16 ms·

A single, and final, shot. EDIT: I'm not saying the US should ever go to war with North Korea, only that there is no possible outcome where North Korea goes to

• renewiltord 6y ago
  Dude, everyone knows the relative geopolitical and military standing of the DPRK and the US. No one is enlightened by your grandstanding.
  • SEJeff 6y ago
    It isn’t about me. I was merely pointing out how there is no way whatsoever the leadership of North Korea would ever preemptively strike the US west coast with a missile. It might or might not hurt the US, but it guarantees the end of their entire way of life. I’m pointing out the silliness of thinking they would do it when they have the most to lose.
    • akamaka 6y ago
      Yes, we also all know that nobody rational would launch a pre-emptive strike. Nobody is saying NK would launch one.
    • baybal2 6y ago
      A much likely scenario would be for Kim family just sitting it out in some bunker in China, while his country burns. The type of leaders with such disdain for their own countries are like those well known African tinpot dictators who effectively live in Europe (and to the great delight of their European hosts...) most of the time, while their henchmen plunder their countries back home.
      • XorNot 6y ago
        China does not particularly like North Korea nor Kim. If it comes to him looking for amnesty, they're going to let him burn.
• remote_phone 6y ago
  Why would NK generals ever agree to a war? They are on the top of the food chain in NK. If they went to war they would lose instantly. Better to just sabrerattle and get some benefits rather than start a war for no reason. There is no ideology or religion behind NK unlike groups like ISIS. If Kim Jong Un tried to push for a war, he would be deposed in a second and replaced by someone who “gets it”.
  • SEJeff 6y ago
    That’s literally my point. Everyone, including them, knows they’d lose and the gravy train would stop. There is no way they’d ever do a premature attack. It’s insane.
    • cle 6y ago
      History is filled with people doing insane things.
      • lambdasquirrel 6y ago
        Well the kicker is that the North Korean foreign policy is predicated on them trying to appear as insane as possible to other people, without really being actually too insane. And maybe ironically, not really an act that any sane person want to play or be a part of.
        • ganafagol 6y ago
          But the people involved literally don't have a choice. What do you think their alternative is? Let it be, go home, take a beer out of the fridge, lay down on the sofa, watch some football and call it a day? That's not how the life of those generals looks like. Easy to claim what "a sane person" would do from the arrogant POV of a western average citizen, but reality looks very different.
          • samus 6y ago
            Their defense policy is the same as the US: don't attack, else you risk slagging of your city/ies. This is the core of MAD. You don't maintain MAD by not promising you are going to shoot back.
• ojbyrne 6y ago
  That seems incredibly optimistic. It seems to me that one of the possible, even likely, outcomes is a nuclear exchange starting with an NK thermonuclear weapon obliterating a major US city (LA instead of a naval base in Hawaii), followed by the decapitation you reference, followed by a PRC nuclear response, followed by what “Wargames” referred to as Global Thermonuclear War.
  • ohazi 6y ago
    PRC can either fire and also lose a few cities, or not fire and be ignored. MAD works because everyone knows that starting or joining a nuclear firefight is literally suicide. What would compel them to fire if they're clearly not being targeted?
    • mpweiher 6y ago
      For example: a mistaken belief that they were being targeted. The book The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States: A Speculative Novel describes such a scenario. Chilling. https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Jeffrey-Lewis/dp/1328573915/ https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Jeffrey-Lewis/dp/1328573915/
      • arethuza 6y ago
        Good book - another book where a Russian/China/US nuclear war starts mainly by accident is Arc Light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Light_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Light_(novel) And, of course, for cases of a war starting because of a false belief that they were about to be attacked there is the real life case of Able Archer 83: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
    • baybal2 6y ago
      > What would compel them to fire if they're clearly not being targeted? A thinking that they can win: Tojikistan, Karabag, Transnistria, Georgia, Donbas, Crimea, Syria, Libya — all set a very damning precedent of the West conceding to use of force.
• baybal2 6y ago
  It's too unrealistic. If North Korea would blink, and go for a desperate all in attack, it will likely do so with China backing it. This country is being run over the phone from Beijing after all. The most realistic, and highest success chance scenario is that North Korea will coordinate attack with China. In all conceivable scenarios, NATO will have more resources even after 100% one sided nuclear attack on it (3000-4000 warheads,) and be able to subdue both China, and NK with conventional forces, and standing armies alone. Not to say, China's neighbours will not stand still too. Even a whatever pyrrhic victory will likely be the end of political regimes in both NK, and China. If they will attack, they will weight in that price first.
  • maxander 6y ago
    What could NK conceivably offer China that would pay for getting into a shooting war with another superpower? If China does support NK in such a situation, that support would be limited to things which are entirely deniable- material and perhaps some light cyberwarfare. Certainly no extra ICBMs, and nothing that would stop the U.S. from rolling over NK in short order (for all that it certainly increase the cost for the U.S.)
    • chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > conceivably It would be extremely disruptive to the region which would result in opportunities to use the Chinese army to make gains on disputed territories while the world was occupied with the big war elsewhere. I did not say this was likely.
    • baybal2 6y ago
      > What could NK conceivably offer China that would pay for getting into a shooting war with another superpower? In all scenarios I see, it will work the other way around. I doubt that NK military would move a centimetre without Beijing's explicit authorisation. In any big war, China will use NK as a cannon fodder.
      • magicsmoke 6y ago
• nine_k 6y ago
  If a major conflict with NK happens, the victim will also be South Korea. Seoul is close to the border, and is targeted by a colossal array of weapons. Not destroying it will always be a large bargaining chip in NK's hands.
  • oblio 6y ago
    I don't know the local details, but I would be very surprised if a fully industrialized developed nation such as South Korea doesn't have a full military arsenal pointed right back at the agrarian, backwards North Korea. Especially since several of the Korean chaebols have quite advanced military arms. South Korea would obviously wants support from the US and the rest of the world, but I'm pretty sure they can flatten North Korea right back if they're fired upon.
    • jacobush 6y ago
      Yes, what’s your point exactly? It’s still a bargaining chip.
      • oblio 6y ago
        My point is that everyone treats South Korea as being a 8 year old in a bad neighborhood. As crazy as North Korea is, if they fire first, South Korea isn't just a sitting duck. North Korea would probably be obliterated just from South Korea hitting back, let alone if anyone else allied to South Korea jumps in. Micro scale MAD. North Korea is just grandstanding for food, it doesn't really mean that they will follow through. I mean, they're a dictatorship, so who knows.
        • baybal2 6y ago
          When people speak North Korea, they speak China. If China will say "jump" to Kim, he will, for as long as the physical security of Kim's family is provided (which is pretty much the one, and only carrot China been using with them)
        • mulmen 6y ago
• m0zg 6y ago
  Please. The US couldn't even "decapitate" Taliban after 19 years and 1 trillion dollars. Nor could the Soviet Union. Nor could the British before that. You can't win a land war in 21st century without turning the place into a glazed desert, which is not going to happen due to the proximity of South Korea and due to the fact that the American people aren't totally nuts. The US tried this several times and failed every time, including in Korea. Kim Jong Un will get his ICBMs eventually, and there's nothing anybody can do about that. Better plan for that eventuality now.
  • howlgarnish 6y ago
    There is no clear endgame in Afghanistan, other than "the beatings will continue until moral improves". In North Korea, on the other hand, the endgame is clear: the downfall of the Kim regime, mostly likely followed by integration into South Korea (if China allows, and that's a mighty big if). You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche.
    • m0zg 6y ago
      > You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche Famous last words preceding every single failed US military intervention. In fact, preceding most other military interventions in other countries. Probably what Hitler thought as he was invading the USSR. Or what the USSR thought when invading Afghanistan (where, by the way, one of my uncles served, and got his right arm blown off). Truly, those who have not studied history are doomed to repeat it.
    • La1n 6y ago
      >You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche. Maybe, but they might be willing to fight invaders. The Korean War that killed 2-3 million civilians doesn't make the US seem like the good guy. The US will be seen as imperialist invaders by the ordinary citizen of the DPRK.
      • 6y ago
• KingOfCoders 6y ago
  1. I don't think NK would first strike, I see no reason but I might just not think broad enough. 2. I don't have numbers, but say NK starts 40 ICMBs, the US shoots down 95% then 2 ICBMs would reach the US, at least California and NYC wouldn't be livable for decades. 3. I don't think this balances out "decapitation of military capacity"
  • whiddershins 6y ago
    2 ICBMs can not render our coasts unliveable for decades. Our coasts are extremely large relative to the fallout radius of any single known nuclear warhead.
    • KingOfCoders 6y ago
      Perhaps I haven't been clear what I meant so you've assumed I've meant coasts. I have no detail knowledge of the fallout radius or radioactive decay, I would assume an ICBM hit would render the valley and Manhattan unliveable, but I haven't been in both places for more than five years so I might be wrong.
      • ben_w 6y ago
        NK nukes, which are fairly small, would mess up the skyscraper blocks of NYC and San Francisco city while leaving the rest of those cities mostly intact. And that’s in comparison to cites — the state of California is massive. When I visited Davis CA, I could see the hills to the west but not the mountains to the East. You could lose a nuke in one of the smaller forest fires. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
        • KingOfCoders 6y ago
          I guess we differ, I could not shrug away the destruction of a million people city as "messing up" - as someone who lived through the cold war of the 80s, who watched "The day after" while new Pershings were deployed to Germany and who felt the impact of Chernobyl. The times make the people.
• somesortofsystm 6y ago
  >A single, and final, shot. There are few circumstances where this refrain, so often repeated, would be so stupidly ignored by any of USA's enemies. Presumably, a feeble opening shot such as this would be a precursor for a counter-, counter-attack, for which USA is not prepared. Because, after all, the USA is sure it will obliterate its enemies - and thus, the 'eye for eye' response would have to be something USA is really, really not prepared for. Such proclamations as are allowed here, lend me to the thought: I wonder what that is?
• CyanBird 6y ago
  Just for the record, Japan didn't attack pearl harbor to "demoralize" the US, they did it with the aim to fully decapitate the US Pacific fleet, and it almost worked if it weren't because US Pacific carriers were off to the sea at the time and not in the dock Besides that, please don't do the dumb US jingoism, it is just so tiring overall
  • notyourwork 6y ago
    Do you actually think NK would stand a chance against any of the major powers of today? I don't think this is anything about patriotism and simply stating facts. NK is not a world power and picking a fight with a world power won't end well.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • baryphonic 6y ago
    > Just for the record, Japan didn't attack pearl harbor to "demoralize" the US, they did it with the aim to fully decapitate the US Pacific fleet, and it almost worked... Hold on, it didn't "almost work." The carriers being out of port made the attack much worse for Japan, but the operation was a fairly dramatic strategic failure. Japan knew that the US industrial capacity at the time could produce new ships quickly, so the main aim was to buy time to gain a larger foothold in Asia that could withstand a total US war (especially because US strategy clearly regarded Germany as the bigger threat). The US Atlantic Fleet had four carriers at the time (Yorktown, Ranger, Wasp and Hornet); the Pacific Fleet had three (Enterprise, Lexington, Saratoga). Notice something about those names? Shortly after the US was attacked, the Yorktown and Hornet were transferred to the Pacific Fleet. After the Lexington was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea, the Wasp was also transferred. At the same time, new carriers were entering service in the US at a fairly quick rate. The Essex was commissioned in December 1942, and then the Essex-class Wasp, Yorktown and Hornet were all commissioned in 1943 (after the aforementioned were sunk in battle). Also, if you look at the tactical situation at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombers and torpedo aircraft were heavily biased in targeting lower-value battleships instead of the high-value cruisers and destroyers. Battleships had the prestige at the time, however, and pilots who knocked one out would receive greater glory than those who knocked out a more pedestrian destroyer or cruiser or even submarine. Finally, one of the aims of Japan was to undermine US morale. It may not have been the main strategic aim, but it was an explicit goal. In fact, that's often an aim of "decapitation" operations: sow chaos and prevent your enemy from organizing. So, no, it's not "US jingoism" to point out these fairly obvious facts. The US was simply better prepared for a conflict. It probably is today, too.
• gandalfian 6y ago
  there is no possible outcome where North Korea goes to war with the US that does not result in the total decapitation of military capacity of North Korea. The one where a million Chinese soldiers turn up at high speed, just like last time, leaps to mind.
  • rblatz 6y ago
    1 million Chinese soldiers or 10 million it doesn’t matter, America will not respond with a measured response to a nuclear strike on its soil. It will respond with an overwhelming nuclear response. If China wants to send their men to die that’s on them. MAD is the only thing keeping the world relatively peaceful right now, and if one side blinks and refuses to respond the whole system crumbles and all out war breaks out for the 3rd time in recent history.
  • chillacy 6y ago
    It seems to me that a million conventionally armed soldiers today is like a legion of horse mounted soldiers in WW1. Technology has advanced so much since the last total war that any future war would look completely different (reference is to horses used in battle vs tanks during WW1).