Hm, I hadn’t realized that things had been stripped back so far since the Cold War. Point taken.
The U.S. could hit the North Koreans even if they lived on Mars. Being able to hit them is not in question.
The U.S. does not have to use ICBMs to hit North Korea. During Gulf War II, B2 bombers were launched from the U.S., hit targets in Iraq, and returned to the U.S. without landing. Targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and other places are hit from remote Predator drones being ‘flown’ by pilots sitting in rooms in the U.S. In addition, there’s at least one carrier group hanging around that area, and they could hit NK with all kinds of stuff.
If North Korea is stupid enough to actually shoot a missile at Hawaii and it lands inside territorial waters, I think you’ll see some kind of response from the U.S. We’re not talking military invasion here or a nuking of a city or anything stupid like that, but I wouldn’t rule out a pinpoint strike on the launch location, or maybe one of Kim Jong Il’s palaces, or a nuclear facility.
Belligerent tests and saber wrattling are one thing. Actually launching a potentially nuclear missle into the territory of another sovereign power is a pretty big escalation, and can’t go unanswered.
You may be interested to learn that North Korea may have already done so, on one occasion. And even if that situation was not what it seemed, the resolve with which China, the US, etc., are treating the matter of searching North Korean ships indicates how serious a threat the sale of Korean nukes poses.
-
Yes we are, in multiple ways.
-
Not so far, but depending on your age, you should count on it in your lifetime, if nothing changes politically.
-
See answer number one.
-
You’re right.
Deterence works, at least it did for 40 years between the US and the USSR. And still does, for that matter.
Now, if something silly happens (a North Korean attack), we and our allies in the battle won’t use nukes; there’s no doubt about that. It is not necessary, and unless we make some crazy diplomatic mistake, neither Russia or China will intervene on the North’s side. We’ll get air superiority quickly, to take out any further attacks on Japan and South Korea. Then we’ll do what is necessary from the air to support the South Korean Army (obviously supported by the 50,000 US troops already there) to unify the penninsula.
Once there is air superiority, the best artillery, which is the US artillery, will focus on the nuclear and other outlying military sites. Once they are taken or destroyed, we might lay an humanitarian siege around Pyongyang. We’ll allow food, but not heat, for instance. Tell them publicly that we’ll take care of any medical issues. The people might be fed better in the city than before the war that way, and get better health care. You get the idea. We’d coopt the farmers in the country, encouraging them to figure out how to allocate their resources to their own liking, offering perhaps some micro lending, etc.
Once the families from the South can make contact with their rural relatives in the north, and we allow some communication between those in the rural areas and those in the still (presumably) besieged Pyongyang, there might be a general willingness among the Kims to allow the North to be saved without the cities to be destroyed. Or we can figure it out from there. But this is a quick and dirty thought about how a military planner might hope the war would go.
Lots of unknowns–would the natural distrust of a rural community be overcome by an influx of contacts with relatives in the South? Would southern relatives be sensitive enough not to offend the poorer, less sophisticated northerners? How would an “humanitarian siege” really work? Could it?
But I still contend this is the quick and dirty version of any response to what a silly event would be.
Just to make a couple of additional points–if the North attacks, there will be undeniably be serious damage to Seoul. There is no way to militarily avoid that, so we must keep those 50,000 troops there for a while, just to make sure the North knows that a screw up is fatal for them. Second, if the North decides to send a missile into Japan, there may or may not be anything we can do about that. If we were, right now, for instance, to unilaterally decide to take out the launch site just because of the announcement by the North that their next test would be in the direction of Hawaii, I don’t think Russia and China would support us. And believe me, we want their support in working with North Korea, and it hasn’t been hard to get, in response to events, actually.
Couple of things.
[ul][li]There are two Koreans. Usually, when someone in the English-speaking world says Korea, they’re referring to South Korea (the Republic of Korea). North Korea is a different place and is officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.[/li][li]There are plenty of us civilian types (I, for one) living in the ROK who would greatly appreciate, if it comes to that, any missiles launched to attack the DPRK hitting on the right side of the 38th.[/li][li]The United Nations Command has approximately 28,000 US Service members stationed in the Republic of Korea.[/li][li]If the DPRK wishes to hit American military personnel, there are plenty of targets closer than Hawaii. Seoul comes to mind.[/li][li]All males in the ROK are required by the constitution to serve in the military (some do receive exemption, some are prohibited, and conscientious objectors refuse to serve and are incarcerated or otherwise punished). The vast majority of males peform their military service.[/li][li]The ROK military isn’t a joke. Also, they routinely train alongside US troops and are thus familiar with modern military strategy and tactics. They also have modern equipment.[/li][]It would be political suicide, IMHO, for Kim Jeong-Il to attack ROK. For one thing, the ROK provids food and other aid to the DPRK. For another, senior military leadership in the DPRK certainly do not believe their own propoganda.[/ul]
Oops. I misspelled the first part. It should read:
[ul]There are two Koreas.[/ul]
[quote=“Monty, post:66, topic:500188”]
Couple of things.
[ul][li]There are two Koreans. Usually, when someone in the English-speaking world says Korea, they’re referring to South Korea (the Republic of Korea). North Korea is a different place and is officially known as the *Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.[/li][li]There are plenty of us civilian types (I, for one) living in the ROK who would greatly appreciate, if it comes to that, any missiles launched to attack the DPRK hitting on the right side of the 38th.[/li][li]The United Nations Command has approximately 28,000 US Service members stationed in the Republic of Korea.[/li][li]If the DPRK wishes to hit American military personnel, there are plenty of targets closer than Hawaii. Seoul comes to mind.[/li][li]All males in the ROK are required by the constitution to serve in the military (some do receive exemption, some are prohibited, and conscientious objectors refuse to serve and are incarcerated or otherwise punished). The vast majority of males peform their military service.[/li][li]The ROK military isn’t a joke. Also, they routinely train alongside US troops and are thus familiar with modern military strategy and tactics. They also have modern equipment.[/li][li]It would be political suicide, IMHO, for Kim Jeong-Il to attack ROK. For one thing, the ROK provids food and other aid to the DPRK. For another, senior military leadership in the DPRK certainly do not believe their own propoganda.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
This.^ Also, the real issue isn’t whether the US could bomb North Korea hard enough to turn South Korea into an island. The issue is how the Chinese would react to whatever course of action the US may take.
For example, if NK actually hit a US target with a (non-nuclear) missile the Chinese might “allow” the US to take out one or two key military sites in NK, with a pointed silence to Kim Jeong-Il to indicate that China will not put up with their shenanigans. But an invasion or attack on civilian sites? No, not unless we want to properly restart the Korean War…
It depends on the target. An NK strike against a US military target is one thing. An NK strike against a civilian target? Quite another.
I would hope, and more or less expect, that Obama would not be so deferential to the Chinese if NK decides to attack some civilian target like Hawaii (or Tokyo, for that matter). There comes a point when the rest of the world needs to accept that the US will act on its own accord, and the Chinese do not dictate US military or foreign policy.
I think Afghanistan post 9/11 is a better analogy than Iraq. I don’t recall a lot of pressure to get permission from the Russians to invade Afghanistan, and, as mentioned, any action by NK against the US or Japan necessarily presents a very serious threat to South Korea.
The interests of South Korea and the USA and Japan are going to be something the Chinese can suck it up and deal with. If Beijing wants to keep Most Favored Nation status, continue to sell to Wal-Mart, and expect any kind of repayment of US foreign debt, then they better keep their traps shut about restarting the Korean war.
Like they say, if you owe somebody a hundred dollars and you don’t repay them, you have a problem. If you owe someone 800 billion dollars and you don’t repay them, they have a problem.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not a matter of deference, it’s a matter of knowing where the line is that, if crossed, would result in a more adverse relationship. Yes, as you point our, the economic intertwining means that a US/China war is pretty unlikely. It doesn’t mean they can’t hurt us. There’s a reason we keep giving them Most Favored Trading Nation status, after all.
IM completely inexpert O, one conventional missile strike on, say, Oahu would probably result in the US targetting NK’s military capability including any nuclear material development sites, military bases, etc. On the other hand, attacking Pyongyang would not only not accomplish anything strategically but would inflame our allies in South Korea and possibly Japan, in addition to China being pissed off as the remaining populace of Pyongyang flee to the borders.
If NK actually nuked Honolulu, well…all bets are off then.
And my even less expert opinion is that even a conventional missile strike is an act of war. Which means that North Korea will cease to exist as a political entity, one way or another.
Pressure, from both sides of the aisle and damn near unanimous from the public would be overwhelming.
Either Obama goes on national TV within six hours of the attack and makes a ringing speech declaring war on NK (bonus points for BO if he can avoid the phrase “a date that will live in infamy”), or he would be quietly shuffled off to Walter Reed suffering from “exhaustion” while Biden and Pelosi and Reid do it. Or we work out way down the effing line of succession until we get to someone who understands where trade considerations end and survival begins.
Bush’s approval ratings went over 90% while he was getting set up to invade Afghanistan. That same 90% would be ready to support anyone who was willing to respond to acts of war as nations who want to be taken seriously do.
And that does not include playing “Mother May I?” with the Chinese. Kimmie can bluster and threaten, and we will do what we can short of war to try to contain the threat. But there is a line that one does not cross, if one wants to avoid having Tom Clancy novels written about what happened to you.
IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the entire world pretty much knows by now that if you cause large numbers of American casualties, we don’t give a shit what any other country says, we’re coming for you.
I think you guys have tried to get us already…a few times.
Yes. Only online would this really be an argument. If North Korea somehow blindly hit Oahu (pop. 875,000+) with a missile, the response would be overwhelming.
This is correct. The UN Charter allows a country to legally act in self defense. If NK acted with aggression toward the US, SK or Japan, (or anyone) the US could respond legally in self defense. A missle strike would definitely rise to the level of aggression.
I have to apologize for whooshing myself. When you first said you were a boomer, and I initially replied, I swear in my alcohol haze that you meant you were a “boomer”, as in, a nuclear-missle submarine crewmember. Hence my being so taken aback initially that you would not know something like this.
I realized shortly thereafter that you were referring to “baby boomer”.
Shit.
:smack::smack::smack:
Really? I had no idea Oahu was that big.
Still doesn’t mean we’d go after civilian targets. Kim Jeong-Mentally-Ill rules at the sufferance of the military. Hit enough military targets and they’d shoot him themselves and sue for peace.
Most Hawaiians live on Oahu.
That said, it’s not really relevant because even if North Korea can hit Oahu with a missile, it’s unlikely they could hit it with a missle carrying a nuclear weapon, which is a very different matter. Any nuclear weapon North Korea would possess would likely be one big sumbitch. I think it’s safge to assume their missile launches show off the absolute max range of their missiles, which means they’re probably not carrying warheads of substantial weight. So the missile, even if it hits Oahu, will likely just drop onto a mountainside.
And North Korea won’t do that because it wouldn’t make any sense to do so, even from their weird perspective. The USA absolutely WOULD go to war against them and nobody would mind. If Kim Jong-Il wants to start a war they’re not going to draw a nuclear response on purpose; they’ll just invade South Korea.
You assume in a crisis situation only conventional weapons would get used. I’m not so convinced.
You’re not alone - that was my first thought as well. Well, not that he *was *a boomer, but that it was funny he’d use that word in a post wondering about US nuke capabilities 