War with North Korea is now the unavoidable choice facing America

The Independent (UK) ^ | 12/30/2002 | Bruce Anderson

[ozzymandus]

I don't feel war with N. Korea is unavoidable, but the destruction of a rogue state ruled by a nut doesn't seem like such a tragedy to me. A war probably wouldn't kill as many North Koreans as starvation and communism have.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Someone suggested the following policy:

First, tell North Korea that if one of their weapons, including any they sell, is every used against us, then we will wipe out their entire population. Second, build an Alaska-based missle defense capability, sit back, and let the rest of Asia deal with them directly.

[happygrl]

Yes, but how many Americans would pay the price for a nation (South Korea) which is exhibiying animosity towards those very forces ?

Worth an American life ?

Not for these ingrates.

[ozzymandus]

I agree. Let South Korea and Japan carry their own weight for once. We have no business having troops there.

[Stavka2]

US hasn't had the capability to wage two major regional wars since the Gulf War. Congress kept blowing that theory around until it was soundly deflated about 5 years ago...something most people in the military already knew. In lift capacity alone, there is not enough to do two contests on opposite sides of the world. Problem is, the polies start to believe their own bluster.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

First, tell North Korea that if one of their weapons, including any they sell, is every used against us, then we will wipe out their entire population.

Nice, simple, and to the point. One problem: How would we know where the Nuc originated that took out, for example, LA, NY, or DC? If N. Korea has or obtain's nucs, and successfully miniturizes them, sells them or directs their own third parties (preserving deniability), getting them into the US and detonating them is no major problem.

We (U.S.Navy) used to say that the first thermo-nuc weapon used in war will occur at sea. One of our carrier task forces will simply "go missing". That is also a viable option for the N. Koreans.

The U.S. had good intelligence on Al-Quaida and their connection to the Taliban. What if we didn't? What if they had been a bit more deliberate and circumspect? What would this country be doing today if we had no way of knowing who authorized the attack on the WTC?

You are far too optimistic to expect that we will know if Korea or Iraq hits an American target. Beyond that, what sort of policy is it that in effect, allows a "first strike" on American soil. It might be a suicidal, even insane act by Korea or Iraq, yet they might do it anyway. The U.S. Government has an absolute obligation to prevent a first strike, but preemption if necessary. It's not as though these guys are "we are the world" peace-loving dictators. They have both (i.e. Kim & Hussein) promised death and destruction upon America. We should take them at their word, along with their most consistent actions. If they have NBC weapons, they will use them to either kill their preceived enemies (especially Americans), or to black mail them.

The U.S. can allow neither to occur.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Don't sell this one short, folks. I spent twenty years of my semi-adult life trying to keep these @$$holes north of the DMZ. It didn't work all the time. I really doubt they could take South Korea (and if you doubt me, go deploy with one of their forward divisions), but the butcher's bill will be enormous. You will not see NK troops surrender to CNN camera crews like you did with Iraq 12 years ago.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[copycat]

Dems are against anti-missile systems BUMP...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Korean War was a very bloody event.

You are right!

[JaimeD2]

We have no business having troops on the Korean peninsula? Have you heard of a little thing called the Korean War, one in which thousands of Americans died to keep the North Koreans, a militaristic dictatorship, out of the peaceful, democratic South? For goodness' sake, don't condemn an entire country because they get miffed when one of their speedskaters gets disqualified or two of their innocent girls are accidently killed by American soldiers there. It's only natural. In the end, the South Koreans are American allies, and America should help protect its democratic, freedom-loving friends. Americans only constitute a small fraction of the forces along the DMZ, but they play a critical role in buttressing it against a northern invasion.

As for Japan, I don't know how they haven't held their own weight. You certainly can't mean that they haven't held their own economic weight over the past fifty years, since they're one of the great industial countries in the world, and one of the largest international donors. Perhaps you mean militarily? They don't have an aggressive armed forces, no, but that may have something to do with their constitution forbidding aggressive armed forces; the United States had something to do with that after World War II, as I recall. Even then, the Japanese made a very rare exception and sent support ships to help in the War on Terrorism. So perhaps you could elaborate on these two points.

[Arkinsaw]

A lot of the anti-American stuff you see coming out of South Korea is due to fifth columnists and instigation by the north. The people of South Korea in general have no desire to be reunited with the North while that government exists.

[A CA Guy]

N. Korea is starving and is playing the nuclear card in hope of handouts.
This isn't working and they out of starvation will attack somewhere.
I know we have over 30,000 troups in S. Korea on the border, but how long will that stop starving people from making drastic measures?
Hopefully a parade of liberal movie stars will go to N. Korea and make an evaluation for us. Preferably at night in dark alleys.

[The_Media_never_lie]

First, tell North Korea that if one of their weapons, including any they sell, is every used against us, then we will wipe out their entire population.

Nice, simple, and to the point. One problem: How would we know where the Nuc originated that took out, for example, LA, NY, or DC? If N. Korea has or obtain's nucs, and successfully miniturizes them, sells them or directs their own third parties (preserving deniability), getting them into the US and detonating them is no major problem.

Your question is a good one. How would we know where the nuke originated from that took out one of our cities? Or even worse, how would we know where the nukes were from that took out our 20 largest cities (assuming that if terrorists could get one inside our porous borders they could get 20 in)?

The pressure to retaliate would be enormous. I believe that it would be "round up the usual suspects" time for the Arrmagedon type retaliation that would result. Our enemies should realize this, and join us in preventing such an incident.

[Myrddin]

The Korean DMZ will exhibit a strong green glow if the north attempts a run on the south. The 30,000 people we have there are no match at a conventional level.

[expatguy]

War with North Korea is now the unavoidable choice facing America

This is not correct. We could just simply allow ourselves to be blackmailed, which by the way, looks like it has become the official policy now.

[Hugin]

Is it not inevitable that any conventional war lasting more than a few hours would involve thousands of American casualties, tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, and many tens of billions worth of destruction of property?

Yes it is, which undercuts the idea that war is inevitable. The USA will not start a war with NK at that cost.

I also think it is mistaken to think that Kim Jong Il is simply producing nukes so he can bargain them away for economic reasons. Having them is the end in itself for the status and power that having them gives him. So he won't give them up voluntarily.

So Kim will develop nukes and eventually missiles that can reach America, unless the NK regime colapses from within. We will develop our ABM system in Alaska, but especially mobile systems that can shoot down missile on their upward trajectory when they are most vulnerable. That means ship based and air based systems. Obital systems deployed directly over likely launch areas would be best, but pretty far off. Let's hope they are deployed soon, and that they work.