Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

There's also the issue of the kind of power vacuum removing the current leadership would cause. You can't just bomb and run, but when your best-case scenario still involves "millions dead" and "millions more refugees", coupled with the remaining leadership scrapping for what power they can and the USA and SK 'peacekeepers getting bogged down in Guerrilla warfare...

I can't help but think we've seen how this one plays out. "North Korean ISIS" is not a thing anybody wants to see happen and that's opens up a pretty big risk of you getting "North Korean ISIS". It's the fear of being the next Saddam that pushes North Korea to keep up the rhetoric, but with that comes the fear of what happens after.

[Dunamisdeos]

I want to say that we would not (should not) fire nuclear weapons even in retaliation to theirs. I think that we have enough other options already in place to flatten their war machine in hours without vaporizing millions upon millions of civilians. The stigma of having fired nuclear weapons a second time in our history would be significant.

That can be overcome with proper diplomacy with china right now, stating that should Un decide his nuclear dildo needs to fly, the US will flatten him with conventional only means, but should china launch nuclear devices, they will not get the same quarter.

If anything, a conventional-only retaliation (that is successful) would put a big sock in the mouth of small rogue states that feel that having a few (as in, just a handful) of nuclear devices makes them big boys. It reminds the world that the REAL big boys can flatten you WITHOUT nukes.

Ninja'd but essentially this.

[Madman198237]

(Got ninja'd, speaking about the possibility of an NK ISIS)
No, actually.

You're missing a set of charismatic leaders preaching a religious philosophy hundreds of years old with millions of adherents who are obligated to flock to its banners as fast as they can.


In NK, all you'll have is the remnants of a shattered nation with no power bases. The military is fanatical (Probably) and small but not trained for guerilla warfare, and when they're dead you're not going to have the sort of personal weapons and intelligent people left to lead something like that.

[Lord Shonus]

I want to say that we would not (should not) fire nuclear weapons even in retaliation to theirs. I think that we have enough other options already in place to flatten their war machine in hours without vaporizing millions upon millions of civilians. The stigma of having fired nuclear weapons a second time in our history would be significant.

That can be overcome with proper diplomacy with china right now, stating that should Un decide his nuclear dildo needs to fly, the US will flatten him with conventional only means, but should china launch nuclear devices, they will not get the same quarter.

If anything, a conventional-only retaliation (that is successful) would put a big sock in the mouth of small rogue states that feel that having a few (as in, just a handful) of nuclear devices makes them big boys. It reminds the world that the REAL big boys can flatten you WITHOUT nukes.

Ninja'd but essentially this.

The trouble with this is that a cornerstone of the US's nonproliferation strategy is "You don't need nukes. You don't want them for offensive use, you just feel like you should have them for defensive purposes, to ensure that nobody nukes you. How about we agree that if anybody does nuke you, we will nuke them on your behalf. In exchange, you agree not to build any of your own."

Failing to live up to a retaliation treaty runs the risk of sending precisely the wrong message, especially to states that are worried about enemies where conventional-only retaliation wouldn't be sufficient. That's a matter for the diplomats and professionals to work out, but it is not clear-cut.

[wierd]

Shonus:

The threat of having your neighbor eliminated by nuclear fire should not be a comforting idea.  The agreement to destroy the source of nuclear hostility, with the lowest possible collateral harm to you, is the better agreement and is something that some comfort can be taken in.

Nukes dont just blow things up. That's kinda why they are in a different category. You REALLY REALLY do not want one detonated anywhere near you.

[Dunamisdeos]

I think it would run that risk if we were talking about a real first-world nation, like Russia or China. In the case of NK, I think that there would be no practical benefit to nuking them back. MAD is intended to stop the actual destruction of life on earth as we know it between powers that already have large stockpiles of nukes, not one crazy guy with a bomb.

It's not even a question of efficiency, we can destroy their ability to make war in a matter of hours.

[EnigmaticHat]

While I don't deny long range missile strikes would likely be part of our strategy, they would be unable to achieve our objectives.  The NK military more strongly resembles a WW2 military than a modern one, its not concentrated in a few high-tech assets that can be destroyed, the soldiers are fanatical and fully willing to live off their own land if it comes to that.  Nuclear missile strikes could be preemptively stopped for sure.  But the artillery aimed at Seoul is numerous, spread out, and already zeroed in on the target.  Destroying fire control facilities does nothing about that, wiping out individual artillery pieces and ammo storage helps but there's a lot and they don't need to fire that many times to be effective.  Nor do I think the NK infantry be easily crippled or frightened off.  Although I do think that we could sweep them aside in land warfare, with merely heavy losses (probably mostly from artillery), that's never been the question.  Nor has NK's ability to hit us with a nuke historically been the problem.  Our objectives would be to achieve a rapid and bloodless (or rather, not "historical humanitarian crisis spanning the whole region") victory, and missile/precision strikes change about nothing about that.

I don't think the North Koreans could Vietnam/Iraq us and force us to leave.  But, well, they don't need to to make the situation horrifying.  Simple infighting, or WW2 Japan style "you're fighting to the last man, woman and child and you're going to enjoy it!" tactics, or resistance propaganda/reprisals interfering with us re-educating the population.  It all could make the whole mess a nightmare without killing a single American.  On top of that, NK is very "top heavy".  The military and political segments are bloated, consuming a disrpoportionate amount of education, employees, and supplies relative to the civilian population.  So the issue becomes, obviously ruling party members and soldiers/officers are an obstacle to victory.  But if you kill or imprison all those people, there's nothing left.  There's no education, little to no physical property, little leadership and few healthy people among the remaining population.  And that's a problem we had in Iraq; by our harsh suppression of the ruling party we alienated the only people left with any real control of the population.  How do you NOT do that in NK?

As for China intervening in a conventional fashion... Like I said, land war between nuclear powers gets weird.  Like what's kosher?  Uranium rounds, tactical nukes, conventional weapons with yields similar to tactical nukes?  Are ships and planes on the table?  Can we use vehicles with nuclear reactors?  And what does victory even mean when both sides have an answer to the other side "winning too hard?"  It just requires a lot of... cooperation, to have a largescale land war between nuclear powers.  You have to work out a lot of very specific ground rules and a shitton of trust since you're going to be at maximum nuclear alert the whole time, and firing long range missiles that sure as hell could LOOK like nukes to some overworked radar crew.  And it would have to be a land war, because China has nothing on us when it comes to the "fling missiles over the horizon" game and they know it.  This shit is why we have proxy wars, its a lot easier to just both hum a nice tune and pretend you aren't fighting each other at all.

[wierd]

EH:

Land war is VERY VERY BAD IDEA in NK territory.  The boarder is protected by MILES of minefield.

Instead, I remind you about the size of NK, and the absurd reach and firepower of US conventional artillery guns on warships. It is quite likely that a nuclear standoff with NK will involve such political posturing as deployment and arming of such convoys.

This forces NK to make a choice-- keep civilian centers in SK their targets, or target the US naval presence.  Should NK target the naval ships, civilian casualties will be greatly mitigated in the initial barrage, as the guns can only fire so fast, and it takes time to aim them. (this means a tactical missile barrage can remove the batteries before they can completely destroy SK assets)  If NK keeps on civilian targets, the US naval artillery can flatten their installations in a matter of minutes.

[RedKing]

Personally, I don't know if Trump could resist the allure of being the first President in 70+ years to use nuclear weapons, and certainly the President with the biggest nuclear weapons. He probably gets a chubby just contemplating that. Look how much adulation his base gave him when a field Commander used a MOAB in Afghanistan to kill a few dozen Taliban.

Trump's ego is just as much a critical variable in all of this as KJU's.

[wierd]

Sadly, all too true-- which I alluded to previously ("No matter how much trump might like the idea", etc.)

[EnigmaticHat]

EH:

Land war is VERY VERY BAD IDEA in NK territory.  The boarder is protected by MILES of minefield.

Instead, I remind you about the size of NK, and the absurd reach and firepower of US conventional artillery guns on warships. It is quite likely that a nuclear standoff with NK will involve such political posturing as deployment and arming of such convoys.

This forces NK to make a choice-- keep civilian centers in SK their targets, or target the US naval presence.  Should NK target the naval ships, civilian casualties will be greatly mitigated in the initial barrage, as the guns can only fire so fast, and it takes time to aim them. (this means a tactical missile barrage can remove the batteries before they can completely destroy SK assets)  If NK keeps on civilian targets, the US naval artillery can flatten their installations in a matter of minutes.

Dude, we have almost no artillery or cannons on our ships.  Our destroyers and cruisers have tiny rapid fire cannons on the front, but that's almost a formality.  Or a way to prevent some kind of embarrassing once in a lifetime incident I guess.

Edit: Never mind, read your post more carefully.  I still don't think it changes anything.  The artillery are already aimed, and they only need to fire once to create an instant disaster.  The effectiveness of all forms of bombardment absent a land force has never been conclusively proven anywhere, and its been given a bad showing a few times.  Most modern example: how many missiles we launched into Syria to relatively little effect.  Cruise missiles ain't cheap and NK military isn't concentrated around advanced wonders of technology like "airports".

[wierd]

Really now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy


Note how many are "dreadnaught class".  It's not a small number.


As for "no concentrated"-- That is a given.  That is what drone strikes are for. Drones have limited flight range, but once you have removed the stationary artillery, you are free to deploy them from SK land bases.  Compared to a cruise missile, a predator drone is cheap.  We could blanket them in the damn things.

[RedKing]

Really now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy


Note how many are "dreadnaught class".  It's not a small number.

Zero isn't a small number? 

The "dreadnaught class" hasn't been in usage since WWI.


EDIT: We have zero active battleships, and our 22 cruisers are all Ticonderoga-class missile boats. Vessels with a substantial direct-fire capability are virtually extinct in the US Navy, with the (experimental) Zumwalt being the only real "gun ship" in the fleet. And even that uses mostly VLS missile tubes, with two 155mm guns in addition.

[wierd]

Meh, I see that. 

Still, there are sufficient numbers of destroyers (even with their much smaller guns), and ballistic missile subs, to take out the NK field assets.  Coupled with air support bombing from aircraft carriers, (and NK's famously terrible air fleet-- their most sophisticated fighter craft is the MIG-29, which is 40 years old.), it would be too high priority a target for NK to ignore. Even partially redirecting their field pieces would greatly reduce civilian casualties.

Likely, in the leadup to the launch of the nuclear dildo, show of force would be on the table-- which would include massing (and possibly arming with better systems) such vehicles within strike distance.

Given the hissy fits NK gives over having naval ships doing routine manouvers off the coasts, I doubt that kimmy kim's cabinet would keep all thier guns aimed at the hostages.

[Frumple]

I'd be surprised if they didn't, myself. Gods know everyone except the top chucklefuck or two in our chain of command realize those guns pointing at hostages are far more effective a deterrence than anything they could do to crap on the water.

Any case, greatly reducing civilian casualties in no way means you're particularly likely to avoid ending up with an untenable amount of civilian casualties. There's a difference between a city leveled and a city with merely tens of thousands to millions of corpses rotting in it (as opposed to millions to tens of millions), but it's something of an academic one at the end of the day.

E: In any case, in actual news it looks like Collins has publicly declared against the latest healthcare dumpster fire. GOP being GOP gods only know if that's going to remain true if it goes to a vote, but at least at the moment it looks like we're notably more likely to pass the 9/30 deadline with the ACA still largely in one piece and no more sabotaged than it was earlier in the year.