Again, what right does America have to unilaterally remove the head of state of another county - no matter how despotic?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
North Korea
- Thread starter Masbroughlad
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sounds like a great idea, creating a power vacuum in a militarised, authoritarian hermit state. Not.
southern442
Established Member
Exactly. Remember Vietnam? Iraq? Bay of Pigs? It's not an option.
Butts
Veteran Member
If it considers said leader is a threat to it's national security a pre-emptive strike is on the cards whether people like it or not.
I agree past interventions have not always been successful and some thought needs to given of the aftermath and how to deal with the power vacum.
North Korea isn't really a direct threat to the USA. I find it improbable that NK would attack the USA. Kim is not irrational, though he is unusual and very paranoid.
It is much better to work with China to apply pressure on NK.
Steveman
Member
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 404
Yes he's seen by the rest of the world as being perfectly rational. :roll:
I think this is a very strange view, although you are far from alone in holding it. There is a perception that Kim Jong-Un is the sole tyrant here, which is the result of the NK propaganda machine. I highly doubt, however, that he has as much power as they make out. Whilst I'm sure he's not entirely impotent, I suspect that a lot of the regime comes from senior members of the party rather than Kim Jong-Un himself. It is not just the Kim dynasty who benefit from the system in North Korea, it's also those high-ranking members.
Once we see that this is more than one crazy man we're dealing with, the "single bullet" approach becomes illogical. There's enough senior members of the party that someone will just come in and take his place. And I highly doubt that the regime will change significantly; certainly not for the better. I think we need a more comprehensive and nuanced approach than simply targeting one man.
Military attacks (as opposed to political ones) can be justified to some degree, but it is very hard to make the case that North Korea poses an immediate existential threat to the USA. It does pose a threat to South Korea, but again no more today than it has in the last few years.
Butts
Veteran Member
Indeed and there are thousands of US Service Personnel in South Korea. Perhaps they should carpet bomb North Korea with a device that enables it's population access to outside media and Kim will be deposed by his own people.
Kim is rational. Everything he does is for a rational reason. That doesn't mean he's not a horrendous dictator with the worst human rights record in recent history.
Feeling threatened by SK and US exercises? Have a massive military parade and up the rhetoric. Worried about China moulding opposition in the form of his brother? Kill your brother. Observing other states without nuclear weapons being subject to USA regime change? Develop nukes.
And so on. He is rational. The rest of the world's leaders would perceive him as rational, hence their efforts to apply pressure in an effort to mould his behaviour.
Last edited:
SS4
Established Member
Indeed and there are thousands of US Service Personnel in South Korea. Perhaps they should carpet bomb North Korea with a device that enables it's population access to outside media and Kim will be deposed by his own people.
Very slim, those who are permitted to live in Pyongyang are the nation's most loyal citizens and are likely to dismiss even the most truthful broadcast as propaganda. The fortunes of the army leaders are largely entwined with that of Kim so it's hard to see a military takeover. Revolutionaries outside the capital, assuming they can even reach critical mass, would have to gain access to Kim to depose him. Alternatively they can raise an army to storm it but who would assassinate the Great Leader (recall the huge effect of propaganda on the people)
Could the bombing, even non-lethal, be construed as an act of war even by a reasonable person? There's a reason SK only broadcasts from her own territory
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,307
Could strike the border area with a few dozen B61s to destroy the North Korean artillery force in place. If you could deploy the entire B-2 force its likely they would never even get to open fire.
At that point you can systematically start taking North Korean Air Defence to pieces and then start down the military-industrial targets until Kim surrenders in return for being able to go and live out his life on a beach in the BAhamas
At that point you can systematically start taking North Korean Air Defence to pieces and then start down the military-industrial targets until Kim surrenders in return for being able to go and live out his life on a beach in the BAhamas
Well, that would certainly get the job done! However I feel that the collateral damage of using 'a few dozen' nuclear weapons might be unacceptably high.
An unprovoked attack with nuclear weapons to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons. Not sure how you'd spin that one.
Railops
Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 352
Like it's that simple and straightforward.
South Korea has massive air and land force capability, not to mention nuclear capability. North Korea has mig 15`s and a large antiquated army. They may very well have nuclear capability but they won`t stand a chance against the south. This is all media male bovine excrement. It isn`t going to happen. More than likely the south will attack the north under US instruction.
The ROK doesn't have nuclear weapons. At least, not yet - Mr Trump has mooted the idea of providing them with some.
Well, rather like Japan, I believe they're considered to be one of those states that has a latent nuclear capability. I.e. if ROK decided they wanted nuclear weapons they possess the technological capability and resources/skills to gain them very very quickly (matter of maybe a year or two). But certainly as of right now they don't have weapons of their own.
In terms of Trump I'm not sure he would give them outright any nuclear weapons but I could absolutely see Trump offering some under a 'dual-key' arrangement similar to NATO's nuclear sharing agreements.
I think it would take more than a year or two unless they were given technical assistance by a current nuclear weapons state.
It's not particularly hard to make a nuclear explosion, but it is quite tricky to make a nuclear weapon.
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,307
The study they did a few deades ago called the 'Nth country problem' is somewhat illuminating here.
Remember that they do not need a weapon light enough to fit on a missile, the ROKAF and JASDF could easily get a combat aircraft far enough into North Korean airspace to deploy an iron bomb if they had to. It might cost them but they could do it.
I'm guessing people mooting Japan/JASDF dropping nukes on people are obviously slightly blind to two small historical events which means in Japan its practically enshrined in law to never develop, have or use nuclear weapons.
Yes exactly! When you're trying to deter your next door neighbour then all you really need is a weapon which can be delivered by aircraft and such a weapon can be incredibly crude. Think Fat Man/Little Boy 2.0. And such a device is remarkably simple to create.
Of course in the long run you want a miniaturised warhead probably with variable yield suitable for mounting on top of a missile (and to shrink down the weapons for dropping from aircraft as well). Such devices, without outside help from someone who has done it before, take considerably longer.
But a simple device with no frills? Child's play at the end of the day. The only hard part is getting the plutonium or enriched uranium and I believe ROK has those resources within its existing nuclear industry.
I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that Japan is anywhere near creating, let alone using, a nuclear weapon but that certainly doesn't change the fact that if Japan wanted such a weapon it would be easy for them to create it.
Do I foresee it happening at any point near or even not so near future? No, not at all. The only way I could see such a thing happening is if there is a massive geopolitical change in the region. Something along the lines of the US going fully isolationist leaving Japan to face China (and Russia) alone might be sufficient however for them to seriously consider it (and the changes required in law/constitution).
I don't think even then would you see Japan either attempting to develop nuclear weapons or even considering an offensive army. Remember Japan doesn't technically have an army, air force or navy. They are all self defense forces, there is no intention (and I'd imagine doctrine/equipment) to wage an offensive war.
I doubt any geopolitical changes in our lifetime at least would see Japan changing that stance. Ignoring Hiroshima and Nagasaki huge swathes of Japan were leveled in conventional and firebombing raids. I can see no way with the collective national memory of Japan of there being any movement towards becoming a offensive regional military power.
On the other hand if that situation arose I'd expect the ROK to fill that void very quickly.
That has been changing of late - there has been a lot of support for allowing the JSDF to go on overseas deployments and for them to acquire weapons with overt first-use capabilities.
My understanding is that is more because of Shinzo Abe and his politics rather than a general change of national opinion.
My impression is that it is very much being lead from the top rather than from the people as you say. Though I guess the fact that he even feels able to push such things suggests that there has been a softening in the stance that has previously been held by the majority of the population!
No doubt because younger Japanese people have been taught a history that is significantly different to the memories of the generation that went through WW2. As that older generation dies out, public attitudes have shifted considerably.
Indeed.
However, it should be pointed out that to a greater or lesser extent, most developed countries have the same issue with the teaching of history.
I can't honestly say the history I was taught at school was especially balanced.
- Status