Possible upcoming skirmish (or worse) in or around Korean Peninsula?

[chuck4]

I am still in the camp that believe this is all bluster from Nth Korea: Look at me, Look at me! I'm important... ;D

Of course it's just bluster, but the kid is painting himself into a corner where failing to do something major will result in a serious loss of face. At that point, his options will be: (1. Go to war and lose the throne; (2. Not go to war and lose the throne.

China (whatever their official pronouncements) is doubtless thrilled by this turn of events as they are almost certain to come out ahead no matter what happens. Any replacement for Un in a palace coup is unlikely to be western-friendly, probably resulting in a more-compliant satellite; and China stands to benefit from any nuclear event in the free world, as per their long-term policy of proliferation.

Actually no. This is a diseasterous turn of events for china too.


1. No existing nuclear power stands to benefit from more people getting nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are really only worth something if the other guy doesn't have any or have far fewer. You can bet the chinese were sincere when they said they wanted korean pennisula to remain nuclear free. China doesn't have many nuclear weapons to start with by superpower standards, between 250-500 warheads by recent estimates. Both south Korea and Japan has the strong civilian unclear capability and are just a screw driver turn away from deploying nuclear weapons if they perceive the need. It won't take them more than a few years to close the gap with china's current stockpile. The Chinese doesn't really need the sort of provocation from north Korea that would be used justify nuclear weapons by Japan and south Korea. Nuclear south korea and japan would all but nullifies china's nuclear superiority and would force china to engage in a dead end nuclear arms race against 3 different countries, in which they can't hope to gain any new strategic advantage but must invest massively and endlessly in nuclear weapons just to maintain their current advantage against 2 of them.


2. China is embroiled in a bitter territorial dispute with Japan, the US is siding with Japan. South Korea has has territorial dispute with Japan. If north Korea is quite, south Korea would have less need to truckle to the US and is therefore more likely to take a hard line on its own territorial dispute with Japan. This will increase pressure on Japan, relieve pressure on china, and allow china to form a common front with Korea in territorial conflict with Japan. When north Korea threaten both south Korea and the US, that could only remind the south of the importance of the goodwill of the united states, and make the south hesitant in taking too hard a line with respect to Japan, which remain united states's primary ally in the region. This means china is less likely to prevail in the territorial dispute with Japan.


3. China has traditionally assumed that in case of war with the US over Taiwan, south Korea would remain neutral and bar American assets from using Korean air, land or water to operate against china. The more the events impress south korea that must rely on American forces on its territory for security against north Korea, the more likely south Korea would act as an American ally in case of war between china and the US. This directly threaten china's industrial north east, which hitherto could have formed a secure reserve area for Chinese military in war over Taiwan.


One could say the biggest beneficiary of Kim's action is japan, followed by other smaller states around china hoping for greater American commitment to the region to counterbalance china. The biggest loser is china, followed by south Korea.


Inso far as the US would likely to redeploy its forces to contain china, but would like such diplomatic cover for doing so as to not cuase an open breach with china and make the us seem like the initiator of confrontation with china, north Korean action provides such diplomatic cover. So the US for policy reasons is also a beneficiary of Kim's tantrum.

 

[chuck4]

In a way, the relationship between North Korea and China is an illustration of how impotent military and economic might could be in diplomatic situations. Economically and militarily China is many orders of magnitude stronger than North Korea. But in effect, it is North Korea that has China over a barrel, and the situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future

Also clearly the Chinese don't operate an effective 5th column in North Korea like a major power might perhaps to expected to in its own client state. Kim's rule is clearly effective and he does what he wants in his own country and the Chinese can't do anything about it.

For China, the worst situation is the fall of North Korea to the South or to the US. Because that directly threaten China's Industrial northern heartland, and also heighten potential for ethnic tension in China's northern heartland where about 20 million ethnic Koreans resides. The second worst situation is a military engagment on the Korean pennisular involving Chinese forces, because the outcome is uncertain, who would get involved is also uncertain, and China is not ready to fight the US and it would seriously set back China's plans to catch up to the west economically and technologically.


So for the Chinese, the upshot is they can't let North Korea fall, and it would be pretty damn bad if they have to invade North Korea to keep it from falling. So they are stuck. Kim's Korea is so poor and in so much pain it is not like the Chinese can make it feel much more pain to try to modify its behavior. They have to keep dripping intravenous fluids to keep North Korea alive, or else all hell breaks loose. Kim knows this as well as the Chinese. He knows the intravenous drips from China won't stop because of the hell threatening to break loose. So he can securely bite the hand that feeds him so long as he doesn't bite the hand so hard that the hand think his bite is even worse than such hell as US air bases on the Yalu and 20 million ethnic koreans in Manchuria clamor to go home. And by a long way his bite is not as bad as all that.

So North Korea is the tail that wags the Chinese dog.

I am not sure it is at all bad for the US to let it's primary economic and geopolitical competitor be so embarassingly and persistently inconvenienced for little effort and small risk on our part.

 

[Triton]

What of the territorial dispute China has with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands)? The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, a possible armed skirmish between Chinese and Japanese naval forces, and even the possibility of a Third Sino-Japanese War?

 

[chuck4]

What of the territorial dispute China has with Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands)? The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, a possible armed skirmish between Chinese and Japanese naval forces, and even the possibility of a Third Sino-Japanese War?

The conflict over Senkaku dates all the way back to about 1880 but has only flared up now for 2 reasons:

1. 2012 had been an extremely bad year for the Chinese communist party. All sorts of seriously humiliating scandals popped up throughout the whole year, reaching all levels of the party including the very top. Dirty laundries from murder, to rosters of identical twin mistresses, to the size of Swiss bank accounts and ultra-luxury car fleets alledgedly procured on public service salaries, were widely and very publically aired. Along the way some of the not too guiltless even tried to defect and many more beans were spilled inside US consulates. So It was essential for the party to show that it was the one force that can protect chinese interests internationally in order to prevent further erosion of its own reputation and authority resulting from the litany of its humiliations at home.

2. At the same time the country face a major worsening of international environment brough on by US pivot to the Pacific. In the 10 years since 9/11, the international environment was great for china. China clearly growing greatly in strength, while the US looked increasingly unable to maintain the level of military preeminance in the west pacific with various commitments elsewhere in the world. Countries around China were all nervous about what any latent and unsolved territorial dispute with china would mean for the future, when China would be much stronger still. But they are were also unable to form a united front against China as China was able to offer each of them individually more in trade and investment than the countries with whom they might conceivably form a alliance against china. So the territorial dispute become areas where they agreed to disagree with China. This suited China fine as China was confident that it's geathering strength means the more the resolution to the territorial disagreement can be delayed, the more likely the resolution would favor china.
This changed when the US pulled out of Iraq and Afhanistan and pivoted to Asia. Most countries, including Japan, thinks it is now or never. They either formally demarcate their territory with China now and force a settlement of the territorial dispute when the US could still support them, or they would eventually loose all the disputed territory to China as China continues to grow, because most of them think the eventual line of equilibrium of strength between US and China would lie somewhere way to the east of the all the disputed territory, maybe in Guam. So they all took a harder line on their territorial disputes with China in 2012 when this line of equilibrium between American and Chinese strength is still clearly on the chinese side of the disputed territory.

So this is what precipitated the escalation conflicts between China, Japan, Vietnam, and Phillipines in 2012. Other countries think this is, if not the last chance to stand up to China and settle the territorial dispute, at least one of the last chances. In China the communists just can't afford to be seen backing down internationally right now.

But ultimately, I don't think there will be a war. China is primarily, for now, playing to its domestic audience. Chinese communist party understands the social contract it is operating under. Communist party continue to deliver high growth rates and rising standards of living, and the people puts up with the autocratic ways of the party. The communist party thinks it can retain power under this contract for at least another 50 years. It probably realize that while it can benefit from whipping up nationalist sentiment, such sentiments are fickle, and China can't win a war with either Japan or US now. If china were to go to war with Japan over senkakus now, China would lose and nationalist sentiment would turn against the communists. Furthermore the impact of the war would likely greatly retard China's economic growth for many years. This would shatter the social contract under which the communist party rules. It is also not in Japan's interest to keep turning up the temperature. Japan actually has the islands in dispute. They don't need to turn up the temperature any more. China is Japan's top trading partner. Japanese economy would also be devastated by a war with China.

So Japan doesn't need to crank up the temperature any more, when the new president and cabinet in China puts the memory of the horrible year of 2012 behind them, it is in the interest of Chinese communist party to let the temperature cool.

So no war. It's all a show.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9970346/Pentagon-sends-missile-defences-to-Guam-as-North-Korea-approves-nuclear-attack-on-US.html

Switch and bait, i.e. they're going to hit elsewhere via other means?

 

[kcran567]

There are other ways that NK could try and deliver a nuke, chem or bio weapon. A long range nuke loaded onto a cargo carrier, or other means to smuggle perhaps through mexico which is a well known method.


it is also likely to trigger a larger global war if Iran decides to finally try to blow Israel off the map while the US is tied up in Korea and elsewhere. If anything does happen I don't think it will be another Iraq scenario.

 

[Archibald]

The best scenario would be that (one way or another) China would have to pay for North Korea reconstruction - bluntly, taking North Korea out of the stone age.

Imagine German reunification *100 - it would cost the Chinese an arm and a leg. After all they supported that backward regime for so long, if it ever fell into chaos, it's up to them to pay the bill. No ?
That would be delightful - North Korea ending as a huge strain on China economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9968191/North-Korea-blocks-entry-to-Kaesong-industrial-zone.html

Good Kim, shoot yourself into the foot. Destroying the country best (sole ?) source of income - how clever.

1. Go to war and lose the throne; (2. Not go to war and lose the throne.

The other day someone cleverly noted a peculiar aspect of North Korea. That 99.9% of the population has no clue of what the outer world looks like. North Korea just severed the last connection to internet; even for the highest-ranking in the regime, internet resume to a host of severely controlled websites.

Thus Kim-whatever can very much apear on the national TV next week or tomorrow and claim "the imperialists backed down, I did it ! blah blah" and the fanatized population is left to believe that - how could they check ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The other day someone cleverly noted a peculiar aspect of North Korea. That 99.9% of the population has no clue of what the outer world looks like. North Korea just severed the last connection to internet; even for the highest-ranking in the regime, internet resume to a host of severely controlled websites.

Whoever said that doesn’t know anything about North Korea. They’ve had satellite TV for over 10 years now. Not knowing anything about North Korea and commenting about North Korea seems to be a growth trade these days.

 

[Arjen]

Whoever said that doesn’t know anything about North Korea. They’ve had satellite TV for over 10 years now. Not knowing anything about North Korea and commenting about North Korea seems to be a growth trade these days.

What percentage of the North Korean population has access to satellite TV? Archibald's point stands: the grand majority of North Koreans don't have a clue about what's going on outside their country. I'm guessing the few that have access are part of the regime anyway.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What percentage of the North Korean population has access to satellite TV? Archibald's point stands: the grand majority of North Koreans don't have a clue about what's going on outside their country. I'm guessing the few that have access are part of the regime anyway.

So we can add you to this list:

Not knowing anything about North Korea and commenting about North Korea seems to be a growth trade these days.

North Koreans have had widespread access to outside news for the past decade. And the regime knows this and has subsequently changed its propaganda to take this into account. So there is no capacity to say things that aren’t true like they used to.

But anyone with an understanding of North Korea would realise that there is no need to say they won or whatever because their standards of success are very different. They might be upset if they get no aide concessions because these are portrayed – quite correctly – as tribute in response to their threats.

 

[Arjen]

This is what the BBC-site says about media access in North Korea:

Radio and TV sets in North Korea are pre-tuned to government stations that pump out a steady stream of propaganda.

The press and broadcasters - all of them under direct state control - serve up a menu of flattering reports about North Korea's leader. Economic hardship and famines are not reported. North Korea is one of the hardest countries for foreign media to cover.

Ordinary North Koreans caught listening to foreign broadcasts risk harsh punishments, such as forced labour. The authorities attempt to jam foreign-based and dissident radio stations.

A glimmer of hope, says watchdog Reporters Without Borders, is the "communications black market" on the North Korean-Chinese border where recordings of South Korean TV soaps and films are said to circulate.

North Korea has a minimal internet presence. News agency KCNA and the party newspaper Rodong Sinmun are among a handful of official sites. Their output is aimed largely at audiences outside North Korea.

Uriminzikkiri, a site hosted in China, carries news from official North Korean sources. It operates accounts on Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.
Online access within North Korea is exceedingly rare and limited to sites that comprise the domestic intranet, says OpenNet Initiative. Content is chosen, and user activity monitored, by the authorities.

North Korea is one of RSF's "Enemies of the Internet". North Korean journalists are active on blog sites hosted in Japan and South Korea, the organisation says.

A South Korean newspaper has said the North is believed to employ up to 1,000 hackers targeting other nations.

There is a 3G mobile phone service - a joint venture with an Egyptian firm. Take-up has proved popular among wealthier citizens in Pyongyang.
In 2013, officials loosened some curbs by allowing visitors to bring their mobile phones into North Korea. But mobile phone calls between foreigners and locals are prohibited.

This what the CIA-factbook site says about media access:

no independent media; radios and TVs are pre-tuned to government stations; 4 government-owned TV stations; the Korean Workers' Party owns and operates the Korean Central Broadcasting Station, and the state-run Voice of Korea operates an external broadcast service; the government prohibits listening to and jams foreign broadcasts (2008)

Nothing about satellite TV access by the general population.

If you have other information about foreign media access in North Korea, please share.

<edit>Possibly relevant to the matter:
http://audiencescapes.org/sites/default/files/A_Quiet_Opening_FINAL_InterMedia.pdf
"A Quiet Opening: North Koreans in a Changing Media Environment" a study commissioned by the U.S. State Department and conducted by Intermedia and released May 10, 2012 shows that despite extremely strict regulations and draconian penalties North Koreans, particularly elite elements, have increasing access to news and other media outside the state-controlled media authorized by the government. While access to the internet is tightly controlled, radio and DVDs are common media accessed, and in border areas, television"

Asian Century Institute did a review of 'A Quiet Opening'

For more than a half a century, the North Korean government has used an information blockade and other measures to instil a sense of fear and distrust of the outside world. This strategy of fear, isolation, and unquestioning subservience has contributed to the regime's ability to remain in power against all odds.

But North Koreans have been taking matters into their own hands since a 1990s famine prompted an opening of their country's long border with China, and official tolerance of markets where food and goods are traded, according to a report by the InterMedia consultancy.

The study, "A Quiet Opening: North Koreans in a Changing Media Environment", reveals that substantial numbers of North Koreans are able to access various forms of foreign media. These include foreign TV and radio broadcasts, and particularly foreign DVDs brought into the country from China by cross-border traders and smugglers. State officials and rich people run these operations.

Other sources of outside information, particularly for elites, include smuggled mobile phones capable of receiving foreign signals, and otherwise legal MP3/MP4 players and USB drives which contain ilicit foreign content. The proliferation of illegal Chinese mobile phones along the Sino-North Korean border has also greatly increased the ef&shy;ficiency of cross-border trading, remittances and defection.

DVDs have quickly grown to become the most commonly accessed form of outside media in North Korea. North Koreans gather together to watch illegal DVDs. Avid consumption of South Korean movies and pop music as well as foreign radio and television broadcasts are changing North Korean views of its southern neighbor and even of the United States.

Since the mid-2000s, there has been an expansion of radio broadcasters into North Korea. In adition to official government-funded stations such as Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Korean Broadcasting System, independent broadcasters, some funded by the US government, like Open Radio for North Korea, Radio Free Chosun, North Korea Reform Radio and Free North Korea Radio, also broadcast into North Korea.

North Koreans are now less fearful of sharing that information than ever before, creating an information multiplier effect. This strengthens bonds between North Korean citizens, breaking the state’s top-down monopoly on the supply of information and ideas.

While severe and often arbitrary punishments are still handed down for accessing outside media, North Koreans are now generally less afraid of being caught. Enforcement is irregular, bribes often allow one to avoid punishment and far fewer North Koreans appear to be reporting on each other than before.

New leader Kim Jong-un has shown no sign of relaxing controls that keep nearly all 23 million North Koreans unconnected to the Internet and mandate that radios and televisions are preset to receive only government channels. And global watchdogs like Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders routinely rank North Korea as the country with the least free media in the world.

But the North Korean government is losing its total monopoly over information, and North Korean people's understanding of the world is changing. These same factors played a critical role in bringing the Cold War to an end in Europe.

The report advises against predicting political action from better-informed North Koreans -- "North Koreans' ability to express such views in North Korea is extremely limited and their ability to act on them is almost nonexistent." Moreover, North Korea's official ideology -- a personality cult which proceeds from myths about the race and its history -- still has a very strong sway over the country's masses.

But the opening up to external information now seems an unstoppable trend over the longer term. Outsiders, like the US and South Korean governments and civil society, will no doubt continue to play an important role in promoting greater access to information for North Korean citizens. And corruption inside North Korea itself will facilitate the process, and undermine the government's stranglehold on the society.

Kim Jong-un could take inspiration from the experience of Burma. Rather than continuing to repress his citizens, he should pre-emptively rewrite his social contract with them by opening up and gradually moving towards democracy. As the case of Burma shows, there are many rewards that can be had by the elite -- foreign aid, independence from China, a US presidential visit -- and possibly a greater chance of longer term survival. Asia is full of semi-democratic, one party-dominated states.

North Korea may yet join us in the Asian Century. Hope springs eternal!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I already have earlier on in this thread. North Koreans may not be sitting down every night to watch the latest Kardashian vehicle but they do have widespread access to outside news. The change in access resulted in a complete U turn by the DPRK government in propaganda about why everyone in the north was doing it tough. They went from everyone else in the rest of the world is worse off than you to we have to sacrifice so as to fight off the rest of the world. This happened years ago. To argue today that they can just ignore real events is to display significant ignorance about North Korea.

 

[Arjen]

To argue today that they can just ignore real events is to display significant ignorance about North Korea.

Looking at it from the outside, the North Korean regime ignoring real events is one way of explaining their actions - I'm struggling to see any reasoned long term behaviour on their part. This probably stems from my limited knowledge about North Korea.

 

[GTX]

There are other ways that NK could try and deliver a nuke, chem or bio weapon. A long range nuke loaded onto a cargo carrier, or other means to smuggle perhaps through mexico which is a well known method.


it is also likely to trigger a larger global war if Iran decides to finally try to blow Israel off the map while the US is tied up in Korea and elsewhere. If anything does happen I don't think it will be another Iraq scenario.

Don't you think the last 13 or so years of preparing defences against such attacks by terrorists would have set up superb defence measures against just such a threat?

 

[Grey Havoc]

The less said about Homeland Security, the better.

Back to the front, so to speak:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130404_35.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22027867

 

[chuck4]

The best scenario would be that (one way or another) China would have to pay for North Korea reconstruction - bluntly, taking North Korea out of the stone age.

Imagine German reunification *100 - it would cost the Chinese an arm and a leg. After all they supported that backward regime for so long, if it ever fell into chaos, it's up to them to pay the bill. No ?
That would be delightful - North Korea ending as a huge strain on China economy.

Well, bluntly speaking, north Korea is not in stone age. It is maybe in middle, but very badly managed, industrial age.

Chinese has 50 times the population and 300 times the economic output of north Korea. China export roughly as much to South Korea each month as all of North Korea produces in total during an entire year. The actual cost of modernizing north Korea to a level comparable to china would hardly strain the Chinese economy.

But if china were to be the principle funder and modernizer of north Korea, china gains a moral claim to arbitrate over the future of Korean peninsular, much as soviet union would have retained many claims to future of united germany if it was soviet union that payed for german unification. There would be no way south Korea would accept this without a bitter fight. So south Korea would prefer the cost of modernizing north Korea not suddenly fall into its lap, as German unification did in west Germany's lap. But if Korea were to unite, there is no way south Korea would hand the leading role of reconstruction to china. If the US doesn't make a substantial effort to keep china from retaining a dominant role in the Korean peninsular, it would be considered by all American allies in the pacific region to be evidence of American willingness to sell them out to the Chinese.

 

[Gridlock]

Dave From PR has been doing his usual excellent job


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9972193/Cameron-It-is-a-fact-that-North-Korea-could-launch-a-nuclear-strike-against-the-UK.html


So the age-old question - lying or stupid?

 

[TomS]

So the age-old question - lying or stupid?

Why can't it be both?

 

[chuck4]

So the age-old question - lying or stupid?

Why can't it be both?

Lying stupidly. If North Korea ever could hit any part of the US, then it could hit any part of just about any country on earth. Why is Cameron singling Britain, who has no direct conflict of interest with North Korea, out as an exceptionally worthy target?

 

[Triton]

Article from Foreign Policy magazine:

"Tell Me How This Starts: What War on the Korean Peninsula Looks Like"
by Patrick M Cronin
April 3, 2013

Source:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/03/tell_me_how_this_starts?page=0,1

There is no single red line that, when crossed, would trigger war, but the potential for miscalculation and escalation is high. North Korea has a penchant for causing international incidents -- in 2010 alone it used a mini-submarine to sink the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelled South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island. The brazen and unprovoked killing of military personnel and civilians shocked many South Koreans, some of whom faulted then-President Lee Myung Bak for a tepid response. The new president, Park Geun Hye (South Korea's "Iron Lady") is determined not to echo that weakness and has vowed a strong response to any direct provocation. Meanwhile, the United States, via the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises, has many troops, ships, and planes on maneuvers in the region and, as an additional show of resolve, flew long-range B-2 stealth bombers from Missouri to Korea and dispatched F-22 fighter jets as well.

U.S. and ROK Combined Forces Command implements a pre-arranged plan -- perhaps using submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs dropped from a B-2 -- to eliminate North Korea's two major missile launch facilities: Tonghae in the northeast and Sohae in the northwest, both of which are fairly close to the Chinese border. North Korea responds with more rockets and Scud missiles, accompanied by North Korean Central News announcements suggesting that they could be armed with biological agents. China, seeking to restrain all sides, pours troops and materiel across the border to protect its interests and instigates a secret plan to replace Kim Jong Un with a senior general who understands the North's total dependence on its only ally. The resulting confusion leads to a belief that North Korea, and not just the Kim regime, is collapsing. Meanwhile, the United States quietly embarks on a secret mission to secure North Korea's nuclear weapons.

Even now, however, the Second Korean War has only just begun because, as conflict breaks out, all participants expand their strategic goals. South Korea -- which initially had hoped only to force North Korea to calm down enough to re-enter negotiations on nuclear weapons, expanded inter-Korean economic ties, and human rights -- now believes North Korea is going to collapse and starts to implement an assertive reunification policy. The U.S. policy of deterrence and strategic patience has failed, so Washington decides to pursue active denuclearization and regime change. It joins with Seoul in planning postwar reconstruction in which the peninsula is reunified.

China, which was slow to curb its ally's proliferation and never had a good handle on Kim Jong Un, seeks to ensure that the new leader of North Korea can restore stability. China also wants a new leader in Pyongyang to adopt a pro-China policy -- one which includes continued preferential access to North Korean mineral deposits for its state-owned enterprises. Russia supports China, and it is promised unfettered access to the warm-water port in the Rason Special Economic Zone in northeastern North Korea.

It is easier to start a war than to stop one, but in the best case the Second Korean War might end with an international conference -- perhaps in Jakarta under the auspices of the Association for Southeast Asian Nations -- in which the United States and South Korea come to a modus vivendi with China and a greatly weakened North Korea over the country's future, addressing succession and confederation with the South, as well as the verified destruction of nuclear weapons. In the worst case...well, an awful lot more people would die.

The war's renewal would be more likely to result from miscalculation than from deliberate choice. Kim Jong Un may not want war, but amid heightened tensions there are many ways one could start -- and it could well be that it is the United States that miscalculates. There is no sound empirical method for identifying the particular catalyst that would trigger war, but should war begin again in earnest, its intensity and its duration could prove a nasty surprise, as it did the first time. And the consequences could affect Northeast Asia for the rest of the century.

 

[Grey Havoc]

A question comes to mind; Does North Korea have a viable very long range cruise missile?

 

[TomS]

A question comes to mind; Does North Korea have a viable very long range cruise missile?

Not that anyone's seen. The only known DPRK cruise missiles seem to be Silkworm or Seersucker AShMs.

 

[chuck4]

A question comes to mind; Does North Korea have a viable very long range cruise missile?

Very long range cruise missiles are technologically more challenging than long range ballistic missiles.

 

[kcran567]

North Korea warned early Thursday that its military has been cleared to attack the U.S. using “smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear” weapons,

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/04/03/n-korea-warns-military-cleared-to-wage-nuke-attack/#ixzz2PY2rQveB Thats interesting, are they talking about portable nukes (that could even be carried in cargo ships) or are they talking about a tactical bomb which can be flown on a fighter. It sounds like they are giving a hint that they have multiple and diverse delivery systems. Also, are South Korean F-15s B61 capable? Maybe the leadership in N Korea are willing to exchange nukes and think they will remain comfortable and safe in their underground hardened bunkers while the population is destroyed. N Korea rhetoric is getting stronger and they are not backing down. I for one think this is highly dangerous and could easily become a global war with multiple nations if it gets started.

 

[Steve Pace]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...
I wonder what Defcon (sp?) the US military is at?...

 

[chuck4]

I bet you your bottom dollar there will be no war.

 

[Steve Pace]

That's a bet I'd love to lose. -SP

 

[sublight_]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...

How could this possibly be WW3?

 

[Mat Parry]

Dave From PR has been doing his usual excellent job


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9972193/Cameron-It-is-a-fact-that-North-Korea-could-launch-a-nuclear-strike-against-the-UK.html


So the age-old question - lying or stupid?

Taxi for Dave?..... This has all happened before and looks like it's happening again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/08/45-minutes-wmd-taxi-driver
"The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war".

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding North Korea, any special significance to the date 'April 10th'?

 

[Steve Pace]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...

How could this possibly be WW3?

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

 

[sublight_]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...

How could this possibly be WW3?

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

I don't think China is going to come to their defense: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

If China were to they would destroy their economy in days and wipe out all of their sovereign wealth. To gain what?

 

[chuck4]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...

How could this possibly be WW3?

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

It also depends on, if attacked, would US and its allies react in a way unacceptable to the core interests of china. My guess is no.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Regarding North Korea, any special significance to the date 'April 10th'?

It’s their “Feed International Mass Hysteria Day”…

 

[chuck4]

I dread saying WWIII is just around the corner but...

How could this possibly be WW3?

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

I don't think China is going to come to their defense: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea

That telegram is largely discredited as an effort by South Korean nationalists to minimize the risks associated actively destabilizing North Korea to force a unification, and thus obtain tacit us support for their actions. In the past the US has reigned in both South Korea and Taiwan when it perceives the actions of its allies involves risks of putting the US itself on collision course with China. Nationalists on these countries have responded by creating rumors that the Chinese really wouldn't mind if they did what they wanted to do.

 

[Gridlock]

'diversified' nuclear weapons is generally understood as being both thermonuclear and fission devices, btw. Not shipping-container-surprises.

 

[chuck4]

It will all depend on WHO comes to the aid of North Korea if it does launch attacks on the US and its allies. -SP

If China were to they would destroy their economy in days and wipe out all of their sovereign wealth. To gain what?

They would fight if they think US actions in Korea is a prelude to concerted effort to affect regime change in the near future in china.


They fought for this reason in 1950, nothing has change in their outlooks to keep them from fighting again for the same reason.

 

[sublight_]

That telegram is largely discredited as an effort by South Korean nationalists to minimize the risks associated actively destabilizing North Korea to force a unification, and thus obtain tacit us support for their actions. In the past the US has reigned in both South Korea and Taiwan when it perceives the actions of its allies involves risks of putting the US itself on collision course with China. Nationalists on these countries have responded by creating rumors that the Chinese really wouldn't mind if they did what they wanted to do.

That isn't the opinion of South Korean nationalists or The Telegram. It is the opinion of the Chinese as documented in leaked diplomatic cables.

 

[Archibald]

The sky is not falling, not yet.

Just a simple question. Let's suppose North Korea launch a single missile against, say, Guam. With a nuclear warhead. It gets shoot down by an ABM system, debris fall into the Pacific, no damage to anybody.

Does the USA in turn send a single nuclear missile on North Korea ? Or are conventional strikes by B-2 bombers (to destroy the launch site) enough ?

I think this is an important question to answer (I want to add: that question is not supposed to be a provocation to trigger any inflammatory discussion)