UKC

Currently we could deprive the NK leadership of power and the ability to threaten western nationals with nuclear weapons without risking a retaliatory nuclear strike (maybe), next week not so easy.

It would cost thousands of innocent lives

grim

In reply to John Kelly:

No of course we shouldn't.

In reply to John Kelly:

maybe a lack of coffee but I first read the title as "Should we bomb UK" & wondered who thought it was a good idea to bomb themselves (although looking at the current government ....)

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Seems like it's being discussed this am, think it's actually a horrible possibility
Probably worth bearing in mind we have dropped bombs most days of 2017 on Syria and Iraq so it's something we do

In reply to Doug:

Not sure I framed the title in quite best way

In reply to John Kelly: we? With trident, tornadoes etc.?

Careful with that use of we. Think Theresa May and BoJo have much say on this?

In reply to wbo:


Crikey, I didn't know UKC was so heavily tooled up - is it common on here to have such stuff on yer rack?

In reply to wbo:

Yes - I was using 'we' as in western 'democracy' but I agree probably very few individuals feeding into decision

In reply to wercat:
I'm beginning to regret my inadvertent comedy title
Gone climbing

In reply to John Kelly:


You have two mad ego maniacs with nuclear weapons squaring up to each other. Neither want to lose face and both want to show their dominance on the world stage.

What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to wercat:


There are loads of tools on UKC.

In reply to John Kelly:


UKC can have that effect.

In reply to John Kelly:
I have a genius idea: bomb the military parade. They put all the weaponry (missiles, tanks and so on) in one place, they may as well take it out in one go.

In reply to The Lemming:

Just two...?

In reply to Doug:


I read it as MK. Having been to Milton Keynes.........

In reply to RomTheBear:

High concentration of mad leaders present, too. Not a bad idea...

In reply to RomTheBear:


Probably mostly fakes/mock-ups.

In reply to captain paranoia:

If they do nuke Kim can I copyright "fat boy dropped on fat boy"?


... or has Mackenzie already got there?

In reply to Doug:


Well apparently Magnus Pyke's brother was a government research scientist during WW2 and his particular think tank suggested there were lot's of fuel saving advantages if we bombed the UK and Germany bombed itself.

He was obviously even more "off with the fairies" than his brother Magnus whose contribution to the war was to suggest that the country's nutrition could be improved and the problem of storing surplus donated human blood solved, if the excess was turned into black pudding.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Shades of Betjeman & Slough ?

In reply to John Kelly:

I don't understand why North Korea, which borders on both China and Russia and sits within striking range of the USA (with whom it is currently rattling sabres), would fall to the UK to deal with.

So, no?

In reply to John Kelly:

I would say let's bomb them back to the Stone Age, but I doubt the people would notice the change.

Less flippantly, I don't see how NK can be allowed to continue developing long range missiles. I'm less worried about them having a few nukes+missiles than lots of VX nerve agent + missiles. Which they have.

I'd like to see China openly welcome the deployment of Aegis in the area until NK is verified as having disbanded their rocketry programs and their VX cache is verified as fully destroyed.

The idea of NK being able to deploy VX nerve agent over something like 60% of the worlds population - including the UK - scares the living shit out of me. I'd like see US THAAD deployed for the UK as well as a well funded push to get the Type 45s operational for ballistic missile defence.

All this would cause Russia and China to squeal at the highest levels. F--k Russia and tell China we will stand it all down the instant NK has its teeth pulled. Invite them in to the planning and invite representatives on to the ships.

Its time the world got a series of UN run anti-ballistic missile orbital weapons platforms. Could be funded with the redundant ICBM budgets of the permenant security council members.

In reply to John Kelly:

The big problems are:
a. China isn't going to accept Korean unification, it won't allow the US or South Korea to invade the North.
b. North Korea has been building tunnels for decades so its weapons can't just be wiped out quickly from the air.
c. North Korea has large amounts of artillery with chemical warheads in range of South Korean cities.

The best outcome would be a military coup in favour of a less crazy person backed by China. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and China made a deal, Obama was more into principles and morality, Trump is a businessman.

In reply to wintertree:


Why on earth would China want further American expansion in the area?

Realistically US expansionism is far more a global threat than the DPRK.

Oh right, gotta work that VX angle in somewhere after it was on the news a couple months ago.

In reply to Removed User:


Did I say they would? No. I said they'd be very unhappy. So make it a defensive anti-ballistic missile capability with them fully informed and disband the moment NK is dealt with by China, and make this known. Make NK China's problem. They won't let anyone else fix it...


The USA is expanding? Evidence? They're making more inwards facing noises all the time.

At the end of the day, the USA is the only nation that can do more than twiddle its thumbs when it comes to anti-ballistic missile capability.


Does that make it any less of a threat? It could kill far more people than their few firecracker tomy-toy nukes that may not be anywhere near ready for missile deployment. The VX nerve agent is far easier to deploy in other ways unfortunately.

In reply to John Kelly:

Problem with nk it is an all or nothing war. If you don't take out all his nukes and chemical weapons in the first few minutes, there is a high probability he'd use them. The USA doesn't have enough assets on site and would probably require sf on the ground too.

In reply to summo:

If Rong-Un won't disarm. The best outcome would be USA etc. helping China take over NK.

In reply to wintertree:


If I was a citizen of Seoul (population 10 million) I'd be very worried by Kim's nukes. I think you may be overstating the threat of VX though. Delivery and dispersal would be extremely hard for NK military to manage. Sarin nerve gas released directly into the Tokyo underground resulted in 12 deaths. Nerve agents used in Syria left scores dead. I know vx is supposedly more lethal but the death toll from even a limited nuclear exchange couldn't fail to number in the many millions.

In reply to summo:


The problem with anywhere is its an all or nothing war, any country capable of retaliating to an attack will push their respective buttons if they come under attack first.
That's the beauty of mutually assured destruction and it works quite well until the day that a nutter is in power in the right country at the right time.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


I understand why you say this, but equally is it sensible to sit back and do nothing? Getting China on board if possible seems the best solution, but if that fails, what would you suggest?

History has shown that appeasement doesn't work and has resulted in even more deaths than determined action whilst you have the advantage. On the other hand history has shown that preemptive strikes do work.It's a horrible situation when the "west" may have to judge not what is the best thing to do, but what is the least bad option?

In reply to Trangia:

Japan's pre-emptive strike in 1941 led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Japan's premptive strike failed the day it was launched because most of the American fleet wasn't "at home"

Israel's peemptive strike on the vastly superior Egyptian Air Force succeeded because the EAF was caught on the ground.

If you are going to make a preemptive strike you need to be very damn sure that you have the advantage when you make it.

In reply to Trangia:

And you trust Donald has the wisdom to know the difference?

In reply to Stichtplate:

No, but his Generals/Admirals maybe

In reply to Trangia:
Maybe, but the American military has a deserved reputation for being gung-ho and over confident and Donald gets the final say.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Unfortunately he has, and our debating the subject won't change that

However as is being discussed on the MOAB thread it is possible that Donald didn't specifically order the MOAB strike against ISIS, it may already be within the US Military's existing remit to fight ISIS as they see fit.

And as I suggested on that thread the use of a MOAB in Afghanistan may be sending a message to Kim Jong-un that the USA may have the capability to destroy their nuclear programme without resorting to using nuclear weapons, which would be better news for South Korea.

In reply to Trangia:
Kim's spokesman has already explicitly stated that any American military action, conventional or otherwise, will result in a nuclear response.
I wouldn't trust Donald or Kim to make rational choices over this. They seemingly can't even be trusted to make rational choices concerning their respective hairstyles.

In reply to Stichtplate:

For which, at the moment (but not for much longer) they don't have the capability to deliver

You've only got to look t a map to see close China is to them, and despite their posturing I suspect that China is becoming increasingly concerned at her wayward protege. As I said earlier I think getting China on board with the "West" is going to be the way forward, and certainly the most sensible if world peace is to have a reasonable chance. This may mean having to concede some of China's territorial claims in the South China Sea which Japan won't like.

In reply to Trangia:

I certainly hope you're right but I'm not confident on many levels. I've always thought various apocalyptic scenarios were strictly for the tin foil hat brigade, ninety days into Donald's presidency I'm not so sure.

The last Trump indeed...

In reply to Trangia:


Actually MOAB makes things worse because it shows the the US seem prepared to do whatever it likes, which reinforces the need for NK to obtain capabilities which could respond effectively to the firepower of its enemies.

In reply to John Kelly:


No.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Ok, firm answer, but if action now, cost 1000 innocent lives, catastrophe down line 10,000 lives - of course no one can really give these numbers - but would that utilitarian argument sway you or is your position that to take action is wrong from moral? grounds

I'm pretty much against the current bombing programs in middle east but see this as potentially different as the threat is much greater

In reply to RomTheBear:


China has now offered to guarantee to act as NK's proctector from attack by "enemies" of NK in return for NK abandoning it's nuclear weapons programme. That sounds like an excellent face saving solution for all concerned, yet Kim Jong-un has rejected China's offer.

In reply to Trangia:

Uk , Russia and the USA guaranteed to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity in return for giving up the nukes based in their country.
We all know how well that turned out and so does Kim.

In reply to John Kelly:


We don't know that the threat is greater. From what I've read NK is a rational regime, and given they've already got some nuclear capability, and probably want it for defence rather than aggression, I don't think provoking them to use it is a good idea. If America bombs NK even conventionally, the risk of a global nuclear war would be extremely high.

I really don't want us to be allied with America. I'd much prefer us to be a quiet, neutral country that doesn't feel the need to project power on the world stage.

It worries me that the best press Trump has had has come from bombing people, and everyone knows toddlers love attention. I thought the only positive thing about his presidency (among a huge amount of negative) was a reduction in American warmongering, but he seems to have a hard-on for dropping bombs now, which is unlikely to end well. I wish he'd just build a few hotels in the Middle East and NK, as his personal business deals seem to shape American foreign policy.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I agree. People in the west seem incapable of seeing things from anything other than a western perspective.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Seriously? A country ruled by , what can fairly accurately described as a hereditary god/king who chooses to execute his rivals , enemies and family members with everything from anti aircraft guns to wild dogs?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I mean in relation to attacking other countries. I'm pretty sure they've already got nuclear weapons.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

They've been attacking South Korea at fairly regular intervals for decades not to mention kidnapping random Japanese citizens, movie stars and film directors. Hardly the actions of a rational regime.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Do you think the Americans should bomb them then? Will that make the world a safer place?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Nope. Think we're better off leaving well alone until the whole country implodes under the weight of its own absurdity.

Edit: in full agreement with you on JK though.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Magnets not bombs are the answer

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/north-korean-officers-in-full-dress-unifor...

In reply to John Kelly:

Bomb them back to the Stone Age.
That way, we destroy them militarily and at the same time improve the living standards of the average citizen in North Korea.
Win-win all round!

In reply to Trangia:


Don't be ridiculous. Kim is not stupid.
May I add that the rationale behind NK's nuclear programme is exactly the same as the rationale countries like the UK use for their nuclear programme. A defensive capability meant to provide an effective deterrent against a potential agressor.

In reply to RomTheBear:
The uk developed nuclear weapons to protect a free and democratic people from an expansionist Soviet Union.
North Korea developed nuclear weapons to protect the power and privilege of the Kim dynasty while the vast majority of its people subsist in an Orwellian dystopia.

Not the same at all.

In reply to John Kelly:

Latest missile test has blown up. Malcom Rifkind has suggested that American cyber wizardry may be behind some of NK's failed launches.....

In reply to Stichtplate:


A Soviet Union which doesn't exist anymore.


Maybe, but the reality is that if Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein had had nuclear weapons, they'd probably still be in power and alive. And good old Kim knows it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The reality is if they hadn't been such evil bastards they'd probably still be in power and alive.

In reply to RomTheBear:

According to Malcom Rifkind NK is totally reliant on China anyway. The Regime is bankrupt and being propped up by China, it gets it's electricity from China. Until now China has backed NK because the USA backs SK

China spawned this pariah state, and if it continues to misbehave China could pull the plug. In the Far East how it is done is all about face saving, so why is their protection offer ridiculous particularly as China is entering a phase of improved relations with the USA, but doesn't want to allow the USA to bomb NK? The Korean War is still technically going on, there is just an Armitisice being observed. China would like to see Korea reunited as a "Communist" state, but not at the expense of a nuclear war.

In reply to Stichtplate:


True, but that is not mutually exclusive with the simple, cold assessment that they'd probably still be in power and alive if they had had nuclear weapons.

In reply to Trangia:


Unfortunately this is a bit too simplistic. Indeed China could pull the plug on NK on coal, oil and electricity. But of course if they do that North Korea descends very quickly into mayhem and they find themselves with a war and millions of refugees.

In a way NK is so poor and weak that further threat of more sanction are useless, as they would inevitably result in the very situation we're trying to avoid.
As other policy experts have coined it, NK is "A paper tiger with atomic teeth"

In reply to RomTheBear:

Probably best then that either the Chinese, politicaly, or the US, militarily, pull those teeth.
Or do we wait until the North Koreans do have a viable means of launching an ICBM?
If either Libya or Iraq had come close to developing viable nuclear weapons then they'd have been destroyed by Israel without any need for either the US or UK to be involved.

In reply to baron:

I don't want to blow your cover but are you 11, does your dad have weird hair and does your last name begin with a T ?

In reply to John Kelly:

Their latest missile launch failed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missile-test/

In reply to baron:

Easier said than done. You'd end up with a massive, costly war, with lots of casualties on both sides, and millions of refugees, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid in the first place.
As explained before, if Kim lets his nuclear weapons go, he knows he is dead and buried.

Maybe best to listen to what the people who actually understand the situation are saying ?


It may well be a possibility.


How do you handle a paper tiger with atomic teeth ? If you attempt to starve it, he'll bite, you can't beat it cause he'll bite, the best way may well be to give him just enough food to get him to behave the way you want it, but not enough for it to get bigger or stronger.

In reply to baron:
?If either Libya or Iraq had come close to developing viable nuclear weapons then they'd have been destroyed by Israel without any need for either the US or UK to be involved.

You might want to have a think about Iraq - you'd have saved the second Gulf War, a decade plus of chaos and destruction, the rise of ISIS et al. You make it sound very easy

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm in agreement with you there. Lots of people seem to want to bomb NK forgetting that the ordinary North Koreans are already suffering massively under Kim's rule. I'd rather see a large scale propaganda campaign taking the piss out of Kim and his goons in the hope of hastening an internal coup.
The biggest stumbling block to this approach would probably be the Chinese communist party's justifiable paranoia at such a scheme happening on their doorstep.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Well even if you don't really care about the North Koreans at all, you have allies such as Japan and South Korea which are almost certain to get hit by nuclear and/or chemical attacks.

In reply to Stichtplate:


There aren't half some po faced gits on here. Baron... Barron Trump? What's wrong with a bit of gentle ribbing?

In reply to John Kelly:

SHOULD WE BOMB NK?

NO. Not unless you want to start WWW3. Then we are all dead. Hurrah!

In reply to John Kelly:

No. One would only bomb with some understanding of the consequences. Unforeseen consequences are exactly what they are- unforeseen and chaotic.

In reply to John Kelly:

Wait until we know the "government" of NK is all assembled, with special attention to the fat kid with bad hair being there, then drop one of those MOAB on them.

In reply to Big Ger:


Have you seen the footage coming out of NK? All those people leaping about and crying/laughing/clapping? Have you seen their news programmes?

The whole country is in need of a psychiatric intervention, not a military one.