North Korea threatens with a nuclear strike.

[Joel]

What if America went in to North Korea to take out the North Korean High Command and Kim used a nuclear device against American troops?

Sounds like Call of Duty 4.

 

[Keef]

What if America went in to North Korea to take out the North Korean High Command and Kim used a nuclear device against American troops?

Would be a most idiotic thing for us to try. God help us if we did. If NK managed to blow up our invading force with a nuke we might as well scamper away having successfully made fools of ourselves once more for trying preventative measures instead of taking a diplomatic, defensive position.

 

[letsthrowfries]

If North Korea nuked South Korea, the UN and other countries WOULD DO NOTHING- let me elaborate:

Nuclear arms are a trump card and nobody knows what the protocol is when one country detonates one in anger. I know it won't start a nuclear war because the collateral damage is too great and I can guarantee you that the US be out of the Korean Peninsula. Fallout could emit dangerous residual radiation for weeks and by that time the exposure would already have done its damage and within that time no emergency international aid would be dispensed other than iodine tablets for fear of more casualties.

No country wants residual casualties assisting another. American blood will be worth more than Korean blood when they politic in the halls of power throughout the world.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We have them for deterrence.

Deterrence only works if people genuinely believe you will use them. The moment they stop believing is the moment deterrence stops working. If they don't believe you'll use them, why should they be afraid of them?

And you're right in saying I'm not American - I'm Australian.

 

[Azuremen]

Would be a most idiotic thing for us to try. God help us if we did. If NK managed to blow up our invading force with a nuke we might as well scamper away having successfully made fools of ourselves once more for trying preventative measures instead of taking a diplomatic, defensive position.

Because you can clearly be diplomatic with an irrational dictator. Yes.

And you're right in saying I'm not American - I'm Australian.

Well this clears things up a bit.

If the US really wanted to remove Kim, it would be rather covert and certainly wouldn't merit the time to use a nuclear device.

 

[YSSMAN]

Deterrence only works if people genuinely believe you will use them. The moment they stop believing is the moment deterrence stops working. If they don't believe you'll use them, why should they be afraid of them?

This is where we talk about the NFU (No First Use) policies of the parties involved.

 

[Alex.]

Because you can clearly be diplomatic with an irrational dictator. Yes.



Well this clears things up a bit.

If the US really wanted to remove Kim, it would be rather covert and certainly wouldn't merit the time to use a nuclear device.

I'm not too qualified to speak with regard to North Korean and US affairs, but they'd have to remove Kim and take control simultaneously. Kim-Jong-Un, it is presumed, is being groomed to take Kim-Jong-il's control of the country, and you can bet he'd be just as irrational. I think they'd have to remove a lot of people at once and that wouldn't be easy. Korea is Definitely not worth nuking though, I'm sure the US have weapons and operations that can be at least as effective in removing the line of power as just dropping a nuke on Pyongyang when used intelligently.

 

[lbsf1]

I'm not too qualified to speak with regard to North Korean and US affairs, but they'd have to remove Kim and take control simultaneously. Kim-Jong-Un, it is presumed, is being groomed to take Kim-Jong-il's control of the country, and you can bet he'd be just as irrational. I think they'd have to remove a lot of people at once and that wouldn't be easy. Korea is Definitely not worth nuking though, I'm sure the US have weapons and operations that can be at least as effective in removing the line of power as just dropping a nuke on Pyongyang when used intelligently.

I think the best thing to do is put in as many troops as possible as quickly as possible (abit like arnhem), gain control of all strategic positions and assasinate all leaders all within a matter of a couple of hours, the army will be useless without leaders and with the USA's superior weapons it would all be over in less than a day (hopefully).

This however being in my mind the best solution would be hard to arrange after what happened in Iraq and there will be lots more protest. Therefore is the US did attack North Korea I could see them being to cautious with numbers and causing more casualties in the long run.

This is all based however on the US making a decision to attack. China are in a better position to gain control if they want, however that is the last thing the Americans want (communism).

If North Korea do launch an attack on South Korea however and the UN or other countries don't get involved quickly, (think league of nations esque) then we possibly could see North Korea winning against South Korea and causing the world even bigger problems.

All in all, if an attack is brought on North Korea by anyone I think the best solution will be get control as quickly as possible with as many troops as possible.

 

[RAZRr1275]

Judging from our usual combat activities if the North attacked we'd launch massive bomb runs on strategic locations and if that wasn't enough then send some ground troops in. Barely anyone can beat us if we're using planes. If that didn't work we might send the CIA in to take Kim out.

 

[blaaah]

If North Korea do launch an attack on South Korea however and the UN or other countries don't get involved quickly, (think league of nations esque) then we possibly could see North Korea winning against South Korea and causing the world even bigger problems.

All in all, if an attack is brought on North Korea by anyone I think the best solution will be get control as quickly as possible with as many troops as possible.

I wouldn't overestimate the North Korean Army too much, looking at it simply they barely seem to survive on the food they have, if they mobilised for war and had to fight and use up energy, they would face the possibly of just dying from malnutrition. The whole army would be ineffective or severely restricted to it's capability. Unless the first thing they headed to in an invasion was all the food supermarkets.

Judging from our usual combat activities if the North attacked we'd launch massive bomb runs on strategic locations and if that wasn't enough then send some ground troops in. Barely anyone can beat us if we're using planes. If that didn't work we might send the CIA in to take Kim out.

Depends what you call "beat", you might fail in the mission and not achieve any overall success but still not be "beaten". A bit like in Afghanistan, air control might not mean much or achieve much.
As for the CIA they are good at getting themselves all together in one room and getting killed by one enemy combatant.

 

[RAZRr1275]

Depends what you call "beat", you might fail in the mission and not achieve any overall success but still not be "beaten". A bit like in Afghanistan, air control might not mean much or achieve much.
As for the CIA they are good at getting themselves all together in one room and getting killed by one enemy combatant.

First, drones were insanely successful in Afghanistan. They took out many of the leaders. Second, Afghanistan is an entirely different game - different terrain with more places to hide, a more vietnam esque combat area and history shows that we aren't good at that. Third, in an area like North Korea where it would be easier to pin down enemy locations and strongholds airstrikes become much more successful than they would be in an environment like Afghanistan.

And the CIA has been doing great at taking out key players in Afghanistan. Even if they aren't taking guys out they can supply awesome intel.

 

[blaaah]

First, drones were insanely successful in Afghanistan. They took out many of the leaders. Second, Afghanistan is an entirely different game - different terrain with more places to hide, a more vietnam esque combat area and history shows that we aren't good at that. Third, in an area like North Korea where it would be easier to pin down enemy locations and strongholds airstrikes become much more successful than they would be in an environment like Afghanistan.

And the CIA has been doing great at taking out key players in Afghanistan. Even if they aren't taking guys out they can supply awesome intel.

I can see you're quite positive for the American capability and success.
The facts are as i see them America is losing/lost the war in Afghanistan.
A significant amount of "success" has come from just paying the Taliban not to attack them.
The Army is begging for a battalion of battle tanks to take to the streets and fields in order to take out individual by individual...
They are trying though I acknowledge.
I see it all as a waste of lives and resources. And bad feelings.

 

[RAZRr1275]

I can see you're quite positive for the American capability and success.
The facts are as i see them America is losing/lost the war in Afghanistan.
A significant amount of "success" has come from just paying the Taliban not to attack them.
The Army is begging for a battalion of battle tanks to take to the streets and fields in order to take out individual by individual...
They are trying though I acknowledge.
I see it all as a waste of lives and resources. And bad feelings.

No I agree with you that we are losing Afghanistan and I agree that that is a war we never should've been involved in. I'm simply saying that in a battle against North Korea we'd stack up very well because we can use the elements that have been successful in Afghanistan to their maximum effectiveness.

 

[blaaah]

No I agree with you that we are losing Afghanistan and I agree that that is a war we never should've been involved in. I'm simply saying that in a battle against North Korea we'd stack up very well because we can use the elements that have been successful in Afghanistan to their maximum effectiveness.

Effective in the ways you are thinking. But what of the actual effect of the war as a success? Would it create more friends or enemies for America?
The alliance with the South is uneasy i gather as the population are not happy at having the US soldiers based in their country. Exasperated by the killing of 2 south korean schoolgirls by US soldiers in a vehicle incident.

I can't help thinking the North Korean people don't deserve being attacked (that includes the army) as it seems to be run by a paranoid dictator and pyramid of power and wealth.
I would like to know whether it's brain washing or just fear that gives support to the regime from the people.

 

[RAZRr1275]

Effective in the ways you are thinking. But what of the actual effect of the war as a success? Would it create more friends or enemies for America?
The alliance with the South is uneasy i gather as the population are not happy at having the US soldiers based in their country. Exasperated by the killing of 2 south korean schoolgirls by US soldiers in a vehicle incident.

I can't help thinking the North Korean people don't deserve being attacked (that includes the army) as it seems to be run by a paranoid dictator and pyramid of power and wealth.
I would like to know whether it's brain washing or just fear that gives support to the regime from the people.

Actually the south likes us there.

The general populace probably doesn't deserve to be attacked. They usually never do. It's just that due to our alliance with the South we'd have to step in no matter what. It would create more friends because the world sees that as helping an ally take out an irrational state. Very few nations like north korea. If we take out strongholds and basically shut down North Korea the conflict would be a success

 

[risuku13]

I hope MAD prevails.

 

[Joel]

I hope MAD prevails.

Except it's not really. It's more like NKAD.

 

[kikie]

North Korea is threatening with a nuclear strike once again against the US.

 

[CodeRedR51]

We know, being discussed in the other thread. The other thread you posted in was merged with the existing thread, not sure why you went and found another dead thread to bump.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is that a new threat, or just the one that was issued this morning?

 

[kikie]

Locking this thread. It seems that I'm not allowed to use my own thread that talks about this particular subject.