North Korea Nuclear missile thoughts?

[Pheonix28]

I also think that if NK dropped a nuke on the USA, the USA and other nations would retaliate in form -- and there would be no NK left to revitalize.

If they attempted to attack us with nukes that doesn't mean we would retaliate with nukes. We've got the technology to use very well placed strikes that do almost no damage to civilians.

North Korea has a peace treaty with China that says if NK is attacked China has to join.

 

[Odale]

North Korea will not attack the U.S., directly anyway, ever. Never ever will they do that. South Korea, likely, but the U.S.? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.

A few things about attacking us. First, if they did attack, they would be blown off the face of the Earth (figuratively - we learned a lot from Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If they did attack us, we would invade and they would be overthrown. I think it would resemble the Iraq war, but with more care, precision, drones, less ground force, and perhaps with a purpose (yeah I said it).

Second, if they attacked, China would be drawn into the fight. China does not want to fight the U.S. for economic reasons - if they attacked us, they would have to ramp up their military spending considerably to play catch up and axe their economic operations. Even if they did actually catch up, we would have won the war long before that.

An attack on the U.S. would not bode well for North Korea's permanence as a state. China knows this, and they've even told North Korea to stop it before they get annihilated.

 

[Elader Arkon]

My sister is currently living in SK, and the only thing she's heard about the whole thing was when she actively went looking for it out on the internet when everyone she knew over here asked her what everyone thought about it over there. Apparently the people in her area either just don't care or simply ignore all the posturing.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

A few things about attacking us. First, if they did attack, they would be blown off the face of the Earth (figuratively - we learned a lot from Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If they did attack us, we would invade and they would be overthrown. I think it would resemble the Iraq war, but with more care, precision, drones, less ground force, and perhaps with a purpose (yeah I said it).

Also, if North Korea attacked with a nuke, the U.S. would have no problems with securing UN support.

 

[Atown]

the military i dont think is taking it too seriously, however I was in hawaii and apparently no one in Hawaii is currently deployed and U.S. has gathered all Hawaii personel back there just so if something does happen we dont look surprised

 

[Kahiel]

North Korea will not attack the U.S., directly anyway, ever. Never ever will they do that. South Korea, likely, but the U.S.? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha no.

A few things about attacking us. First, if they did attack, they would be blown off the face of the Earth (figuratively - we learned a lot from Hiroshima and Nagasaki). If they did attack us, we would invade and they would be overthrown. I think it would resemble the Iraq war, but with more care, precision, drones, less ground force, and perhaps with a purpose (yeah I said it).

Second, if they attacked, China would be drawn into the fight. China does not want to fight the U.S. for economic reasons - if they attacked us, they would have to ramp up their military spending considerably to play catch up and axe their economic operations. Even if they did actually catch up, we would have won the war long before that.

An attack on the U.S. would not bode well for North Korea's permanence as a state. China knows this, and they've even told North Korea to stop it before they get annihilated.

I am going to disagree with you on this a little bit. The U.S. military position is not as strong as you might think. Between Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Somalia and Kosovo and the budget cuts of the Clinton and Obama administrations the U.S. military is stretched thin. Drones can't fight a war, and we are at a big numerical disadvantage with regard to NK and China which may out weigh our technological advantage.

NK can't hit the U.S. with their current missile stockpile. They could however, hit our interests in Japan and Asia which is where our greatest concern would be. If NK launched a nuke I agree the UN would turn on them in a heart beat. There is some debate as to how much weapons grade material they have produced and if they have sufficient amounts to make another bomb yet (they've had several tests which might account for their production capacity so far).

I do agree that China doesn't want to get stuck in between NK and the U.S. but for economic reasons. China currently holds a lot of U.S. debt and their economy is driven by U.S. imports. Getting stuck in a war with the U.S. would hamper their ability to receive payment on those debts and would most likely lead to a ban on Chinese imports (if temporary).

My biggest concern is for the new guy in NK. My observation has been that these tin-pot dictators live in a delusional world where they believe the rhetoric that their military is the best in the world and thus they compare everyone else in relation to their military. Thus they believe that the U.S. military operates in the same way as their own does and that is only as good as, if not a little below their own. We saw this in the Gulf Wars where Sadam Husien deployed his army in a standard linear land battle configuration. He thought his tanks would be able to stand up to our tanks and he would be able to fend off our attacks. I fear Kim Jong-Un believes the same thing.

 

[RyanB]

I think it's important to distinguish between military victory and nation building. The Iraq War was militarily over in less than 3 days. We took out tactical targets, and they no longer had an operating government. That is very different than the decade-long 10 year process that followed.

It's hard to say if NK natives would be as much guerilla opposition as we saw in Iraq, but we also know that SK would be essentially internalizing the problem (with aid, of course). Outside of the initial bloodshed, I would personally see handing NK to the south as a good thing...whereas I was (and am) a very strong opposer of Iraq/Afghan. For a smooth(ish) transition, you'd have to essentially promise NK generals (ie: criminals) amnesty and power after the fact, so that you don't end up with splintered opposition groups like we see in the middle east.

 

[Kahiel]

I think it's important to distinguish between military victory and nation building. The Iraq War was militarily over in less than 3 days. We took out tactical targets, and they no longer had an operating government. That is very different than the decade-long 10 year process that followed.

Good point, but that still required (and still requires) a large military presence and I suspect that prolonged counter-guerrilla operations are as wearing as direct combat operations.

It's hard to say if NK natives would be as much guerilla opposition as we saw in Iraq, but we also know that SK would be essentially internalizing the problem (with aid, of course). Outside of the initial bloodshed, I would personally see handing NK to the south as a good thing...whereas I was (and am) a very strong opposer of Iraq/Afghan. For a smooth(ish) transition, you'd have to essentially promise NK generals (ie: criminals) amnesty and power after the fact, so that you don't end up with splintered opposition groups like we see in the middle east.

If we over throw the NK gov, it would be very different from Iraq or Afghanistan. We would be reuniting the North and South which already has a functioning government. The problem would be that I don't see China allowing that. I would expect the politicians pushing for a "two state" arrangement where Kim Jong-Un would be removed from power and replaced by a different Communist leader.

 

[Odale]

I am going to disagree with you on this a little bit. The U.S. military position is not as strong as you might think. Between Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Somalia and Kosovo and the budget cuts of the Clinton and Obama administrations the U.S. military is stretched thin. Drones can't fight a war, and we are at a big numerical disadvantage with regard to NK and China which may out weigh our technological advantage.

NK can't hit the U.S. with their current missile stockpile. They could however, hit our interests in Japan and Asia which is where our greatest concern would be. If NK launched a nuke I agree the UN would turn on them in a heart beat. There is some debate as to how much weapons grade material they have produced and if they have sufficient amounts to make another bomb yet (they've had several tests which might account for their production capacity so far).

First off, if North Korea drops a nuclear bomb anywhere, the world will not throw its hands up and say "we can't afford to do anything." If North Korea does drop a bomb, I guarantee will will pull our forces from the most ideal location(s) and send them to North Korea. I promise you that. Also, China may have numbers to its advantage, but as long as they cannot fight back (drone's make that easy to do), that is a moot point. Who knows... if North Korea drops a bomb anywhere, China may rescind its treaty with North Korea (they already want them to stop this nonsense) and let us wipe them off the face of the Earth. I'm willing to bet that the money Americans spend on Chinese imported goods is more meaningful to them than a lousy neighbor.

My biggest concern is for the new guy in NK. My observation has been that these tin-pot dictators live in a delusional world where they believe the rhetoric that their military is the best in the world and thus they compare everyone else in relation to their military. Thus they believe that the U.S. military operates in the same way as their own does and that is only as good as, if not a little below their own. We saw this in the Gulf Wars where Sadam Husien deployed his army in a standard linear land battle configuration. He thought his tanks would be able to stand up to our tanks and he would be able to fend off our attacks. I fear Kim Jong-Un believes the same thing.

...and Saddam got his butt whooped in a war that only lasted six months.

 

[Patriot]

There are an awful lot statements in this thread made out to be fact but are mostly just speculation/opinion. Allow me to offer one statement of fact you can take to the bank:
No matter what NK does or doesn't do God is still in control.

 

[Bowser]

Just to throw my 2 cents in there, I think Kahiel's post is completely spot on.

 

[RyanB]

If we over throw the NK gov, it would be very different from Iraq or Afghanistan. We would be reuniting the North and South which already has a functioning government. The problem would be that I don't see China allowing that. I would expect the politicians pushing for a "two state" arrangement where Kim Jong-Un would be removed from power and replaced by a different Communist leader.

I'd like to see some more info on the KJU replacement comment, considering we don't even know whether or not he is in an actual position of power. Agreed with Patriot, though, that we know who is.

The south has a functioning government...for the south. NK is run very differently from top to bottom; integration would not be easy. And overthrow who, exactly, in the north? KJU? His relatives? The military generals? How many people do actually support them? What would that look like? How much representative power would you give to the people in the north? How much aid, and from whom? I believe Iraq is relatively simple, other than religious infighting.

Still not worried about China. They supported them during 'nam, but that support has grown thin as they've evolved politically into a mostly modern country. Clearly they prefer to leave things as they are to avoid the possibility of refugees or destabalize the region. They aren't going to fight the US over it.

 

[Firedove]

I think the most applicable thing the Bible has to say on the matter is this:

Matthew 24:6
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

There will always be wars going on somewhere or another no matter what until Jesus comes back. Whether the next one in the queue is going to be with this particular country or that one or what circumstances it will entail is a rather moot point in my opinion. Personally I think rather than spending too much time watching the soap opera drama our modern political system has grown into, we (I mean "we" as a collective, not directed at any participants of this discussion) would be better served approaching it more constructively by being more serious about the elected officials we put into place that have an influence on such matters and getting our own act together as individuals, as a church, and as our respective nations to be able to be ready with humanitarian aid and taking care of our military personnel and their families as it is needed.