How will events lead up to a war with North Korea?
NK has just been added to the travel ban list, and this is something that always happens before a war breaks out.
What events will happen, leading up to escalation, and eventually a war with North Korea?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NIKEBALL
NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NIKEBALL
NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NUKEBALL NIKEBALL
Its probably never going to happen. Society will probably undo itself from within such as sexbots+VR gradually killing off reproduction or some supervirus that cant be cured in time. Or electricity going off in 50-100 years and people are so unprepared then it becomes civilization suicide.
There won't be much of an escalation period. North Korea knows that if it gives the US the time to move heavy forces, or even to deploy multiple carriers, that it's fucked.
Their only hope is a very short war started by surprise attack. Their best bet is to use a variant of the Russian "de-escalation" strategy, where they use conventional forces to make territorial gains, then expand their nuclear umbrella to solidify those gains. It works like this: everyone expects that the first week of the war will go heavily in North Korea's favor, as they'll have the element of surprise, the chaos caused by millions of civilians fleeing, and no major strain on their horrible supply situation. They'll be able to maximize the effectiveness of their long range artillery, tunnels, infiltrators, etc. South Korean forces on the DMZ will be horribly bloodied and will retreat far to the south to consolidate and regroup.
So in the first week North Korea takes Seoul. This isn't a surprise to anyone wargaming this. The expectation is that they take Seoul, South Korea regroups and fully mobilizes, the US sends in a shit-ton of marines and air support, and then over the next few months North Korea gets pushed back, eventually all the way to Pyongyang and beyond.
But things are different now because North Korea has nuclear ICBMs. They can take Seoul and then declare to the world that they will cease their advance and call for a return to armistice. If US & SK forces refuse the new peace terms, then North Korea threatens to nuke Guam, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Tokyo. So accept losing Seoul, or lose a shitload more. The dispassionate rational actor would accept the "de-escalation".
It's a variant of the strategy that the Russians were planning to use in the Carter era to take most or all of continental Europe: conventional attack to take ground, nuclear threats to hold it. Only counter to this strategy is to never lose ground in the first place, or make your opponent think you are so irrational and emotional that you'd rather tens of millions of your own people die rather than stop fighting.
North Korea's window of opportunity is quickly closing. The US is preparing SK and Japan and has troops stationed there, and relocating some navy forces. The US will be well prepared and will prevent such a thing from happening.
Fake nuclear attack by a submarine on Seattle
Would work in the 1800s. Democracy can only do total war or sputtered out defeat via insurgent forces. There is no in between and this was noted by Churchill back in the 50s when he wrote his memoirs about WW2.
No, they're not really moving anything significant at the moment. You really can't move something like a heavy brigade combat team without it being widely publicized. And it would take at least a month to move everything from point A to point B.
There is the 96 fighters in SK, ~120 fighters in Japan, whatever bombers are in Guam at the moment, the brigade combat team in SK, two marine battalions in Okinawa, a MEU and the USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike group (minus two destroyers).
It'll be a mistake of them to assume we are a dispassioante rational actor. The tripwire of US casualties on the DMZ and in Korea will make us bay for blood. I know I'd be entirely 100% fine with nuking North Korea if they pulled that.
I can't even say that Obama wouldn't nuke them if they did this because he could be a bit hawkish in foreign policy when it called for it and he'd be impeached if he didn't. You know the Norks will take US prisoners and we'd get to deal with them torturing and mutilating them.
Not to mention it's also rational to realize the Norks would continue to be even more bellicose and violent if they pulled that off. They'd do it again with Japan or the rest of Korea, would gain even more nuclear weapons.
Quite frankly we need to go to war with them sooner rather than later.
Three other carriers could be sent into the region. However moving a carrier strike group takes time as the majority of the ships are conventionally powered and cannot make the trip without refueling. These are the last known carrier positions:
CVN-68 Nimitz - Deployed to Arabian Gulf.
CVN-69 Eisenhower - One month into a six month maintenance cycle.
CVN-70 Carl Vinson - In port San Diego.
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt - Just finished training exercise off San Diego.
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln - Returned to Norfolk after aiding hurricane rescue efforts.
CVN-73 George Washington - Midlife refueling/overhaul. Out of action for two years.
CVN-74 John C. Stennis - Training exercises in Pacific.
CVN-75 Harry Truman - Just returned to Norfolk, ready for deployment.
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush - Norfolk, ready for deployment.
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan - Exercises in the Sea of Japan.
CVN-78 Gerald Ford - Only commissioned two months ago. Won't be ready for deployment until 2020.
11 Carriers
4 Available in Pacific: Vinson, Roosevelt, Reagan, Stennis
4 Available elsewhere: Nimitz, Bush, Lincoln, Truman
3 Unavailable: Eisenhower, Washington, Ford
The USS John C. Stennis would be fastest to the theater, but we're still taking a week or so. If the North Koreans try the de-escalation strategy it won't make it in time to affect the battle for Seoul. The onus is on the ROK army to keep its conscripts disciplined. They need to be able to mobilize extremely quickly and not panic and desert when Seoul comes under artillery barrage. I honestly don't have high hopes because the South Korean population doesn't take the threat seriously.
>More failed missile launches
>More Trump tweets
>Reach breaking point
>Trump sends over a few planes full of Hennessy
>Crisis averted
>I know I'd be entirely 100% fine with nuking North Korea if they pulled that.
I'm right there with you. But what if you lived in San Diego or Los Angeles? You willing to hope that GMD interceptors actually work?
Personally I think that backing down would be the end of American power. Our allies would stop trusting us, and every scumbag on the planet would know that nukes give them the ability to push America around. There'd be a hundred nuclear states before 2030, plus who knows how many non-state actors. Better to take the risk in this situation than live in that world.
probably this
THAAD and patriot batteries could be deployed to these locations at the start of the war to back up GMD
What THumP®s’ Board of Directors know about North Korea:
One would think that the arrogant provocations by North Korea would make it an easy decision for the United States to act unilaterally against it to take out its nuclear capabilities, or bilaterally with permission from the United Nations.
Nope. Not going to happen any time soon. Why?
The U.S. intelligence has not accounted for the positioning of all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons. THumP® knows, from our own reliable sources, that at this moment, North Korea has two nuclear ballistic missiles (each) pointed at Beijing, China, Seoul, South Korea, Tokyo, Japan, and Vladivostok, Russia. (Look at a map and see how obvious this should be to a war strategist.)
If North Korea is attacked, all these missiles will fly towards their targets simultaneously; and there is not any modern technology at the moment that can stop all 8 at the same time going in different directions.
The recent U.N. sanctions are NOT hurting the North Korean hierarchy of government officials. They are hurting the poor. The more the poor hurt, the more they look to their “Supreme Leader” for help; and the more blame their leader places on those who are actually HURTING THE POOR: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!
The ONLY way to sustain peace in that area of the world is through proper and respectful dialogue. The rest of the world can offer the North Korean people safe passage out of the country with FREE food, shelter, clothing, health and mental care and education IF they can escape North Korea. No need to kill or threaten anyone. Give the people a chance. Let the North Korean people know that the rest of the world cares about them. Sanctioning them and making their daily lives harder, just because their leaders are not following the orders of our leaders, WILL NEVER WORK … never has worked. Has only led to more misery and bloodshed.
>>Better to take the risk in this situation than live in that world.
A great point and i think Trump knows this. We might be a few days out from war...
The question was about war , not about extinction of the human race.
K-Kim? Is that you??
Pretty sure ICBM warheads are outside the specifications of THAAD. They're coming in at orbital speeds when THAAD was basically made for ballistic speed SCUD type threats.
>THumP®
For when "drumpf" just isn't enough to express your seething, childish, impotent rage.
even so its an extra layer of defence, wouldn't hurt to try. plus an extra layer is any sm-3/6 equipped vessel in the west coast area
>But what if you lived in San Diego or Los Angeles?
Then you deserve what you get.
It may surprise you to learn that the majority of North Koreans who manage to cross the northern border return of their own free will. There's basically no one guarding that border on the North Korean side.
They come back because North Korea is their home, their ethnostate. Everywhere else they might go they will forever be a foreigner, an oddity, an outsider. So you can offer them all the food and medical care you want. It's not going to change the situation one iota.
September 23 is the day that they announced ww3
and said it was inevitable
>Be Lil Kim
>Activate sleeper cell within US
>Successfully assassinate DJT
>Republitards demand nuclear war with NK
>Libtards side with Lil Kim and start civil war with Republitards
>Libtards somehow win
>Demand Lil Kim rule over US
>US is Korea now.
Trips makes it so
There isn't going to be a war. Not yet, anyway. Kim is going to be deposed. China has too much to lose. Easier to get rid of the fat punk.
Better to have the THAAD systems protecting American assets in the theater to blunt the initial Nork offensive and buy time for reinforcements to arrive.
Yeah I think war is coming. The diplomatic ground work is probably being done right now. The Chinese are starting to cave. It's a shitty situation but the least terrible option is to get it over with now as opposed to waiting until the North Koreans have sufficient missiles to overwhelm the GMD interceptors, and have their new S-300 clone up and running. Or worse backing down, being forced out of Asia altogether, demonstrating that the de-escalation strategy works, and having massive global nuclear proliferation.
but those batterys are already there....
How are you going to depose him without war? Everyone who wasn't 100% loyal to him got strapped to the muzzle of an anti-aircraft gun and blown to wet red chunks.
The Chinese certainly have an important role to play though. I think it's critical that they maintain communication with KJU all through the war and most importantly, leave him a way out. The US should ask the Chinese to permit KJU to go into exile in China. Make it really comfy for him, family, slave girls, the works. If Kim is just going to fucking die anyway there's no reason why he wouldn't nuke and gas everyone he can because fuck the world, right? But if Kim has a choice between death and annihilation of his people, and a comfortable exile in China, maybe when the pressure is on and he finally realizes he's going to die he'll bolt instead of murdering millions of people needlessly.
>They come back because North Korea is their home, their ethnostate.
You're romanticizing it a bit. Financial failure is what makes them return.
As an aside I'd really recommend anyone interested in understanding North Korea to watch this presentation:
youtube.com
I could never understand why North Korean leadership did the things they've done, but this guy B.R. Myers framed it in a way that starts to make sense. The North Koreans want reunification bad. They aren't building nukes to defend themselves or secure the regime. They're building nukes for reunification.
Someone launch the nukes already. I have waited for this moment all my life.
I was once put a dozen raw oysters up my grandma's cunt and sucked back out 13
woops, wrong thread
The problem is the threat is never going away. It's going to get worse. Right now it's a risk of reaching California, but in a few years it'll be a 100% chance, and in a few years (Or less) it'll be 100% chance of 5 missiles instead of 1, 10 missiles instead of 5, and just keep multiplying.
Exactly as you say if we blink then it reinforces the fact that nukes = omnipotence. The world saw what happened if you don't get nukes in time (Saddam) or even willingly give up your nukes and behave (Gaddafi). They will see that if you get nukes you can pull literal 1900-1940 era territorial acquisition and conquest of other nations and nobody will do anything about it. The only reason Syria and Venezuela are not going after nukes full tilt is because one is in the middle of a civil war and the other is a few steps away from it. I think the Iranians would be stupid NOT to betray the nuclear deal and try to get nukes.
In a way reunification is even worse. People talk about how powerful a unified South Korea would be - a unified North Korea wouldn't be as powerful but now you would have a bellicose and capable regional power with nuclear weapons and an interest in newfound imperialism. The Japanese would 100% seek nukes, so would any other East Asian powers threatened. Inaction will 100% make things far worse, not better. If we had acted in the 90s it would have been better, it we acted in the 2000s it would have been better, if we acted in the 2010s it would have been better. I
Sadly our hyperpartisan atmosphere is going to make people blame Trump (or hell, Hillary if she was in office) when the onus is on Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama and the Chinese for not acting sooner.
he's correct except for the 'motherland' bullshit. north korea has always been a patriarchy
So, everyone's gonna get nukes, and sooner or later someone will use them, causing everyone else to use them as well?
>Gaddafi
God I could fucking choke Hillary for that. Arrogant stupid cunt fucked up decades of foreign policy in an idiotic attempt to give herself military cred for her presidential run. Gaddafi should have been propped up not toppled. Make it clear that if you play ball with us and give up your WMDs you'll be safe.
You know how the Euros are saying that occasional terrorist attacks are something that they just have to get used to? It'll be like that except with nukes. Absolute fucking nightmare scenario.
That's a scenario I can envision and Trump seems to be pushing that very outcome. He, NK, and China know that Kim can't win.
All Trump has to keep doing is signalling that the Chinese can either take in Kim or take in a million starving NK refugees. They'll act rationally. You have to realize how significant the Chinese oil sanctions are.
Trump needs to keep tensions high for a couple of months.
Time traveler here.
I just hope that both the Trump admin and China realize how important giving Kim an out is. It's like the fall of Imperial Japan; the Japanese were willing to face extinction rather than let their Emperor be deposed and put on trial. They only agreed to the surrender terms when "unconditional surrender" was specified to mean the Emperor would keep his throne (even if only symbolically) and would not face a war crimes trial. The North Koreans might be the same way.
We know that Hitler ordered the razing or Warsaw and Paris before killing himself. He didn't have nukes but he still have sufficient conventional forces to put cities to the torch. Luckily for Paris the commanding general refused to obey the order. Unluckily for Warsaw, the garrison's commander gleefully fulfilled it. If Kim is put in the same position, of having enemy forces closing in and having no way to stop them, he'll have no reason not to order the use of every WMD he has and none of his commanders are going to disobey. Gotta give the guy an out. He can't possibly be part of the post-war political landscape, but a luxurious exile might be enough.
In a few days tops, a nuke tipped ICBM will travel over Japan. PAC and THAAD and AEGIS will all fail to shoot it down. It will land 300km from Guam and cause a 6.5M (+- 1M) earthquake. Before it has landed, 30% of NK and 100% of Seoul will be non-existent.
Sounds all good to me. Glad Trump waited until all the cities get btfo before breaking out the big bombs and glassing the entire region.
What troubles me is that at the time I was easily led along with a lot of the public in the natural 'hurrah war war war' bandwagoning. I know not everyone was and some were smart enough to see it beforehand but that makes me think it'll easily happen again. Though I forget to properly blame Sarkozy and Cameron too. According to the British Parliament's own report they credited the primary force behind the UN Resolution and thus opening the door to Sarkozy, followed by Cameron, and then begrudgingly the US. Hillary probably would have been more gung ho for it, I blame her and especially the liberal chickenshit hawk Samantha Powers (whose whole education emphasized humanitarian intervention with the Rwanda example). While Obama seemed insolent and pathetic when I read him trying to dismiss Gaddafi's overthrowing as having any relationship to giving up his weapons I think in the absence of Hillary, Powers, Rice and perhaps Gates he wouldn't have done it. But in the absence of the Vulcans Bush might not have invaded Iraq, so a president gets blame for those whom he listens to all the same.
Yeah why I find it ridiculous backseat driving when I've read people complaining that Macarthur whitewashed Hirohito's crimes or the royal family's crimes. There's always going to be some armchair philosopher who suggests a woulda-coulda-shoulda. But you're right that giving an out to him but also some of the elites is critical. Same thing helped stave off bitter-enders in most other sectarian wars.
...
...