South Korean ship fires on a ship

CaptainHaplo · 05-01-10, 09:15 AM

Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so.

The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not.

Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes.

Happy Times · 05-01-10, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so.

The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not.

Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes.

So if NK would attack US with a Hiroshima strength nuke you wouldnt strike back with nukes because you can beat them conventionally?

Or is there different policies for allies under US nuclear umbrella and US itself?

CaptainHaplo · 05-01-10, 01:37 PM

Honestly - I would have to say that even if we were hit on the continent by a hiroshima sized nuke (and its doubtful that NK even has something that big) - I doubt a nuke would be used in return.

Whether I agree with that policy or not isn't the question. Current doctrine just does not go "tit for tat" with nukes - and that is good as its rather irresponsible.

Oberon · 05-01-10, 01:50 PM

You lob a nuke at the DPRK and China will go ape****, whether the DPRK used one first or not. Chances are, if the DPRK DID use a nuke obviously then it would isolate itself immediately in the international community (well...more than it already is) and chances are that Beijing would co-operate in a limited sense in the removal of Kim Jong-il or whoever is in charge at the moment, probably in return for a return to the status quo with a Chinese puppet in charge of the DPRK. Having the Chinese on side would go a long way to bringing any conflict to a swift close with minimal allied casualties.
I suspect, given the closeness between Tehran and Pyongyang, that Iran will act up if the DPRK does, to try and stretch the US's response between the two countries plus Afghanistan.

Jimbuna · 05-01-10, 03:07 PM

Then they'd simply take both countries out....if that was the response it warranted.

personally I can see China taking control of NK before any escalation toward a possible worldwide nuclear exchange.

Oberon · 05-01-10, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Then they'd simply take both countries out....if that was the response it warranted.

personally I can see China taking control of NK before any escalation toward a possible worldwide nuclear exchange.

Tricky job, unless you mean by direct nuclear strike Jim, and even then I suspect that all it would do would be kill the civilians, all the brass would be underground or hidden somewhere. To attack and fight a ground war in Korea and Iran at the same time would require more resources than the US currently has. Heck, fighting a ground war in Iran alone would be a complete mess.

Jimbuna · 05-01-10, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Tricky job, unless you mean by direct nuclear strike Jim, and even then I suspect that all it would do would be kill the civilians, all the brass would be underground or hidden somewhere. To attack and fight a ground war in Korea and Iran at the same time would require more resources than the US currently has. Heck, fighting a ground war in Iran alone would be a complete mess.

I did indeed mean 'by direct nuclear strike'

Happy Times · 05-01-10, 03:55 PM

Usually every reporter and analyst about the Korean peninsula seems to have an different opinion like we do.
If this wasnt so serious this would be a fun guessing game.

Some links i found that might interest you guys, very mixed information as usual.

New Concerns About North Korea

North Korea Says No Chaos After Currency Reform

North Korea: the drumbeats of war
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/s...-korea-nuclear

Continued Chinese Financial Support of N. Korea Questioned
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-89591277.html

China Will Give Kim Jong Il $10 Billion, Violating the Spirit and Letter of U.N. Security Council Resolutions It Voted For
http://www.freekorea.us/2010/02/16/c...-it-voted-for/

05-01-10, 09:15 AM	#1
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Even if the North used WMD, the US response would not do so. The reason here is that WMD policy for the US - for decades (and Obama has upheld this) is that we will use our weapons ONLY in defense (or MAD). Even with a WMD strike, conventional arms are sufficient to stop a Northern invasion. An attack such as you describe - targetting Japan for example, would be seen more as a terrorist act than a military action - because the North has no ability to invade Japan with boots on the ground. A move against the south, while being deadly, and followed up by military invasion from the the north, would still see the northern advance halted and then pushed back with conventional arms. NK simply lacks the military power to force a WMD response, regardless of whether it uses its own WMD's or not. Simply put, when conventional weapons can do the job, you do not escalate the conflict by using (in the case of the US)) nukes. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

05-01-10, 01:37 PM	#3
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Honestly - I would have to say that even if we were hit on the continent by a hiroshima sized nuke (and its doubtful that NK even has something that big) - I doubt a nuke would be used in return. Whether I agree with that policy or not isn't the question. Current doctrine just does not go "tit for tat" with nukes - and that is good as its rather irresponsible. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

05-01-10, 03:07 PM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,615 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Then they'd simply take both countries out....if that was the response it warranted. personally I can see China taking control of NK before any escalation toward a possible worldwide nuclear exchange. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

05-01-10, 03:55 PM	#8
Happy Times Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 2,950 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Usually every reporter and analyst about the Korean peninsula seems to have an different opinion like we do. If this wasnt so serious this would be a fun guessing game. Some links i found that might interest you guys, very mixed information as usual. New Concerns About North Korea North Korea Says No Chaos After Currency Reform North Korea: the drumbeats of war http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/s...-korea-nuclear Continued Chinese Financial Support of N. Korea Questioned http://www1.voanews.com/english/news...-89591277.html China Will Give Kim Jong Il $10 Billion, Violating the Spirit and Letter of U.N. Security Council Resolutions It Voted For http://www.freekorea.us/2010/02/16/c...-it-voted-for/ __________________

05-01-10, 01:50 PM	#4
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	You lob a nuke at the DPRK and China will go ape****, whether the DPRK used one first or not. Chances are, if the DPRK DID use a nuke obviously then it would isolate itself immediately in the international community (well...more than it already is) and chances are that Beijing would co-operate in a limited sense in the removal of Kim Jong-il or whoever is in charge at the moment, probably in return for a return to the status quo with a Chinese puppet in charge of the DPRK. Having the Chinese on side would go a long way to bringing any conflict to a swift close with minimal allied casualties. I suspect, given the closeness between Tehran and Pyongyang, that Iran will act up if the DPRK does, to try and stretch the US's response between the two countries plus Afghanistan.