Has North Korea lost its collective mind?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: carewemust
Something we don't hear about, but just as critical.

While the exchange of harsh words and warnings between North Korea and the U.S. has engrossed the global audience, Pyongyang, North Korea, is also engaged in another shouting match, with China, that is equally blistering.

In a commentary piece distributed on Sept. 22 and titled "Rude Deed of Shameless Media," the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Workers' Party of Korea, accused the Chinese media of being in collusion with the imperialists, interfering in North Korea's internal affairs, being oblivious of the mission of media ("objectivity and impartiality" it said), and driving a wedge between the two countries and the two peoples.

Source: asia.nikkei.com...

As a result, CHINA is considering what has been, until now, unthinkable...

Beijing:  North Korea's nuclear antics have rattled its alliance with China to the point that Beijing is allowing the previously unthinkable to be discussed: Is it time to prepare for the renegade regime's collapse? 

Source: www.ndtv.com...

This is what I am talking about.Not only are they poking at the US , they are provoking their only ally . This has been going on for a while , though . The original UN sanctions were written by the Chinese due to this.
China and the US were discussing a hotline between the 2 nations. That right there should tell you something.

It seems as if North Korea's only true ally is Iran. I guess NK has "lost its collective mind". A death-wish of sorts.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: carewemust
Something we don't hear about, but just as critical.

While the exchange of harsh words and warnings between North Korea and the U.S. has engrossed the global audience, Pyongyang, North Korea, is also engaged in another shouting match, with China, that is equally blistering.

In a commentary piece distributed on Sept. 22 and titled "Rude Deed of Shameless Media," the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Workers' Party of Korea, accused the Chinese media of being in collusion with the imperialists, interfering in North Korea's internal affairs, being oblivious of the mission of media ("objectivity and impartiality" it said), and driving a wedge between the two countries and the two peoples.

Source: asia.nikkei.com...

As a result, CHINA is considering what has been, until now, unthinkable...

Beijing:  North Korea's nuclear antics have rattled its alliance with China to the point that Beijing is allowing the previously unthinkable to be discussed: Is it time to prepare for the renegade regime's collapse? 

Source: www.ndtv.com...

This is what I am talking about.Not only are they poking at the US , they are provoking their only ally . This has been going on for a while , though . The original UN sanctions were written by the Chinese due to this.
China and the US were discussing a hotline between the 2 nations. That right there should tell you something.

It seems as if North Korea's only true ally is Iran. I guess NK has "lost its collective mind". A death-wish of sorts.

North Korea has not , but their collective leaders have made sure the their public is on the way

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: JBurns


What concerns me is that NK have the 3rd largest standing army in the world and 1000's of missiles. It would be a cataclysm.

To then see Trump's tweets today saying that any and all diplomatic effort is a waste of time on his Sec Def's part, while once again using name calling, like it's a primary race or something, is equally as disturbing.

I also don't see anyone communicating a large carrot ie: removal of all sanctions, ability to join the international community and realize long term security and prosperity.

There doesn't seem to be any of that directed at the North Korean people and everyone who surrounds their leader.

It looks like Trump wants to see a war brought about to make use of those toys you mention.

When I read that earlier on twitter, I thought "ah, good cop bad cop routine". Maybe he's using an agreed upon psychological gig on Kim. Either way, as dangerous as the situation is, I'm glad Trump is taking the stance that he is since in the past, all prior forms of sissy-hood has failed when leaders snivel up to Kim, just like what happened after Obama sniveled up to Iran and tried bribing them with cash and technology, only to have them publicly declare how America should be destroyed.

I don't think Trump cares one way or another though, if Kim calls his bluff or not. If Kim Un keeps up his stupidity he will be the one to really lose everything he has and a lot of good people as well, will suffer for it.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JBurns

Your plan would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in North Korea and the fallout would end up who knows where causing unimaginable harm.

Yes, the firepower exists, no it should not be used.
China needs to be pressured to take care of this nutcase.

Now if you can just get Tyrant Un to understand, then your plan might work.

I there anything stopping a country or coalition to sneak in and assassinate this doofus?

Throwing bombs around nowhere near Trump or Kim, killing innocents?

OR

Seal Team 6 or whoever thinks they can pull it off, makes a weekend out of it?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Why would Trump, or any US President offer a carrot to that little tyrant in No Korea? Reward him for his threats, invite him to the international community so he can purchase and upgrade his 1950's military equipment?


Makes no sense. Although I'm not that smart.

a reply to: JBurns

the best way for us to win against DPRK is not to fire a single shot
but let the enemy defeat itself

a reply to: sapien82

Seems like the US has been trying that since the Clinton years to no avail, no?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Ankh, thank you! I appreciate that, and also agree that if he is even considering negotiations (I have to believe he isn't suicidal) he should turn in his chips and figure out a way to end this without bloodshed (or possibly even without regime change).

For all of Kim's bad intentions, he has started to embrace certain Western ideas (private businesses, for example with the "fertilizer" industry) so I am hesitant to say he's 100% unreachable and that war is a foregone conclusion. Maybe that is just the optimist in me talking, but I think that our Government realizes war has to at least appear inevitable in order to prevent an actual war.

Thanks again, I've enjoyed discussing this with you and others here and have learned from reading everybody's replies.

JB

Man power wise, they are second to China, while you are number three.

Technology, well wouldn't we and everyone else would like to know. Nvm the orbs.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JBurns

You think uS would mind if China nuked Mexico or Canada?

Yes, we would definitely not be pleased. If, however, the missiles were heading in a direction that didn't threaten our nation I find it highly improbable we would start WWIII over it. Much as China is highly unlikely to start WWIII over an announced strike on NK. China and the United States both understand that attacking one another will certainly result in catastrophic retaliation. While China does not maintain a stockpile capable of inflicting "total destruction," its arsenal can certainly cause "unacceptable and grave losses" to our country.

originally posted by: intrptr
Not during climb phase, only after apogee.

Very true

originally posted by: intrptr
But being China, you would believe the uS when it said they were only 'nuking Korea'.

Us of course keeps its promises.

Probably not, but there are locations from which a boomer could launch missiles that are traveling in a direction that cannot threaten Chinese territory or assets. Once they are launched, their destinations cannot be changed or disregarded (after all, this would be a critical weakness in our nuclear deterrent - a malicious actor could even redirect warheads to U.S. or allied territory.)

originally posted by: intrptr
You can't be twice my age, people don't live that long.

Fair enough

originally posted by: intrptr
No one will if they listen to

I respectfully disagree. The only thing more dangerous than engaging NK now is engaging NK once they have survivable second strike capability along with the audacity that only comes with knowing you have your enemy in a stalemate. We cannot allow a rogue state to posses these weapons, capable of holding the world hostage on the whims of a 30 something year old. We cannot allow this global chess game to end in a stalemate. Doesn't have to be a checkmate either, but deterrence is all about keeping your adversary in a perpetual state of check. For example, the U.S. deploys missile defense so Russia builds a submarine-like nuclear weapon vector. China deploys nuclear weapons in space (fictional.. I hope) so the U.S. deploys satellite killers, or whatever countermeasure would be appropriate. Allowing Kim to posses operational nuclear capabilities gives him the opportunity to threaten others while ensuring we're held at bay by his strategic deterrent - this is unacceptable for many reasons.

Further, you appear to be an intelligent person so I am sure you can see the nightmare that normalizing the Kim regime's actions would create. It would show that we were unable to prevent Kim's nuclear ambitions, and embolden other states (perhaps even all of them?) to create their own nuclear and WMD programs. Nuclear proliferation from the impoverished communist regime is another valid concern, providing non-state actors with the potential channels to acquire nuclear weaponry. There is a clearly defined "kill chain" for preventing proliferation, and the North's unlawful possession/production of the nuclear warheads and delivery mechanisms is a definite "chink" in said chain.

---

Above all else, it is imperative to note that such a regime is incapable of surviving in the long term. What will come of this potentially-huge future stockpile once the inevitable happens and communism/totalitarianism once against demonstrates its unsustainable nature? Will individual commanders simply take possession of the weapons and use/sell them at their leisure? Will they sell the weapons? Or will they provide them to the enemies of their enemies? I won't insult your intelligence by claiming to know the future, but I do not believe this is a gamble we should take.

a reply to: stormcell

Agreed. Not to glance over the first three paragraphs, but you made a great point in the fourth (several other excellent points, as well!). It would appear that the Kim regime is destined for collapse, which makes the argument against them having possession of nuclear weapons even greater. There are a few exceptions, however... your post really got me thinking here.

1) Kim could simply stop being a dictator, and delegate functions of government to duly elected bodies. Embracing certain aspects of S. Korean (Western) culture could also aid this, much as China is doing (especially in Hong Kong). China, although technically a communist state, appears to have realized such ideals (communism) do not work and have historically ended in total collapse. It seems to embrace aspects of Western society and capitalism, leading me to believe we have more in common with them than not. Look at Hong Kong, for example; They are essentially two separate governments, thought both are part of "China." Look to their open discussion of independence as a perfect example. In this instance, NK could look at becoming a signatory to the NPT (or whatever relevant treaty) and do things the legal way. If this happens, they become no different than Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Israel, India, Pakistan and strategic deterrence applies. *We must think very carefully before even considering normalizing this, for the precedent set may cost far more than the avoided war*

2) The U.S. (under the banner of the International community) could rebuild and modernize the North in exchange for disarmament and denuclearization. This would give them an opportunity to ease into the same path as China and integrate with the rest of society.

3) The U.S. could propose a peace treaty, verifiably freezing current nuclear and missile technology development - subject to verification randomly, without any advance notice. It could also be permitted to maintain its current stockpile of 0-40 operational nuclear weapons (whatever they happen to posses). This would contain the threat (because lets face it, nuclear weapons are not death-stars) whilst allowing their government to maintain a mini-version of China's unacceptable damages doctrine. It would also prevent world-ending consequences should they decide to go completely off the reservation and fire them randomly at the "imperialists."

Less preferred options include:

4) Using a combination of tactical nuclear enhanced radiation devices as area denial tools to prevent the North's troop concentrations from overwhelming U.S.F.K. and ROK soldiers. Utilizing electronic warfare to deny the North access to satellites, radar and RF based communication capabilities, while simultaneously using cyber warfare tactics to degrade or destroy their ability to command those armies and receive/provide relevant tactical data. Conventional weapons (cruise missiles, air force, special operations units, etc) could be used to eliminate the artillery positions and armored units as well. Tactical nuclear weapons could also be deployed to target the artillery/MLRS since these would be a considerable threat to SK even without the ability to project power via large concentrations of soldiers sent directly to SK. We then use our air/sea domination to blockade the North and force their surrender, or simply wait out their collapse. In this instance, area denial is key to maintaining the advantage.

5) Launching a 1st strike using SLBMs fired from US Navy boomers to completely destroy the country along with their nuclear threat (basically unacceptable for any purpose other than counter-value 2nd strike but results are almost assured)

---

Please note that I am NOT a military planner, so the above ideas are simply something I came up with using what knowledge I have randomly acquired. And please, feel free to add or amend ideas! Also please be aware that I'm not endorsing the above listed ideas and just kind of threw them out there as a starting point. Not that anyone in government will likely read my suggestions, it is a good exercise in critical thinking so I welcomed the opportunity.

a reply to: JBurns I think out of the box.... all of our technology "poison him" its to simple.

originally posted by: madenusa
a reply to: JBurns I think out of the box....

all of our technology "poison him" its to simple.

Now this is a plan of action I think would have a great probability of success, and even give the plausible deniability desired. I have a feeling that our technology level would be overwhelming, despite only being the 3rd largest military. When it comes to global warfare, size isn't everything!

Great thinking, and always interesting to conjure up some ideas regarding black budget tech.

a reply to: Specimen


No doubt, but the size of a force is wholly irrelevant when it comes to force projection. What matters most is the ability to utilize that massive military to defend or advance your strategic interests. For example, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons/air and naval superiority/conventional area denial tools negate any advantage a large standing army has.

When you throw drones and other black budget technology into the picture (force multipliers), a small U.S. force could fight and win against a much larger adversary with even a marginal technological gap.

a reply to: MeNotSmart1

the thing is you need patience in order to defeat your enemies

a reply to: JBurns

Yes, we would definitely not be pleased. If, however, the missiles were heading in a direction that didn't threaten our nation I find it highly improbable we would start WWIII over it.

You don't understand. Launch signature of multiple ICBMs is immediate. For minutes during the boost phase the targets are unknown. Lots of time to 'worry' about a response.

Until the missiles reach apogee and begin descending the target is not sure. Especially as close as North Korea is to China.

Presuming they will adopt a 'wait and see' attitude is also MAD.

a reply to: sapien82

I mostly agree. The problem with patience in my opinion regarding DPRK is the more patience shown equates to more weapon(s) development, more tests, more of everything.

When is enough enough?

a reply to: MeNotSmart1

It certainly is a tough one , Im not sure why China or Russia never just invaded and annexed north korea, I mean the World would be pretty upset about it , but what would they really do ?

they arent going to goto war with china or russia for removing a dictator , I mean america gets away with it quite alot

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: madenusa
a reply to: JBurns I think out of the box....

all of our technology "poison him" its to simple.

Now this is a plan of action I think would have a great probability of success, and even give the plausible deniability desired. I have a feeling that our technology level would be overwhelming, despite only being the 3rd largest military. When it comes to global warfare, size isn't everything!

Great thinking, and always interesting to conjure up some ideas regarding black budget tech.

Debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild.
When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt for the next century.
So off to war your children must go, to spill their blood for the money-junkies' gold.
We barely survived the last two world wars.
In the nuclear/bioweapon age, are they willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed?