0
   

Test Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike on North Korea

 
 
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 11:18 am
Now would be the perfect time to test our new DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE on North Korea. We have the capability with the use of B-2 stealth bombers from the US and the B-52 bombers from Diego Garcia loaded with cuise missiles to:

1. Use one bomb or cruise missile to take out the nuclear factility where the spent fuel is stored.
2. To then orbit at a standoff distance to take out most of the really big targets in north korea if Jong orders any artillery fired at Seoul. 11,000 artillery tubes aimed at Seoul is Jong's "deterrent" against any attack by us.

My guess is that he has locked up all the ammo to be used by those artillery pieces because he knows that any accidental firing of those pieces would mean sudden death---but this is only a guess. Does any sane man play brinkmanship at this level?

If he is mentally unbalanced any attack by us could trigger the death of all those in Seoul plus probably many of our soldiers in South Korea.

WE have a few weeks for diplomacy to work---what is the real probability
that it will work?

What are the real consequences if we allow him to develop and produce several nukes?

He already has the capability to deliver these nukes.

We could do the pre-emptive strike tomorrow---should we?

What would you do?

This is what I would do
1. Order the immediate retreat of all our forces to beyond the range of the artillery.
2 I would tell the new president of South Korea to evacualte every man woman and child in South Korea to beyond the range of the Northern artillery or have the blood of those people on his hands. This could be accomplished in a very orderly fashion and all could be cared for with our help.
3. When and if this is accomplished, we can proceed with the pre-emptive strike and take out any facilities that could ever pose a threat. We would of course need to be prepared to respond with adequate force if he ordered his army to attack.
4. This would obviously require that we put Iraq on the back burner until next year. With the inspectors roaming all over Iraq--they are not an immediate problem. Of course when Saddam sees what is happening he would order the inspectors out then we are faced with another dilemma.

Happy New Year folks
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,298 • Replies: 62
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 01:43 pm
The South Koreans would spit in your face and call you a mad man. I think they would be justified.

They would not evacuate and they would ask our troops to leave if that foolish plan was put into effect.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 01:57 pm
Craven

What is your suggestion for dealing with the current problem presented by NK?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 02:25 pm
Pretty much what the administration is currently doing.

This is Japan and South Korea's concern more than ours and their wishes need to be respected.

Now it seems North Korea has had nukes for years. They feel they are entitled to them (especially after our nuke contingiency plans for use on them were leaked).

I would simply wait them out. They need oil, they need food. They need to be on good terms with China, Japan, and us.

We don't need them to be nuke free as much as they need themselves to be nuke free.

I think the administration is doing a good job with them except for the occasional stupid remark.
0 Replies
 
Tommy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 02:34 pm
Several factors have to be taken in consideration before military action might be taken against North Korea.

1. Despite the fact that the average North Korean is living just above starvation level, they are brainwashed to the acceptance level that theirs is the only country worth living in.

2. President Kim Jong Il has l,000,000 men under arms.

3. The De-Militarized Zone is definitely the most dangerous place in the world with nuclear mines, and all types of weaponry.

4. Kim Jong Il "The Dear Leader" is a Stalinist. He might be considered mad in some societies, but he is idolised in North Korea.

5. President Kim Jong Il knows that he is right. In the DMZ are Billboards saying "OUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY" and so on.

6. Importantly, China, like Russia, has always required a 'buffer' state between it and and a potential enemy. No matter that China is a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the UN, it still views with suspicion any approach of what it considers to be its enemies. It considers South Korea and Japan satellites of the US.
North Korea is it's buffer today just as it was in l950-53 when MacArthur crossed over into North Korea and triggered a Chinese Invasion.

7. North Korea doesn't care what other countries think of it.

8. North Korea fired a Nuclear Missile into the Pacific Ocean OVER Japanese Territory.

9. A Land (l950-53) type war is unwinnable.

10. An Air War is unwinnable

11. A Missile War will escalate intoa nuclear war and that is unthinkable.

12. President Bush's "tailored containment", despite the scorn of South Korea is the only answer - nevertheless it is very dangerous brinkmanship.

13. President Bush's choice is Hobson's Choice.
0 Replies
 
Lash Goth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 02:56 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Pretty much what the administration is currently doing.

This is Japan and South Korea's concern more than ours and their wishes need to be respected.

Now it seems North Korea has had nukes for years. They feel they are entitled to them (especially after our nuke contingiency plans for use on them were leaked).

I would simply wait them out. They need oil, they need food. They need to be on good terms with China, Japan, and us.

We don't need them to be nuke free as much as they need themselves to be nuke free.

I think the administration is doing a good job with them except for the occasional stupid remark.


Bush Confident of Diplomatic Solution in N.Korea
7 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Patricia Wilson

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday the United States was engaged in a "diplomatic showdown" rather than a military confrontation with North Korea (news - web sites) over its renewed pursuit of a nuclear arsenal.



In his first public remarks on North Korea in two weeks, Bush said "all options are always on the table for any president," but he suggested that, unlike Iraq, force was not under consideration.


"I believe this is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown," Bush said. "I view the North Korean situation as one that can be resolved peacefully through diplomacy."


Appears as though Craven and Bush's cooler heads will prevail.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 03:01 pm
Tommy says NK needs food---I agree---South Korea has food and everything else that Jong needs.

When he gets five or six nukes and the capability to hit Japan---what is to keep him from launching his million man army against the south and then saying if you try to stop us will hit Japan with nukes?

He really wants re-unification but on his terms.

Do we wait until then---remember we have 37,000 troops that will very quickly over-run if he attacks.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 03:05 pm
I think Bush is very wise to reject the military option publicly until it becomes apparent the old "Ostrich trick" (head in sand) won't work or until world opinion cries out for action.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 03:18 pm
The Korea Matter will be to great extent left to The UN, and I really don't see imminent danger of overt military action. Over the next several weeks, I imagine thr rhetoric will heat up, and that The UN will begin taking a larger, if not center-stage, roll. Things are a bit complicated in that The US will not be brought to The Bargaining Table by threats, bluster, or other typical NK diplomatic approaches. "Under-the-table" talks are surely going on, with all parties looking at once to achieve some sort of gain, save face, and defuse the situation. China and Russia are heavily involved, of this I am confident. Both have regional interests best served in the absence of the sort of huge US military presence hostilities would entail, and will lobby energetically and persuasively to protect those interests.

Kim, though odd, likely is not mad enough to consider a peninsular war winnable from his nation's perspective. He really sees his brinksmanship as negotiation. To his surprise, dismay, and discomfort, China may be expected to show him how a master plays the brinksmanship game. To preserve any vestige of his regime, Kim will be forced to at least behave, if not reform. Among persuasions to be directed his way will be economic carrots held out by Japan, SK, and Taiwan.

That's my current take, anyway. We shall see. And we may expect plenty of public rhetorical fireworks as the private, behind-the-scenes substantive negotiations proceed at their own pace.



timber
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 03:58 pm
Timber

Yes that's the trouble with amateurish little debates in the private sector----we never know what is going on in behind the scenes poker games with world pot limit.

It could be that China has assured Bush that they will take care of it-----now that would really scare me to death
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 04:08 pm
Why would that scare you Perception? Are you hide-bound to an image of the Chinese as evil commies? There is not only no reason not to trust the Chinese to work in good faith for the stability of their region (yes, THEIR region)--there is every reason to encourage them to do so. A Chinese nation engaged to help assure the stability of the region is a nation which presents no threat to us, and a potential trading partner of even greater economic significance than is now the case. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia--a whole host of nations in the region have every reason to look to China to use it's authority in a measured manner to help preserve the political and economic stability of the eastern pacific rim. It is just and fitting that China should do so, and the rhetoric of the cold war is simply useless in assessing Chinese motives and methods, and counterproductive to maintaining a useful, working relationship with the largest nation on the planet.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 05:25 pm
Setanta

Let's see, we have China that is communist and they want Taiwan back under their umbrella of domination. We have North Korea that is also communist whose people are starving and who would like to have SK under their umbrella. We have South Korea who doesn't want us there but will surely fall if we abandon them which I would love to do. Their entire damn country isn't worth one dead GI. But we have all agreed that we can't abandon them for many many reasons. And you wonder why I would be suspicious of letting China work a deal. The Chinese are so desperate for space for all their people that they kill girl babies just as they are being born just to cut down on their population problems. They do however keep all the boy babies. Why is that Setanta? Do you think it is out of kindness----I don't think do---could it be to enlarge their army or to send over here to steal more secrets as students?

I just don't see your reasoning that China has honorable motives but you always question our motives. They staged the collision of one of their planes so they could acuse us of violating their airspace so they could capture our very sophisticated surveilance aircraft, strip it of all the electronic epuip't and then give it back to us.

Yep---I'm the mad dog here.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 07:51 pm
Oh, the Chinese are a crafy, cunning folk alright, but they didn't exactly "Engineer" the collision of the planes. Colliding two planes at altitude in mid-ocean with intent to commandeer one of them is not likely an idea that would be entertained beyond the conjecture and conversation stage of operational planning. That was pretty much the work of a hotheaded, overconfident fighter jockey with a known prediliction toward brashness. Stern steps have been taken to render further such ultimately embarrassing incidents less likely. It was a stupid accident, of which the Chinese attempted to wrest some advantage.


China can be counted on to act in her own self-interest. China's self interest is not served by the near proximity of a few US Carrier Battle Groups and ground presence of significant other US military assets. China much prefers a lessened state of tension and instablility in her back yard. DPRK's value as merely a buffer state declines as China's economic power grows. Were DPRK also a client sate of China's the Chinese stance would be much different, of course, but there are significant doctrinal and ideologic issues between essentially Stalinist DPRK and Post-Maoist China.


China's intents for a peaceful Korean Peninsula are not precisely congruent with ours. Future attention will be given sure and certain matters arising inevitably from the resolution of this matter.



timber
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 08:00 pm
Maybe we ought to just cut to the chase and do a pre-emptive against China - yeah, that's the ticket!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 08:27 pm
You begin to see the complexity of the situation, BillW. Easy answers just don't fall to hand, do they?



timber
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 08:28 pm
Agreed in full!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 09:41 pm
Of course, several nations which proclaimed outrage were privately much comforted by Israel's attack on The Osirak Reactor.
All in all, that went rather well for the Israelis. Then again, Iraq didn't have a war-ready million-man army with deliverable nukes.
Lots to think about.



timber
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 10:56 pm
It was a tense time. The arab states that surround Israel all armaments added together is a very impressive lot. Israel never wants to push so hard as to create a totally united Arab front. I think an old and true argument suffices here, no Arab state wishes to see nukes in the hands of Saddam.

Right now, there is a terrific amount of tension throughout the world. There are a considerable number of secret treaties and multitudes of old hostilities and hates that can be ignited in a flash.

It is New Years and I can only wish Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards all men!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 11:00 pm
Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk

I'll drink to that. Happy NewYear, all.



timber
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Dec, 2002 11:20 pm
This is my pre-emptive strike:

Faith, Hope and Charity!

Peace on Earth and Goodwill Toward All Mankind!

Happy New Year All!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Test Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike on North Korea
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 08:03:55