I Would Rather... (Nuclear Question)

[BonJoviJones]

[Dead]

I honestly don't care. The threat of certain "bad" countries have nuclear weapons is incredibly overrated imo. If we all have nukes then it is not a big deal. Iran and NK won't consider using them.

But I do know why politicians make such a big deal about it. Fear wins elections.

[Utah]

You are making an assumption that all leaders are rational and that they will not use nukes because of retaliation. What about some crazed leader who wants to go out in a blaze of glory?

Also, what about countries that will filter a nuke to terrorists?

[zaxx19]

I honestly don't care. The threat of certain "bad" countries have nuclear weapons is incredibly overrated imo. If we all have nukes then it is not a big deal. Iran and NK won't consider using them.


Wow you gotta love a left winger speaking honestly about his feelings....

Ya, North Koreas leadership would never consider using them , I mean that would be like starving half your coutry while spending money to develop something youll never use....Oh wait a minute...hmmm

Thank G-d we have a strong president like GWB in office right now this type of thinking will get us nuked.

[Dead]

I guess we will just have to deal.

[Dead]

The average Zaxx makes 46,000 dumb statements per year.

[Warchant88]

I voted that no country should have them, but my second choice would be that each country has one.

[TransientR]

Zaxx19 wrote:

"Thank G-d we have a strong president like GWB in office right now this type of thinking will get us nuked."

Kneejerk, conditioned by Fox et al. and simple minded, as displayed by you daily here.

Frank

[bholdr]

that'd be my choice. there is far too much risk of one lone nut popping off a bomb without consideration of his citizens. (Kim Jong Il comes to mind...)

[lastchance]

This is an incredibly situational question. I'll let others elaborate. (AKA, I'm too lazy to post more)

[BCPVP]

First choice: No country have them
Second choice: Only the U.S. have them

[The once and future king]

If the regime in NK didnt have Nukes, NK would have been invaded last week.

So if you are the ruling elite biulding a Nuke to balance out the ovewhelming superiority of your foes convetional weaponry, and existence of said nuke is the only thing keeping said regime in power then starving your totaly dominated civilain population is entirely rational if maintainace of power is your primary goal.

Using your nuke premptively is the worst move possible by the same criteria.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

If the regime in NK didnt have Nukes, NK would have been invaded last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? North Korea wasn't invaded when it didn't have nukes before (for quite a long time).

[ QUOTE ]
So if you are the ruling elite biulding a Nuke to balance out the ovewhelming superiority of your foes convetional weaponry, and existence of said nuke is the only thing keeping said regime in power then starving your totaly dominated civilain population is entirely rational if maintainace of power is your primary goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

North Korea has something like a million or two million man active Army, with another 8 million Army members in reserve. They have HUGE amounts of firepower in the form of entrenched artillery. If not for the US deterrent, they would have steamrolled over South Korea long ago in nearly no time flat.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
??? North Korea wasn't invaded when it didn't have nukes before (for quite a long time).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush wasnt CinC and 9/11 hadnt happend yet. Under present situations and given all the rational given by the CinC for war with Iraq we must assume that without the Nuke NK would have been "liberated" by now.



[ QUOTE ]
North Korea has something like a million or two million man active Army, with another 8 million Army members in reserve. They have HUGE amounts of firepower in the form of entrenched artillery. If not for the US deterrent, they would have steamrolled over South Korea long ago in nearly no time flat.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have the numbers, but SK has the allies (USA) and the technology. Totaly accurate counter battery fire would take care of that NK artilery in no time.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush wasnt CinC and 9/11 hadnt happend yet. Under present situations and given all the rational given by the CinC for war with Iraq we must assume that without the Nuke NK would have been "liberated" by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't quite think so. Bush has other pressing concerns in the Middle East, and the only reasons North Korea has to fear are: 1) they are developing nukes, thus flouting the agreed framework, 2) they export military tech to bad regimes, 3) their government counterfeit US currency and sellds drugs as a business. If they weren't doing these aggravating things, especially the nuke thing, they would have little cause to worry at present.

[ QUOTE ]
They have the numbers, but SK has the allies (USA) and the technology. Totaly accurate counter battery fire would take care of that NK artilery in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dopn't think this is quite accurate. A very knowledgeable poster (BillyLTL) said that North Korea has "arty that would knock your socks off", if I recall. He was over there in a professional reportage capacity. Also, the North Korean artillery is moveable on railroad tracks embedded deep into the rock mountains. It would be quite a big job taking out their massive artilleries.

Their army has a front line dug into tunnels and could with tanks and infantry overrun Seoul quickly no matter what we do. Our troops there (until being "moved back" soon or recently), were there primarily to serve as a tripwire. In other words our men would die (or would have died before being repositioned further away from Seoul) in a North Korean invasion of the South. This however provided a deterrent as North Korea knew that if they killed our men there they would be punished and we would definitely be at full war with them.

Former CIA head Woolsey has a good article called "How To Defeat North Korea" or some such title, which is easily found on the web. It describess an attack on North Korea and how an offensive war could successfully be implemented. All that however would not stop North Korea from flattening Seoul if they decided to attack first.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
They have the numbers, but SK has the allies (USA) and the technology. Totaly accurate counter battery fire would take care of that NK artilery in no time.


[/ QUOTE ]

NK has enough artellery to make WMDs on the pensilua a moot point. their nukes only benifit them as a tool for use against japan and the U.S.

last stat i heard was 11,000 peices capable of hitting seoul. that means before we could even begin to respond, that city of 10 mil would be flattened. NK's artillery is definitly not screwing around.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
last stat i heard was 11,000 peices capable of hitting seoul. that means before we could even begin to respond, that city of 10 mil would be flattened. NK's artillery is definitly not screwing around.

[/ QUOTE ]

You over estimate grealty the power of artillery. It would take months for this many peices to totaly flatten a large city like Seoul. Especialy as it is very very inaccurate.

Anyway the whole point is mute, as even if the NK were to invade the south this would represent a hight tide mark that would recede utra fast.

If you think NK has the recources and the logisitcs for an extended military campainghn you are in dream time and should stop smoking the horse tranqualisers.

It dosnt have the ability to supply its own cities with electricity 24/7 or feed its own population. Extended military campaighns are not on the agenda.

NK is playing a gaem of brinkmanship and survibal and it utterly isolated in the international community. The only goal of its elites is to stay in power as long as possible.
Any premptive use of it Nukes or conventional forces runs directly counter to this objective.

[jaxmike]

You are only on pace to make about 1/2 that, if you count every post that you make, and I do.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
They have the numbers, but SK has the allies (USA) and the technology. Totaly accurate counter battery fire would take care of that NK artilery in no time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand exactly what capacity NK has on the border. The NK artillery that is on the border would be absoultely devastating if it's full force was brought to bear. I think I remember hearing something about it to this effect. In the first 20 minutes of the Korean War resuming Seoul would be all but obliterated by NK artillery, and there would be almost nothing we could do about it. About the only way to prevent it would be a massive nuclear first strike on our part (US/SK) to take out their artillery.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
You over estimate grealty the power of artillery. It would take months for this many peices to totaly flatten a large city like Seoul. Especialy as it is very very inaccurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that it doesn't have to be accurate. They are not exactly going to be targeting "only military". It would take minutes for there to be total and complete destruction of Seoul.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway the whole point is mute, as even if the NK were to invade the south this would represent a hight tide mark that would recede utra fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. I am not sure that they cannot take the peninsula.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think NK has the recources and the logisitcs for an extended military campainghn you are in dream time and should stop smoking the horse tranqualisers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. They don't really have the resources. However, if they could take SK quickly and get rid of all land based resistance, they could use resources from the south to continue their occupation. In time, they would be defeated, yes, however, the cost would be unlike anything since WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
It dosnt have the ability to supply its own cities with electricity 24/7 or feed its own population. Extended military campaighns are not on the agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they may in fact be on the agenda. This is part of the reason their people live without food and electricity so often.

[ QUOTE ]
NK is playing a gaem of brinkmanship and survibal and it utterly isolated in the international community. The only goal of its elites is to stay in power as long as possible.
Any premptive use of it Nukes or conventional forces runs directly counter to this objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this for the most part.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

It dosnt have the ability to supply its own cities with electricity 24/7 or feed its own population. Extended military campaighns are not on the agenda.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think they may in fact be on the agenda. This is part of the reason their people live without food and electricity so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well North Korea stockpiled about two years' worth of food and fuel for its massive military (while its people starved). I would think a couple years' worth of provisions for the military ought to be sufficient to allow its Army to operate a somewhat extended military campaign.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Well North Korea stockpiled about two years' worth of food and fuel for its massive military (while its people starved). I would think a couple years' worth of provisions for the military ought to be sufficient to allow its Army to operate a somewhat extended military campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is true, I am NOT entirely sure that they have the ability to effectively distribute the provisions over a large scale. I think their best bet would be to pillage provisions from the south at least in the short term should the situation come up.