Jump to content
DuckHunter

North Korea at it again

Recommended Posts

Clark Griswold    506

Article on effectiveness of a DPRK attack on the ROK.  Artillery attack Seoul metropolitan area, logistics required, attrition rates (combat and operational attrition) examined.  Long but worth a skim for the big points.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

Some highlights:

Table 1: Summary of Effects

IMPORTANT CAVEATS:

1) No indications there are plans for these events;

2) Assumes most people are at home or in an office i.e. more protection than standing outside in an open field.

Scenario Possible Casualties Weapons
Surprise Volley (Primarily counter-force i.e. barracks, military  bases) ~2,881 initial volley; mainly soldiers 240 MM MRL170 MM KOKSAN
Surprise Volley (Countervalue and a-strategic i.e. firing directly into population centers) ~29,661 Civilian; likely~790 Foreign nationals~605 Chinese 240 MM MRL170 MM KOKSAN
Counterbattery and counterforcemissions.Very few 240 MM or 170 MM KOKSAN would exist after 1 week. Expect DPRK to lose these weapons at 1%/hour based on historical rates. 467 ROK aircraft; Possibly 1,200 U.S. aircraft 2,660 Main Battle tanks 1,538 Multiple Rocket Launchers Note: These forces already exist on Korea, or come from Guam and from Carrier Strike Groups in international waters.  No need to ask third country permission.
KPA would likely run out of fuel/ammunition within two weeks. NOTE: another study projects KPA can last up to two months.  The point is, once started there is very finite amount of fuel and therefore time left.

DPRK needs to drive approximately 2,500 soft-skinned vehicles per day to supply a southward invasion in order to sustain themselves – or spare ROK fuel stores and scavenge from ROK

Conventional Artillery Attack of Seoul

Here is the summarized table of results and what follows below the table is a more detailed description of deriving these numbers.

Table B-1: Conventional Artillery Attack

Scenario Possible Casualties Artillery
KPA primarily counter-force ~ 2,811 fatalities initial volley.~ 64,000 first day (majority in first three hours)~ 80,000 one week. Very few KOKSAN and 240 MM MRL last more than one week 2/3 of batteries firing max rate for 5 minutes from likely positions between 5 and 10 km north of DMZ and then sustained rate for ½ of batteries for 24 hours.  Batteries destroyed by direct, indirect and counter-battery fire at about 1%/hour.  Unrealistic assumption of unlimited ammunition and 100% maintenance rate.
KPA counter-valueLikely indicates KPA desperation ~29,661 fatalities initial volley.Within the range of a previous study by Bennet, Bruce [20] 2/3 of batteries firing indiscriminately intoSeoulfrom DMZ trace.  Most residents at home or office.

Lots of data and looks reasonable, well cited. 

And a Time article on evacuation of non-combatants:

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/05/fleeing-imminent-incoming-north-korean-rockets/

There are different accounts of how long the DPRK war machine could operate (fuel, ammunition, attrition absorbance, supplies, etc...) but methinks they could probably operate for a month without resupply from China/Russia.  That probably gives the DPRK a few days of advantage (if it generated all of its forces and poured its entire national resources into the attack) before the first waves of the Coalition begin to augment KFOR and begin the push back.

Destroy the ports, airfields and basically all telecommunications as you invade SK and you might be able to stymie a data-dependent force with a high logistical footprint.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawman    289
I do wonder if the conventional artillery threat is perhaps a bit overblown. Seems like since the Somme people have tended to overestimate the effect of artillery. When the Soviets took Berlin in 1945 they had 40,000+ artillery pieces, likely of comparable quality but with far better trained crews, and literally took the city apart street by street over three weeks, and civilian losses only hit ~100,000. Obviously a Best Korea bombardment of Seoul will be terrible, but most of their pieces are limited to the suburbs and presumably South Korea would be evacuating civilians rather than forcing them to stay put as happened in Berlin.

 Comparing artillery effects from pre-1950s to now would be like comparing military effects of strategic bombing from pre jet age to now. 

The stuff assembled prior to the modern era didn't have anywhere near the lethality of current systems. Also most of those historic numbers of thousands of artillery pieces are inflated with dozens of separate sized field guns, direct fire short range howitzers, carriage guns of modern equivalence, and mobile carriage mortar systems being part of the count. By comparison the Army of today has 2 artillery calibers with 105 and 155 respectively and 3 mortar calibers ranging from 60 to 120.

 

We have simplified to the number of systems most generally effective for their role. So have they. Gone are the super heavy railroad guns etc designed to reduce ground works or entrenched defenses. Gone or replaced with man portable missiles are the field guns like the 75mm or 88mm which was good for a pillbox or tank but not sustained battery fire. Tens of thousands of modern artillery pieces and MLRS pointed at Seoul is a city sitting underneath and umbrella of fire that is the total equivalent of what the Soviets planned to attack across most of Europe with.

 

 

Look at it this way, throughout the later half of the 20th century air power has carried most of the fight with artillery being left in favor of high mobility and rapid movement by ground forces. Even so, if you could up historical casualty numbers despite the unquestionable increase in effectiveness and depth to attack undefended targets in the enemy's support zone vs artillery working against defended targets and the fact that by eastern doctrine they mass 3x the amount of arty we do by comparison in combined arms maneuver.... Artillery still has air power and even direct combat casualties beat for production of loss in the 20th century. Not by much, but still.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waveshaper    100
17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Article on effectiveness of a DPRK attack on the ROK.  Artillery attack Seoul metropolitan area, logistics required, attrition rates (combat and operational attrition) examined.  Long but worth a skim for the big points.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

Some highlights:

Table 1: Summary of Effects

IMPORTANT CAVEATS:

1) No indications there are plans for these events;

2) Assumes most people are at home or in an office i.e. more protection than standing outside in an open field.

Scenario Possible Casualties Weapons
Surprise Volley (Primarily counter-force i.e. barracks, military  bases) ~2,881 initial volley; mainly soldiers 240 MM MRL170 MM KOKSAN
Surprise Volley (Countervalue and a-strategic i.e. firing directly into population centers) ~29,661 Civilian; likely~790 Foreign nationals~605 Chinese 240 MM MRL170 MM KOKSAN
Counterbattery and counterforcemissions.Very few 240 MM or 170 MM KOKSAN would exist after 1 week. Expect DPRK to lose these weapons at 1%/hour based on historical rates. 467 ROK aircraft; Possibly 1,200 U.S. aircraft 2,660 Main Battle tanks 1,538 Multiple Rocket Launchers Note: These forces already exist on Korea, or come from Guam and from Carrier Strike Groups in international waters.  No need to ask third country permission.
KPA would likely run out of fuel/ammunition within two weeks. NOTE: another study projects KPA can last up to two months.  The point is, once started there is very finite amount of fuel and therefore time left.

DPRK needs to drive approximately 2,500 soft-skinned vehicles per day to supply a southward invasion in order to sustain themselves – or spare ROK fuel stores and scavenge from ROK

Conventional Artillery Attack of Seoul

Here is the summarized table of results and what follows below the table is a more detailed description of deriving these numbers.

Table B-1: Conventional Artillery Attack

Scenario Possible Casualties Artillery
KPA primarily counter-force ~ 2,811 fatalities initial volley.~ 64,000 first day (majority in first three hours)~ 80,000 one week. Very few KOKSAN and 240 MM MRL last more than one week 2/3 of batteries firing max rate for 5 minutes from likely positions between 5 and 10 km north of DMZ and then sustained rate for ½ of batteries for 24 hours.  Batteries destroyed by direct, indirect and counter-battery fire at about 1%/hour.  Unrealistic assumption of unlimited ammunition and 100% maintenance rate.
KPA counter-valueLikely indicates KPA desperation ~29,661 fatalities initial volley.Within the range of a previous study by Bennet, Bruce [20] 2/3 of batteries firing indiscriminately intoSeoulfrom DMZ trace.  Most residents at home or office.

Lots of data and looks reasonable, well cited. 

And a Time article on evacuation of non-combatants:

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/05/fleeing-imminent-incoming-north-korean-rockets/

There are different accounts of how long the DPRK war machine could operate (fuel, ammunition, attrition absorbance, supplies, etc...) but methinks they could probably operate for a month without resupply from China/Russia.  That probably gives the DPRK a few days of advantage (if it generated all of its forces and poured its entire national resources into the attack) before the first waves of the Coalition begin to augment KFOR and begin the push back.

Destroy the ports, airfields and basically all telecommunications as you invade SK and you might be able to stymie a data-dependent force with a high logistical footprint.

Good info. There are some tidbits of info contained in this analysis that I never really considered. I'm sure the Chinese are factoring this stuff into what decisions they will make based on who spanks who first, etc.

The Tidbits (fuzzy math on my part); This info doesn't include larger rockets system/other weapons systems/special forces/infantry, etc that will also be causing a butt load of casualties in Seoul and elsewhere.

- 70% of foreigners in Seoul are PRC citizens (216,532 PRC citizens live in Seoul). There are a total of 780,000 PRC citizen in South Korea. North Korea only has an estimated population of 10,000 PRC citizens and most are located in Pyongyang or the area near the Chinese border.

-- 170mm/240mm surprise salvo on Seoul (day one) will kill 29,661 civilians which includes 605 PRC citizen. The casualty rate for PRC citizens living in Seoul is 2.039% of those killed (note; the vast majority of PRC citizens living in Seoul are located "North" of the Han river). 

-- Conventional Artillery Attack on Seoul (day one) will kill 64,000 people which would include 1,304 PRC citizens (based on a 2.039% casualty rate).

-- Total PRC citizen killed in Seoul on day one = 1,909.

 

Edited by waveshaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold    506
1 hour ago, waveshaper said:

Good info. There are some tidbits of info contained in this analysis that I never really considered. I'm sure the Chinese are factoring this stuff into what decisions they will make based on who spanks who first, etc.

The Tidbits (fuzzy math on my part); This info doesn't include larger rockets system/other weapons systems/special forces/infantry, etc that will also be causing a butt load of casualties in Seoul and elsewhere.

- 70% of foreigners in Seoul are PRC citizens (216,532 PRC citizens live in Seoul). There are a total of 1.1 million PRC citizen in South Korea. North Korea only has an estimated population of 10,000 PRC citizens and most are located in Pyongyang or the area near the Chinese border.

-- 170mm/240mm surprise salvo on Seoul (day one) will kill 29,661 civilians which includes 605 PRC citizen. The casualty rate for PRC citizens living in Seoul is 2.039% of those killed (note; the vast majority of PRC citizens living in Seoul are located "North" of the Han river). 

-- Conventional Artillery Attack on Seoul (day one) will kill 64,000 people which would include 1,304 PRC citizens (based on a 2.039% casualty rate).

-- Total PRC citizen killed in Seoul on day one = 1,909.

Ditto.

Thinking a bit on this, SK and POTUS should be as insistent as the Young General and demand removal of all or most of the artillery concentration just north of the DMZ.  The DPRK demands the cessation of large scale military activities between the ROK and US forces, ok fine, then you remove every last artillery piece from within 50 nm of the DMZ.  

north-korea-artillery.jpg

Fat chance but it if they want something we get something in return.  We focus on the WMD and that's logical but the conventional situation deserves some time on the front burner.

- No artillery within 50 nm of the DMZ.  

- Declaration and decommission of all clandestine tunnels under and thru the DMZ 

- No formations of troops or vehicles greater than 2,000 and associated vehicles / equipment (brigade size) within 50 nm of the DMZ.  No more than 3 at any one time within 50 nm.

Just some ideas off the cuff but the point would be to move forces further back so that if the DPRK did or was planning aggression, then the telegraphing actions prior to attack would be more detectable and would lower tension overall.  

Focusing on WMDs is fine just don't forget about what they have actually used (recently in fact) to attack the ROK and US forces.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sforron    36
4 hours ago, Lawman said:

 Comparing artillery effects from pre-1950s to now would be like comparing military effects of strategic bombing from pre jet age to now. 

The stuff assembled prior to the modern era didn't have anywhere near the lethality of current systems. Also most of those historic numbers of thousands of artillery pieces are inflated with dozens of separate sized field guns, direct fire short range howitzers, carriage guns of modern equivalence, and mobile carriage mortar systems being part of the count. By comparison the Army of today has 2 artillery calibers with 105 and 155 respectively and 3 mortar calibers ranging from 60 to 120.

I wonder how different the North Korean arsenal is from what Zhukov had at the gates of Berlin. Most of heavy equipment given to the North Koreans would have been PRC surplus in the Mao years (which means it was likely Soviet surplus the Chinese gave away when they replaced it with more modern stuff). My guess is that it's something like the situation we faced vs. Iraqi T-72s in 1991, where in theory the weapon system could be extremely effective, but defects in application due to it being a crappy locally made copy / ill-prepared crews / lack of ammunition for live-fire exercises / half-charges of propellant in the shells means they aren't worth much in a real fight.

Again, not arguing that the humanitarian cost of North Korea firing 10,000 artillery pieces in the direction of Seoul wouldn't be disastrous, but I am highly doubtful of the "Sea of Fire / Seoul will be leveled / millions will die" histrionics.

EDIT: Here's an article that sums up what I'm trying to say: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown

Just judging from the NK island bombardment a few years ago, they attacked a 2 square mile island from 7.5 miles away, and only half their shells hit the island. Of those that did, a quarter were duds.

Edited by sforron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waveshaper    100
22 hours ago, sforron said:

EDIT: Here's an article that sums up what I'm trying to say: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown

Just judging from the NK island bombardment a few years ago, they attacked a 2 square mile island from 7.5 miles away, and only half their shells hit the island. Of those that did, a quarter were duds.

This little ROK/Nork artillery/rocket dual has been a wee bit mischaracterized. Getting in the weeds/more detailed info;

- Yeonpyeong island is mostly forested and has a small population of civilians (1,780). The main population center (small town) is located on the southern end of the Island. These ROK civilian folks are well trained/experienced and have bunkers to take cover in when there's an attack (this was the 3rd Battle of Yeonpyeong since 1999). Also, right next to the this small town is a small ROK military base that supports six K9 155mm SP artillery pieces. These six K9 155mm SP artillery pieces are housed in hardened emplacements (right on the southern coast of the Island) and these artillery pieces/emplacements are only about a 1/4 mile (maybe less) from this small town (main civilian population center on the Island).

- The Norks first salvo was at 1434 locale; They launched 150 to 170 rocket and artillery rounds. Most of the rounds fired in this first salvo were 122mm rockets (BM-21's were the launch vehicles). This was a poor choice of weapons to utilize on the first salvo if the Norks were trying to take out the ROK's K9 155mm artillery pieces/emplacements. Most of the 122mm rockets overshot the southern end of the island and landed in the drink. The 122mm rockets caused most (maybe all) of the "limited" civilian casualties and started numerous forest fires on the southern portion of the islands.

- The Norks second salvo at 1512 local appeared to be more effective. They only fired 20 Artillery rounds and they all hit their target/landed on the Island.

- 50% of the ROK's K9 155mm SP artillery pieces were taken out of action for various reasons. Two ROK K9 155mm artillery pieces took hits from Nork artillery rounds and were disabled due to damage to their firing control systems. One K9 155mm artillery piece was temporarily taken out of action (early in the game) due to a round jammed in its breach/barrel. Only three out of the six units (initially) were able to provide return/counterbattery fire on the Nork positions. Eventually (late in the game), the howitzer that had the jammed round joined the counterattack after receiving field repairs.

- On a positive note the Norks didn't target/hit the local Chinese restaurant or Catholic Church.

 

- The ROK K9 155mm SP artillery return/counterbattery fire total was 80 rounds.

-- 35 of the ROK rounds landed in the drink (sea) while 45 others reached North Korean land.

-- Shoot and Scoot; North Korean artillery/MLRS systems slid into tunnels after firing their salvos. The Norks accomplished this movement before the ROK artillery returned fire. Not a single ROK round hit a Nork target.

-- Of the ROK rounds that hit the mainland, only 14 got relatively close to the North's artillery/MLRS positions. These 14 rounds impacted in rice paddies near the Norks "former positions". There was no damage to Nork artillery/MLRS systems, it appears the only damage was to the Norks food supply.

-- The ROK National Intelligence Service director Won Sei-Hoon was directed to carry out a thorough investigation.

-- The ROK defense minister resigned over this incident.
 

- 122mm Rocket impact point, Yeonpyeong island;

an-unexploded-shell-fired-from-north-kor

 

- Concrete structure in the K-9 Marine artillery base on Yeonpyeong Island bears marks from North Korea's attack;

 

A+concrete+structure+in+the+K-9+Marine+a440px-2010.11.25_%ED%95%B4%EB%B3%91%EB%8

 

 

 

- Timeline;

08:20: North sends a message requesting a halt to the South's artillery training exercise.
10:00: South starts the artillery training exercise.
14:30: North deploys five MiG-23ML fighters from the 60th Regiment at Pukchang.
14:34: North starts firing shells (150 to170 122mm rockets, of which about 60 land on Yeonpyeong)
14:38: South conducts emergency sorties with two KF-16 fighters.
14:40: South deploys four F-15K fighters.
14:46: South conducts additional emergency sorties with two KF-16 fighters.
14:47: South fires back with the first round of K-9 howitzers (50 shells).
14:50: South issues a 'Jindogae Hana (Jindo Dog 1)' alert, the highest military alert given for a local provocation.
14:55: North stops firing temporarily.
15:12: North starts firing for the second time (20 artillery shells, all of which landed on the island).
15:25: South resumes firing back with K-9 howitzers (30 shells).
15:30: South telexes the North's military general level talk representative requesting an immediate halt to artillery shelling.
15:40 – 16:00: The South's JCS Han Min-gu and USFK Commander have a video conference (a review of cooperative crisis management).
15:41: North stops firing.
16:30: First military casualty reported.
16:35 – 21:50: Foreign and National Security representatives have a meeting.
16:42: South stops firing.
18:40: Lee Hong-gi, the South's Joint Chief of Staff Director of Operations, holds a press briefing.
19:00: North Korea's Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army releases a statement labelled "Our Army is Making No Empty Talk" publicized through KCNA.
20:35 – 21:10: South Korean President meets with his Joint Chief of Staff.

 

 

Edited by waveshaper
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold    506

From NR:

How Do You Solve a Problem Like North Korea?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451011/north-korea-nuclear-problem-kim-jong-un-china-puppet-regime-no-good-solutions

If there are no good solutions or good moves to be made directly at the DPRK, then don't make any.  From the article:

So what to do? Well, the first thing is to recognize that there are no good solutions. But perhaps the least bad option would be to openly declare that America already considers the North Korean regime to be China’s puppet, and that North Korean misdeeds are really Chinese misdeeds. That would come at a price, too. But it would incentivize China either to rein in the North Korean regime or, eventually, get rid of it.

Not exactly sure what you could or should do to incentivize China to rein in NK without poking the dragon but at this point deflecting the booger to them may be the only option.  But that option would have to be more than just the US imposing some penalty on China.  That would quickly pit China vs. US instead of inflicting damage on the DPRK regime, it would have to be the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the PI, etc... imposing some significant economic/diplomatic concerted action to bring about some change in behavior.  


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFM this    310

Russia and China can wag their fingers at us all they want.  At the end of the day, this is 100% their fucking monster.  Russia as recently as the 90's and China continuing to this very day.  But as great an idea as it is, pinning this tail on the dragon is not going to be that easy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Termy    59

Ready to tie pme to this? One of my silly awc papers was on North Korea and my "feedback" was something to the effect of "you didn't propose anything that hasn't already been discussed."  No kidding.....his has been an issue for almost 70 years. So now-for the rest of my life-when I read about North Korea it just makes me pissed off at pme. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waveshaper    100
2 hours ago, BFM this said:

Russia and China can wag their fingers at us all they want.  At the end of the day, this is 100% their fucking monster.  Russia as recently as the 90's and China continuing to this very day.  But as great an idea as it is, pinning this tail on the dragon is not going to be that easy.

Blame for the Norks developing Nukes goes waaaay back. A few timeline/highlights;

- 1956, Scholarly Exchange: The Soviet Union begins training North Korean scientists and engineers, laying the foundation for future nuclear development.

- 1959, Nuclear Cooperation Agreement: North Korea and the Soviet Union sign a cooperation agreement under which the Soviet Union would provide basic nuclear training and technology to its Korean allies. The agreement spawns plans for a nuclear facility near Yongbyon that would later become a flashpoint with the US. Note; Yongbyon Nuclear Reactor is where the Norks are currently producing/enriching their fissile material for these Nuke Test, etc.

- 1962, Spinning Up Research: North Korea completes the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Centre, which includes an IRT-2000 research reactor.

- 1963, On the Market: The USSR sells nuclear materials to the North Korean government.

- 1965, Fission Experiments: Once the Yongbyon reactor reaches a power rating of 2 MW, North Korea begins to pursue fission experiments.

- 1970s, Friends Without Benefits: Throughout the 1970s, the North Korean government attempts to acquire nuclear weapons assistance from the Soviet Union and China, but the communist superpowers refuse. North Korea also offers to form a secret nuclear program with South Korea, but the South declines.

- 1984, Recycling: The construction of a plutonium reprocessing facility enables North Korea to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.

- 1985, Baking Yellowcake: North Korea finishes constructing a factory at Yongbyon to refine “yellowcake” uranium, producing a suitable fuel for a nuclear reactor.

- 1986, Overreacting: North Korea completes construction of a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium. It also starts construction of a second, larger nuclear reactor.

- 1989, Caught Red-Handed: Using satellite images, the United States obtains conclusive evidence that North Korea has a nuclear weapons program.

-1991, Run for the Border: North Korea tries to hire Soviet nuclear physicists to boost its weapons program, but the Soviet Union gets wind of the plan and detains the scientists.

- 1993 to now; Along comes Clinton, Bush, and Obama, all of whom epically screwed the pooch when it comes to the Norks Nuke program. Now it's President Trump turn in the barrel and it appear the Norks (with assistance) have perfected a functional thermonuclear warhead and ICBM's that can reach the USA. The next logical step will be the Nuke warhead/ICBM mating process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sforron    36

Don't blame anything but US foreign policy to explain why the North Koreans are going full-tilt in their nuclear program, consequences be damned. Gaddafi ended his nuclear program at our behest and he ended up getting stabbed in the rear with a bayonet and summarily executed, with our blessing. You think we'd have bombed Libya and let it get overrun by militias if they had nukes? Ukraine got the other end of the stick, giving up their nukes post-independence in exchange for territorial guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. How's that working out?

The last twenty years or so have just reinforced the fact that there are two kinds of countries, those that have nukes and those that don't. The Kim regime is completely rational in pursuing them. The best way for them to ensure their continued reign is a dozen nuclear-armed ICBMs. They can't use them unless they want to be annihilated, but they take the conventional regime change option 100% off the table. No one cares enough about North Korea to risk ten million dead civilians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold    506
1 hour ago, Termy said:

Ready to tie pme to this? One of my silly awc papers was on North Korea and my "feedback" was something to the effect of "you didn't propose anything that hasn't already been discussed."  No kidding.....his has been an issue for almost 70 years. So now-for the rest of my life-when I read about North Korea it just makes me pissed off at pme. 

UFB or in today's AF totally believable... new for the sake of new, not whether or not it is academically worthy of discussion, it's new so good...

13 minutes ago, sforron said:

Don't blame anything but US foreign policy to explain why the North Koreans are going full-tilt in their nuclear program, consequences be damned. 

The last twenty years or so have just reinforced the fact that there are two kinds of countries, those that have nukes and those that don't. T

Yup - if you're a rogue nation, get nukes, you will never be f'd with by the do-gooders ever again.  Wish it weren't so but from the perspective of Iran, NK, other bad actors it is the best use of their resources from their perspective 

If we want to halt the growth of the Nuclear Club, then we have to admit that we have separate policies for the legacy nuclear powers and everyone else.  Don't apologize for it and don't discuss it, just state it as fact, more diplomatically than that... but the West + the democracies of Asia (India, SK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia) should declare that they will have no trade relations with new nuclear weapons powers, declared or suspected.  No trade, no travel except diplomatic, no aid, nothing.... if we don't give a HUGE disincentive to developing nuclear weapons, all the other bad actors of the world (Govs and Non-State Actors) have every reason to cuddle up to NK to try to get some of that garlic that keeps the West at bay...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nsplayr    599

::cough cough:: Israel would be a difficult case for a "no aid to non-legacy nuclear powers" policy...

That policy would also be pretty hypocritical for India and Pakistan (the latter which you left off your democracies of Asia list), since they only got their nukes relatively recently and are not signatories to the NPT themselves.

The who situation is fucked with zero even passable options, and it's been a shit sandwich handed down from POTUS to POTUS for many, many years.

IMHO the best way we can demonstrate that a negotiated, non-nuclear third way exists for other countries out there that oppose the US/West is to uphold and respect the JCPOA with Iran. They are a bad actor just like DPRK and we're not suddenly friends now, but negotiating that agreement in the first place and living by it and enforcing it now shows the world there is a third option other than US-led regime change or nuking-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold    506
9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

::cough cough:: Israel would be a difficult case for a "no aid to non-legacy nuclear powers" policy...

That policy would also be pretty hypocritical for India and Pakistan (the latter which you left off your democracies of Asia list), since they only got their nukes relatively recently and are not signatories to the NPT themselves.

The who situation is fucked with zero even passable options, and it's been a shit sandwich handed down from POTUS to POTUS for many, many years.

IMHO the best way we can demonstrate that a negotiated, non-nuclear third way exists for other countries out there that oppose the US/West is to uphold and respect the JCPOA with Iran. They are a bad actor just like DPRK and we're not suddenly friends now, but negotiating that agreement in the first place and living by it and enforcing it now shows the world there is a third option other than US-led regime change or nuking-up.

Touche but I would square that circle by some admission of private knowledge / assistance historically not currently of Israel's nuclear deterrence and not concede the point.  Just because some sanctimonious hypocritical windbag at the UN or media talking head is upset at that not everything is being done exactly as they think it should be, who cares.  Take a page from the authoritarian powers and just DGAF what unrealistic peaceniks, the naive activist crowd and other assorted coddled, spoiled and really childish people think. 

Pakistan's exclusion from my off the cuff list was not intentional but I would still not include it, democracy (IMO) is not just elections that are somewhat free/fair.  It's also the absence of other bad behavior, like assisting the Taliban or other terrorist organizations (cough couch attack in India)...

Honest question, do you really believe Iran is not working at least towards breakout capability so that at the appropriate time, they will be able to go from nuclear weapons capable to at least nuclear explosive device (weaponization is another matter) in a matter of months?  I'm not saying based on that, that a military option is called for or justified but I have no illusions they are still working getting as close as they can to having a nuclear weapon without getting detected so they have to option to breakout, demonstrate capability and then just say it's done, we will never give them up and deal with it.

The West being led by people now who lack even the testicular fortitude to stand up and control their own borders or expel violent illegal aliens will likely navel gaze and fold like a house of cards, but I'm not cynical, not one bit...

If you want a third way that is negotiated fine, I can support that but you have to be realistic.  These nations will not be cajoled, shamed or convinced by moral persuasion that them not having nuclear weapons is better than having them.  It has to be negotiation with the possible outcome of no further relationship and as much isolation/pain without direct conflict as possible to have even a hope of getting something acceptable to us.  

As to Iran, what's done is done.  Watch them like a hawk, arm the Saudis, give Israel LO deep strike capability (conventional) and foil them everywhere you can.  

As for NK, offer them a period of detente, negotiate with them directly along with the other regional powers and go on the diplomatic / informational offensive and while foiling them every way you can clandestinely.  Propose things never seriously discussed and try to break the ice, but just give up on the idea they will ever give up their nuclear weapons, who would looking at recent history if they were on the other side of the table from us?

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sforron    36

Hey, Pakistan's had a whole one electoral transfer of power not get derailed, they're definitely up there with Athens and the Continental Congress in terms of democracy. Pay no attention to the fact that their intelligence agency is basically a terror organization.

Edited by sforron
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waveshaper    100
On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 6:07 PM, Day Man said:

another missile launched over Hokkaido...

Today, President Trump taunts "Rocket Man" Kim Jong-un in tweet aimed at North Korea dictator;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×