US Response to North Korea

[LaurieAG]

This was in the NYT this morning. Are there really other people that crazy around the world today, and I'm not talking about the North Koreans and their dud bombs.

 

U.S. Draws Up Counterpunch for Provocation by North Korea

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER 9:11 PM ET

American officials said new “counterprovocation” plans called for a proportional “response in kind” that would hit the source of any attack by North Korea with similar weapons.

I'm sure it gets MacPhee's full approval but is there anybody else around that thinks this is on, especially in someone else's back yard, and especially since after you retaliate it would be hard to tell if the original cause was warranted?

 

Will the US actually glue one of their suitcase atomic weapons on a rocket or will they just use the closest size to zilch?

 

This stinks!!!

[Buffy]

...is there anybody else around that thinks this is on, especially in someone else's back yard, and especially since after you retaliate it would be hard to tell if the original cause was warranted?

 

Will the US actually glue one of their suitcase atomic weapons on a rocket or will they just use the closest size to zilch?

 

This stinks!!!

This is a new topic so I took the liberty of splitting it off.

 

It's a fascinating and concerning question of course, that a lot of people are asking about.

 

The conventional wisdom on this from diplomatic/defense folks is that we have a pretty good idea of what the North Koreans are doing, and we've put resources in place to do something pre-emptive with very limited scope if it looks like they've put a nuclear device on a missile and are preparing to launch it (with the conventional wisdom saying they don't have the tech for this yet and won't for a while).

 

It's highly unlikely they can hit any US territory, but they can easily hit South Korea or Japan (Japan is a fair target not only due to alliances with the US but because of the early 20th century occupation of Korea by Japan). Due to strong mutual defense agreements, the US would respond to such an attack, but again the conventional wisdom is that it would not be tit-for-tat, but probably focused very directly on taking out everything that the North Korean elite value with conventional drone/air weapons. It's *very* unlikely that we'd respond right away with a nuke, not because we couldn't or would not want to exact "revenge", but rather that such an attack would not just affect North Korea but China as well.

 

China is very concerned about the US's increased presence in Asia (this really began under GW Bush admin), and they would have a very difficult time not responding by defending North Korea, at least diplomatically. Any response by the US has to be something that does not box China into a corner, and ideally would be something that would cause them to tell the North Korean's "we told you so."

 

Most folks I've talked to who know about North Korea say that they're not stupid, they don't really have much to work with as a military force and so would be committing "suicide by US Department of Defense" in launching an actual attack, but that the real point of all this saber rattling is a combination of making the military feel that Kim can be their leader, and hoping to extract some diplomatic points on the side.

 

Both of those actually might turn out to be lost hopes.

 

 

The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously, :phones:

Buffy

[JMJones0424]

Having an intimate knowledge of political affairs on the Korean Peninsula, I am struck by a few observations.

 

1) What we are now witnessing is nothing more than a game. It is admittedly a stupid and destructive game, but it is a game, nonetheless, that has been played for at least the last 20 years. North Korea is stuck in a failed economic and governmental model and its governing junta seeks to maintain stability through keeping its people fed and ignorant. The other players, most importantly the US, South Korea, Japan, and China, are seeking to limit the destructive capriciousness of North Korea without having to commit the resources required to change the game fundamentally.

 

2) With a few caveats, covered below, there is practically nothing new about this newest flavor of the game.

 

As I see it, there have been a few significant changes that may disrupt how this current iteration of the game plays out. Most importantly, North Korea is rapidly running out of options to support its ludicrously inefficient economic model. Other than exporting raw materials, North Korea's only significant source of income from foreign trade has traditionally been in arms exported primarily to Iran, Syria, Libya, China, and the USSR/Russia. One by one, these countries have either ceased to exist or have either been blocked from trading with North Korea or have changed their outlook towards the "west" and have come to view the purchase of military goods from North Korea as unseemly. As such, more than ever before, North Korea is particularly susceptible to a devastating agricultural incident that will render it unable to feed its approximately 22 million citizens, of which anywhere from 15 to 25% are either in the active or reserve military. Make no mistake, none of Kim Jung Un's actions, in my opinion, are to solidify the support of his people. That support is a given. He is as much a descendant of the gods as the emperors of Japan that his government is modeled after, and his people are largely ignorant of events outside their bleak existence. He may or may not be a puppet of the ruling military junta, but I see this question as irrelevant, as neither he nor they are likely to willingly give up their stranglehold on their country.

 

China, the only existing "ally" of North Korea, has more to lose in propping up its military junta than in letting events play out as they will.

 

South Korea especially, but also Japan, are becoming less reliant on the US for military protection and more determined to defend themselves from periodic provocations from North Korea. The current president of the ROK, Pak Gun Hyeh, and her predecessor, have taken a distinctively confrontation stance rather than the appeasement found under the "Sunshine Policy" of their recent predecessors Kim Dae Jung and No Muh Hyun. President Pak is particularly predisposed to not put up with North Korean provocation, as both of her parents were assassinated by North Korean agents. Since the Olympics in 1988, South Korea has transitioned fitfully from a ruling oligarchy more towards a democracy, and North Korean infiltrators no longer find the fertile grounds in student insurrection that they used to.

 

The US's primary interest, again as I see it, is to ensure the safety of both South Korea and Japan, in order to prevent their move towards militarization and nuclear arms to counteract the North Korean threat. As such, I don't see the path we are taking in this game to be wanting.

 

What will happen? Who knows? I don't see anything wrong with the path that the United States is currently taking, however, the DPRK is in an unsustainable situation so the game could change rapidly in the future.

Edited April 8, 2013 by JMJones0424

[Moontanman]

This is something my wife and I have discussed, neither of us have any special knowledge other than just following the insanity of world politics. Personally I think North Korea is whistling in the dark and they might be signing off on their own destruction. US politics needs a distraction from the polarizing craziness that is currently occupying our government, both sides are locked in a death match (that reminds me of the claymation show celebrity deathmatch)but politicians aren't completely clueless and they have to be aware that a core group of citizens do see through the stupid enough to know when the mutual mental masterbation has gone on long enough...

 

I think US politicians on both sides are looking for something to distract the US population away from their impotence in dealing with the whole who has the right to restrict whose rights under what circumstances thing and this stupid picking of which parts of the constitution are inviolate is beginning to get old for anyone who has half a brain.

 

I think North Korea is playing but the US isn't...

[LaurieAG]

I had a bit of a look at the US's low/variable yield nuclear capabilities. I wouldn't want to bet that the different variable yields have been tested.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_(nuclear_warhead)

The W80 is a small thermonuclear warhead (fusion weapon) in the enduring stockpile with a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kt of TNT.

It was designed for deployment on cruise missiles and is the warhead used in the majority of nuclear-armed US Air Force ALCM and ACM missiles, and their US Navy counterpart, the BGM-109 Tomahawk. It is essentially a modification of the widely deployed B61 weapon, which forms the basis of most of the current US stockpile. The very similar W84 warhead was deployed on the BGM-109G Gryphon GLCM.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W80.html

This warhead suffered from an extremely serious problem that was not discovered until after production began. Since the ALCM is carried externally at high altitudes for inter-continental delivery, it is subjected to sub-freezing temperatures for long periods of time. Although PBX-9502 test samples had been fired at temperatures of -65 degrees, and the entire electrical system had been tested in sub-freezing environmental chambers, proof testing of an entire chilled warhead did not occur until after production began.

 

When a complete W80 was subjected to a low-temperature test in the Baseball shot (Operation Guardian) on 15 January 1981 20:25:00.90 (UCT), it gave only a fraction of the rated yield due to problems with the IHE. Further investigation showed that other B61 family warheads using IHE also suffered from this problem to varying degrees. Redesign and a second proof test (Jornada in Operation Praetorian, 28 January 1982 16:00:00.104 UCT) at -65 degrees F were required to resolve the problem.

Sun Tzu said words to the effect that it doesn't matter how big or small you are in any situation, those who have a better understanding of the underlying mechanics of the situation have the potential to wield the true power. If North Korea was a person they would be the most bullied person on this planet, how cheap is recognition and acceptance compared with the alternative? i.e. Vietnam.

[Moontanman]

I doubt that a nuclear response would be used unless a missile really hit a country, their missiles are reported to be so inaccurate they would be lucky to hit the ground much less a specific target but as i said earlier the US is looking for something to take the masses minds off the silly bullshite the US politicians are currently trying to pull over on the American people and the US is dangerously close to not having a war going on with the pull out in Afghanistan... The US without a war is not a good country to mess with...

[Buffy]

Pyongyang is full of fat juicy Communist Party targets and "Dear/Supreme Leader" palaces. Likely if anything hits S. Korea or Japan at all, these places get turned to rubble first, because perks mean a lot more than weapons for DPRK: just hunt around with Google Maps and you'll see airbases still stocked with early 50's vintage MIg-17s...

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Wonsan+Airport,+Wonsan,+Kangwon,+North+Korea&hl=en&ll=39.157688,127.489426&spn=0.001475,0.00247&sll=39.98978,127.607253&sspn=0.005828,0.009881&oq=Wonsan+Airport+,+North+Korea&t=h&hq=Wonsan+Airport,+Wonsan,+Kangwon,+North+Korea&z=19

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Koksan+Airport,+North+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&hl=en&ll=38.683651,126.594102&spn=0.002969,0.004941&sll=40.362201,128.738394&sspn=0.005796,0.009881&oq=Koksan+Airport+,+North+Korea&t=h&hq=Koksan+Airport,+North+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&z=18

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kwail+Airport,+South+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&hl=en&ll=38.417204,125.025734&spn=0.00298,0.004941&sll=38.683651,126.594102&sspn=0.002969,0.004941&oq=Kwail+Airport,+North+Korea&t=h&hq=Kwail+Airport,+South+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&z=18

 

And MIg-19s:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hwangju+Airfield,+North+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&hl=en&ll=38.655628,125.78132&spn=0.001485,0.00247&sll=39.907564,125.514936&sspn=0.04668,0.07905&oq=hwangju,+North+Korea&t=h&hq=Hwangju+Airfield,+North+Hwanghae,+North+Korea&z=19

 

Notice the incredibly aged runways that appear endlessly patched... Yep. Prepared for war with Capitalist Running Dog US...

 

 

The most important thing in our war preparations is to teach all our people to hate U.S. imperialism. Otherwise, we will not be able to defeat the U.S. imperialists who boast of their technological superiority, :phones:

Buffy

[Eclogite]

Self delusion is a wonderful thing, if you are the one who is self deluded. . . . . for a time, at least.

 

The isolation of the North Koreans has led, surprise, surprise, to isolation from reality.

 

(My main disappointment is that with the death of Kim Jong-Ill, I can no longer make the joke about his father, Kim Jong-dead.)

[LaurieAG]

Self delusion is a wonderful thing, if you are the one who is self deluded. . . . . for a time, at least.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/dprks-state-of-war-declaration-is-a-faulty-translation-not-an-official-policy-statement-from-kim-jung-un/5329687

 

Yeah Eclogite, I noticed that when I first read "Weapons of Mass Deception" 6 weeks before Gulf War II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_deception

 

Weapons of Mass Deception was used as the title of a nonfiction book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. This book focused specifically on the PR tactics and techniques of the Bush administration after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

 

I still have a real laugh when the marketing people use the term 'cloud' as it was first used to describe network/internet interconnections on a packet switched network diagram over 20 years ago.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_switching

Packet Switching is a digital networking communications method that groups all transmitted data – regardless of content, type, or structure – into suitably sized blocks, called packets. First proposed for military uses in the early 1960s and implemented on small networks in 1968, this method of data transmission became one of the fundamental networking technologies behind the Internet and most local area networks.