I really just want someone to end it without nukes of course.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

China stopped NK from talking too much plenty of times. I just believe China should step aside or join the U.N in its opinions of NK. .

The Chinese are not Americans , who use American solutions, who think with American mindsets.

Yes a business partner of America, but NOT American in scope on foreign policy, if things were this simple they would have done this the first time, in the Forgotton War that our society now seems completly oblivious to that led to this mess.

Allot has changed since then, but allot remains the same, N.K. offers two things to China, A buffer zone to American forces and her allies (right on China's doorstep, something ill regarded from an American Viewpoint).

And a bargaining chip for Chinese goals and ambitions to Chinese plans for the region.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

That is what cruise missiles are for Yoss.

Over estimation and over reliance on technology can spell disaster to any military endeavour. The North Koreans have trained elements of their armed forces where failure to achieve an goal issued by the state reasults in death, being raised and trained in this dogma they would most likely fight savagely, I am not saying many will defect, but they are not to be lightly regarded.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

If we hit them we need to hit them hard and swift like we did Iraq.

And look how Iraq is coming out, also look at how better yet, Afghanistan is coming out, knocking out the state is one thing, governing the mess and massive humantarian crisis that would swamp the South's and China's border is another.

North Koreans are not Iraqis, certain components of their military establishment will not run away.

On a military standpoint notice that Iraq in 2003 was not in the same mindset it was in 1992. Also notice many recent police actions and threatened police actions by the U.S. in recent years, were all against countries that cannont fight back on a modern level.

The U.S. has not faced a equal opponent in full capability, size of forces, dedication and scope since maybe even the Vietnam war.

North Korea may not be modernized, but there are die hard units, a lambryth of honey combed underground facilities, stock piles of smalls arms munitions , webs of AA defenses and possibly operational underground airstrips.

This would be a modern rendition of Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Except today we have hand held TV cameras, and press journalist there to take High Definition photos of the carnage and send live streams of footage to every American with an Iphone.

In this case I would give the start of a possible 3rd World War in Korea about 12 seconds before 2nd String Reporters on MSNBC show discontent from Americans about the descions of the acting President to go to war in Korea.

If you are an American like me looking realisticly at this tender box, then first things first, we have to take off the beer goggles and put on someone else's shoes.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Personally I think they should just offer a years free food to every North Korean that turns in a member of the ruling parties head and the South will never have to fire a shot.

I don't think that is going to work because the food supplies are distributed through government agencies so that they can claim it's theirs or at least it is because of them.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

If you are an American like me looking realisticly at this tender box, then first things first, we have to take off the beer goggles and put on someone else's shoes.

Are you talking about NK's shoes? I already understand China's reasoning for not dealing with NK, I just believe they should drop it. We hear stories of people escaping NK about how tragic it all is. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing like NK so I do not think the humanitarian effort would be as huge. Those two countries had many factions trying to grab for power and using religion as their way to recruit more. The only way an insurgency in NK would be like Iraq and Afghanistan is if a foriegn country (china) helped them do it. There is only 2 land borders for NK, they wouldn't be able to pull of a Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan the way I see it.

We also have no proof except the fact they are brainwashed to know if they will "fight to the death" or whatever. I am 100% certain if we master hearts and minds strategies it would be much easier. Feed the NK people as you go from place to place to make sure they know you are not the bad guys.

I am not saying we should use forceful means to end this, I am saying I wouldn't mind of all the wars we have that NK be the target. Of course that is considering that we are successful in keeping China and Russia out of it.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

We also have no proof except the fact they are brainwashed to know if they will "fight to the death" or whatever. I am 100% certain if we master hearts and minds strategies it would be much easier. Feed the NK people as you go from place to place to make sure they know you are not the bad guys.

Easier said than done, this was tried in Vietnam and is currently under way in Afghanistan, most of all I think the deciding factor in the "hearts and minds" category, is that if the people don't have the heart or piece of mind then all efforts from any outside party will be useless.

Not saying in N.K. this won't be a success, just from recent history it shows that it hasn't really worked just yet.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I am saying I wouldn't mind of all the wars we have that NK be the target. Of course that is considering that we are successful in keeping China and Russia out of it.

I agree peaceful means should be paramount as well.

As for using force , I think the application of force should be reserved, and very well reactionary, not pro active in nature and scope.

Any use of force should be ran by and approved by China, since it's on there border and considering their track record on affairs in Korea..., and maybe even Russia to assure that no larger conflict erupts with either party.

If anyone hasn't noticed, the world isn't on the best economic footing even a few years after the great recession a war would just throw this "recovery" right into a major cluster^(*@. Especially in a global market.

As for underestimating the N.K., I still stand firm they should be treated as a serious threat. It would be unwise to try and cowboy it over the DMZ with American Standards flying high.

Remeber, there was a war here once before, a short but very brutal and hellish one at that.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Are you talking about NK's shoes? I already understand China's reasoning for not dealing with NK, I just believe they should drop it. We hear stories of people escaping NK about how tragic it all is. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing like NK so I do not think the humanitarian effort would be as huge. Those two countries had many factions trying to grab for power and using religion as their way to recruit more. The only way an insurgency in NK would be like Iraq and Afghanistan is if a foriegn country (china) helped them do it. There is only 2 land borders for NK, they wouldn't be able to pull of a Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan the way I see it.

We also have no proof except the fact they are brainwashed to know if they will "fight to the death" or whatever. I am 100% certain if we master hearts and minds strategies it would be much easier. Feed the NK people as you go from place to place to make sure they know you are not the bad guys.

I am not saying we should use forceful means to end this, I am saying I wouldn't mind of all the wars we have that NK be the target. Of course that is considering that we are successful in keeping China and Russia out of it.

Alot of "ifs" in these paragraphs. Be careful not to fall into the "rose colored glasses" trap. Never underestimate the will of an enemy to resist even if you're working in their best interest. The simple fact that an invader is on their land, whether it be UN, US, or SK would be reason enough for many of the relatively moderate members of their society to resist...let alone the hard core guys.

Also, how on earth would we pay for such a military frenzy? What about the South Koreans? They would be the ones who would be left with the tab and the refugees in the end. So what if the country is unified...they would all of a sudded go from a first world nation status to a third world status over night. Not to mention the tens of millions more mouths to feed, adults to work, sick/ wounded to be hospitalized, and re-integration and re-education of the northerners when it is all said and done...It would be cataclysmic for the regions stability and for our South Korean ally that has been so loyal for over 60 years now. We should let the South Koreans take the lead on this, they are the ones who will pay the most dearly after all.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Alot of "ifs" in these paragraphs. Be careful not to fall into the "rose colored glasses" trap. Never underestimate the will of an enemy to resist even if you're working in their best interest. The simple fact that an invader is on their land, whether it be UN, US, or SK would be reason enough for many of the relatively moderate members of their society to resist...let alone the hard core guys.

Also, how on earth would we pay for such a military frenzy? What about the South Koreans? They would be the ones who would be left with the tab and the refugees in the end. So what if the country is unified...they would all of a sudded go from a first world nation status to a third world status over night. Not to mention the tens of millions more mouths to feed, adults to work, sick/ wounded to be hospitalized, and re-integration and re-education of the northerners when it is all said and done...It would be cataclysmic for the regions stability and for our South Korean ally that has been so loyal for over 60 years now. We should let the South Koreans take the lead on this, they are the ones who will pay the most dearly after all.

I think you are mistaking something here.... Of course you would not merge the two countries right off the bat. What about the enormous cost of sending food to NK only to go to it's military?

I am not saying it would be easy, just something I wouldn't mind happening so long as we plan it correctly. including ensuring China and Russia do not involve themselves. I doubt it would be as difficult as what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Easier said than done, this was tried in Vietnam and is currently under way in Afghanistan, most of all I think the deciding factor in the "hearts and minds" category, is that if the people don't have the heart or piece of mind then all efforts from any outside party will be useless.

Not saying in N.K. this won't be a success, just from recent history it shows that it hasn't really worked just yet.

Of course I am not saying it will be easy, however, it will not be as difficult as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I stated why I believe this in my last post didn't I?

Only 2 borders they have: SK-NK border and China-NK border. Not to mention the country isn't as huge. As far as I know there isn't 3+ factions trying to grab for power at all times. For an insurgency, it would be pretty difficult to keep up, especially considering intel missions wouldn't be as difficult. So long as you block entrance to the waters and watch China's border.

I agree peaceful means should be paramount as well.

As for using force , I think the application of force should be reserved, and very well reactionary, not pro active in nature and scope.

Any use of force should be ran by and approved by China, since it's on there border and considering their track record on affairs in Korea..., and maybe even Russia to assure that no larger conflict erupts with either party.

If anyone hasn't noticed, the world isn't on the best economic footing even a few years after the great recession a war would just throw this "recovery" right into a major cluster^(*@. Especially in a global market.

As for underestimating the N.K., I still stand firm they should be treated as a serious threat. It would be unwise to try and cowboy it over the DMZ with American Standards flying high.

Remeber, there was a war here once before, a short but very brutal and hellish one at that.

Of course peaceful means are top priority, but I do not see a peaceful way to end this conflict, we are still technically at war. That is why it is called the Forgotten War, no other reason besides that.

Approved by China I agree, but I am not sure about the "ran by" part.

It would have been over quickly if China didn't get involved and as long as we can keep them from getting involved somehow, it will be just as quick (the main campaign).

Since when did our military cowboy there way doing things? They always did great planning. The only thing they didn't plan as well (partly thanks to the Iraq war) was the rebuilding. I am sure if they do a campaign against NK it would be with a great deal of care. We will have casualties, but it would be worth it in the long run (moreso than Afghanistan and Iraq the way I see it).

The combination of North Korea’s long economic decline and enhanced US and South Korean military capabilities has diminshed the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Nonetheless, North Korea retains the ability to inflict heavy casualties and collateral damage, largely through the use of massed artillery. In effect, Pyongyang has more of a threat to devastate Seoul than to seize and hold it. North Korea’s conventional threat is also sufficient to make an allied pre-emptive invasion to overthrow the North Korean regime a highly unattractive option. In theory, US forces could carry out pre-emptive attacks to destroy known North Korean nuclear facilities and missile emplacements, but such attacks could provoke North Korean retaliation and trigger a general conflict.

North Korea cannot invade the South without inviting a fatal counter-attack from the US and South Korea, while Washington and Seoul cannot overthrow the North Korean regime by force or destroy its strategic military assets without risking devastating losses in the process. In this respect, the balance of forces that emerged from the Korean War, and which helped in maintaining the armistice for 50 years, remains in place. None of the principal parties want to fight a war although they are prepared to fight if necessary. In this respect, the balance of forces creates certain vulnerabilities since it places a high premium on carrying out a pre-emptive strike if one side or the other believes that an attack is imminent. The danger is that war will begin out of miscalculation, misperception and escalation, rather than design. As a consequence, reduction of political tensions and conventional confidence-building measures can help to reduce the risk of war.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Of course I am not saying it will be easy, however, it will not be as difficult as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I stated why I believe this in my last post didn't I?

Only 2 borders they have: SK-NK border and China-NK border. Not to mention the country isn't as huge. As far as I know there isn't 3+ factions trying to grab for power at all times. For an insurgency, it would be pretty difficult to keep up, especially considering intel missions wouldn't be as difficult. So long as you block entrance to the waters and watch China's border.

Size doesn't really matter, I would look more at population if you basis is numbers alone equals insurgancy. North Korea has a high population than Afghanistan. I don't see a correlation between landmass= no insurgancy.

Also, China is going to watch China's border, and in fact I can almost assure your some wersterners already are watching China's border.

Scotland wasn't huge, but they resisted English rule for decades.

The UN or U.S. just can't assume the role that they know what's best for everybody in the region, this is how conflicts widen.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Approved by China I agree, but I am not sure about the "ran by" part.

So you suggest running into China?


Besides, it's their back yard and they put a allot of American's into work, if it weren't for Chinese goods filling U.S. ports , tens of thousands of American's would not have a job.

Go to war and with them then all of a sudden that get's shut off.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

It would have been over quickly if China didn't get involved and as long as we can keep them from getting involved somehow, it will be just as quick (the main campaign).

That sounds an awful lot like the George Bush doctrine.

Yes, the military operations may end somewhat quickly, but the massive cost involved in having a pissed off China and South Korea by causing both to have their borders completly swamped with millions of starving, forced to be uneducated peoples does little to "better' anything in the region.

Remember, as an Americans, we would get to go home, the people in this region are already there, so they have no such luxury but to live and deal with any fallout of a war here.

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

Since when did our military cowboy there way doing things? They always did great planning. The only thing they didn't plan as well (partly thanks to the Iraq war) was the rebuilding. I am sure if they do a campaign against NK it would be with a great deal of care. We will have casualties, but it would be worth it in the long run (moreso than Afghanistan and Iraq the way I see it).

It's not so much the military part. Do not confuse military affairs with the task of statesman ship and diplomacy.

Our military is top notch, they excel at what they do, so of course they have very good planning there.

But like Iraq it was not the military who did not design a sound exit strategy, this falls to U.S. legistrators and foreign affairs officials, this is were the policies of dealing with any fallout would fall, not on the Pentagon.

As for a great deal of care, that's exactly what we have been doing for the last 50 years, even with N.K. openly attacking U.S. and S.K. assets we still are excersing this policy.

If it were easy,

If this conflict did not threaten more than the penisula, and not the entire region, we would pushed to the Chinese border 50 years ago and have a Unified Country today.

But it is not, I am utterly shocked that the U.S. has avoided riginiting conflict there thus far, and hope this continues.

Mainly outside the notion that a vastly expenisve, high causulty war here could spell economic doom to any type of recovery in the 21st century.

And possibly even push away a loyal American Ally, and ruin an very codependent economic partner ship with another party.