europe a king relied on the other nobility for military and financial support, and there are plenty of examples of kings who lost their support and were ousted as a result. I realize that the NK people have had an incredible level of deep-clean brainwashing applied to them over the years. The assumption that is often made is that ALL of the NK people are so loyal that they would follow any order given to them, no matter how suicidal it is. This is probably true for the average soldier or civilian, but what about the highest ranks of the military? Would Generals, who are no doubt educated students of war even in that society, really follow that suicidal order? The defeat would have to be an obvious outcome to the people at the top of the military who are truly informed about the situation, more so perhaps than any other citizens in the entire country. Maybe their intelligence agency is another propaganda department and just pumps out reports that say "everyone else sucks, we rule!". I doubt it, considering how useless such a department would be.

What if the Dear Leader calls his brass into the war room and announces that the attack against the imperial capitalists shall commence immediately, and the top boss dude's reply is "Yeah....about that.....here's the thing about that....um....I'm not sure how to tell you this, Glorious Leader, but that is a really stupid idea and we're not doing it."

...to which the agast dear leader replies "How dare you question my orders?!?!? GUARDS!!! Take this man to the camps!"

...to which the General replies "No...that's not happening either. The boys and I have already discussed this, and we're not going to let you get us all killed just because you believe your own nonsense. That crap may work on the drones in the hivemind, but I'm not a drone. Also, coup."

Then they hold him down and poison him, and the next day everyone learns that the Dear Leader passed gracefully and without distress. In his final statement just prior to his death he reminded everyone that North Korea is best Korea, then named a successor. The king is dead, long live the king!

I could be giving these Generals too much credit and underestimating the power of their propaganda machine. I just figure that they are probably more informed than the average citizen because they are likely granted necessary leeway as far as outside information is concerned. The top ranks must be allowed to view things that others are not allowed to view and have discussions that others are not allowed to have if they are to be competent in their duties. If the top ranks are just as brainwashed as the rest of the citizens then they can't possibly be competent, and if they are competent they can't possibly be brainwashed.

[Vindekarr]

"The leader that makes peaceful opposition impossible makes armed rebellion inevitable" -JFK

[milogrim]

To the OP question, Who woulda thought Bosnia could be the catalyst for two of the most apocaplytic wars in history? Archduke Ferninand certianly didn't. So from little things big things can happen. Who's to say North Korea can't start WW3.

 

My fear is that we are all so desensitized to this war stuff it's easy to forget how serious it can become. Some of us have lived threw half a dozen wars already, numbers like millions dead get thrown around like it's a game. Now that WMD's are part of the equation you'd think it give us some pause, but no, everyone is still eagar to kill and die. World's gotta grow up fast, or crash and burn.

 

But as far as anyone being a threat to the U.S.? It would be suicide to fight the U.S.A. The united rest of the world would struggle agianst us, we are that powerful and then some. At a drop of a hat we could vaporize this world several time over, and leave it a toxic waste for millenia. I'm not sure if that count's as winning, but thats our stradegy. Like I said lot's of growing up to do.

 

To me the whole situation looks completely insane, I have to pinch myself to make sure it's not a bad dream.

 

Take it seriously folks.

[HeyYou]

Lil' Kim doesn't want war. He wants food, money, and a peace treaty. Trouble is, he is going about it the exact WRONG way. Does he realize this? Apparently not....... At this point, a minor mistake on ANYONE'S part, will mean war. NK is considering launching a missile. Now, is it just a test? Is it nuclear armed? Or, will he actually try and hit something that will annoy some folks? If the latter, that will be all it takes, and off we go to another war. Should the US make some miscalculation, and 'fire the first shot', real possibility China (and perhaps Russia) will come down on the side of NK. That would be horrendously bad... putting it mildly. We have a great opportunity here to completely annihilate a significant percentage of the world..... Let's just hope cooler heads prevail. (I.E. China reigning in their wayward son.)

[Nintii]

The "denuclearization" of the Korean peninsula ... has the final chapter of NK and their

nuclear nonsense been written or is this just more yakkity yak ?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/13/kerry-to-press-china-on-north-korea-amid-missile-test-concerns/

Edited April 13, 2013 by Nintii

[TRoaches]

This doesn't surprise me. I have thought it was strange that people sometimes assume China would support NK with anything more than a few kind words and some humanitarian aid. These arguments usually dive into an analysis of who has the stronger military, but I don't think that is really the determinant. China could choose to support a nation that has no real economy of its own, no relevant science or culture to share, and no ability to return the favor should China need military aid it in the future. Or, they could side with the South, condemn the North with no negative repercussions, make new friends (customers) and reinforce old friendships with the rest of the world, and further increase the strength of their already very strong manufacturing export economy.

 

I don't see anything for China to gain from supporting NK. I think that people who assume they would support NK based on a shared communist ideology are assuming ideology trumps economic interests, which is a laughable. Neither the US or the UK have ever had a problem with dictators who quote a good price on oil, and China loves nothing more than a greedy capitalist who is considering investing in a Chinese factory.

 

This is the same thought that I have when someone suggests that we should fear a war between the US and China. The US relies on China for cheap clothing, electronics, and some food. China relies on the US as a place to export a very large portion of their manufacturing output. This puts China in the more advantageous economic position, so they have more to lose if the US-China relationship fell apart. If anything, after the initial shock to the economy and the relative hardship period that would follow, the US would perhaps benefit in the long term from a severing of that relationship because it would force us to start manufacturing again.

[HeyYou]

I can agree on the possible long-term benefits to the US should relations with China break down. Personally, I fail to understand how supporting the economy of a nation that was once viewed as 'the enemy", and supporting their efforts to develop weapons that could easily neutralize our carrier groups, can be considered a 'good idea'..... Trouble is, the short-term consequences would REALLY suck... and might include another large scale war. That would be bad for everyone, and might preclude any possibility of long-term benefits for anyone.... as there wouldn't be many left.....

 

I am of the belief that it is pretty much up to China to settle this matter, without massive loss of life. If a shooting war starts, the Koreas are going to be the ones to bear the brunt of the casualties. If the US simply agrees to talk, again.... and then some deal is draw up, easing sanctions, providing aid, for NK 'denuclearizing', we will just be back in the exact same position within a year. If we won't learn from history, we deserve what we get.

[dudutz18]

China has been backing NK (North Korea) for one sole reason, so the "Western Devils" don't gain foothold in Asia. That being said, NK might not go to war without China's consent. There's also been talks from some NK defectors claiming such behaviour is only meant for their people to respect and be loyal to the new leader.

 

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stone" - Albert Einstein