Korea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2017, 03:20 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

I'll bet nickels to doughnut holes that there's a (bunch of) Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines loitering in the Pacific, and the Norks have to be aware of that. No need for land-based missiles or development in Japan or South Korea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
07-07-2017, 03:26 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:20 PM)Fireball Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

I'll bet nickels to doughnut holes that there's a (bunch of) Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines loitering in the Pacific, and the Norks have to be aware of that.

Probably true. But we all saw how China responded to THAAD being deployed. I believe the navy has some ballistic missile defense capabilities, but stationing systems in a country is different than floating them in as needed in response to a "situation".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 03:40 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Another option, of admittedly arguable value, is to green-light either or both allies to move head with a nuclear program of their own, Both are much closer than NoKor was even 20 years ago, and it's not like China would have much ground for complaining that we let an ally go fissionable, given that that is actually what they did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 03:45 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Oh that's a fucking *great* idea. Let's make an already volatile situation unbelievably more dangerous. Fuck sakes. Where do you geniuses get your ideas?

C'mon, MD -- it's not like the NoKors will sign away the regime's insurance policy without encouragement. Would it make it more dangerous? I'm not so sure. I mean, as mad as MAD was, it kept armies on base and fleet busy scraping paint rather than reloading.

I don't see another solution outside of confronting threat with threat. I don't think it should be American weapons; I think if Japan and SoKor feel that threatened they should take their own steps.

But I don't think NoKor will sacrifice its only bargaining chip at the negotiating table.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 03:49 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Another option, of admittedly arguable value, is to green-light either or both allies to move head with a nuclear program of their own, Both are much closer than NoKor was even 20 years ago, and it's not like China would have much ground for complaining that we let an ally go fissionable, given that that is actually what they did.

Emotionally, I would like to give the Chinese a dose of their own medicine and see the South Koreans and Japanese develop their own programs. As you say, both countries could easily outpace the North Koreans on developing their own programs.

But it's not good to encourage proliferation or we could see more of that beyond Southeast Asia. Stationing our own missiles gives our allies the defense position they need while retaining flexibility to withdraw those same missiles in a negotiated settlement for NK to dismantle their nukes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
07-07-2017, 03:52 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:20 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I'll bet nickels to doughnut holes that there's a (bunch of) Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines loitering in the Pacific, and the Norks have to be aware of that. No need for land-based missiles or development in Japan or South Korea.

I don't get why some people get a virtual hardon over imagining nuclear confrontations. Ever considered the stone cold reality of something like that to happen? Such as Seoul, only 36 miles removed from the border, reduced to cinders? Millions of casualties and tens of millions of people being displaced? Because they simply can't live or build on what they called home? At least for decades, if not centuries?

Even if that kind of prospect doesn't shock you, the world economy would be in tatters with one of the largest industrial hubs of the world destroyed. And that would resonate with every American armchair farter - oh, excuse, general, wherever their comfy hidey hole might be.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
07-07-2017, 04:02 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:07 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:44 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Yes, this sort of proliferation is fraught with danger and isn't in my opinion strictly deterrence.

Speaking of proliferation, it should be mentioned that the North Koreans were active participants in the A.Q. Kahn nuclear proliferation ring. And the North has formally withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There is a real risk the North Koreans will sell their technology to the highest bidder.
An extremely good point you've made there Bryan and a really scary one too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 04:34 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:49 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 03:40 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Another option, of admittedly arguable value, is to green-light either or both allies to move head with a nuclear program of their own, Both are much closer than NoKor was even 20 years ago, and it's not like China would have much ground for complaining that we let an ally go fissionable, given that that is actually what they did.

Emotionally, I would like to give the Chinese a dose of their own medicine and see the South Koreans and Japanese develop their own programs. As you say, both countries could easily outpace the North Koreans on developing their own programs.

But it's not good to encourage proliferation or we could see more of that beyond Southeast Asia. Stationing our own missiles gives our allies the defense position they need while retaining flexibility to withdraw those same missiles in a negotiated settlement for NK to dismantle their nukes.

The issue I have with that approach is that it inherently draws us into any brinksmanship. I am admittedly someone who thinks my nation should draw down its overseas military presence, reducing the numerous tripwires we maintain -- especially when the allies in question, as these two are, are wealthy and populous enough to handle their own business.

I have no problem with loaning or selling them THAAD. I think self-defense is every nation's right. But I don't think we should extend to allies an umbrella when they can build their own cover, at our own cost, and bearing sole responsibility for any decision to use that nuclear umbrella. Firstly I'm unsure of the sanity quotient in DC right now, and secondly, I think that both the allies in question have demonstrated over the last fifty years a thoughtful approach to foreign policy. I'm inclined to let them arm themselves as they see fit, and let the Chinese worry about two more nuclear powers in addition to us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
07-07-2017, 04:44 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 03:52 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 03:20 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I'll bet nickels to doughnut holes that there's a (bunch of) Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines loitering in the Pacific, and the Norks have to be aware of that. No need for land-based missiles or development in Japan or South Korea.

I don't get why some people get a virtual hardon over imagining nuclear confrontations. Ever considered the stone cold reality of something like that to happen? Such as Seoul, only 36 miles removed from the border, reduced to cinders? Millions of casualties and tens of millions of people being displaced? Because they simply can't live or build on what they called home? At least for decades, if not centuries?

Even if that kind of prospect doesn't shock you, the world economy would be in tatters with one of the largest industrial hubs of the world destroyed. And that would resonate with every American armchair farter - oh, excuse, general, wherever their comfy hidey hole might be.

Be fair. He wasn't having a "hard-on" about thing, just simply stating what should be an obvious fact. He certainly wasn't dancing around about a nuclear confrontation.

Read the words he wrote, and not with your preconceived notions in place. He's absolutely right -- there are nuclear-armed subs patrolling the Pacific and they no doubt have NoKor target co-ordinates preprogammed into their systems. Saying as much is not "getting a hard-on" ... it's just a fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 04:44 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 03:52 PM)abaris Wrote:  I don't get why some people get a virtual hardon over imagining nuclear confrontations. Ever considered the stone cold reality of something like that to happen? Such as Seoul, only 36 miles removed from the border, reduced to cinders? Millions of casualties and tens of millions of people being displaced? Because they simply can't live or build on what they called home? At least for decades, if not centuries?

Even if that kind of prospect doesn't shock you, the world economy would be in tatters with one of the largest industrial hubs of the world destroyed. And that would resonate with every American armchair farter - oh, excuse, general, wherever their comfy hidey hole might be.

Be fair. He wasn't having a "hard-on" about thing, just simply stating what should be an obvious fact. He certainly wasn't dancing around about a nuclear confrontation.

Read the words he wrote, and not with your preconceived notions in place. He's absolutely right -- there are nuclear-armed subs patrolling the Pacific and they no doubt have NoKor target co-ordinates preprogammed into their systems. Saying as much is not "getting a hard-on" ... it's just a fact.

Yes I'd like to think that their presence would make it so that Japan and South Korea don't need to spend the money on developing and deploying nukes. That IMO, would simply ratchet tensions higher.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: