I just read this book for the first time a couple months ago and it was excellent. I liked it even more since it was a second-hand copy that was printed decades ago, so it was very dog-eared and weathered. The condition of the book helped set the mood.
I`m hoping we get a better sound track
Did I ever advocate any sort of war? No. I advocated at worst some air strikes.
Oh well good then. Your, as always, deeply considered course of action could hardly be expected to go badly. Lob away.
Dropping bombs on a country is sort of like a war. At least we said it was in 1941.
My understanding is the goal is not to fight a long standing battle like the US tried to do in western europe, it is to engage in suicide missions, assassinations, terrorism and behavior like that.
I don’t think that’s the point being made. I’m sure they might very well try to do stuff like the above…with 10 men. Or even 100…yeah, that’s do-able. Maybe even 500, though at that point we are getting into deep waters, support and infiltration wise. But 100,000?? No way in hell. Flatly impossible. I don’t think the US has 100,000 trained special ops people that we could send somewhere in the event of war.
-XT
For what it’s worth, apparently the odds of DPRK involvement in the sinking are being downplayed
To advocated airstrikes is to advocate war. First, an airstrike is an act of war. Second, “limited” military attacks have a tendency to spin out of control. In 2004, military experts wargamed the likely outcome of an airstrike on Iran. They could see no way at all to keep such an action from escalating into a general regional war.
Quoth the OP and Wesley Clark, respectively:
There’s no evidence whatsoever that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and I’m pretty sure that if they did have nuclear weapons, they’d have demonstrated that fact by now. Yes, they were able to set off a (very pathetic) nuclear bomb, but that was a device built on site and never moved. To weaponize it, it needs to be small enough to fit on some sort of delivery system, and especially with their bottom-of-the-barrel missile technology, I think that’s extremely unlikely.
The fact that they’re threatening to use the nuclear weapons they don’t have, rather than the conventional weapons they do, tells me this latest threat is all bark and no bite. Kim Jong Mentally-Ill doesn’t want war, he just wants attention, and he’ll get more attention from talking about nukes than he will by talking about artillery. DNFTT.
This wouldn’t be the first naval skirmish between North and South Korea, there was one in November last year and one in 1999 and 2002. Apparently NK doesn’t agree with everyone else on where the sea border should be.
You may be referring to the 2006 test, but aren’t you aware there was one last year, too? A four kiltoton bomb is still nothing to sneeze at. We’re talking almost everyone killed within a 4.5 kilometer area.
If they put it on the Mangyongbong-92, before it’s normal twice-a-year trip to Japan, it could cause a bit of damage.
Unless I’m mistaken, it always been North Korea’s position that the Seoul government is a U.S. puppet regime, and therefore not even sovereign let alone legititmate.
I don’t know. They could also be a stay behind force like operation Gladio was supposed to be in NATO.
Except a stay behind force by definition is not an invasion force. Stay behind forces are only possible because, like guerrillas, they can blend in with the native population at will. Due to Japan’s homogeneity, it is difficult for any Koreans to effectively blend in, particularly ones who would be ideologically fanatics and probably wouldn’t know much if any Japanese.
Bottom line, if North Korea were to re-ignite the Korean war, Japan would only become involved militarily if 1) the Japanese government amended their constitution to remove the anti-war Article 9, or 2) North Korea attacked Japan directly.
Since North Korea would be overwhelmed by the South Korean and US forces already following any initial offensive, it doesn’t make any sense that North Korea would further ensure their own destruction by attacking Japan.
We launched air strikes against Libya, Serbia, Iraq (in the late '90s), and so on but none of these became full-on war. By air strikes I don’t mean systematic carpet-bombing or surgical strikes but a few strikes to get even and as a warning.
None of those places had an insane leader, a paranoid government, an insanely built up military, or, most importantly, nuclear weapons. I think direct air strikes would inevitably lead to war. I think it’s a war that North Korea would surely lose, but the cost to the South Koreans would be huge. Leaving aside the nuclear weapons, the NK’s have literally 10’s of thousands of artillery tubes aimed at Seoul and mountains of shells…and a lot of those tubes are zeroed in AND in reinforced bunkers, so it would take time to get at them. It would be ugly, and this leaves aside their huge (if creaky) army and air force, and, of course, those nuclear weapons.
Best not to go up and whack the dying bear on the muzzle, just because you have a shot gun. You will probably kill the bear but it might tear your face off at the same time.
-XT
This is such a rediculous point to be debating, but are there any major cities with ten million plus people who are our allies within 10 miles of the border of Libya, Serbia, or Iraq?
Go look up Bill Perry and the war plans he drew up in 1994 when Clinton considered bombing the Nork’s nuclear plant. Perry has said numerous times that even a “surgical” strike would likely lead to war.
Which shows the advantage of bombing countries that can’t fight back. Try an air strike on China or Russia sometime and see if you get a full-on war.
And don’t think North Korea doesn’t understand this. This is the reason they got nuclear weapons - so that the United States can’t attack them with impunity.