Sooner or later, we will have to do something about the mullahs in North Korea. This is getting to be too dangerous.

The main reason that N Korea has been safe from invasion ever since we lost the war, and the reason that it remains fairly safe today, is Seoul's proximity to the border. The mountains just to the north of Seoul are bristling with North Korean mortar caches and artillery batteries. They are too numerous and too spread out to be effectively eliminated, so it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that Seoul will be devastated if an invasion is attempted.

And then there's China, of course. Without help from the Chinese, North Korea's government would have self-destructed many times over by now. Really, if we could just get the Chinese to stop, our work would be done for us.

One way or the other though, I think that regime change is the only realistic path to reform the north.

Mark, please read this for some perspective. I'm not arguing against you on this matter (for the time being), nor is the article. It is not a partisan writeup, it's just an assessment of the circumstances:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507/stossel

They were probably testing "ripple fire" to decoy US missile defenses - fire everything in the air at once and see if the US can spot the Taepodong-2 amidst the clutter. In that sense the test was a success because we announced we "saw" the missile fail 43 seconds into flight (and it could have been deliberately crashed to see if we could pick it out of the clutter!)

I suspect any action taken against North Korea would be done in conjunction with our allies of South Korea and Japan. I think we need to re think some of our policies. We should support liberty, however, ultimately we can only guarantee our own liberty. I'm not sure we can prevent the proliferation of WMD. I think they may be here to stay. We will need to live with it and adjust accordingly. If South Korea, Japan, and Tawain were armed with nuclear war heads, this would lessen the need to place American troops in Japan and South Korea. I don't think we have any troops in Tawian, however, if memory serves correctly the American Navy is positioned there. Arming Tawain with nuclear weapons would lessen the need to have the American Navy there. Unfortunately, since the North Korean test failed, some people will no doubt spin this to make it seem as though it is not a threat. This should illustrate the need to complete a missle defense system. The North Koreans will learn from this. If one is humble enough, they will learn more from a failure than from a success.

Nate

I think you nailed it. China is the biggest problem here. Without Chinese assistance the North Korean government would have self destructed long ago. China is a large supporter of the North Korean government. North Korea sells weapons to Iran. I think the Chicoms know exactly what they are doing. I think you are right that any invasion of North Korea would result in the destruction of Seoul, therefore, it won't happen.

You suggest we lost the war with North Korea. I think it would be more fair to say we fought to a stalemate. Had it been a complete loss, South Korea would likely not exist. An invasion is likely not to happen. The last time this happened we lost over 50,000 people, we are busy in Iraq and elswhere right now, and Seoul would be destroyed, as well much of South Korea. A coup would be unlikely to work, as the regime is to well protected. If we could find out what it would take to get the Chinese to stop supporting this regime, this would probably solve the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think China is going to stop no matter what we might give them. I sugest arming South Korea with nuclear war heads. This would likely act as a deterent against North Korea and we could pull out some of our military forces that many South Koreans don't want there any way. There is no guarantee that what I suggest will work. I'm just trying to offer constructive attempts to deal with the situation.

Orion

You may well be correct. If this is so, their test was a success. Also, I suspect that many people will view this test as a failure and will lead them to conclude the US does not need a misle defense system. If it works out this way, this would be a win-win for North Korea.

Orion

You could well be correct. Unfortunately, if many people assume the test was a failure, this may lead people to minimize the threat posed by North Korea and may lead people to conclude we do not need a missle defense system. If this happens, it would be a win-win for North Korea.

An unstable missle fired by an unstable regime. Thank God they didn't have an unstable nuclear war head on that missle. Kim Yung Il once again proved he is a nut!

the apologists, appeasers, & internationalists (the latter includes our dem friends) better study this result very carefully.

the DPRK's nuke & missle programs clearly show the limits of that paradigm.

ok, what did the US do and what are the US doing?

its the US who dropped two 20 Kt bombs in WWII
its the US who tested 1003 atomic bombs from the 1940ies till 1990ies (source: fas.org)
its the US who are developing small nukes

and the IAEA?

they cant stop any country from developing atomic weapons.
they did not stop isreal, not pakistan, not india, and also not iran.
IAEA supports atomic energy, but atomic energy and atomic bombs are siamese twins.

atomic enery ist supported with more than 30 billion dollars, but at the same time it has only 3% part of the energy producing worldwide.

you need a little more than 5kg to develop an atomic bomb.

so ask yourself: what are the US and the IAEA doing?
and, is that enough?

and whats the matter with iran?
the HPAC program of US defense says the following:
Isfahan and Natanz would be attacked with three american B61-11 bombs (each more than 300 kt)
result: 2,6 million deaths in 48 hours.

go on

Well, North Korea is in for a world of hurt, Japan just called a BIG MEETIN! and the U.S. said there will NO TALK that it will be all FISTS!!

Jeremiah

Really interesting Atlantic-online article you linked to, winnowhead. One of the things in the article that puzzled me was this statement:

Displaying a PowerPoint slide that depicted North Korean tunneling operations along the demilitarized zone since the 1970s, Gardiner observed that the SOF (NK Special Operations forces) would get behind the front lines not only through hidden tunnels that U.S. and South Korean intelligence agencies have yet to find (one of them, according to the journalist Jasper Becker's new book, Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea, is large enough for 30,000 infantrymen to pass through in an hour) (emphasis - mine)

Is our intelligence really that bad that a journalist can know of such a tunnel but our spooks don't know where it is? I just find that incredibly hard to believe.

One's thing's almost certain -- if the group that conducted the War Game was actually in charge, Los Angeles would disappear in a mushroom cloud before we'd act. In the end, about all they could all agree on was to disagree.

My biggest fear with regard to the Norks is that no matter what we do, it's likely to be wrong. You're dealing with a schitzoid lunatic who is just as likely as not to take one of his nukes and vaporize Seoul without any warning, regardless of the consequences. And something as simple as our prolonged refusal to engage in bi-lateral talks could be the trigger that sets him off. On the other hand, giving in to bi-lateral talks would likely signify weakness on our part, and only embolden Kim Jong-il to further push our buttons. We're really faced with the proverbial damned if we do -- damned if we don't scenario. Short of arming South Korea, Japan and Taiwan with nukes, (something I personally would not favor) I don't see us ever getting any cooperation from the elephant in the room -- China.

ret spook - we, & the ROK troops, know where the tunnels are. best to leave them intact & feign ignorance so they may be blown-to-communist-hell when full of DPRK cannon fodder.

a barium bomb is a terrible thing...

Has anyone looked at a picture of the Korean peninsula from space at night? The North is as dark as the sub-Saharan jungles of Africa, while the South is lit up like Las Vegas.

What this tells me is the vast difference between the two "countries" on all levels - from political, to economic and beyond. Should that pot-bellied dog-eating wimp from the North ever actually decide to take anybody on, his regime's longevity would be measured in hours or minutes.

North Koreans are living in fear and once they see that fear is no longer of any use, they will abandon it. Get fat-boy Kim on the run and it will be all over in no time. These people are starving - so badly some are resorting to cannibalism.

Kim's stranglehold on the military and his willingness to slaughter his own people by the millions prevents an uprising. But once a war breaks out, Kim is dead meat and so is his "government."

I say we light the fuse.

Retired Spook

As my post suggested, I'm trying to offer constructive critques of our policies. Our policy for the last forty years or so has been trying to halt the spread of WMD. I think this may be an workable policy. For the government to change it, would require people to admit they made a mistake. This is something American politicians have a very difficult time doing. In my post, I suggested arming South Korea, Tawain, and Japan would lessen the need to position American military in places where many people don't want them anyway. You suggest that this might also encourage China to work with us. I think you may be right. As I said, I cannot "know" that what I suggest will work. Why would you be opposed to arming them with nuclear weapons?

For some reason, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Japan having nuclear weapons. Real uncomfortable. I think part of it is the intense level of nationalism that they entertain (and always have). For example, the mayor of Tokyo denies any and all atrocities committed by japan before and during WWII, and he enjoys broad support for his views from across the country. And then there's the fact that EVERY japanese prime minister makes regular visits to the shrine that memorializes Japan's WWII military leaders (the ones that we call war-criminals).

And B.Poster, you are correct; we did not lose the Korean war, per se. I misspoke myself.

Nate

I had thought about the same you just wrote about concerning Japan. This is why I'm very careful to suggest that I do not know what I suggest would work. In the short run, I think it would help. We could remove troops who many of the Japanese do not want there any way and we could have a deterent against North Korea. In the immediate term they would probably still work with us, as North Korea poses a threat to both us and them. For the short term, the axiom "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" would probably keep a check on anyone's baser instincts. For the long term, MAD or some variation of it would probably work with Japan. I don't think MAD is likley to work as well with North Korea or Iran. I think your concerns about Japan and nuclear weapons are valid ones. I just don't think we can prevent the spread of WMD. It may be time to rethink this approach and adjust accordingly.

Right now I FEEL like we lost the Korean war. If we had a complete victory, there would be no North Korea. There would likely on be a "Korea" and it would be prosperous like the South. No where than in the contrast between North Korea and South Korea is it more apparent that quasi-captialist systems work better than communist systems.

B. Poster,

Nate sort of beat me to the punch, at least with regard to Japan having nukes. Adding three more countries to the nuclear club in the hopes that it would put pressure on China to exert influence on NK just doesn't seem to me to be a good idea. Just a gut feeling I have.

Come on Jeremiah, throw us a bone. How would you fix this one? Are ya gonna make a call to the big guy, you know, the one that looks like Charleton Heston and reek havoc on the Jonger? Rain some frogs on them bad boys!

Come on Jeremiah, throw us a bone. How would you fix this one? Are ya gonna make a call to the big guy, you know, the one that looks like Charleton Heston and reek havoc on the Jonger? Rain some frogs on them bad boys!

Retired Spook

You and Nate may well be correct on this one. I cannot say that I "know" my policy idea would work. Many critics of the Bush administration seem to assume that they "know" their policy alternatives would work. To assume such, is to have the same kind of hubris this administration is often accused of having. Right now, for whatever reason, they don't seem to want nukes. If they wanted them, I'm not sure we would be able to prevent it anyway.

raker13,

I don't know little buddy, but I can guarantee you he is in control of the situation!, and He will most definitely look out for His people!

Who are His people? those who have the faith!

btw: I would watch if I were you how I made referance to God's name, because remeber He looks at the heart as well as the actions that you make!

Jeremiah

Clearly, NK is no where near having ICBM capability, - which is bad news for big defense contractors trying to raid our national treasury.

Please, NK has trouble manufacturing a working coo-coo clock, much less something as incredibly complex and expensive as an ICBM. NK will collapse long before it has an ICBM that doesn't blow up shortly after launch. In fact, hell will freeze over before NK has a working balsa-wood, rubber-band powered airplane. Sorry.

Retired Spook-
"My biggest fear with regard to the Norks is that no matter what we do, it's likely to be wrong. You're dealing with a schitzoid lunatic who is just as likely as not to take one of his nukes and vaporize Seoul without any warning, regardless of the consequences. And something as simple as our prolonged refusal to engage in bi-lateral talks could be the trigger that sets him off."

That sums up my fears about the North Korean nuclear crisis as well. If only we could take out Kim Jong Il himself. Remove him, defuse the crisis...maybe.

Retired Spook-
"My biggest fear with regard to the Norks is that no matter what we do, it's likely to be wrong. You're dealing with a schitzoid lunatic who is just as likely as not to take one of his nukes and vaporize Seoul without any warning, regardless of the consequences. And something as simple as our prolonged refusal to engage in bi-lateral talks could be the trigger that sets him off."

That sums up my fears about the North Korean nuclear crisis as well. If only we could take out Kim Jong Il himself. Remove him, defuse the crisis...maybe.

If only we could take out Kim Jong Il himself. Remove him, defuse the crisis...maybe.

It'd be even better if his own people would take him out, but most of them are too busy trying to decide which dog to kill for their next meal.

Technology transfer is the most immediate and overriding concern with respect to NK. I remember in Dec 2002 reading an article about a Spanish frigate intercepting a NK merchant vessel on its way to Yemen and finding 15 missiles (sans warheads) hidden in its hold among bags of cement. A US vessel soon joined them, and a mini international crisis ensued. Personally, I didn't think it was treated with the import it should have, because it was an indication of the REAL problem, essentially on the eve of the Iraq invasion, which had many more of the earmarks of an immediate threat than Iraq ever did.

So what did we do? We let the NK ship pass after Yemen assured the US that the missiles (which were short range, but modifiable) were intended for their internal use. Yeah, right. Yemen isn't exactly ringed by belligerents within range. Who exactly are they concerned with? Oman? Somalia? Eritrea? I doubt it. They are, however, strategically situated at the mouth of the Red Sea and were then (and are now, although many aren't inclined to accept it because it's... well... uncomfortable) a major center for illegal arms trade. And I suppose the cement was just packing material? Oh please. Also, that was the second time in a month that a shipment of NK missiles to Yemen was intercepted -- and let pass.

Quite frankly, I think this is a conversation we should have had more than three years ago -- that is BEFORE the Iraq invasion. But what do I know?

I agree that China is "the elephant in the room", and has been since Day 1 (however you want to define the chronology since 1949). One wonders about their current motivations. I'm sure it's a very complicated scenario, but I'm also sure that Taiwan is a really big golden ring in the grand carousel of geopolitics for them.

So let's assume China has the ability to "deliver" NK in some sort of meaningful way (which I have a very hard time doubting). How do you guys feel about making concessions in that regard? In addition to the threat of closer relations with India, and the threat of arming SK and Japan with nuclear capabilities, softening up on Taiwan might be the issue that could bring China around in a big way.

Rev Scar,

Nice to see you back!

You do realize that we shot that hack missle out of the air secretly don't you????

NK is a hack and won't last into the next decade... they will go the way of iraq, iran, and the rest of the delusioned zealots.

I just saw an alert on Fox News that North Korea has 3 or 4 more missles ready to test fire. If you are not worried about this development, your head must be in the sand.

"It'd be even better if his own people would take him out, but most of them are too busy trying to decide which dog to kill for their next meal."
by: Retired Spook

Yeah. It's so awful. Kim Jong Il has starved to death 2 million of his own people.
:(

On the lighter side...their short range missle is called the Nodong. Who comes up with this stuff?

phnxbmed said: "their short range missle is called the Nodong. Who comes up with this stuff?"

BWAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!! Too funny!

Clearly we should be more concerned with their ViagraDong missile class.

I'm beginning to think the whole North Korea thing is a distraction. There seem to be only three things North Korea could do to the US. These are listed in the order of likelyhood, as I see it: 1.)They could sell WMD to Iran or some other terrorist supporting state and this state could use it against the US. 2.)They could transfer WMD directly to terrorist groups who could use it against the US. 3.)They could launch a nuclear missle at an American city. Either of these three scenarios are not a pleasent prospect. Any of these scenarios would liely mean the destruction of an American city. The American response to any of these actions would likely be the complete annihilation of the of the North Korean regime. While it would be tragic for the US it would not mean the end of the country whereas North Korea and its regime would be finished. Obviously no one with any political power in the US wnats this to happen. The only country in the world who seems to pose a survival threat to the US is Russia. Russia is a major supplier and supporter of North Korea. Russia was also the major supporter of the former Iraqi government. It seems to me that Russia's strategy may be to get the USA responding to smaller threats all over the world and to exhaust itself, while Russia grows stronger and stronger. This is just a thought. Admitedly I amy be paranoid.

Aarontime

While I'm less than enthusiastic about what the Republicans have to offer, with all due respect your post summed up why I don't trust liberals with the defense of America. It seems to me there are to many people within the Democratic party who think like what you posted, when the Democrats distance themselves from such thinking they may have some credibility when it comes to national defense.

I've heard interesting things about firing tungsten rods from satellites at targets on earth. If we could do it accurately... send it on Kimmy's head... they'll probably think it was a comet.. :-p

Georgia-cool! Death from above.
:)

Nodong. Taepodong. Viagradong.

I'm not gonna touch that! lol!

Georgia-cool! Death from above.
:)

Nodong. Taepodong. Viagradong.

I'm not gonna touch that! lol!

:-D I can't help it!! HILARIOUS!!

maybe add kong in there too!!

:-D I can't help it!! HILARIOUS!!

maybe add kong in there too!!

You know, aside from a couple of typical raker crap-bombs, this is one of the most interesting and productive threads I have seen in a long time. I see people from both sides of the aisle dropping, for the most part, partisan concerns and actually addressing the issue in thoughtful and educational posts.

This is exactly what we have to do---really think and talk about the issues that might determine the survival of our country, or at least of a large part of it. And you all seem to know a lot more about this than I do.

But one small observation:

I heard an interview with a Pentagon guy who said that one possible scenario they were looking at---and he stressed the word "possible", pointing out that they routinely do workups on all sorts of possible threats, just to keep active and flexible and on their toes---was that NK might not take the time to put together a tested and fuctional nuclear bomb and a delivery system to get it to the United States.

He said they were looking at the possibility that they would set off a nuke above the country, at an altitude where the EMP (electro magnetic pulse) would do the most damage over the largest area. According to him, if this EMP was strong enough, it could wipe out any and all unshielded electronics and electrical equipment in its range---which could be huge.

He said they were concerned about the effect of large portions of the country losing all power, cars with computers, everything connected with electricity and/or electronics, for what could be a long period of time. This could affect heating, cooling, water supplies, transportation, medical care, food supplies---all sorts of things, including, of course, basic communications.

If NK wants to use old-fashioned tactics of attack and destruction that is one thing, and would indicate certain types of potential attacks. But if they want to participate in the new warfare of preturbation, what could be more preturbing to a country like ours than the economic damage done by days or weeks without any form of power to large areas? In assymetrical warfare, chaos is its own reward.

Just in case we didn't have enough to worry about. However, on the good side, it is possible to shield electronics, and it might be worth looking into. I know when I build my new place I am going solar as much as possible, really wanting the independence of being off the grid. Now I am going to find out how much trouble and expense it would be to have some shielding as well, so I don't get fried in case of something like this.

I wonder if the tinfoil hats will help......