Perhaps not, but if the Workers’ Party of Korea is recognized as a legitimate political party in reunited Korea, and if the people of the North vote WPK out of habit at least the first time around, then, at least the NK elites get a great big foothold in the National Assembly, and they can negotiate themselves some patronage offices and so on. Small price to pay for peaceful reunification.
Re the NK artillery in a total war scenario - I understand that SK wouldn’t be able to hit enough of them with conventional strikes before Seoul is smashed to pieces. And nuclear strikes against potential positions would cause too much collateral damage. But what if SK uses chemical weapons against suspected artillery positions that are not near any civilian villages? The chemical weapons would seep into hardened bunkers without the need for a direct hit and they wouldn’t have too much of an effect outside of the target area. I doubt the NK army is prepared for chemical strikes. Also, the chemicals can be washed away and wouldn’t leave any lasting effect.
As far as the ethics of using chemical weapons, killing tens of thousands of NK soldiers with chemical weapons is certainly less bad than hundreds of thousands of SK civilian casualties, no? Besides, in a total war scenario who cares about ethics.
Good idea?
I don’t think anyone mentioned chemical weapons. They’re not that effective and they’re outlawed by international war crimes treaties.
War crimes shmar crimes. We’re talking about a city full of innocent people getting blown to bits. Do you really think SK would care about war crimes in that situation? C’mon.
I’d like to hear more about how chemical weapons aren’t that effective though. Wouldn’t you be able to blanket wide swathes of area and penetrate bunkers/caves with them? 1,000 bombs filled with chemical weapons vs. 10,000 pinpointed conventional bombs?
or radio active dust
What does South Korea’s opinion have to do with it? The use of biological and chemical weapons is a war crime under treaties the U.S. signed a century ago. There’s not much point in using them anyway.
It’s been discussed by more knowledgeable people in other threads, but the gist is that they’re indiscriminate and can’t be controlled once you release them, so you’re just as likely to gas your own people if the wind changes. I see now that you’re proposing using them in a limited situation, but what’s the point? Given the choice between blowing up some artillery and dropping chemical weapons on it to make the soldiers sick, why not just blow it up?
Sure the buffer state idea is good, but wouldn’t they prefer someone they could keep a tighter rein on, someone that is not such a loose cannon?
Right, and um, when the batteries die down, what then?
Sure, and I’d like a unicorn.
It’s not like China can step in and set up a puppet government. People overestimate China’s ability to influence NK. And a US friendly SK isn’t much better. The key to NKs leadership is being just on the other side of the line so China won’t feel compelled to join the rest of the UN against them.
Why isn’t it feasible though? It seems like it should be. What’s stopping a drone strike? The US does have stealth drones right? And Kim does seem to attend functions where it would be possible to get him and a few of the NK top brass. I’m not saying this would solve the problem, but it’s not impossible that it would, combined with some other sort of initiative.
As Temp user said:
I think China is ultimately the solution to North Korea. Sure, they would like a buffer state but at what cost? I do not think they will allow the NK leadership to re-ignite the Korean War or any other rash action. They certainly do not want a U.N.-sanctioned war on their doorstep and will rein in NK leadership before any shooting starts.
I heard some fear-monger on CNN tonight carrying on about the possibility that N.K. agents could smuggle a nuclear devise into the U.S. and deliver it in “a Toyota pickup”. Does anyone seriously think that China would permit that? I certainly don’t.
:smack: D’oh, you said “and an embedded solar charger.” So yeah, running out of battery power, not so much a problem.
Assuming they can actually do such a thing*, what makes you think China can stop them? China can’t smash them any flatter than we would for doing such a thing.
- I doubt they can make a bomb small and light enough to do that yet.
They actually already get that, if they defect.
Has anybody tried niceness?
What if young Barry went over there and gave them all a big hug, and Michelle made them a nice batch of organic, low sugar, low fat, low calorie cookies?
Wouldn’t that make the world a better place?
Many a thing you know you ought to tell them
Many a thing they ought to understand
But how do you make them stay
And listen to all you say?
Well, the LA cops have been shooting at every pickup truck on the road recently. May beyve heard the rumors.
If, as Dennis Rodman reports, Jong Un “don’t want to do war” then assassinating him would seem to be counterproductive.
I read a series of historical accounts that suggests whenever the U.S. has a serious problem, we send a submarine laden with gold to a North Korean port called Sinanju…
It would probably be millions
I don’t think we could do it before they’d reduced Seoul to rubble.