Why We Won't Invade North Korea

Rhino Times ^ | January 9, 2003 | Orson Scott Card

[RoughDobermann]

They do, estimates are in the 3-6 range. Small ones about the size of tactical nukes. They also have missles capable of hitting south korea and Japan, and possibly Alaska.

Source please?

[Fudd]

They do, estimates are in the 3-6 range. Small ones about the size of tactical nukes. They also have missles capable of hitting south korea and Japan, and possibly Alaska.... Source please?

I don't have a source, but in 1999(?) PRNK did lob a test missile over Japan.

[RoughDobermann]

They do, estimates are in the 3-6 range. Small ones about the size of tactical nukes. They also have missles capable of hitting south korea and Japan, and possibly Alaska....

Source please?

I don't have a source, but in 1999(?) PRNK did lob a test missile over Japan.

I know they have ballistic missiles. I was asking for a source for the statement that they are estimated to have 3-6 nuclear weapons. Do you have one?

[Turbodog]

Accurate assessment bump!

[cynicom]

At that border is a small town, Khasan, all three countries meet there, all have barbed wire fences, guard towers and the like. None of the three trust each other.

[cynicom]

That rail line you speak of is little used, differing gauges plus the mistrust of everyone.

[ChemistCat]

I've seen that information published, too, but don't know where it came from.

Printing this out for my son to read for this week's book report. This is the world he's inheriting.

THANKS for the post. OSCard bump.

[The Duke]

Given that the South Koreans are constantly protesting against the US presence there, and given the fact that all the manufacturing they once did can be provide by China, why dont' we just pull our troops and let history take its course?

It would be interesting - and heck, look how many in South Korea are begging for it!

[ex-snook]

"Why We Won't Invade North Korea"

Actually we are. But it is a secret and if Bush told Congress is might leak out.

[Arkady]

Well, first there's no oil...which is why we should retake Alaska and the California coast.
2nd, who the hell wants to eat dog-meat?
Thirdly, we'd be next to S.Korea and everyone knows their dogs keep you awake at night.

[semaj]

Orson Scott Card might not work for the government, but a person like him should be. Very clear and concise reasoning as to what I hope is going on within the diplomatic circle.

[FreedomPoster]

A few pings. I came across this from another source, and of course found it had been posted here. It doesn't seem to have hit any of the big ping lists.

It's an excellent Realpolitikal analysis of our situation vis a vis Iraq and North Korea. Even if you don't agree with OSC's analysis, this will make you think.

For any of you not familiar with Orson Scott Card, go buy Ender's Game. Excellent military science fiction, with serious ethical/moral exploration.

[Travis McGee]

Good post. Well thought out. Thank goodness Condi and company are as bright!

[Sparta]

Thanks for the ping. Ender's Game is a good book. It is a must read for military fiction fans and sci-fi fans.

[appeal2]

This read is okay as far as it goes, but it neglects several major points. First China is a net importer of energy. Controlling the Middle East and establishing a major trading relationship with Russia will enable us to cut off their supply of oil. Therefore China has to feel threatened by our incursion into Iraq. Therefore, they are playing the NK card.

However, they are also terrified of us giving nukes to Japan, more so than Korea.

The next question is what will happen when we invade Iraq. Will the NK's perform a nuke test or will they invade or will China invade? Based on our information available we can't say, but if they are going to do something it will be at the moment they perceive we are at our weakest.

However, lets go back to Iraq. Maybe the invasion that will take place will be a quick and powerful strike at Baghdad that will require only 15000 troops with the rest on standby and possible transfer to Korea. Its possible and it is the reason I believe why we never did a formal invasion of Afghan, but rather set up surrogates, so as not to dilute our strength and allow a Korea/Taiwan invasion.

In any event we will find out very very shortly.

[Paul Ross]

FYI

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[GOP_1900AD]

I guess I am therefore insane by this author's definition. Attack the entire Axis (particularly its core of great powers), early and often.

In fact, on the other hand, one might argue that this author, like so many of his fellow, pathologically pacifist Americans, is certifiable. After all, it would seem that if WW-II was not enough to teach the innately isolationist and naively optimistic American collective psyche a thing or two about the rare but certain need for proactive warfare, then nothing could or will. Our next "learning oppotunity" is going to be a doosey.