Replies

Hopefully we can take out the nuke plants without NK trying to nuke Seoul or our 30K troops in the DMZ and SK.

I don't know if that is a good assumption or not. The whole South Korean situation really complicates matters for us. We really can't do anything militarily against NK without getting approval from South Korea. It is their country which is most vulnerable to NK retaliation, of course. And given their pacifist tendencies, it seems unlikely that they would approve of military action.

We could do it unilaterally, but do we really want to gamble the lives of all the citizens in Seoul? There is at least some possibility of destroying South Korea in an effort to protect it.

We might simply choose to do nothing. After all, NK is not an imminent threat to the US. Their missile program is advanced, but it's not ICBM quality, and we will have deployed missile defense before they deploy ICBMs.

But that leaves open the risks we've already discussed.

The only feasible military operation that would minimize risk to South Korea is an overwhelming surprise attack by us, probably using nuclear weapons to obliterate these weapon sites and nuclear facilities. We'd also have to decapitate NK leadership, essentially destroying the country in a few minutes.

We have the firepower to do it, but I don't know if we're prepared to accept the geopolitical consequences of that. I suspect we aren't.

We really can't do anything militarily against NK without getting approval from South Korea.

I would think all bet's are off when those putz's start threatening to "blow up the earth"

Sure, they can destroy their neighbors.. But someone needs to remind them that once they let this genie out of the bottle, and the damage is either imminent or already done, there's nothing that will save them. And I wonder what Pootie-poot's going to do about this? After all, they are in his backyard.

"The only feasible military operation that would minimize risk to South Korea is an overwhelming surprise attack by us, probably using nuclear weapons to obliterate these weapon sites and nuclear facilities. We'd also have to decapitate NK leadership, essentially destroying the country in a few minutes. "

Given political realities in the US, as well as the real threat of tremendous US casualties within 24 hours of the start of any conflict, I would assume nothing will be done until NK is caught selling nuclear material/weapons. If they aren't, I assume there are works already in progress for destabilization ideas, but given the opponent in question, I doubt their efficacy. I would assume that NK gets some level of chinese material support, which might increase to offset the oil-blackmail discontinuance. This is a real pickle for the US. As you note, the potential geopolitical consequences of a first strike by the US are staggering in virtually all permutations.

I wonder what chicom perception is of the value of a minor ally causing the US so much inconvenience versus the possibility that the weapons of that same ally will be used to threaten them by a buyer one day? I assume they opt for the advantages of the former. I doubt NK pays attention to russia at all now, as they are likely receiving no support from them.