No one doubts the US military capabilities to destroy N Korea. The question is - At what price?
N Korea has ample means of destroying US troops stationed in S Korea and Japan - and non-conventional attacks on major cities in the US homeland.
It is an open secret that the US homeland is vulnerable to non-conventional terrorist attacks - e.g., a bomb in the hold of a fishing boat, germs in water supplies, bombing of dams and nuclear reactors, and seizure and retargetin g of US nuclear missiles.
If a war (= "preemptive strike") comes to Korea, it will most likely be a "future" war of nuclear, bio-chemical and terrorist attacks on enemy population centers. Military assets as we know now will play insignificant roles.
Therefore, another war is so unlikely to come nor as our peaceful unification is. NONE OF THOSE GOOD NEIGHBORS would want Korea to become one nation which it is supposed to be. Re-unification of the peninsula, whether through slow, peaceful concessions or through a bloody carnage, will have to bring a devastation to very sophisticated, existing power balance among those super powers. Unified Korea will keep a very strong military capabilities as well as economic infrastructures, markets and potentials even though it is to be born in a worse scenario. However, like a nightmare for the neighbors, it will begin to talk with its own voice, sing its own songs. This our neighbors will never allow it happen, no matter what.
The US seems to be no better than North Korea is pursuing these tactics and it may simply be that the Americans are tired of listening to the bleating of this little kingdom and are giving them a dose of their own propaganda.
Does anybody disagree with me that slow reunification is the only realistic path for resolution? Does anybody disagree with Aaron that the North faces complete and utter defeat should it decide on military resolution? Does anybody disagree that there really is no "winner" if a war breaks out?
I will have to disagree with Aaron's assessment of the complete devastation of a speed reunion, to some extent anyway. The North Koreans are not poorly educated.
Should there be refugees arriving in waves to South Korea, these people would be snapped up by South Korean industry, which already does an excellent job of exploiting the poor labor forces of other countries. There is no doubt they wouldn't hesitate to take full advantage of the situation to break the unions and lower the wages of all South Koreans in competition for the interim year of scarce jobs.
This would essentially represent a boom for the Korean economy and possibly a return to the era of exploitation during Korea's initial development into a modern society. This positive affect must be weighed against the "devastation" which Aaron speaks of in his most recent opinion. I am sure that South Korean business would welcome the chance to take advantage of human misery even if it is their own. They do a fine job of it elsewhere in the world (Indonesia and Central America).
Such a rapid devolution in the DRPK would require Seoul to come to their economic aid, lest they be faced with a massive tide of refugees streaming across the DMZ. A million refugees camped along the banks of the Han River might even put the South Korean s legendary hospitality to the test.
Mr. X seems to view the situation on the peninsula through rose-tinted glasses, with unification as the ultimate end in itself, never mind the shock it would bring to the South Korean economy. Imagine the billions and billions of dollars that it would require to bring the North Korean infrastructure to even a fr action of the South Korean's. Mr. X seems to view this as more preferable to war, and in one respect he is correct.
It would not occur with the great loss of life that a war on the peninsula would bring. However, the end result would be the same: the slow suffocation of the South Korean economy, with all the resentments that it would entail. Come on, Mr. X, don't you see it is better that the North be brought around to some version of a capitalistic economy under the auspices of the current regime (however unlikely that this may be.)
The one unfortunate aspect of all this is the fact that no matter what happens--rapid reunification or slow reunification--the North Korean people will continue to live as the poor cousins of the South Koreans for at least another two or three generations .
The poverty and misery that Kim Il Sung has brought down upon his people will outlive him by many years and probably continue well into the next century. Such is the sad legacy of socialism.
It seems unlikely that anything but a glacial slow pace of talks and further talks will continue for resolving the issues that North and South Korea face. You have to ask yourself this question regarding war on the peninsula, "What practical gains does i t serve for either the US, South Korea, or North Korea to start a war?"
There is a fairly stable and rational government right now in South Korea now. The US government has nothing to gain by disturbing this stability. Thinking nothing of the greater ramifications of a regional war's disturbance on the Asian countries surrou nding. The South Korean government has nothing to gain either. It has been pursuing a slow pace of nudging economic reform (or at least rapprochement with North Korea) to spare itself the shock of having to revive a basket case for an economy in the North.
Considering the US's need for stability in the region, not to mention a need to avoid another arena in which US troops could be put in immediate harm's way, how can anyone rationally believe a war could break out? Considering South Korea's need to avoid having to revive the near dead economy of the North, not to mention a more instinctual need to peacefully reunify their country, how can anyone believe war is possible.
This leaves us with North Korea. Can they possibly assume they can win anything by starting a war? They can no longer count on China or the former Soviet Union states to help them should they start something. By themselves they would be made short work of by the combined forces of the US and South Korea (as my friend Aaron stated quite well before me).
Instead, North Korea will continue to pursue a policy of wringing concession after concession from the West. . .in order to do the rational thing - keep the regime alive and in power. That is their prime interest.
The only way a war is envisioned in my mind is if the Western powers try to force North Korea into a corner "publicly". This would be a blow to their regime which could lead to its downfall. Backed into a corner where loss is inevitable, yes, they would probably strike out. There would be nothing more to lose in their own minds (though I wonder just how strongly the citizens of North Korea would follow this themselves).
The US and South Korean policy makers must realize this. They will accordingly never do this.
A better discussion, instead of this war topic, might be how one might speed up the pace of reunification while achieving some basic goals of the West, such as nuclear containment and furthering the stability of this region of the world.
The main tactic that South Korea can win with in the forthcoming(?) war if it ever happens will be a massive political, sentimental and humanistic propaganda war targeting hungry soldiers and their families in the north.
It looks more like that the north will collapse itself within a few years.
1) China might perceive it as a threat (which it would be considering the radioactive fallout, etc.)
2) South Korea would be harmed or destroyed by that same fallout and
3) Japan would also feel the effects of the fallout (think of wind patterns here)
When you suggest possible war scenarios, at least be intelligent about it in the future. Besides, the US is not (for the most part) a warmongering place.
Whom destroy by who? North and South, we are same Korean. I believe we're NOT going to make same mistake again. Even don't think about it !!! You think this is funny? please! we don't feel funny.
The US would dominate the skies over the Korean peninsula from day one. The North Korean air force is so low on fuel that their pilots are reputed to fly only 5 hours or less a month, compared to 40+ hours for South Korean and US pilots. Any N.K. pilots that did manage to get airborne would shortly find themselves dangling under a parachute canopy.
N.K.'s fuel shortage would also make it extremely difficult for their logistics trains to keep up with their advancing troops. That is, if their troops even get a chance to advance. It is highly unlikely that the North could prepare for a general war wi thout months of preparation that would be highly visible to US intelligence assets. And just for the sake of an argument, lets say that the K.P.A. did manage to leave their barracks undetected and cross the D.M.Z. They would have to move as light infantry, for speed and surprise are their only assets.
They would then find themselves facing 600,000 South Korean and 50,000 American troops highly trained and with full stomachs. No doubt there would be casualties on both sides, but a light infantry force would not be able to fight for long without being re-supplied, and all logistical avenues would surely have been severed.
Yes, there is always the chance that N.K. would get desperate and use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons (however, the crude nuke that N.K. may have developed would be far too large to be delivered by a missile, and an aircraft would have little cha nce of getting through.) However, the US response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack on our troops would result in the total destruction of the North Korean regime and the complete occupation of the Korean peninsula by US troops.
There is little danger that Russia or China would come to the aid of North Korea if they used NBC weapons. It is also unlikely that the Dear Leader is willing to chance his government on some risky adventure with the US More likely we will continue to hear a lot of noise from Pyongyang, but in the end they will swallow their pride and accept our conditions for the termination of their nuclear program.
Also, where in the world did the editors get the idea that the US "is vulnerable to the capture and retargeting of it's nuclear missiles?" That assertion is so incredibly naive that it would be laughable if it wasn't so irresponsible.