• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here’s what war with North Korea would look like

Cardinal

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,848
Reaction score
98,901
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"A full-blown war with North Korea wouldn’t be as bad as you think. It would be much, much worse."

A little light reading for when you have a few minutes to kill. If you've ever wondered why we haven't attacked North Korea already, there's a super good reason for it. From the combination of conventional, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons (depending on where you stand, that last one may actually have the most horrifying outcome), the devastation will be cataclysmic, and that's putting it mildly.

The article also explains that it would be in Kim's tactical interest to use nuclear weapons in the very beginning of a war rather than later, arguing that he would have a use-it-or-lose-it mindset, and that nuking harbors would be strategically important in order to prevent the United States from delivering armaments and troops.

Finally, the article goes into depth in explaining why using the invasion of Iraq as a model for an invasion of North Korea would be the worst thinking in the universe.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/7/16974772/north-korea-war-trump-kim-nuclear-weapon
 
Last edited:
For people who don't want to read an entire article here's a layman's explanation of the dangers about a war with North Korea.

There is no quick, sure-fire way to disable all of DPRK's arsenal that can cause immediate harm to ROK. Suppose we eliminate the artillery aimed at Seoul? Then we have to hope our Anti-missile system can prevent potentially nuclear warheads from entering South of the DMZ. If we strike first, China will rally behind the DPRK and assist them which will eventually boil it all down to WWIII. If DPRK strikes first, it's already too late and millions of ROK citizens are killed in the crossfire. After the smoke and ashes are over, and with America most likely being the winner, that creates a massive power vacuum within the peninsula along with a massive economic crisis. No matter who's flag would be left waving, nobody would truly win if the Korean War to be kickstarted again.
 
What is the opinion of the American Ambassador to South Korea?
 
Say we're militarily victorious and by some miracle we do manage to knock out ALL the DPRK command and control, and disable nearly every bit of weaponry he has at his disposal.
I'm talking best case FANTASY scenario, okay?

Now what?
You have twenty-three million Kim Jong Un worshipping fanatics who are, for all practical purposes, either zombies from The Walking Dead or scared out of their minds crazy because their worst nightmare has just come true. (Oh, but then I repeat myself, don't I, LOL)

Can we afford to feed them, contain them, house them, fight them street by street?
Can we afford the record setting humanitarian crisis that will sure as sh*t follow?
Does this thing ever ever EVER end?
It didn't end even after we'd bombed them so much that there was nothing left to bomb back in the 1950's.

Pro Tip: This is the sort of thing that bankrupted the USSR.
Okay, okay, so maybe our economy right now is slightly less moribund than the Soviet economy was back then. Are we just bickering over how much and when, or are we pretending it wouldn't bankrupt us EVER?

At what point are we willing to admit that maybe the containment option is, warts and all, maybe just a wee bit better than an all out war?

Of course, if Kim Jong Un bites the crazy bullet and initiates hostilities, that changes the game, but we're right now discussing a preemptive war, are we not, a war in which we make the first move, yes?

Naturally there are tons of people here on DP and elsewhere who are much smarter and much better versed on this subject than I am, so I am of course very interested in hearing thoughtful answers.
 
Cardinal said:
"A full-blown war with North Korea wouldn’t be as bad as you think. It would be much, much worse."

A little light reading for when you have a few minutes to kill. If you've ever wondered why we haven't attacked North Korea already, there's a super good reason for it. From the combination of conventional, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons (depending on where you stand, that last one may actually have the most horrifying outcome), the devastation will be cataclysmic, and that's putting it mildly.

The article also explains that it would be in Kim's tactical interest to use nuclear weapons in the very beginning of a war rather than later, arguing that he would have a use-it-or-lose-it mindset, and that nuking harbors would be strategically important in order to prevent the United States from delivering armaments and troops.

Finally, the article goes into depth in explaining why using the invasion of Iraq as a model for an invasion of North Korea would be the worst thinking in the universe.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/7/16974772/north-korea-war-trump-kim-nuclear-weapon
Click to expand...

I'm not as worried about the nukes as I am about the thousands of pieces of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul. They probably don't have very many actual nukes and we should be able to take them out, right off the bat.
 
Fishking said:
I'm not as worried about the nukes as I am about the thousands of pieces of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul. They probably don't have very many actual nukes and we should be able to take them out, right off the bat.
Click to expand...

Well, mathematically speaking, you don't need to be worried about any single one of their means of destruction in order to still appreciate that the other methods will still wreak havoc. That said, what gives you confidence that we'd be able to take their nukes out, "right off the bat"?
 
Fishking said:
I'm not as worried about the nukes as I am about the thousands of pieces of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul. They probably don't have very many actual nukes and we should be able to take them out, right off the bat.
Click to expand...

North Korea's nukes will be the first things out of the launchers.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, mathematically speaking, you don't need to be worried about any single one of their means of destruction in order to still appreciate that the other methods will still wreak havoc. That said, what gives you confidence that we'd be able to take their nukes out, "right off the bat"?
Click to expand...

Limited resources and the operation to create them isn't small so it's harder to find and we likely have an overabundance of resources trained on them and tracking them. The only real threat is the initial threat from the artillery, which we could push past fairly quickly but with that many pointed at a huge city "fairly quickly" can become a relative term.

I'm also not worried about their ground forces, either. We's smash them fairly quickly so it would really just be a matter of how much damage could be done to Seoul before we roll on over their artillery.
 
Deuce said:
North Korea's nukes will be the first things out of the launchers.
Click to expand...

No they won't, because they would be the first things hit before we did anything. That would be move #1, before anything else and it would be done without warning.
 
Fishking said:
No they won't, because they would be the first things hit before we did anything. That would be move #1, before anything else and it would be done without warning.
Click to expand...

Well, you're betting on getting every last one of them without warning. Not exactly a great bet to make with nuclear weapons. But let's say it works out that way. The first thing out of the launchers is a volley of well-placed Tomahawks eliminating the nuclear threat. That just leaves us facing nuclear retaliation from China instead of from North Korea because we just started World War III.
 
Fishking said:
Limited resources and the operation to create them isn't small so it's harder to find and we likely have an overabundance of resources trained on them and tracking them. The only real threat is the initial threat from the artillery, which we could push past fairly quickly but with that many pointed at a huge city "fairly quickly" can become a relative term.

I'm also not worried about their ground forces, either. We's smash them fairly quickly so it would really just be a matter of how much damage could be done to Seoul before we roll on over their artillery.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?
 
CMPancake said:
For people who don't want to read an entire article here's a layman's explanation of the dangers about a war with North Korea.

There is no quick, sure-fire way to disable all of DPRK's arsenal that can cause immediate harm to ROK. Suppose we eliminate the artillery aimed at Seoul? Then we have to hope our Anti-missile system can prevent potentially nuclear warheads from entering South of the DMZ. If we strike first, China will rally behind the DPRK and assist them which will eventually boil it all down to WWIII. If DPRK strikes first, it's already too late and millions of ROK citizens are killed in the crossfire. After the smoke and ashes are over, and with America most likely being the winner, that creates a massive power vacuum within the peninsula along with a massive economic crisis. No matter who's flag would be left waving, nobody would truly win if the Korean War to be kickstarted again.
Click to expand...

I've made that point a couple of times in discussions here mostly in the context of what to do it NK threatens us. Surprisingly - or maybe not - a lot of people really didn't care that tens of thousands of South Koreans would die because, well, they ain't Americans so they don't rate. Expect the same will happen here.
 
Fishking said:
I'm not as worried about the nukes as I am about the thousands of pieces of conventional artillery pointed at Seoul. They probably don't have very many actual nukes and we should be able to take them out, right off the bat.
Click to expand...

Their nukes are all on mobile launchers. We don't know where all of them are all of the time and all it takes is one to ruin your day.
 
I don't think we have to worry so much about North Korea as we did.
Only thing is now is making sure Trump's taking his meds and chilling the **** out with the Rocket Man talk...
 
Gaius46 said:
I've made that point a couple of times in discussions here mostly in the context of what to do it NK threatens us. Surprisingly - or maybe not - a lot of people really didn't care that tens of thousands of South Koreans would die because, well, they ain't Americans so they don't rate. Expect the same will happen here.
Click to expand...

We have thousands of American soldiers stationed in South Korea, yes?
They would die, too...right alongside the many many thousands of South Koreans.
And again, has anyone calculated the cost of dealing with the aftermath even in the most fantasy ridden best case scenarios?

The humanitarian crisis part, that's what I am talking about.
The part that comes after Trump boards a carrier and does his best impersonation of the
"Mission Accomplished" speech...you know, the part that stretches on seemingly into infinity?

Every armchair warrior in this room has already shot their wad on the initial strategy angle and then fallen asleep while the American people are forced to "sleep on the wet spot" that comes after.
Sorry guys, your fifteen grunts and three squirts of vanilla do not constitute a war strategy any more than it constitutes what you think passes for giving the old lady a good time on Saturday night after "The Batchelor" gets her all hot and bothered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom