North Korea

The Running Man · 4 Sep 2017 at 21:00

Thing is to invade you'd need feet on the ground for sure. I'm pretty sure NO would use chemical weapons/nerve agents in their own country to stop them sacrificing

Dis86 · 4 Sep 2017 at 21:05

The Running Man said:
Thing is to invade you'd need feet on the ground for sure. I'm pretty sure NO would use chemical weapons/nerve agents in their own country to stop them sacrificing

Norway?

Morve · 4 Sep 2017 at 21:38

WWIII incoming!

Nasher · 4 Sep 2017 at 22:13

This won't be WW3. China is just about at the end of their tether with Kim and Russia isn't going to risk everything to defend them, why should they. They have no friends and are poking the only super power left on the planet. If it kicks off the US will just cripple their infrastructure, coms and any launchpads they find, then sit back and wait until they run out of food (which is already in very short supply in NK). It's all about air power these days and NK has nothing which can put a dent in the US.

kibblerok · 4 Sep 2017 at 23:03

Is there any word on who follows Kim. Does he have any kids etc? Don't think it would take any effort to take him out without causing much harm to civilians.

Then the country would be in chaos. I guess it's possible one of his top army chiefs could take over, but I'm not sure how they could keep the charade going if he gets taken out as a lot of NK appears to be build on perception.

Felon · 5 Sep 2017 at 00:05

I'd be prepared to bet a significant amount of money, that the US won't do a single thing in terms of military action - in reality I don't think they can.

Rroff · 5 Sep 2017 at 04:30

Screeeech said:
I'd be prepared to bet a significant amount of money, that the US won't do a single thing in terms of military action - in reality I don't think they can.

At this point it doesn't seem like NK are gonna stop short of ever increasing provocation however. I think ultimately its going to come down to where one or the other does plays it so close to the brink that the other has no choice but to step over the brink if they play their next move - at which point they either have to run away with their tail between their legs essentially conceeding or go all in.

Tefal · 5 Sep 2017 at 06:53

Nasher said:
If it kicks off the US will just cripple their infrastructure, coms and any launchpads they find, then sit back and wait until they run out of food

wouldnt that be a pretty big breach of various treaties the USA has signed up to though?

Tefal · 5 Sep 2017 at 06:55

Kermit said:
NK isn't afterall populated by people who beleive in a pixie in the sky

no they believe their pixie lives among them.

given your religious reference there this would be like dropping pamphlets about how crap Mohamed is on a Muslim country thinking that will win them over.

byeo · 5 Sep 2017 at 06:57

kibblerok said:
Is there any word on who follows Kim. Does he have any kids etc? Don't think it would take any effort to take him out without causing much harm to civilians.

Then the country would be in chaos. I guess it's possible one of his top army chiefs could take over, but I'm not sure how they could keep the charade going if he gets taken out as a lot of NK appears to be build on perception.

I read that he's got three kids but who knows if they are never seen in public...

Rroff · 5 Sep 2017 at 07:06

Kermit said:
Millions of leaflets dropped on major population centres and army bases explaining just what the outside world thinks of Kim, that he just a fat bloke with bad haircut who doesn't score a hole in one everytime playing golf, what South Korea is like I would think would help inspire enough of the population including the army not to resist and in fact welcome the SK army with open arms much like Europe did as the allies gained ground after D-Day.

NK isn't afterall populated by people who beleive in a pixie in the sky

Even amongst members of cults that have far more exposure to the wider world that would be unlikely to work let alone North Korea - even with the increased disillusionment with the regime and that there will be a varied level of open mindedness, experience and ability to adapt programming like that can't be undone overnight especially not with leaflet drops, etc.

Nitefly · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:15

It's probably already been said but lol at the Swiss offering to mediate

ubersonic · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:42

Dis86 said:
Is it not kind of awks for Iran that even the muppets in NK can develop a nuke and they can't?

It's probably actually good for Iran that NK are so many decades ahead of where Israel claim Iran are, despite having less resources and allies. Kinda helps cast doubt on the claims Iran's nuclear program is actually aimed at weapons and not power generation.

Felon · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:45

Rroff said:
At this point it doesn't seem like NK are gonna stop short of ever increasing provocation however. I think ultimately its going to come down to where one or the other does plays it so close to the brink that the other has no choice but to step over the brink if they play their next move - at which point they either have to run away with their tail between their legs essentially conceeding or go all in.

I think the biggest issue that exists right now - is that it seems increasingly clear that they're extremely close to having an effective weapon, no doubt we'll find out in the coming days, but I suspect they're close.

It's at that point that the military options for the US are all totally dire, because military action can no longer be preventative - whilst the US could use it's technology to knock out air defences, which would allow them to conduct bombing raids, they'd need to deploy enormous amounts of troops on the ground to secure or ensure any concealed weapons are taken care of, at all of those hidden sites with practically zero intel. With up to several million infantry waiting for them - I don't think it's a situation that would end well for the US unless it resorted to practical annihilation - at which point they become worse than NK.

Dis86 · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:52

ubersonic said:
It's probably actually good for Iran that NK are so many decades ahead of where Israel claim Iran are, despite having less resources and allies. Kinda helps cast doubt on the claims Iran's nuclear program is actually aimed at weapons and not power generation.

That's if you take the assumption NK are acting alone. I'm not entirely sure they are! The question is though who benefits from them being nuclear?

Nasher · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:58

Tefal said:
wouldnt that be a pretty big breach of various treaties the USA has signed up to though?

I doubt they care. NK has signed up to a lot of the same ones but is ignoring them. They all know the UN is toothless.

Vertigo · 5 Sep 2017 at 08:58

Rroff said:
They need some pretty significant work on both the missiles and the submarines before they'd have an effective deterrent along the lines of what we have - nothing NK has sub wise is remotely close to our former Resolution class never mind the Vanguard class subs.

The point is that's their end game and they're getting there faster than anyone suspected. We need to deal with them before this happens because, once it does, we can't touch them militarily.

4K8KW10 · 5 Sep 2017 at 09:03

The Russian Federation, the USA and China are responsible for these boring proxy wars. They don't have the balls to go directly against each other, and that's why they use smaller and weaker nations in the likes of the Ukraine, Syria, now North Korea. North Korea is basically working for the Russian Federation and China, in the opposite of how the Ukraine worked for the USA.

Aren't the North and South Koreans ethnically just Chinese?