US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Cheerful Spring · 06-03-2018 5:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A response but probably very little in the way of military reactions. It really depends on how many US forces are in Taiwan when China attacks and how many are killed. If China manages to occupy Taiwan without any major casualties to US troops, then the US is unlikely to take it further.

The world has changed since the US made their guarantees regarding Taiwan. It doesn't have its previous capabilities to project force in the numbers that would be needed to take on China, and they've lost immediate access to many of China's neighboring countries. [I'm not even sure the US economy would be capable of absorbing the costs of running a war against a major nation like China] The PRC has been preparing for a war with the US for decades, and while they wouldn't win in a protracted war, they can do serious damage to any US expeditionary force, especially any of the carrier groups. The US has a very gun-shy reaction to major casualties, and won't want to commit substantial military assets into the region regardless of which arm of the military it is.

As for the economic considerations, that's totally an unknown. Nobody knows the extent of China's economic reserves or the degree that they've invested themselves into the US economy. Any serious conflict would turn reluctant Chinese people into patriots rather quickly, and there are a lot of Chinese people currently living, working, and investing in the West. It could easily turn into a very messy situation costing the US a lot too...

TBH my bet is that the US would try to save face with a minimum response, andTaiwan would ultimately be left to fend for themselves.

China will not negotiate about Taiwan independence. Any move by Taiwan to distance itself from China will be met with a military response. America will have to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked they look weak if they don't. We nowhere near a crisis yet, but the Americans need to be careful not to start an unneeded crisis. China is happy with the status quo.

davo2001 · 06-03-2018 5:12pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If these talks don't work out war is guaranteed

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

06-03-2018 5:32pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

China will not negotiate about Taiwan independence. Any move by Taiwan to distance itself from China will be met with a military response. America will have to come to the aid of Taiwan if attacked they look weak if they don't. We nowhere near a crisis yet, but the Americans need to be careful not to start an unneeded crisis. China is happy with the status quo.

I agree. China will not back down over Taiwan. The PRC and the party itself have invested too much in them over the last few years, both the peaceful gestures, but also the military upgrades for the 'planned' invasion propaganda.

The US, on the other hand, is more likely to back down. They already have too much on their plate, and facing China down would hurt their economy, and open their military up to being embarrassed. Trump has already called into question US commitment to foreign ventures.

Timberrrrrrrr · 06-03-2018 5:50pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Talking is good, but talks can take months if not years to complete. Is North Korea going to allow inspectors in to verify the denuclearization? Could North Korea be playing for time to manufacture more nuclear weapons? It's waiting and see what will happen. If these talks don't work out war is guaranteed let's hope the North is genuinely looking for a different path to solve the crisis?

Guaranteed like your "immanent " economic meltdown you have been predicting for how many years now?

Gatling · 06-03-2018 5:55pm

Wonder if china will allow Kim to give up his nukes

Cheerful Spring · 06-03-2018 6:00pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Guaranteed like your "immanent " economic meltdown you have been predicting for how many years now?

Have I are sure you not thinking of someone else? I'm low key on economic doomsday stuff on this site.

Do you think North Korea wanted to talk out of the goodness of their heart's? America was readying itself for a war with North Korea. North Korea just made the move to prevent it from happening, or at least for a while.

Bob24 · 06-03-2018 6:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

North and South Korea agree to hold summit talks in April

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/mneXOs27J03HAvSa2

Is anyone still naive enough to believe it is anything else than a diversion?

The Kims know their survival depends on having the bomb and have committed a huge amount of their country’s ressources to develop it. Why would they give it up?

Cheerful Spring · 06-03-2018 6:07pm

davo2001 wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

America has involved itself it every major war since 1945 and I am the crazy one:cool:

Gatling · 06-03-2018 6:17pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America has involved itself it every major war since 1945 and I am the crazy one:cool:

Along with multiple other countries including France ,UK , Russia

Cheerful Spring · 06-03-2018 6:18pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Is anyone still naive enough to believe it is anything else than a diversion?

The Kims know their survival depends on having the bomb and have committed a huge amount of their country’s ressources to develop it. Why would they give it up?

I think they are playing for time. America felt North Korea was getting too close to have a bomb that could hit the United States and were in preparation mode to hit targets inside North Korea. CIA director was hinting around May or June would be the Window the United States would run out of time. North Korea will not denuclearise., it's wishful thinking. They're not even having direct talks about it yet. In the meantime, North Korea is still developing its nuclear arsenal while the talks are ongoing. If North Korea allows open inspection of nuclear sites and military facilities this would be amazing, but I can't see it.

Cheerful Spring · 06-03-2018 6:26pm

Gatling wrote: »

Along with multiple other countries including France ,UK , Russia

They are the Soviet Union and Russian wars. Russian only truly foreign war in Syria. And they were invited in by the government there to fight the jihadists.

Gatling · 06-03-2018 6:31pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They are the Soviet Union and Russian wars. Russian only truly foreign war in Syria. And they were invited in by the government there to fight the jihadists.

No Russia ,

Them hospitals yeah

Hande hoche! · 06-03-2018 6:57pm

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if china will allow Kim to give up his nukes

Could see it happening, if it involved the withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula.

Gatling · 06-03-2018 7:02pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Could see it happening, if it involved the withdrawal of US troops from the Korean peninsula.

It's possible but then we could see a double land grab by Kim's nuclear neighbors to keep as a buffer zone

Hande hoche! · 06-03-2018 7:04pm

Gatling wrote: »

It's possible but then we could see a double land grab by Kim's nuclear neighbors to keep as a buffer zone

Also a fair possibility. Could see them doing so under the excuse of securing trade routes or some such.

Gatling · 06-03-2018 7:08pm

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Also a fair possibility. Could see them doing so under the excuse of securing trade routes or some such.

That's It exactly they both have close to 500,000 between them on the border , couldn't see NK being able to defend against they set themselves up to be attacked from the south ,
But when dealing with leaders like putin and Xi Jinping he would be safer in bed with trump and co

Chrongen · 06-03-2018 7:53pm

There'll be no attack on NK. This is all just bluster on the part of the US like the schoolyard asshole constantly trying to provoke a kid he doesn't like by calling him names, slagging off his mother,etc. hoping for a reaction but doesn't want to throw the first punch.

Any American Colonel (not general, they're just a bunch of careerists) will tell you that in a war hundreds of thousand of civilians and military would be killed in days in the North and South. That's not something the US is willing to stomach just over a clash of egos.

Gatling · 06-03-2018 8:42pm

So we had lil kim supposedly saying old Kim didn't want nuclear weapons ,now stuck between the democratic and free south ,and the US ,
And autocratic leaders of russia and China don't or won't allow Kim to denuke .
He is in a no win situation

07-03-2018 12:29am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

America has involved itself it every major war since 1945 and I am the crazy one:cool:

And haven't 'won' any of them.

SeanW · 07-03-2018 12:49am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Great if they can sort this out, but it highly unlikely the North will give up its Nuclear program. Gaddafi did that and he got shafted big time. I don't know if the North playing for time, feeling the squeeze of sanctions?I think a war was always likely if the North did stop what it was doing. Have to see what they are willing to give up though for easing of sanctions. America seems to be hell-bent on denuclearization first.

Gaddafi ran Libya which did not have the same geopolitical advantages that North Korea does. Specifically, the US invades North Korea at its extreme peril because NK borders both the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China. Neither of those countries want another Washington Consensus country on another of their borders. Both need NK there as a buffer state borderland.

If the US were to invade NK, they would be poking both Russia and the PRC in the eye big time. As the risks involved in doing this are very serious, they should be expected only to take this as an absolute last resort, if their intelligence agencies feel that the threat posed by a nuclear North Korea is more severe than the danger of starting a war with them risking their use of nuclear weapons, as well as provoking both Russia and China.

If Kim Ill Fruitcake does get deposed by the US in spite of all this, it will be a spectacular achievement - on his part.

Cheerful Spring · 07-03-2018 6:01pm

Chrongen wrote: »

There'll be no attack on NK. This is all just bluster on the part of the US like the schoolyard asshole constantly trying to provoke a kid he doesn't like by calling him names, slagging off his mother,etc. hoping for a reaction but doesn't want to throw the first punch.

Any American Colonel (not general, they're just a bunch of careerists) will tell you that in a war hundreds of thousand of civilians and military would be killed in days in the North and South. That's not something the US is willing to stomach just over a clash of egos.

I disagree I think Trump was a wild card and was more likely to not stop military action. He strongly supports stopping North Korea from having nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. Nothing has changed, the only difference is North Korea is now looking to talk about denuclearization? It's clever tactic because it stops an imminent attack this year. If America attacks now they look like the bad guys. Long way to go before I believe the war has been avoided.

Is the US going to allow North Korea to have more nuclear missiles targetted at US cities in the future?

fxotoole · 07-03-2018 6:54pm

SeanW wrote: »

Gaddafi ran Libya which did not have the same geopolitical advantages that North Korea does. Specifically, the US invades North Korea at its extreme peril because NK borders both the Russian Federation and the Peoples Republic of China. Neither of those countries want another Washington Consensus country on another of their borders. Both need NK there as a buffer state borderland.

If the US were to invade NK, they would be poking both Russia and the PRC in the eye big time. As the risks involved in doing this are very serious, they should be expected only to take this as an absolute last resort, if their intelligence agencies feel that the threat posed by a nuclear North Korea is more severe than the danger of starting a war with them risking their use of nuclear weapons, as well as provoking both Russia and China.

If Kim Ill Fruitcake does get deposed by the US in spite of all this, it will be a spectacular achievement - on his part.

Quoted for truth

And Putin's recent rumblings about Russia having developed "invincible" weapons is an indirect warning to the US. He's basically telling the US "attack North Korea at your own peril, for you will have to contend with us"

Gatling · 07-03-2018 6:59pm

fxotoole wrote: »

Quoted for truth

And Putin's recent rumblings about Russia having developed "invincible" weapons is an indirect warning to the US.

He's bluffing he's playing the Regan star wars bluff that pretty much broke the Soviet union at the time in the mid 80s ,
Russia is currently down the pecking order behind the US and China for weapons development

08-03-2018 12:44am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I disagree I think Trump was a wild card and was more likely to not stop military action. He strongly supports stopping North Korea from having nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. Nothing has changed, the only difference is North Korea is now looking to talk about denuclearization? It's clever tactic because it stops an imminent attack this year. If America attacks now they look like the bad guys. Long way to go before I believe the war has been avoided.

Is the US going to allow North Korea to have more nuclear missiles targetted at US cities in the future?

Trump can rant and rave but without the backing of S.Korea they've got no base of operations and no troops to work with. They're not going to put in the numbers of American troops that would be needed to persecute a ground war, and an air war without a followup would be pointless. There's not going to be a coalition of the unwilling in this case, unless N.Korea go make a major scene to offend everyone involved.

So Trump can continue to frown, and make declarations of being 'prepared'... because nobody really believes him. The US is nowhere close to being able to project it's military into Korea, even if they had the troops/equipment on hand to use. And it doesn't have the allies willing to cross China, and have to deal with the fallout when the US go home leaving a wreck behind them.

In the last twenty years, when has the US fought a conflict without leaving a region (and neighboring regions) worse than it was before? They're not going to get much support.

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2018 5:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump can rant and rave but without the backing of S.Korea they've got no base of operations and no troops to work with. They're not going to put in the numbers of American troops that would be needed to persecute a ground war, and an air war without a followup would be pointless. There's not going to be a coalition of the unwilling in this case, unless N.Korea go make a major scene to offend everyone involved.

So Trump can continue to frown, and make declarations of being 'prepared'... because nobody really believes him. The US is nowhere close to being able to project it's military into Korea, even if they had the troops/equipment on hand to use. And it doesn't have the allies willing to cross China, and have to deal with the fallout when the US go home leaving a wreck behind them.

In the last twenty years, when has the US fought a conflict without leaving a region (and neighboring regions) worse than it was before? They're not going to get much support.

The Americans would be using air power and firing cruise missiles from submarines and Navy ships to destroy the nuclear facilities. It can be done today. South Koreans could hold the line if North Korea decided to attack Seoul. South Korea military hardware is more modern and they call upon 2 million soldiers to defend the line. North Korea advantage is manpower they have about 7 to 8 million recruits, but their tanks and navy and air force is obsolete

I will agree with you South Korea is not looking for a war with its neighbour to the North, but the Americans would attack North Korea if they felt the threat to American cities was worth the risk. If the talks break down you see this war rhetoric heat up more than you ever seen before.

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2018 5:18pm

fxotoole wrote: »

Quoted for truth

And Putin's recent rumblings about Russia having developed "invincible" weapons is an indirect warning to the US. He's basically telling the US "attack North Korea at your own peril, for you will have to contend with us"

I think that threat is more about Nato buildup around the Russian border.

Gatling · 08-03-2018 5:27pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I think that threat is more about Nato buildup around the Russian border.

Which isn't happening ,

It's actually proven russian bases are moving towards the west

08-03-2018 6:22pm

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Americans would be using air power and firing cruise missiles from submarines and Navy ships to destroy the nuclear facilities. It can be done today. South Koreans could hold the line if North Korea decided to attack Seoul. South Korea military hardware is more modern and they call upon 2 million soldiers to defend the line. North Korea advantage is manpower they have about 7 to 8 million recruits, but their tanks and navy and air force is obsolete

I will agree with you South Korea is not looking for a war with its neighbour to the North, but the Americans would attack North Korea if they felt the threat to American cities was worth the risk. If the talks break down you see this war rhetoric heat up more than you ever seen before.

Most South Koreans, even those in the military have little desire for an actual war. Even more so, now that Kim's nuclear programme has progressed so far. I've lived in Seoul, and most of those I knew (I was teaching at a university), were sick of US interference in their country.

The US might get a nasty surprise if they try to force a war with N.Korea by involving an unwilling S.Korean population. Kim just needs to continue his current peaceful gesturing and S.Koreans are not going to want any conflict. Especially by a power whose own population is far away, and will expect Koreans to take most the casualties.

Cheerful Spring · 08-03-2018 6:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Most South Koreans, even those in the military have little desire for an actual war. Even more so, now that Kim's nuclear programme has progressed so far. I've lived in Seoul, and most of those I knew (I was teaching at a university), were sick of US interference in their country.

The US might get a nasty surprise if they try to force a war with N.Korea by involving an unwilling S.Korean population. Kim just needs to continue his current peaceful gesturing and S.Koreans are not going to want any conflict. Especially by a power whose own population is far away, and will expect Koreans to take most the casualties.

I agree with everything you said. Maybe the Americans will pull out after the talks conclude it's the best possible scenario for peace. North Korea likely will reduce its nuclear stockpile and maybe go as far as denuclearisation? US military involvement in South Korean affairs was always the problem. I still think if talks break off the Americans may decide to go alone on attacking North Korea. Anyway, we got to wait and see if the talks go anywhere.

Chrongen · 08-03-2018 7:30pm

Gatling wrote: »

So we had lil kim supposedly saying old Kim didn't want nuclear weapons ,now stuck between the democratic and free south ,and the US ,
And autocratic leaders of russia and China don't or won't allow Kim to denuke .
He is in a no win situation

The "free" South whose armed forces are under direct foreign command :pac:

The South Korean Army can't buy a cartridge without it being signed off by the US commander of Korea's armed forces.

US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Comments