|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 19, 2005 22:09:30 GMT -5
I have to admit, of all the bad situations in the world, the North Korean situation disturbs me the most. They ADMIT having nuclear weapons. They ADMIT having those same nukes POINTED AT US. And now, they've pulled out of the multilateral talks and refuse to talk to anyone, instead announcing their intention to BOLSTER their arsenal.
Ever since India and Pakistan almost nuked each other a few years back, I've been afraid of waking up and hearing about a nuclear strike somewhere. I don't fear terrorists or terrorism, even though I live mere minutes from New York City (arguable, the biggest target in the US), but I DO fear Nuclear Weapons. Nukes are FAR more dangerous than suicide bombers, for the mere reason that the radioactivity ensures that people don't just die immediately, but continue dying for years on end.
In a hypothetical nuclear war between India and Pakistan, 10-12 Million people would die on the FIRST DAY. The war itself could last as little as a week, depending on how much of their militaries survive the initial nuclear strikes and how long it takes for their remaining governments call for a truce.
Now, imagine a much larger, regional war. I'm talking about a war bigger than anything anyone in our generation has ever seen. Hell, bigger than anything since World War II. A Second Korean War...or even an "East Asia War". That's what we face if North Korea ever gets bold enough to use its nuclear weapons against anyone, or if anybody is dumb enough to try attacking North Korea.
Usually, I'm an Optimist, but when it comes to politics and war, I'm a Pessimist on the grandest scale.
Here's how I see this happening:
Either A) North Korea decides to fire a Nuclear device. Prime targets: Seoul, Tokyo, Hawaii, and California; or B) The United States (or Russia. Or Japan. But most likely the US) launches an airstrike on North Korea's nuclear facility. In response, North Korea launches a nuclear weapon.
The next obvious step after this would be the North Korean Army pouring over the DMZ into South Korea. Serious bloodshed ensues. The United States is immediately involved, but since we're already stretched thin due to Iraq, the government is forced to initiate a draft. The UN denounces North Korea for using nuclear weapons and passes a resolution ordering the immediately toppling of Kim Jong Il. A Coalition will get put together almost overnight, probably consisting of most of the major world powers (since, unlike Iraq, there's an obvious reason to fight). China will likely side with us and abandon North Korea rather than have to fight America, Russia, and Europe.
Even though everybody will be against North Korea, it won't be a quick fight, simply because the North Korean army is so damn big. We'll probably win, but the death toll will likely be in the tens of (if not hundreds of) thousands.
As I said, when I imagine this, I imagine on a GRAND scale. It must be because I'm a writer...my mind devises the worst possible scenario for each event. I did the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, fearing that the invasion could trigger a larger regional war (that, of course, didn't happen). Although, it wouldn't surprise me much if, in the case of war with North Korea, the fighting somehow spreads to Iran and the Middle East anyway.
So...yeah...in short, I'm afraid of North Korea's nukes. I think that's the world's biggest and most dangerous problem right now. I hope we're able to solve this diplomatically, because North Korea is NOT one of the countries we could easily beat.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 20, 2005 1:55:25 GMT -5
Nonono... What does China have to gain by not keeping to their pact? If Korea starts launching nukes the was of the US, China may percieve a chance to eliminate us as a superpower.
|
|
|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 20, 2005 10:27:26 GMT -5
That's also a possibility, although it would make this a far more apocalyptic World War III type of conflict. If China were to side with North Korea, we'd defintitely see a far larger and far more extensive war. The war would spread beyond the Korean peninsula and encompass almost all of Asia in that case. The Chinese Army would likely take this chance to invade Taiwan, Mongolia, Southeast, South, and Central Asia, if it were to go against the US, Europe, and Russia. Yep, that's a definite "World War III" scenario.
But, I have two reasons for believing China will side with us in a hypothetical war with North Korea: 1) They've sided with us in these talks and have been trying to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, and 2) America is China's chief exporter, meaning if they take us out they destroy their Miracle Economy. I doubt they would want to take that chance.
|
|
Kensai
Delta
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posts: 207
|
Post by Kensai on Feb 20, 2005 19:04:58 GMT -5
Then again, China might make use of it's own people, much like Japan did, and muster feelings of nationalism, and hopes of restoring china to it's former glory. If the phillipines are invaded, that could cause the middle east to side with us. Most of the Phillipines are muslim. This is a big maybe. I would suspect Japan would fall rather easily. I think the U.S should anticipate agressions from China, and ammend that Japanese constitution to keep more than a defense force, maybe even develop it's own anti-nuke system, and Air force.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Feb 21, 2005 15:58:58 GMT -5
Then again, China might make use of it's own people, much like Japan did, and muster feelings of nationalism, and hopes of restoring china to it's former glory. If the phillipines are invaded, that could cause the middle east to side with us. Most of the Phillipines are muslim. This is a big maybe. I would suspect Japan would fall rather easily. I think the U.S should anticipate agressions from China, and ammend that Japanese constitution to keep more than a defense force, maybe even develop it's own anti-nuke system, and Air force. I've just read about an unknown sub being spotted near Japan, which is causing them to build up their defense force. But, I do not agree that everyone will be against North Korea, there will be the UN that has been always anti-war, and would be against America no matter what, as well as France. Let's face it, the French government have always wanted to be leaders, and if they aren't they'll harm the war efforts of others. They did it in World War II, and it'll be likely that they'll do it in World War III as well.
|
|
|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 21, 2005 16:39:38 GMT -5
I've just read about an unknown sub being spotted near Japan, which is causing them to build up their defense force. Just read...? Dude, that was THREE MONTHS AGO. The Chinese admitted it was one of their subs...it had gone off course and accidentally wandered into Japanese territory. But, I do not agree that everyone will be against North Korea, there will be the UN that has been always anti-war, and would be against America no matter what, as well as France. Let's face it, the French government have always wanted to be leaders, and if they aren't they'll harm the war efforts of others. They did it in World War II, and it'll be likely that they'll do it in World War III as well. Your willingness to dismiss the UN and France is astounding. In the worst case scenario, as you suggest, things would probably play out like Iraq: they'll be ignored. In a war with North Korea, assuming the North Koreans have used a nuclear weapon, everyone would EASILY be on our side. In this hypothetical case, I would compare world sentiments to the period immediately after 9/11 rather than Iraq. The UN would more likely side with us than not. Unlike Iraq, in which we were asking permission to preemptively invade a country, this would be similar to Gulf War 1 or the Korean War: we would be going in to force an invading country out. The UN doesn't mind that. They ESPECIALLY wouldn't mind if North Korea nuked Seoul or Tokyo. Basically, it wouldn't only be the United States demanding a UN approval, but basically all of eastern Asia. France, and the rest of Europe, would also likely side with us in this situation. Nobody wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and France is no exception. Basically, I see the usage of a nuclear weapon as one of those pivotal moments that unites everybody against a common enemy, like 9/11. It would be one of those supremely horrific acts that everyone wants vengence for, only unlike 9/11, we have a country to target rather than a terrorist organization. In essence, I think the two sides would be: US, Canada, China, Russia, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia (and probably a few other countries) Vs. North Korea (and maybe Iran and Syria, which would spread the conflict to the Middle East) *SIGH* I heard recently that the North Koreans may be considering a nuclear test. While I doubt they'd actually do it, (I, myself, would wait until I had a dozen or so nukes before testing one) if they do, it could seriously escalate the situation. To war? I dont' know. I hope not. I just keep remembering the article I read in Time a few years back about North Korea's nuclear capabilities: their longest range missile could hit as far as Reno, and they were (at the time) developing another that could strike the east coast. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 21, 2005 23:16:15 GMT -5
Phht. The second they launch a nuke, its out of the sky. Don't you realize why the governments of many countries have problems with us? Yes, its because we're the world military super power. However, we're also the one country that is the most capable of self defense against nuclear assaults. While the "Nuclear threat" card is usually a "Zomg we can't do anything or we'll both be nuked", US has multiple methods of taking out nuclear threats in the air, not to mention the fact that our submarines are so advanced that they are so undetectable that we could have Subs right in North Korea's bays, ready to nuke the crap out of Korea in an instant if needed be.
We have the various methods produced by the various Reagan-era began products of the Star Wars anti-missile program, along with ballistics made to take out missiles.
|
|
|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Feb 22, 2005 0:31:51 GMT -5
yeah we should go after North Korea and not Iran.
|
|
|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 22, 2005 11:41:07 GMT -5
Phht. The second they launch a nuke, its out of the sky. Don't you realize why the governments of many countries have problems with us? Yes, its because we're the world military super power. However, we're also the one country that is the most capable of self defense against nuclear assaults. While the "Nuclear threat" card is usually a "Zomg we can't do anything or we'll both be nuked", US has multiple methods of taking out nuclear threats in the air, not to mention the fact that our submarines are so advanced that they are so undetectable that we could have Subs right in North Korea's bays, ready to nuke the crap out of Korea in an instant if needed be. We have the various methods produced by the various Reagan-era began products of the Star Wars anti-missile program, along with ballistics made to take out missiles. The problem is that most of those missile defense systems are more or less useless. You heard about the failures of the Patriot System in Gulf War 1 and the recent serial failures of Bush's Missle Defense System, right? I have absolutely no faith in our capability to stop a nuclear warhead once it's in the air. And our nukes? You might as well forget they ever existed. We're never going to use them. Ever. Any President who does use them, for any reason, would NOT be remembered fondly. Hell, wouldn't surprise me if the person got impeached. Why? Because we wouldn't be declaring war against North Korea, it would merely be another "Police Action". Meaning: NO NUKES ALLOWED. If nukes are used by us, we'd only be digging a bigger hole for ourselves. Everyone who already hates and fears us would hate and fear us even MORE. "America used the bomb against North Korea...what if they use it against Iran? Or Syria? Or Sudan?" Basically, everyone would decide that WE are the most dangerous nation are Earth and that WE need to be disarmed. There's a reason I believe everybody will jump on North Korea, not just because they are ruled by a manaical despot, not just because they HAVE nuclear weapons, but because they have the audacity to USE those weapons AGAINST others. The Atomic Bomb, hands down, is mankind's dumbest mistake. Any country dumb enough to use them will likely be ostracized from the international community...
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 22, 2005 16:24:55 GMT -5
So? Who cares if we are more ostracized? We'd just be doing the job UN should have. We shouldn't have to be the policemen of the world. UN should be doing it, but they are neglecting that.
And that was just our mobile defenses, PK. We actually have friggn' lasers now. Things we didn't see in use in Iraq.
And even if the President was impeached, so? There are times when the needs of a people out weigh the position of a man.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Feb 22, 2005 16:55:24 GMT -5
I've been crunching the numbers. North Korea launches nukes, and Japan (yes they do have a VERY impressive navy and airforce) and the United States send the largest naval armada assembled since World War II supplimented with B-52 bombers and destroy North Korea. Seoul becomes a pool of fire but North Korea essentially gets stopped their, its supply lines and lack of spare parts cause it to break down, Japanese and American reinforcements arrive and the North Koreans are finished. I think China would side with the US on this one, they have much more to gain with us, Chinese are long term thinkers and give them half a century and they have more people and are as wealthy as the US, then they have say in Asia. They don't want to risk Japan and America's wrath while Russia and India (their real security threats) are becoming strong enough and disturbingly close. If there's a new cold war in East Asia, I think its going to be between Russia and India on one side and China on the other. North Korea is more trouble for China than its worth with it costing them money to maintain it and having to deal with tons of refugees.
As for the UN, here is the vote, Russia abstaining because it doesn't want intervention in the caucuses by the US, Britain and the US definately yes, France probably yes, China's representative "takes ill at lunch".
What could be worrisome is if after the war a unified Korea and China team up.
|
|
|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 22, 2005 19:30:50 GMT -5
I've been crunching the numbers. North Korea launches nukes, and Japan (yes they do have a VERY impressive navy and airforce) and the United States send the largest naval armada assembled since World War II supplimented with B-52 bombers and destroy North Korea. Seoul becomes a pool of fire but North Korea essentially gets stopped their, its supply lines and lack of spare parts cause it to break down, Japanese and American reinforcements arrive and the North Koreans are finished. I think China would side with the US on this one, they have much more to gain with us, Chinese are long term thinkers and give them half a century and they have more people and are as wealthy as the US, then they have say in Asia. They don't want to risk Japan and America's wrath while Russia and India (their real security threats) are becoming strong enough and disturbingly close. If there's a new cold war in East Asia, I think its going to be between Russia and India on one side and China on the other. North Korea is more trouble for China than its worth with it costing them money to maintain it and having to deal with tons of refugees. As for the UN, here is the vote, Russia abstaining because it doesn't want intervention in the caucuses by the US, Britain and the US definately yes, France probably yes, China's representative "takes ill at lunch". What could be worrisome is if after the war a unified Korea and China team up. I agree with you, although I think naval taskforce assembled will also be largely British and Australian along with the US and Japanese navies. Thinking about it, you may be right about Russia sitting this one out. I mean, North Korea isn't an IMMEDIATE problem for them. I disagree with your worry of China and Korea teaming up, though. One of China's worries concerning the situation is that if the Koreas unite, they will more than likely be a democracy, meaning greater US influence in the region. That's something the Chinese DON'T want. In all honesty, I don't know what would become of Korea after a war like this. Will they unite? Will China annex North Korea? Will we just set up a new government in North Korea and leave the reunification to the Koreas themselves? Oh, and Ai, I have heard about our anti-ballistic missile lasers. At the moment, those aren't operational yet. If North Korea attacks within the next year or so, we won't be able to deploy lasers against the nukes. Besides, if I remember correctly, the Israelis are supposed to get them first... (try to wrap your mind around that one, eh?)
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Feb 22, 2005 19:36:49 GMT -5
Oh, and Ai, I have heard about our anti-ballistic missile lasers. At the moment, those aren't operational yet. If North Korea attacks within the next year or so, we won't be able to deploy lasers against the nukes. Besides, if I remember correctly, the Israelis are supposed to get them first... (try to wrap your mind around that one, eh?)
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 22, 2005 20:37:59 GMT -5
He probabally meant Zorak.
And yes, actually, they do have a few active, and already on the coasts. And coupled with more stationary versions of the things we used in Kuwait to take out missiles, well, let me put this into your mind.
They launch say eight nukes at us. We launch every missile we have on the pacific coast at them. Now, thats like five hundred missiles at once, in addition to the tons of Submarine based cruised missiles that could do the same. And now, if we loaded Nuclear weapons onto these missiles, lets just say we wouldn't have to worry about missing.
|
|
|
Post by Pkmatrix on Feb 22, 2005 21:47:55 GMT -5
He probabally meant Zorak. Oh crap! Sorry, Ai! I did mean Zorak. Why did I write Ai? And yes, actually, they do have a few active, and already on the coasts. And coupled with more stationary versions of the things we used in Kuwait to take out missiles, well, let me put this into your mind. Really? I hadn't heard that. I knew that they were in the later stages of development and that tests last year had proved successful, but considering how slow the military usually is with the development of new-type weapons, I figured it would be another year or so before we saw any being deployed. They launch say eight nukes at us. We launch every missile we have on the pacific coast at them. Now, thats like five hundred missiles at once, in addition to the tons of Submarine based cruised missiles that could do the same. And now, if we loaded Nuclear weapons onto these missiles, lets just say we wouldn't have to worry about missing. Well, you make a few assumptions there. 1. They're not going to fire all eight nukes at once. That's just stupid. They'll likely fire one, two at most, and aim for either major metropolitan areas or military installations. That means, four or five American targets: Hawaii, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle. 2. If a missile is fired at us, we're NOT firing every single ABM we have at it. That's also just stupid. What if we fire everything to take out the first wave, then they send a second? What then? 3. There is no way in hell their going to use nuclear-tipped ABMs. Ever. That's just...why the HELL would you even DESIGN something like that?! Anti-Ballistic Missiles are simply too unreliable. I mean, if we fire 500 missiles at them, there's no way we can miss. But, as I said, we're not going to fire that many missiles JUST to get one. Don't forget how expensive those damned things are... While a nuclear strike against the US is a great fear of mine, I do admit that we are probably the most prepared country on Earth for such a situation.
|
|