North Corea

[Blalron]

In response to North Corea’s aggresive act towards our spy plane, we have deployed numerous bombers to the island of Guam in the pacific to keep them from trying anything once we attack Iraq.

This led me to think. I would ASSUME that those bombers had nuclear weapons. Correct me if I’m wrong. The more I thought about, the more awesome it seemed to be how we are responding to this hostility.

The message we are sending: We want peace. You can beat your chest with war rhetoric all you want. Go ahead. We don’t care. Just be sure not to actually do anything against us, or we will nuke you into oblivion.

I like this “Don’t Tread on Us” policy versus our “Pre-emptive strike/invasion” policy on Iraq. If only we could apply it uniformly! Well, at least Bush’s tunnel vision on Iraq has led to at least one rational response to a threat.

[leander]

Not sure if this thread will be closed (as there’s another one just around the corner), but to the OP…

The bombers were apparently not sent to Guam as a response to the spy plane incident. This was supposedly planned awhile ago, so as to prevent N. Korea from taking advantage of the war in Iraq to start some trouble.

[stpauler]

(I’m sorry, but I had to look up why this was Corea and not Korea, I feel enlightened )

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/n.korea.bombers/index.html

The deployment order for the bombers had long been planned and is not related to last weekend’s intercept of an Air Force reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Japan by four North Korean MiG fighters, officials said.

Twelve B-1 bombers and 12 B-52 bombers received deployment orders Saturday.

< snip >

The deployment was ordered a month after the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. Tom Fargo, requested additional planes and ships be sent to the region.

They received their deployment orders Saturday. The North Korean intercept was Sunday.

**I would ASSUME that those bombers had nuclear weapons. Correct me if I’m wrong.

**
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-6/104546590167000.xml

… B-52 bombers, which can carry 18 JDAMs, and B-1 bombers, which can carry 24.

…the Pentagon’s new smart bomb of choice, the satellite-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM. Unlike laser-guided munitions, JDAMs cannot be blinded by weather or the dust of the battlefield.

IANA munitions geek, but I believe that a JDAM is just a really huge bomb filled with regular explosive, not a nuclear warhead.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm

**the more awesome it seemed to be how we are responding to this hostility.

** I think it’s awesome, too–“diplomacy”, what a concept.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/nkorea.intercept/index.html

The White House on Tuesday labeled North Korea’s decision to have fighter jets shadow a U.S. reconnaissance plane as “reckless” but said President Bush remained convinced there could be a diplomatic solution to the standoff over North Korea’s nuclear program.

He said the United States would lodge a formal protest but had not settled on a venue for doing so.

Possibly the UN?

[DreadCthulhu]

You are correct, the JDAM is a convential weapon, but both the B-52 and B-1 can carry nukes. However, it is unlikely they will be used for a nuclear strike, that is what sub-launched cruise missles are for.

[edwino]

I’ll put this here.

The US is peeved because the North Koreans approached a US plane recklessly in international waters. The US is concerned because North Korea is breaking international conventions by pursuing a missile plan, and openly restarting nuclear facilities.

The US wants to find a diplomatic solution to this. Possibly involving UN or IAEA intervention. But there are no plans for a military approach. So use international law to work for us.

The US is also peeved because Iraq violates international laws passed in 1991. They break the no-fly zone and mess with US planes enforcing UN resolution in the southern no-fly zone. The US is concerned with Iraq flaunting weapons inspectors and pursuing chemical and biological weapons programs. We have no evidence of Iraqi nuclear programs AFAIK.

The US wants to find a military solution for this. With or without the UN and the IAEA. With or without the rest of the world. We don’t think that international law will work this time.

What are the substantive differences between the two? South Korea? Has North Korea already acheived deterrence by imminently having nukes? AFAIK, they will only be able to produce enough fissile material by the summer. Why don’t we intervene, strongly, now, in North Korea, which is somewhere where we would be far more likely to get support from the rest of the world.

I can see substantive differences besides the knee-jerk cries of petroleum. We want to create an island of stability in the Middle East, we want to catalyze a change for the better. But the chance of this happening every day gets slimmer. Our support wanes, public support will only continue to wane during a long occupation, there is tremendous factional difficulties to overcome, and Turkey will be occupying the north of Iraq, possibly crushing the only semblance of democracy and opposition currently in Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Sometimes even the strongest boy on the block has to pick their fights wisely, and with each day that passes, this looks like one to pass on.

[Standup_Karmic]

*Originally posted by edwino *
What are the substantive differences between the two? South Korea? Has North Korea already acheived deterrence by imminently having nukes? AFAIK, they will only be able to produce enough fissile material by the summer. Why don’t we intervene, strongly, now, in North Korea, which is somewhere where we would be far more likely to get support from the rest of the world.

Word on the street is that they may already have nukes. Even the speculation that they already have them is a significant deterrent to military action. I have read a couple of editorials that state that this is the very reason that Iraq must be dealt with harshly now. If they were given the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons, the matter would then almost require diplomatic solution rather than military.

If a person is planning to take hostages, you can just walk into the place that he is doing his planning and take him down. If he’s already got those hostages, diplomacy very suddenly becomes the tool of choice.

[rmbnxs]

North Corea is that part of Chick Corea that is facing north.

[Koxinga]

*Originally posted by edwino *
What are the substantive differences between the two? South Korea? Has North Korea already acheived deterrence by imminently having nukes? AFAIK, they will only be able to produce enough fissile material by the summer. Why don’t we intervene, strongly, now, in North Korea, which is somewhere where we would be far more likely to get support from the rest of the world.

Even without nuclear weapons, large chunks of Seoul will be destroyed and millions of South Koreans killed in the opening hours of a war–a war that would be sure to result from any ostensibly limited strike on reactors or whatnot carried out by the US.

Even aside from moral questions over exposing an ally to that kind of risk, the inevitible huge disruption to the global economy should also give us pause. Oil’s a commodity, but where else is Dell going to source its just-in-time TFT-LCD panels?

[Sofa_King]

I thought North Corea was Chick’s brother.

[Sofa_King]

Okay, excuse the offensive remark, please.

To atone, I will point out that the US Navy has two carrier groups, two amphibious assault ships, and four amphibious docking ships underway in the Pacific. I estimate that that’s enough force to dump an entire Marine Expeditionary Unit anywhere we wish on the Peninsula. Additionally, there are 25,000 ROK Marines available for deployment, and the South Korean Navy looks to be able to deploy them by the regiment.

The North Coreans would be extremely unwise to underestimate the effect 2200 well-supplied and highly mobile US Marines can have, particularly since almost all of their nuclear facilities are located in littoral areas within 50 kilometers of the coast.

Despite their bluster, the NCs must be wondering if they can defend their coastal areas while simultaneously attacking in the heavily fortified DMZ. Assuming Kim Jong Il is not totally insane–and admittedly weak assumption–he’ll probably opt to await further additions to his nuclear arsenal before he genuinely attempts to open hostilities.

On the other hand, North Corea ain’t no Iraq. We’d be insane to try to tangle with them offensively without half a year’s buildup and preparation–and we can’t fight two wars at the same time, either.