If a North Korean nuclear attack happened

[Vlad]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4777808/Japan-moves-missile-defences-central-Tokyo.html

NK's missiles would have to fly over Japan to reach Guam.
Japan moves missile defense systems in the heart of Tokyo to shoot down missiles headed for Guam.

[Dill]

(08-10-2017, 09:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Wait I'm a little confused here Dill. You're saying NK had no reason to trust our diplomacy, but what reason did we have to trust them? I may be mistaken, but wasn't it North Korea that crossed the 38th parallel and initiated what would become known as the Korean War? Wasn't it North Korea that attempted a reunification of the Korea's by force? I don't understand this "imperial aggressor" stance that North Korea has when they're the ones who decided to invade South Korea because they had Russia and China behind them.

Yes, I am saying NK had no reason to trust our diplomacy.  Not sure any country can at this point, with Trump as president and a Republican Congress.

Certainly NK invaded the South--over 60 years ago.  In their view, the South was occupied by the US and Rhee was a puppet leader. In the North's view, the Koreans would have settled their own affairs just fine if the US had not intervened.

50 years later, the regime that Clinton dealt with was not identical to the one that invaded back then. Nor was the US the same. Clinton cut a deal with Kim Jong Il in 1994 to shut down reactors capable of producing weapons grade plutonium in return for the building of two light water reactors 500,000 tons of fuel oil to tide the country over until the reactors were completed. SK and Japan would help with funding, the IAEA would inspect--very similar to the current Iran deal. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html?pagewanted=all

But Republicans won the midterm elections; Gingrich became speaker.  Lacking funding, reactor construction stalled. Then Bush was elected, and he stopped the fuel shipments in 2002 and invaded Iraq the next year. NK said "Hell with this" and in two years had nuclear bombs. So after signing all the papers and getting four other countries committed, the US essentially backed out. I would not be surprised if some heads rolled in NK after that. Those who claimed the US could not be trusted were further empowered within the regime.

(08-10-2017, 09:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm not sure how diplomacy will solve anything in all honesty. When North Korea invaded South Korea they clearly showed what their main goal is, and that is the reunification of Korea. That will never happen under diplomacy. What the North wants out of "diplomacy" is for the US to pack their bags and get out of South Korea so that they can finish their reunification process. It's the reason they hate us. It's not because we're "imperialists". It's because we stopped them from successfully taking over South Korea and reunifying the nation.

It's my personal belief that North Korea's goals of modernizing their nuclear capabilities has very little to do with "US aggression" and more to do with North Korea wanting to attempt another reunifying campaign against the South. I don't see diplomacy working as long as the Kim family is still the leadership of the country.

Here's how diplomacy can solve everything.

NK can neither feed nor power itself.  It depends on China and Russia for resources.

Get these countries, and the rest of the world, to impose sanctions on critical imports.

Cut off the food and power, and the regime either collapses or rolls back its nuclear capability.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/05/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions/index.html

In the meantime, don't say crazy things or create misperceptions that NK might act on.

[Dill]

(08-11-2017, 09:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: These are other world leaders trying to convince the US not to make a preemptive strike.

Good insight here.  The US military knows it is unlikely Japan can knock out an ICBM.

We've got world backing on sanctions now.  The problem is how to control Trump.

[StLucieBengal]

Maybe we need a new approach. I am open to a new line of thinking. Lord knows just letting them sit there and growing a nuclear arsenal hasn't worked.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 04:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe we need a new approach. I am open to a new line of thinking. Lord knows just letting them sit there and growing a nuclear arsenal hasn't worked.

How many nukes are in their nuclear arsenal?

[Dill]

(08-10-2017, 07:00 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, what kept Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats is the fact that North Korea didn't have missiles capable of reaching the US and Iran didn't have enriched uranium. Both of those has changed due to a failure in diplomacy and negotiations.

Don't get me wrong, having an understaffed diplomatic corps ISN'T good. You need them to deal with allies and other rational countries. That doesn't mean it would make a damn bit of difference on North Korea being crazy or not.

Whaaaa . . .?????

You are saying Iran and NK would have suicidally attacked the US IF ONLY they had nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US???

Right now, diplomacy has side-tracked Iran's nuclear program. And NK's was on hold until Bush reneged on a similar agreement. It is precisely when diplomacy failed that NK doubled its efforts to acquire both bombs and missiles capable of carrying them.

A value of a full diplomatic corps would not simply be to deal directly with NK, but also to deal with the many countries we need on board for sanctions to work.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-11-2017, 04:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How many nukes are in their nuclear arsenal?

Who knows and that's one of the reasons why we need a new approach

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 08:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Who knows and that's one of the reasons why we need a new approach

Like the one used to monitor Saddam's WMD?

Absence of evidence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-11-2017, 03:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, I am saying NK had no reason to trust our diplomacy.  Not sure any country can at this point, with Trump as president and a Republican Congress.

Certainly NK invaded the South--over 60 years ago.  In their view, the South was occupied by the US and Rhee was a puppet leader. In the North's view, the Koreans would have settled their own affairs just fine if the US had not intervened.

Settled their own affairs how? By letting the North take the South by force? 

Quote:50 years later, the regime that Clinton dealt with was not identical to the one that invaded back then. Nor was the US the same. Clinton cut a deal with Kim Jong Il in 1994 to shut down reactors capable of producing weapons grade plutonium in return for the building of two light water reactors 500,000 tons of fuel oil to tide the country over until the reactors were completed. SK and Japan would help with funding, the IAEA would inspect--very similar to the current Iran deal. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/19/world/clinton-approves-a-plan-to-give-aid-to-north-koreans.html?pagewanted=all

But Republicans won the midterm elections; Gingrich became speaker.  Lacking funding, reactor construction stalled. Then Bush was elected, and he stopped the fuel shipments in 2002 and invaded Iraq the next year. NK said "Hell with this" and in two years had nuclear bombs. So after signing all the papers and getting four other countries committed, the US essentially backed out. I would not be surprised if some heads rolled in NK after that. Those who claimed the US could not be trusted were further empowered within the regime.

But North Korea was not completely upfront in all of this Dill.

In May of 1992 the nuclear declarations from North Korea was submitted to the IAEA which declared seven plutonium sites that could be subject to IAEA inspection and the IAEA conducted inspections to verify that the declarations were correct. Four months later in September, the IAEA asked North Korea to clarify issues regarding their nuclear activities because the IAEA discovered discrepancies in North Korea's initial report on it's nuclear program, issues which included the amount of reprocessed plutonium that North Korea had.. 

The following year in February 1993, the IAEA became highly suspicious of what North Korea was doing and demanded special inspections of two North Korean sites that the IAEA believed was being used to store nuclear waste because they had found what they said was "strong evidence" of North Korean misconduct. North Korea received the IAEA's request and subsequently denied them entry to the two sites. Barely even a month later North Korea announced that they were going to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty. After this announcement the IAEA declared that North Korea was not complying with their agreement and that their nuclear activities were unverifiable because they were denied entry to their facilities.

After talks with the United States, North Korea suspended it's decision to pull out of the treaty and decided to negotiate with the IAEA. The next year in March of 1994, North Korea agreed and allowed the IAEA to inspect their facilities. However, the inspectors were not allowed to fully inspect their facilities in accordance to the agreement, and the IAEA demanded that the North Koreans allow them to inspect their facilities to the fullest extent of their agreement.

About two months later in May, the IAEA reported that North Korea had discharged the fuel in their 5 Megawatt Nuclear Reactors before inspector's were able to get there in time, and because of the way that they discharged the fuel, it had become impossible for the IAEA to verify how the reactors were used and for how many years. As a response, the Board of Governors of the IAEA announced in June that North Korea was continuing to distance themselves in their agreement by not fully complying with the IAEA's inspection requests and were deliberately taking actions that prevented the IAEA from completing meaningful research on their facilities. Three days later North Korea withdrew from the agreement.

I know you want to harp on the Bush administration but the Bush administration only acted on what the Clinton administration had already picked up on, and that's that the North Koreans were doing some shady nuclear activities for years but it was impossible to determine what exactly they were doing because they repeatedly denied inspectors access to their facilities. Sure, the North Koreans are scared of us, but I think we need to be careful in framing what they are doing as "defensive" activities. Clearly North Korea has more in mind than preventing a US invasion.

Quote:Here's how diplomacy can solve everything.


NK can neither feed nor power itself.  It depends on China and Russia for resources.

Get these countries, and the rest of the world, to impose sanctions on critical imports.

Cut off the food and power, and the regime either collapses or rolls back its nuclear capability.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/05/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions/index.html

In the meantime, don't say crazy things or create misperceptions that NK might act on.

But that's impossible. China would never let North Korea collapse because that's exactly what the US wants. Diplomacy will not work under the Kim regime.

North Korea has made it clear what they want from the US.

1)To stop joint military exercises with South Korea and call back our military (Not gonna happen)
2) For the US to stop sanctions (Not gonna happen)
3) For them to be allowed to have Nuclear Weapons (Already happening, but this prevents numbers 2 and 3 from happening).

[StLucieBengal]

(08-11-2017, 08:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Like the one used to monitor Saddam's WMD?

Absence of evidence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, right?

So because if Iraq we aren't allowed to move quickly on anything ever again?

[Interceptor]

(08-11-2017, 03:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Good insight here.  The US military knows it is unlikely Japan can knock out an ICBM.

We've got world backing on sanctions now.  The problem is how to control Trump.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2017, 04:51 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So because if Iraq we aren't allowed to move quickly on anything ever again?

Just answer the question without changing the subject.

[Dill]

(08-12-2017, 11:19 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Settled their own affairs how? By letting the North take the South by force? 

But North Korea was not completely upfront in all of this Dill.

In May of 1992 the nuclear declarations from North Korea was submitted to the IAEA which declared seven plutonium sites that could be subject to IAEA inspection and the IAEA conducted inspections to verify that the declarations were correct. Four months later in September, the IAEA asked North Korea to clarify issues regarding their nuclear activities because the IAEA discovered discrepancies in North Korea's initial report on it's nuclear program, issues which included the amount of reprocessed plutonium that North Korea had.. 

The following year in February 1993, the IAEA became highly suspicious of what North Korea was doing and demanded special inspections of two North Korean sites that the IAEA believed was being used to store nuclear waste because they had found what they said was "strong evidence" of North Korean misconduct. North Korea received the IAEA's request and subsequently denied them entry to the two sites. Barely even a month later North Korea announced that they were going to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty. After this announcement the IAEA declared that North Korea was not complying with their agreement and that their nuclear activities were unverifiable because they were denied entry to their facilities.

After talks with the United States, North Korea suspended it's decision to pull out of the treaty and decided to negotiate with the IAEA. The next year in March of 1994, North Korea agreed and allowed the IAEA to inspect their facilities. However, the inspectors were not allowed to fully inspect their facilities in accordance to the agreement, and the IAEA demanded that the North Koreans allow them to inspect their facilities to the fullest extent of their agreement.

About two months later in May, the IAEA reported that North Korea had discharged the fuel in their 5 Megawatt Nuclear Reactors before inspector's were able to get there in time, and because of the way that they discharged the fuel, it had become impossible for the IAEA to verify how the reactors were used and for how many years. As a response, the Board of Governors of the IAEA announced in June that North Korea was continuing to distance themselves in their agreement by not fully complying with the IAEA's inspection requests and were deliberately taking actions that prevented the IAEA from completing meaningful research on their facilities. Three days later North Korea withdrew from the agreement.

I know you want to harp on the Bush administration but the Bush administration only acted on what the Clinton administration had already picked up on, and that's that the North Koreans were doing some shady nuclear activities for years but it was impossible to determine what exactly they were doing because they repeatedly denied inspectors access to their facilities. Sure, the North Koreans are scared of us, but I think we need to be careful in framing what they are doing as "defensive" activities. Clearly North Korea has more in mind than preventing a US invasion.

Just a quick note on this Matt. (I am traveling and not regularly online.)
I am aware of the difficulties you refer to above. But you are describing activities prior to Clinton's Agreement. No one has any doubt that NK would push boundaries AFTER the agreement as well, but the agreement was made knowing that would be managed.

 But it's pretty hard to call that kettle black when NK immediately set to work adhering to the Agreement and the US did not. E.g. NK did destroy its heavy water reactor as requested and got the sites prepared for the building of the light water reactors. In other words, they took A GIANT STEP BACK in quest for a nuclear weapon on the assumption the US would come through with the other energy sources. Then the US and allies simply dragged their feet. Clinton was hoping that there would be regime change after the death of grandad Kim. But there was not. And the Gingrich Congress was interfering as much as possible as well, refusing to fund or dragging its feet on necessary appropriations.

So it cannot be said Bush "picked up on something." They knew very well that NK had set its program back a decade in exchange for the energy technology. They were looking for any pretext to break the deal (just as Trump is doing with Iran right now). From the NK perspective, the US basically tricked NK into destroying its nuclear program, then stalled and refused to hold up its end of the bargain.

Whenever you are looking into US deals with "evil" states, you have to look extra closely at what as going on, ESPECIALLY when the president (whomever) and State Department start talking about how untrustworthy the other side is. Too often they simply count on voters to buy the administration's version of events. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a one off, but an excellent example of how US public opinion is continually managed by administrations who deploy the they-can't-be-trusted strategy. Think of how Bush played Congress for his Iraq authorization.

[Dill]

(08-12-2017, 11:19 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But that's impossible. China would never let North Korea collapse because that's exactly what the US wants. Diplomacy will not work under the Kim regime.

The suggestion was not to let NK collapse. Rather, I was pointing out how NK is dependent upon others for resources. The control of the economy lies outside NK, if the right actors want to act. 

No one "wants" NK to collapse. Especially NK.

Therefore, in response to sanctions, it will likely roll back it's nuclear weapons program. That is why diplomacy will work--if it is tried.

China, as you say, does not want NK to collapse. But the likelihood of that happening is very great if there is conflict with the US. Therefore, to prevent that collapse, China will impose measured sanctions with the rest of the world.


The problem is this may require more finesse than our current leadership can provide.  Clear and consistent messaging from all sanctioning parties is required. Why would you agree to sanctions today if there seem a chance the US will act unilaterally tomorrow to work against diplomacy?

[*Synric*]

(08-09-2017, 09:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Man, how much nicer is it to live in Ohio? We won't be the ones to experience a North Korean nuclear strike, or an Iranian nuclear strike. Plus 99.9% of people in Russia or Europe can probably only name California, New York, DC, Florida, and Texas. They'll just forget we exist and we'll be fine.

That's the thing.. a Nuclear Strike doesn't have to actually reach thr ground for it to have its most devestating effect.  A nuke detonated in the atmosphere would send out an emp large enough to blow out at least half thr countries electric which could take generations to fix if the country doesn't tear itself apart first. The EMP would not only destroy all electrical devices but the huge room size transformers that are in thr ground near the large electrical towers (not just the ones on the electric poles outside your house) Those transformers are at least on a 2 year backlogged....and made I'm china. Without electric Americans wouldnt be able to build plants to make those transformers.