North Korea Mega Thread

[Beet]

Supposedly North Korea is thinking about striking Guam, can't imagine they're really that stupid.

I believe that it would just be the waters around Guam

That would be a go ahead, make my day moment. If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, it would be considered an attack on the US and force a retaliatory strike. Don't forget, the EEZ is 200 miles out so that would limit Kim's targeting to a precise window outside of that to incur less of a chance of a US response. At this point, Kim is punching the hornet's nest.

You're a madman. Kim has hit within Japan's EEZ many times. Should Japan have launched retaliatory strikes?

I'm not mad, just used to working with the military and can understand the response. What do you think the US response to a launch on Guam would be? Oh let's just issue a demarche, sanction more? Japan didn't hit them because it is following the US's lead and has less military capability to do so. They are increasingly worried about this and have sought to even change their constitution to boost their military. Abe called an emergency action meeting after the latest one landed in their EEZ so I am sure the option or discussion of it came up.

Sure you are mad. What you are advocating is mad. If a splashdown within the EEZ is considered an attack, then Japan has been attacked, and the US Japan mutual defense treaty would then be activated. Japan obviously didn't do anything because it would be mad to start a war that could get Tokyo nuked over a missile landing in the EEZ. Further, Kim has no reason to think such a launch would result in retaliation due to the Japan precedent.

It's not that I'm advocating it, per se, it's what I think may happen with all of the hawks surrounding Trump. I am still IRR until 2020 so if war does happen, believe me, I could very well be recalled to AD, and have family and friends still in. Understand that I am not saying bomb them all at all opportunities like the chickenhawks do, but I really do think that a missile landing anywhere near Guam, even in the EEZ, would provide Trump an opening for war. If it actually hit the base(s), it's a done deal for war. Kim is a factor that is completely unpredictable. He may ignore this latest review for the Guam plan or actually order it and go short, who knows?

If what you're saying is true, then Trump is Dr. Strangelove levels of hawkishness. There has been no nuclear war in 72 years, and he gets in and in this case, starts one in less than a year. Of course jfern and half the people who were hysterical about bombing Syria have nothing to say. They were worried about Hillary Clinton starting wars.

It wouldn't be nuclear unless Kim orders a nuclear strike. We would bomb them conventionally but hold the nuclear option in reserve in case Kim follows on our bombing with CBRN strikes, which he probably would, hence the circular problem of hitting NK. Any scenario incurs a ton of casualties, esp on Seoul and potentially on Japan. The pro is THAAD and Aegis BMD ships to shoot down NK missiles but even then many NK missiles and arty would get through, as they would fire them in a hailstorm of launches.

Right, a regime change war against a state with 30-60 nuclear weapons makes a nuclear strike fait accompli.

[Beet]

Supposedly North Korea is thinking about striking Guam, can't imagine they're really that stupid.

I believe that it would just be the waters around Guam

That would be a go ahead, make my day moment. If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, it would be considered an attack on the US and force a retaliatory strike. Don't forget, the EEZ is 200 miles out so that would limit Kim's targeting to a precise window outside of that to incur less of a chance of a US response. At this point, Kim is punching the hornet's nest.

You're a madman. Kim has hit within Japan's EEZ many times. Should Japan have launched retaliatory strikes?

I'm not mad, just used to working with the military and can understand the response. What do you think the US response to a launch on Guam would be? Oh let's just issue a demarche, sanction more? Japan didn't hit them because it is following the US's lead and has less military capability to do so. They are increasingly worried about this and have sought to even change their constitution to boost their military. Abe called an emergency action meeting after the latest one landed in their EEZ so I am sure the option or discussion of it came up.

Sure you are mad. What you are advocating is mad. If a splashdown within the EEZ is considered an attack, then Japan has been attacked, and the US Japan mutual defense treaty would then be activated. Japan obviously didn't do anything because it would be mad to start a war that could get Tokyo nuked over a missile landing in the EEZ. Further, Kim has no reason to think such a launch would result in retaliation due to the Japan precedent.

It's not that I'm advocating it, per se, it's what I think may happen with all of the hawks surrounding Trump. I am still IRR until 2020 so if war does happen, believe me, I could very well be recalled to AD, and have family and friends still in. Understand that I am not saying bomb them all at all opportunities like the chickenhawks do, but I really do think that a missile landing anywhere near Guam, even in the EEZ, would provide Trump an opening for war. If it actually hit the base(s), it's a done deal for war. Kim is a factor that is completely unpredictable. He may ignore this latest review for the Guam plan or actually order it and go short, who knows?

If what you're saying is true, then Trump is Dr. Strangelove levels of hawkishness. There has been no nuclear war in 72 years, and he gets in and in this case, starts one in less than a year. Of course jfern and half the people who were hysterical about bombing Syria have nothing to say. They were worried about Hillary Clinton starting wars.

It wouldn't be nuclear unless Kim orders a nuclear strike. We would bomb them conventionally but hold the nuclear option in reserve in case Kim follows on our bombing with CBRN strikes, which he probably would, hence the circular problem of hitting NK. Any scenario incurs a ton of casualties, esp on Seoul and potentially on Japan. The pro is THAAD and Aegis BMD ships to shoot down NK missiles but even then many NK missiles and arty would get through, as they would fire them in a hailstorm of launches.

Right, a regime change war against a state with 30-60 nuclear weapons makes a nuclear strike fait accompli.

Not necessarily, we could hit his sites conventionally before they launch. The major concern is the timing of NK's launches, and the locations, hence the B-1B and B-2 drills.

That assumes they don't have launchers we don't know about. They also can see the B-1B and B-2's coming, the statement they released suggests as much.

[Beet]

The media is really ing this one up. They are reporting it all over the place as an attack on Guam with wording that makes people think the threat is at Guam itself, rather than the waters around it. The average person will see that headline and think 'Oh, it's just a bluff.' Then when they wake up in a week or two and hear that North Korea actually fired a missile towards Guam their confidence will be shaken, when in reality it's what they said they were planning. Given the specificity of this threat, I would say it's a credible one, and they may well go through with firing a missile at the waters around Guam. The irony is that if we shoot it down with missile defense, the government will have to tell us what the trajectory was. That would really unsettle people.

[Beet]

Here is another media mistake:
http://www.38north.org/2017/08/editor080917/

[Beet]

North Korea once again threatened to fire missiles at Guam, this time they threatened to fire 4 near Guam.

Are they suicidal?

Yes and they literally do not give a f about international law or threats by the US to retaliate. NK is the Leeroy Jenkins of nation states.

If they were suicidal, they'd just fire at Guam with no warning. The repeated warnings and specific details given about the plans suggest they want us to know what it is if/when it happens. As for why Guam... they seem very threatened by the live-fire exercises of the two B1-B bombers, which were deployed in July. Typically our position is that military exercises are defensive, but these have been simulating the destruction of enemy missile launchers and underground facilities, which could equally be defensive or offensive.

[Beet]

North Korea once again threatened to fire missiles at Guam, this time they threatened to fire 4 near Guam.

Are they suicidal?

Yes and they literally do not give a f about international law or threats by the US to retaliate. NK is the Leeroy Jenkins of nation states.

If they were suicidal, they'd just fire at Guam with no warning. The repeated warnings and specific details given about the plans suggest they want us to know what it is if/when it happens. As for why Guam... they seem very threatened by the live-fire exercises of the two B1-B bombers, which were deployed in July. Typically our position is that military exercises are defensive, but these have been simulating the destruction of enemy missile launchers and underground facilities, which could equally be defensive or offensive.

We literally do those drills every year with air and naval forces. This is the first time NK has put out a statement with exact targeting.

Not these B1's.

"In August 2016, B-1B bombers, B-2s, and B-52s deployed to the same base together for the first time in history, at Andersen AFB. It was also the first deployment of the B-1B bomber to Guam in over a decade. "

The planes are key to one of the military options people have been talking about-

"The Pentagon has prepared a specific plan for a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile sites should President Trump order such an attack.

Two senior military officials — and two senior retired officers — told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Pairs of B-1s have conducted 11 practice runs of a similar mission since the end of May, the last taking place on Monday. The training has accelerated since May, according to officials."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/b-1-bombers-key-u-s-plan-strike-north-korean-n791221

Yeah, so no wonder why they feel threatened by them.

[Beet]

I came across an interesting claim from a defector Jang Jin-sung from a few years ago which claims that Kim Jong-un is not an absolute ruler but is a figurehead hemmed in by a shadowy organization called the Organization and Guidance Department (OGD) consisting of an "old boys club network" of Kim Jong Il's former friends, and allied with the military. Under his telling the real leader of North Korea is Hwang Pyong-so. Kim's uncle Jang song-Thaek was protected by his relation to Kim Jong-Il but after Kim Jong-Il's death he was no longer protected so the OGD got rid of him. Also Kim Jong-Il supported moderates in the North Korean Foreign Ministry but after his August 2008 stroke the military gained more influence over foreign affairs, which is why North Korea did not return to Six-Party talks after early 2009. Hence the legacy of the past nine years is a loss of power of the Kim family, and isolation of Kim Jong-un to his much older Generals and the OGD. Interesting theory, in any case.

[Beet]

Guam's congressional representative earlier called on Trump not to escalate the situation. I guess he doesn't care what they think.

[Beet]

Incidentally, a Canadian pastor sentenced to a life term in 2015, has been released by the North Korean government after a high-level visit to North Korea by a Canadian official:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lim-released-japan-1.4242094

Justin Trudeau has now achieved more success in dealing with North Korea than Donald Trump.

[Beet]

Trump will start a nuclear war with both North Korea and China, and I'll go to the gas chamber.

If North Korea "provokes", China won't get involved immediately but it will eventually.

[Beet]

Once communists always communists.

I can't believe China would defend such an idiotic leader like Kim.

Part of me wants to economically punish China for this, but that would just make things worse.

We're going to be nuking China soon, around the time they nuke us. Would that count as economic punishment, or just making things worse?

[Beet]

Oh lord...

While an escalation, don't read too much into this. This is an opinion piece in The Global Times. It's much closer to being China's version of Fox News than an official government source.  

It is, however, their real position. The piece has one message for the US and one for NK. Interesting, the message to NK is reported as the headline in the US press, and that is what most people are reacting to, but not the message to the US.

[Beet]

This is utter insanity, however per the Guardian "There was no change in US deployments in the region or a change in the alert status of US forces" after Trump's statement. At this point American foreign/military policy and Trump's ramblings are two separate things

If there was change in troop deployments, Japan and SK would be alerted and say no. However, Trump doesn't need them to start a war, just his B1-B's. He may think to force their hand by shooting first then they have no choice but be dragged in. Or think if no troop deployments NK won't retaliate, even though they'd still be forced to.

[Beet]

This is utter insanity, however per the Guardian "There was no change in US deployments in the region or a change in the alert status of US forces" after Trump's statement. At this point American foreign/military policy and Trump's ramblings are two separate things

If there was change in troop deployments, Japan and SK would be alerted and say no. However, Trump doesn't need them to start a war, just his B1-B's. He may think to force their hand by shooting first then they have no choice but be dragged in. Or think if no troop deployments NK won't retaliate, even though they'd still be forced to.

Beet you are correct in that it would be air only at first. The USA would open up as well but USAF/USN assets would strike NK with a metric-f ton of Tomahawks, maybe SLBMs, and B-1B/B-2 strikes. If we did boots-on (which we won't) it would open the door to China stepping in, which we don't want.

We already have boots on the ground, VirginiaModerate.

[Beet]

This is utter insanity, however per the Guardian "There was no change in US deployments in the region or a change in the alert status of US forces" after Trump's statement. At this point American foreign/military policy and Trump's ramblings are two separate things

If there was change in troop deployments, Japan and SK would be alerted and say no. However, Trump doesn't need them to start a war, just his B1-B's. He may think to force their hand by shooting first then they have no choice but be dragged in. Or think if no troop deployments NK won't retaliate, even though they'd still be forced to.

Beet you are correct in that it would be air only at first. The USA would open up as well but USAF/USN assets would strike NK with a metric-f ton of Tomahawks, maybe SLBMs, and B-1B/B-2 strikes. If we did boots-on (which we won't) it would open the door to China stepping in, which we don't want.

We already have boots on the ground, VirginiaModerate.

Yes in Japan and SK but no boots on ground troops inside NK. What I was getting at is we wouldn't invade NK with troops like Iraq/Afghan. Maybe a few SOF to direct fire missions and take out certain hardpoints/personnel but the air assets can do that as well.

If our guys are getting shot at from the other side of the border, as they would in a war, at some point (very soon) the best military option will be to move the border, and at that point we'd go over it.

[Beet]

Everyone in this board should read this, it gives precisely what I was saying before but expands on the OOB, next steps, etc. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-preemptive-strike-north-korea-2017-3/#the-first-targets--3

Scenarios like this are highly speculative. The whole article assumes that they won't engage in large scale retaliation, but once a strike occurs, events could easily spiral out of control. Neither side can endure a large hit without equally large retaliation or completely lose face. Especially not Kim and his regime.

[Beet]

Point Of Order: Does anybody seriously think that China will throw away everything they've built over the past decades to defend North Korea? I mean really?

I know they have to suggest as much but if it came down to it I highly doubt they would actually go to war with the USA (thus triggering the instant collapse of their economy) over this issue. I mean c'mon, they aren't anywhere near stupid enough to do that.

It isn't 1950 anymore. If anything they would back-stab the DPRK and invade themselves to secure a buffer zone for refugees and humanitarian concerns after the fall.

North Korea only exists because of China. I wish China were more anti-North Korea, but if they were, they would have enforced sanctions against North Korea more harshly a long time ago. Fact is, the Chinese believe if they didn't protect North Korea in event of an attack, they'd be throwing away the hard-won sacrifices they made during the Korean War (1950-53), and the PLA wouldn't find that tolerable.

[Beet]

On the nuclear front, North Korea has always taken calculated risks; they want to use these things for leverage--if the regime's goal is survival, actual use of the weapons is out of the question.  I am more worried about North Korea launching conventional assaults on South Korea. 

Yeah, I agree with this. South Korea is the country really threatened by North Korea. Everything that they do, including all their interactions with the U.S., revolve around trying to improve their position vis-a-vis South Korea. The fundamental issue is North Korea vs. South Korea.

When Truman sent U.S. troops to Korea in 1950, it was based on the now-discredited domino theory. There was the idea that if Korea fell to communism, next would be Japan, and so on. Today it's just two states jostling for position on the Korean peninsula. North Korea's weapons programs at the end of the day won't let them dominate South Korea, since the latter's conventional weapons are far greater, can call up greater manpower, and could nuclearize at any time.

[Beet]

At this point the US-South Korea alliance is not helping anyone. From the South Korean perspective, the US presence is an excuse for North Korea to keep building more weapons, and prevents them from having any talks with North Korea. Further, they fear bearing the brunt of any war started by the US. From the US perspective, we have to take into account casualties in South Korea as well as agree with the South Koreans on military action, or be seen as betraying the alliance. It would be optimal for both parties to split up at this point, and for South Korea to develop its own nukes. The advantage for South Korea is, it leaves them in control of their own destiny, the advantage for the US would be that we get out of the peninsula altogether, the North Korean threat is gone as far as we are concerned, and we no longer have a dog in the fight. The whole reason for the alliance to begin with, was domino theory where Truman thought South Korea falling to communism would mean next Japan, and so on. That concern is ancient history.

[Beet]

Anyone else think Nikki Haley should be Secretary of State instead of Tillerson?

I think she'd be a much better fit for the job.

Why? She's more neoconish. What would she do differently than Tillerson?

[Beet]

Notice that Kim didn't threaten to turn the U.S. into a "sea of fire" or a "pre-emptive strike" or use any of the standard propaganda lines put out by state-run news agencies. There seems to be a difference between those lower-level threats and direct statements from leaders. If you compare the news agency language versus Trump's, the news agency language is more aggressive; but if you compare the language of the two leaders Trump and Kim, Trump's language is more aggressive.

[Beet]

Full speech (and video) of North Korean FM Ri Yong Ho's speech before the UNGA:

https://defpost.com/north-korean-fm-ri-jong-hos-speech-un-general-assembly/

Three times, he refers to North Korea's nuclear capability as a "deterrent", and says the North Koreans do not "have any intention at all to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the countries that do not join in the U.S. military actions against the DPRK." Again, very different tone than NK's propaganda statements.

Reading this speech you can definitely see how DPRK is a far left state, especially, but even before, he calls out support for the governments of Cuba and Venezeula.

[Beet]

This is becoming very concerning. The Trump administration has to sh**t or get off the pot. Every day they don't attack, North Korea gets more powerful. On the other hand, if they're not going to attack, they should just admit it. All their posturing and threats haven't deterred Kim Jong Un. Does anyone really think more threats, posturing, and sanctions are going to work? If they are not going to attack, then they should take that option off the table and admit that North Korea is already a nuclear power, which we have no choice but to negotiate with them on that basis. The North Koreans want a peace treaty, which should not really be a problem. After that, they will want to develop their economy, which actually gives the U.S. some leverage, unlike now.

Right now, the Trump administration sounds like it is going to wait until the last possible minute to attack, at which point North Korean forces will be at maximum capability, but will attack nonetheless, which is the course of action guaranteed to maximize a nuclear exchange. In other words, the worst possible option. My view is the same as Steve Bannon's - if we really think about it, there is no military option. If Bannon can say it, mainstream politicians can, too.

[Beet]

The Trump administration has been threatening an attack since April, when it started emphasizing that "all options are on the table, including military options." All military experts agree could result in a nuclear response by North Korea, and Trump has implied that he would "totally destroy" North Korea, which again, can only be done by nuclear canvass. This is not a realistic option and I wish the administration or someone in mainstream US politics would say so, so we could have a debate about it. Even Bernie Sanders is only saying more sanctions and pressure.

The sooner we realize we have no leverage over North Korea on this issue, the sooner we can start to think realistically about our options, rather than hoping for some extremely unlikely sudden North Korean change of mind. It's amazing that after 14 years of castigating Hillary Clinton over her vote for AUMF and regretting the Iraq war, now that we are faced with regional nuclear armageddon, actual nuclear war, not a single mainstream member of Congress has stood up and been vocal to say that war is not an option.

[Beet]

Trump has never said that he would only attack them if they attacked us first. There's no American in the world who would disagree with that statement. Specifically, he's been threatening a pre-emptive attack that risks nuclear war. He needs to decide whether this is the path he wants to pursue or not, and say so openly. He thinks keeping his decision making process opaque will 'scare' Kim, but it's not working. Furthermore, it's cutting off public debate in the U.S.