I just wish I knew how serious his threats are.

stupid Kim Jung Un really is. I'm guessing pretty damned stupid. I think missiles will be fired. To what effect, I can't predict. Supreme Leader Un had better find a really good hidey-hole, though, if he does that.

and probably not terribly intelligent, either. Looks vacant and pretty stupid.

OMG He's N Korea's own GW Bush!!!!

It will be his downfall. Now, there may be someone close to him who is not so stupid. If so, we may be celebrating Un's funeral shortly.

Hmmm...might be.
I'm thinking it's winter there, people have no food, heat, etc., and he's got to manufacture a huge something to divert their attention and get their jingojuices flowing

....just like us, so it's the start of spring there too.

Sending over B-2 bombers in a show of chest thumping bravado did nothing but ratchet up the chance of something happening. Sometimes it is best to simply ignore the little guy making a big show. Just walk away. Creating a show of just how big and bad you are simply forces the little guy into doing something completely insane, like following through with his threats, even though everybody knows he doesn't have a chance.

or military policy, I leave it to people who know more than I do. You don't qualify, frankly.

That, coming from you, with your history, is absolutely priceless.

or something else they've done in the past--in order to overcome being ignored. He wants the sanctions lifted, wants to possibly prove himself with a little successful skirmish. Problem is, South Korea is able to defend itself to an extent and has decided not to put up with further aggression from them. We are warning them that we are listening, and they'd better not start shit. We're also showing SK and Japan that we have the will and capacity to defend them--and showing that to China, too. The flights were also part of an annual exercise--not a random activity by any means, just a novel choice of plane.

Sooner or later some fool is going to take a serious poke at the 'paper tiger with nuclear teeth'.
For the sake of the planet I hope Kim Jung Un doesn't make it sooner.
I sadly suspect that counting on our restraint would be ill advised.

I have no idea, really.

for a long time. I suspect that those around young Jim Jung Un have been weeded out and few who are not toadies are present. Photos that come out of North Korea of Un and his coterie seem to support that.

Either they will all go down with him or this is a strategy of his to get something. He went to school in the West under another name, so presumably he is aware that there is no way he can unify the peninsular via a war.

Truly. I suspect he has been overtaken by the mindset of most dictators. Told daily he is more than he really is, he may well believe his nonsense. I don't know, though. I don't know him. Either way, we haven't gained much in the past by pandering to the demands of North Korean leaders. I wouldn't do that in this case. I'd call his bluff.

taken over by South Korea and the whole thing over.

the North Koreans. South Korea appears to be thriving these days, and is exporting all sorts of stuff throughout the world. My new car was built there. Very nicely built, too. GM has a division in Seoul now, too.

But, taking over North Korea is not a simple thing to do. I expect North Korea to continue blustering and threatening for a long time to come.

But it's a cold War relic worth getting rid of. The bellicose part of me says just bomb them and let it all be over. Before they hurt somebody else.

may well accelerate whatever happens. Having nuclear devices in control of madmen is not a great idea. I'm sure something is in the works on a medium to long term planning basis.

Without war and killing. Putting spies in or some such thing. We'd need defected North Koreans, who could do a lot to help.

Someone mentioned taking out the Supreme Leader - would that cause the whole thing to collapse? Possibly.

Just killing Kim Jung Un would not do much. However, removing the entire leadership might just do the trick. Create a vacuum of leadership and something might change. However, simply killing everyone isn't the answer, at least unless NK actually does attack outside its borders.

There's no way to whisk them all away, either, by capturing them. The leadership is, I'm sure, heavily guarded.

I just don't know. However, if they launch some missiles and hit any serious targets, I can see a systematic destruction of every strategic military facility and national headquarters in North Korea as a likely response. We know where all that stuff is from satellite surveillance. Even if Kim Jung Un isn't killed outright, the destruction of his ability to make further threats would essential remove him from power. The US has the capability to do all that using only conventional weapons.

was not President Obama.

All crazy as can be. An entire bag of fries short, I think.

I don't know what it is, or if there is more than one reason, but my two guesses are

1) The kid needs to beef up his credentials with the guarantors of his safety and position, the armed forces;

2) The sanctions as a result of NK's repeated violation of promises not to continue nuclear weapons research and testing are beginning to hurt, probably in the form of impending mass starvation.

The second one is a common problem in North Korea and the ulterior motive of most of NK's diplomatic moves in the past fifteen years. North Korea is neither functional nor sustainable on its own; military threat is its primary way of making up the food deficits that its broken political theories perpetuate.

I continue to worry of a 1941-type scenario, where sanctions and embargoes drove a military dictatorship (Japan) into widening its war simply because the sanctions forced them into a choice of either widening their war, or stopping it altogether, and military dictatorships usually choose the former because they don't know a damned thing about peace.

...but, at his first hostile act, use a tactical nuke to turn an uninhabited hillside into glass.

Let him know that a second hostile act will make Pyongyang the next target.


From both a financial and practical standpoint, we need to change the way we police the planet. Personally, I'd prefer that we stop altogether (with some very few exceptions) but we seem to have to have the need to do this.

Since we're determined to be the authoritative voice, let's BE authoritative. If somebody attacks us or our interests, give them a demonstration. If they persist, make it hurt. I honestly don't see a saner long-term foreign policy.

Even if NK uses one, which I consider very unlikely. If they use a nuke, then double down on the destruction of everything having to do with the government and military. Wipe it clean, but no nukes.

We have plenty of them, they can create the desired result, and they make a damn big statement. We can carpet-bomb or tactical-strike ANY nation into the stone age without blinking an eye, but tactical nukes make the message that much more serious.

If the world knows that we'll use appropriately-scaled nukes to deal with issues, I'd bet that we'd have fewer Kim Jong-Uns.

We are the only nation who has used them in wartime. To use them in such a situation, against an enemy as feeble as North Korea would set a precedent that we do not want or need. We can accomplish any military goal we set in North Korea without even thinking about nuclear armaments. If we must do something, it must be with conventional weapons.

No nukes!

You kill annoying flies with a flyswatter, not a rifle.

I don't think we need to police the planet. However, we seem to keep doing just that.

If we're determined to be the world's enforcer, I believe that we should do it efficiently. We won't risk our citizens, we won't spend enormous amounts of capital, we won't put troops on the ground. We'll simply send Reaper drones armed with tactical nuclear weapons. Act out and you have ZERO chance or harming us. We're not going to let you blow up any vehicles with IEDs or shoot at any of our troops. We're going to send a robot plane with a nuke.

Actually, I think we'd get a lot less resistance if other countries realized that we weren't going to play by the old rules any more.

Ironic huh?

Never underestimate the idiocy of DU juries.

Here's a newby who is advocating attacking another country with nuclear weapons. I think that's far enough out of line for this to be hidden, and looked at by MIRT. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 30, 2013, 12:38 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I say nuke the Morans first with ZOB at the head of the line.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think he qualified his position sufficiently in the first sentence.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's a completely idiotic sentiment, but I can't say it's hide-worthy. This fool can be shot down openly.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

I'm not very familiar with the TOS, but I'm pretty sure that's a violation.

You want this place to be free from dissenting opinion? Start by adhering to the rules of the forum.

Advocating nuking innocent people just---because....

I, however, have no desire to "nuke your ass" as you state that you do mine.

Have fun. I just won't be playing.

I kinda like my odds

Look, I'm doing nothing wrong, we just don't agree. Feel free to not read what I have to say. Go in peace

that not nuking NK in response to their use of nuclear weapons would mean that the concept of MAD would kind of go out the window, at least for the US and the other allies under our nuclear defense. That would have big implications for everyone in the future. What would be the good of draining our own blood, money, weapons, efforts with conventional warfare on an enemy that didn't hesitate to do the unthinkable--and not even out of self defense in prolonged years of warfare like Hiroshima?

large numbers of nuclear devices. North Korea, at best, has a few, low-yield devices, and probably only one or two ready to use. There is no Mutually Assured Destruction involved. Yes, the United States could lay waste to North Korea, but there is no need to do so. Given the 60 years we've been there, we have targeted just about every military target in North Korea. Conventional weapons could make short work of every missile launch facility and air field in the country. In addition, we have pinpointed the location of artillery pieces, etc. in the DMZ.

Finally, we can almost instantly cut off supply lines to the border area troops.

Pyongyang is also vulnerable, and very much so. Using our current bomber facilities in that area, we could completely destroy the seat of government by taking out all official buildings. We could do much, much more, if necessary, including cutting off water supplies to the capital and other measures.

There is no need for nuclear weapons and there is no MAD involved. It's a very one-sided proposition. We have the capability to assure destruction. North Korea does not. Nukes are not needed.

It's a wrong-headed argument to suggest that nuclear armaments be used against such a weak nation. It's already teetering on complete collapse.

of a nuclear blast of our ally just over the border. But also because I overestimate NK, just out of caution--I think that's always the way to look at warfare, and why I'm generally pretty chicken about it. And by MAD, I think the concept applies, even if we're not talking about totally levelling everything like in a big US/Russia nuclear war: using a nuclear weapon against us and our allies will be the last thing your regime ever does. It will be at least close to national suicide--it will have to be. That's the whole point of nukes as the ultimate means of deterrence, isn't it? If it's used successfully in aggression, to conquer--there has to be a tremendous penalty that no other like-minded aggressor would want to risk. Edit to add: if SK and Japan didn't think we would protect them with real deterrence (hence our B-2 exercise, to reassure them), they'd want their own nuclear weapons, wouldn't they?

once again. No nukes.

Add more than that, and the assurance of destruction becomes inevitable....

The addition of smaller nuclear powers also destabilizes things considerably. As Clausewitz observes, you'll never see a three-way war, as the two stronger sides always find it expedient to destroy the weakest opponent first, fight each other by proxy there, and then duke it out themselves later--which is almost where the first Korean War went.

Right now, North Korea is placing itself squarely in the middle of a three-way war scenario, the country which can ignite a world conflict simply by drawing in the competing interests of multiple nations.

The only safe play that I can see is the current American position of promised retaliation through the use of "overwhelming force," rather than in-kind nuclear retaliation. We've bankrupted our childrens' fucking future on a conventional army big enough to do that, dammit. A worst-case scenario in Korea is exactly the sort of problem our conventional force is supposed to prevent.

So it had better work, because waving the threat of nukes around will only guarantee their eventual use.

50 years ago, nukes were some awesome weapon of the gods. Today? Not so much.

I'd argue that using an appropriately-scaled nuke to deal with something like NK attacking American interests would accomplish two things. We could inflict a meaningful amount of damage without risking the life of even one serviceman AND we could take advantage of the "nuke taboo" effect ("Damn. If we attack the U.S., they don't even give us a chance, they send a drone with a nuke.)".

We're SO concerned with other countries (Iran, NK, etc) getting nukes and delivery systems because we believe that as soon as they have them, they'll use them. I don't see the practical advantage in trying to hold the moral high ground when we're dealing with people that kinda want to kill us.

God you level of thinking is --well....

The government/military of Iran may have different proclivities than the average Iranian citizen, however.

We still killed a lot of them because of the direction their government chose to take.

Seriously? This is the level of discourse?

Another tough guy keyboard warrior.

I strangely feel the need to state that I do NOT have the ability to order a nuclear strike. There's no "button" at my house.

You are advocating a nuclear strike against those you feel threatened by.

I find that simply amazing.

To be clear, I'm advocating a nuclear strike against a hostile country WITH nuclear capabilities that has threatened us and only IF they act against us.

I fail to see how that's "amazing", especially in 2013.

Perhaps you're just easily amazed.

and you are wondering about the level of discourse? Look in the mirror.

How that changes the level of discourse here eludes me.

and demonstrate to the world that the USA has no concern about international law. The USA has signed a treaty banning the use of bombs above ground, and held to it for about 50 years, and you want to break it not when it's a vital part of a war of defence, but when you want to scare a foreign leader. You want a deliberate contamination of Korea just to make yourself feel good. Everyone is aware that the USA has nukes; dropping one on NK isn't necessary to show it. It would just mark the USA out as a rogue state.

Food and monetary aid for North Korea.

Isn't that what the North Korean leaders are best at? Rattling sabers in order to get aid?

Will it be this time? I don't know. In the past, North Korea did not have any nuclear capabilities. They have the beginnings of that now. I think it's likely that a hard line approach will probably be used this time, not a "Here are some goodies. Shut the fuck up now." policy. I'm not sure, of course.

China's pissed at NK, too. Russia has its own issues and probably wants nothing to do with any of it. Personally, I think messages need to be exchanged, where the US clearly lays out what will happen if NK attacks SK, Japan, or anything else. Clearly lays them out, and informs North Korea that their best bet is going to be to come to the table ready to demilitarize and start getting along better with others. Provide a timeline for what will be destroyed if NK acts, complete with targeting maps, weapons that will be used, and estimates of damage. Tell Kim Jung Un that this plan is guaranteed if he so much as lobs an artillery shell into the South or launches any of his Dong missiles. Call the little shit's bluff. That's my suggestion for how to handle this one. And then follow through if he goes ahead. Wipe out the government, destroy every known military and government facility, cut off the supply lines to NK troops in the DMZ. Screw this shit this time. Let's have an end to 60 years of blustering.

President Obama appears to me to have the no-nonsense demeanor to take this approach. We'll see.

Dictators are really good at self-preservation.

But we need to convince him that there's no candy and liquor at the end of this session of negotiations.

'Cuz he's the adult in the room.

We'll see how things develop, I imagine. We always do.

They puffed out their chest when I was there in 1996 and that is all this is too. More chest puff to deflect the truth of that his country is in shambles and his reign as king is over people desperate and starving.

And the problem will not go away, one day Un will have to seriously consider his fathers legacy of total failure for his people. Or one can hope he will. In between playing general and king.

I completely agree that they have a Keystone Cops government, but we do have to give them some attention.

Hard to tell how distorted and unrealistic his views of the world are after growing up in a bubble of propaganda.

BTW I totally agree with you.

(Can I hire you to lobby my sons about bringing the grandkids around a little more often because its good for us? I seem to be sweet-talking to the wall.)

Someone needs to remind him that in a real war there is no restart button.

I think Obama and the JCS know how near NK is to ROK. It would take one very tiny nuke indeed not to inflict some serious contamination on the South, and Seoul is only something like 30 miles from the border. No nukes.

Besides, I'm sure both Putin and the Chinese leadership have let the NK leadership know that they are cool with whatever kind of rhetoric they want to spew out to harass us, but if they ever actually do anything about it, "the secretary will deny any knowledge of your actions," and they are on their own. The collective NK leadership would have to be on LSD not to know what that means.