Pentagon: only ground invasion can destroy North Korean nuclear program

a reply to: Zaphod58

It’s too bad because I just wrote an informative essay comparing the differences between the obsolete view of economic development and the new paradigm that the international community has agreed upon in consensus and is working towards to ensure a sustainable future for mankind... and then it was accidentally deleted.

So instead of rewriting all of that, I’m just going to explain it like this. The countries that now trend high in this new paradigm of economic progress are typically small-middle countries that have socialist regimes and self-contained nationalized economies. Some have chosen this path and met success, like Scandinavia, and others have had to adapt to this reality due to external pressure like embargos, such as Cuba. And North Korea, if data was allowed to be compiled for them, would probably be in a similar position.

If we want to continue following the obsolete view of economic progress, aka, national profit in the form of ever increasing GDP, then we should expect to surpass insurmountable thresholds of global instability by the end of the 21st century. Those who continue to perpetuate this obsolete, industrial-era ideology are those that stand to lose the most if they were to adapt- and those with power refuse to ever give it up.

The situation with North Korea is, in my opinion, analogous to how the American federal government treats fringe groups within its own population, albeit on a smaller scale. These groups rise up out of new social and economic realities and try to hold on to their own ideals as they are promised by their interpretation of cultural norms and legal terminology; and this puts them at odds with the government that want everybody living under their umbrella of control. In North Korea’s case, the USA act as if they are world policemen who demand subservience and tribute from countries who are just trying to follow cultural and legal norms established by the international community as a whole.

You want a realistic assessment of how to deal with North Korea? Try looking at it objectively. Who are the participants in this conflict: North Korea, South Korea, the USA. Or let me rephrase that for you: Korea and the USA.

Now that’s established, let me explain to you exactly how to resolve the problem: remove all American military forces far away from Korea, and give back South Korea its political and military autonomy, as well as its self-determination. If you did that, then I guarantee a relatively peaceful reunification between North and South within a generation (10-30 years).

If you’re not willing to do that, then don’t expect peace to ever embrace that place. And don’t try to flatter the international community with your talk of the USA being responsible for bringing peace and prosperity through war because we do not believe in it.

a reply to: TheStalkingHorse

You know...let's try that out!

Let's ask South Korea, straight up, if they want the US to pack up and leave.

Ummmm...I'm thinking I might know the answer!

Your anti-American zeal seems to have extinguished all common sense and logic.

a reply to: Zaphod58
No way man, bringing an undeveloped country does not bankrupt the creditor, it becomes a CASH COW! You clearly have at least some idea of the untapped potential for amazing double and triple and even quadruple digit ROI's by bringing NK up to code.
Nobody gets free money except Israel! Nations are always rebuilt through loan guarantees and privatization of industries and resources. And the North has a bountiful supply of mining potential as well as timber, hydro electric power generation, and productive fisheries if managed properly. Plus laying down all that copper wire and fiber optics would create hundreds of thousands of jobs alone for that endeavor.


Oh no, let it be known, opening up the markets of North Korea would be a very profitable enterprise to ANYBODY who gets involved, be it contractor or investor or even the labor on the ground. And for this reason, we must not allow it to become a province of China. Why would we coordinate with international powers to liberate the country only to return it to the brutal regime of the Chinese?? No the only province they can get is a ten mile stretch as a buffer between United Korean Peninsula (UKP) which we can all treat as the new DMZ between China and UKP. Unless of course they are willing to fight for it.... then we see whos balls are bigger.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

It's profitable long term. In the short term, rebuilding the North, and bringing them up would hammer the South Korean economy. It's one of the things that has been brought up multiple times by multiple economists. If they can make it through the initial period, and get the standard of living up in the North, then long term, they're golden and it will pay off. But making it through that initial period is going to hammer them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

(Just thinking out loud here, not debating the point really)...

- I believe economists about as far as I can throw one (BIL is a retired Economics professor/dean too. Nephew followed in his shoes too). I call it the "Dismal Science" (and probably shouldn't even use the word "science").

- NK has a few things going for it which many other 3rd world countries do not. For one thing, they have water. They also do have some fairly developed industrial capability and skilled (relatively) labor. Despite the deplorable conditions in some areas, the NK's are able to survive without 100% outside support and aid (or anywhere near it). They do have Pyongyang, and they have a fairly regimented population capable of working in unison...albeit with a carrot and a stick errr, anti-aircraft gun.

- They don't have and factional activity at all. And this can be a huge roadblock to advancement.

- They do have an education system in populated areas, and are capable (at least) of being trained.

- There is no religious system or culture which stands in the way of bettering their people or their economy.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The issue is less about the people and more about the infrastructure. They're going to have to build a nationwide road system, electrical grid, power stations, schools, etc. Yes, they have some impressive resource deposits, but they're not going to do anyone any good for a few years until they can be dug out. No matter how you look at it, it's going to be a huge cost to get things going, and bring the North up even close to the same level as the South.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, but they already have a nationwide road system (not by US standards, but they do have a fairly developed road system). In any case, much of the difficult and time consuming 'heavy lifting' such as earthwork and embankment is already done for those roads and rights of way which are not fully developed yet. And with these road rights of way they have already built natural utility corridors for water, electric and sewer infrastructure.

They have major deep water port capability with numerous ports on both the east and west coasts and rail rights of way inland from these ports. Granted, it all could be upgraded, but unlike many countries it at least exists as a starting point. All that infrastructure doesn't have to start from square one.

They have hydro-electric power generation facilities throughout the interior of the country, so again the heavy-lifting, things like dams and the like, have already been constructed. Power distribution throughout the country would require significant upgrade, but as utilities go electric distribution is probably the easiest and fastest to establish. As we've already seen, they already have the academic capability to build nukes, so building nukes for steam generation and subsequent power generation is not out of the question for heavy power.

As noted earlier they do have water (i.e. fresh water) and lots of it (rivers, reservoirs and lakes). Much of this may need treated to make it potable, but it exists. And this alone is huge in terms of development.

I was involved with building some cities in SE Asia and China, so I'm familiar with where the real challenges are and NK is by no means as challenging as other areas. Heck, we built an entire city in the jungle where there was nothing to start with.

I am not suggesting the above is a task which could be undertaken at zero cost, but what I am suggesting is NK is, contrary to common belief, not this desert wasteland with no water, no hope and no wherewithal. Quite the contrary. Again, I'm looking at things in NK from a logistical standpoint, not from a political / human rights standpoint, and my view is not tainted by the MSM's overwhelming zeal to paint NK as this depraved wasteland devoid of even basic resources. It is not.

I've been to places (central China as an example) which have FAR greater challenges, and far less possibilities.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No, it's not a desert wasteland, but to bring it up to South Korean standards, with the education, and other infrastructure isn't as easy as "well, they already have ". Having a road is one thing, is it capable of supporting trucks moving several hundred thousand pound generator, moving to the power plant to upgrade it? Yes, it's not going to be as much of a challenge as some places, but it's not going to be done on the cheap either, which is the point I'm making.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand, and I'm not disagreeing with you. And I understand the point you are making.

I'm just sharing a little a little less grim (and hopefully more objective) view of NK, one vastly different than the one characterized by the MSM. If for no other reason than for the benefit of others who may read this thread.

Incidentally, you've mentioned 'education' a couple times now, so a couple thoughts on that...

Of all the challenges, the building of schools is by far the easiest. You can put a school anywhere, all you need is a roof and heat. This can be temporary, while other infrastructure is built. Probably the bigger challenge with education is two-fold..

a. finding the staff
b. agreeing on the curriculum, as what you teach younger generations is usually a topic rife with political entanglements.

I think the thing which is so sad and angering to me is, NK could do all these things on their own if their leadership chose to. Instead, their dear leader has chosen to completely isolate the country from the world, as if all of its citizens were some giant (failed) science experiment.

It is just incomprehensible to me how easy it would be for Kim to just drop all the BS and sabre rattling and begin to normalize relations with the outside world.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Building infrastructure is the easy part.

Trying to deprogram the North Korean cult mindset is the problem and will be for a generation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh, I don't know...take the Kim family out of the picture and it might be easier than you think.

Remember, the whole country is built upon a cult of personality right now. Remove the personality and with it goes the cult.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh, I don't know...take the Kim family out of the picture and it might be easier than you think.

Remember, the whole country is built upon a cult of personality right now. Remove the personality and with it goes the cult.

True but its also built around paranoia... People turning neighbors in for the stupidest stuff. Telling the N. K. people that Un is no longer in power would most likely be viewed as nothing but western propaganda. It could be viewed as an attempt by Un to weed out dissenters.

a reply to: Zaphod58

IF we do it this time,WE DIDN'T after we won the cold war for Russia,financially and THEY ARE pissed/hurt about it.
GIANT mistake Bush Sr.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Zaphod58

IF we do it this time,WE DIDN'T after we won the cold war for Russia,financially and THEY ARE pissed/hurt about it.
GIANT mistake Bush Sr.

I was under the impression the west did not assist the USSR monetarily out of concern it would stabilize the USSR. The quintessential why stabilize your enemy?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Tradition and WE WANTED a stabilization,at the time...
WELL...not a BUSH...

WEll I hugged, kissed and prayed for a Young Man I practically raised tonight who is leaving for S.K. in the am. So handsome, proud and brave, and yet barely dry behind the ears. I guess I was in search engine looking for any real info on what we factually know about the region and what the possibilities are for our Soldiers headed that way. Any news I could find that is credible and not just msm fear mongering?

How does ICBM targeting work exactly? I recon that warheads have barometer and other sensors to determine when to initiate the blast and those sensors are pretty passive and onboard. Does targeting use satellites or is it just precoded, prelaunch instruction that is hack proof and can't be changed midflight?

a reply to: KiwiNite

Preprogrammed coordinates. They're programed before launch and use a barometric altimeter to determine detonation altitude. They'd have to have an antenna on each warhead, which could prove problematical.