Threat from the DPRK (North Korea)

[David Horn]

(09-26-2017, 11:33 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 09:53 AM)David Horn Wrote: Unless you live on your own island and provide totally for yourself, you are part of the commonweal. We all share the cost of the military, roads, police protection and social security.  You may not like it, but it's the way it is.  If I can't opt-out of the things government provides but I dislike, neither can you or anyone else.  

You might take a minute to realize that we, as a nation, elected to NOT have a standing army by making it permanently impermanent in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12.  We also provided for a militia in Paragraph 16.  The underlying assumption: we were all expected to carry that burden (well, all white men at least).

None of which says we live a communal existence or that we need a draft.

We live private existences with the exception of a few services contracted to the government as permitted by the Constitution, which in fact prohibits a draft by prohibiting involuntary servitude.

Just to be nosy, what do you think you and others owe to our country for the privilege of living here?  Is it all one way: you get much and give nothing in return?

[David Horn]

(09-26-2017, 07:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-26-2017, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: ...  Surely you haven't forgotten the Iraq war? The original objective for that war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs, particularly their nuke program.

You actually believe that?  No, the objective in Iraq was regime change, not just to destroy the "WMDs", and certainly not just to destroy nukes.  Even those that believed in the WMDs believed that they were chemical weapons, and chemical weapon production facilities are far easier to hide than nuclear weapon production facilities.

No, the reason to go into Iraq was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and get out of the sanctions that were a humanitarian disaster and also were becoming politically untenable, and to control what kind of government succeeded him.

If I read this right, you assumed that GWB was lying from day one, yet you seem OK with that.  Why?  It goes against your libertarian memes in a big way.

[Kinser79]

(09-24-2017, 10:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The original idea in the US was that "everyone" had the vote and "everyone" was a militia member.  I'd be happier with everyone being required to have a gun and be available for the common defense in case of an invasion than with a draft into a standing army.

That would be workable for the Army perhaps if a standing small core of technical officers and men is maintained. The Air Force and Navy not so much. In all honesty it is my view that the Navy and Air Force are the two most important branches in modern warfare, as far as the US is concerned. I mean seriously who is going to invade us? Canada?

With sufficient air and sea power invasions from off continent are unlikely, after all the main weakness the Germans had in WW2 in relation to D-Day was a limited navy and insufficient air power.

Quote:Limiting the franchise to veterans has always been an attractive idea to me, but I'm not sure it works.

I would argue that Starship Troopers is somewhat utopian in nature. However, the fact remain that democracies are especially unstable after the public takes to the notion that they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury.

Quote:I'd also argue that at some level, it makes sense to limit the franchise to people who pay taxes.  This would control the problem of people on the dole becoming a majority and voting for economic collapse.  It might be difficult to implement in practice, though.

It might be easier to limit the franchise to people who either earn X number of dollars per year, or Y amount of property in the form of land/assets.

[Kinser79]

(09-25-2017, 01:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-23-2017, 10:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not really, you would need to have had a point first.  You didn't.  Your claim was that Western rationality and Eastern rationality are somehow different, whereas game theory indicates quite differently.

As to LBJ, I may or may not be wrong.  I wasn't alive then and I really don't want to think much about a third rate president who died before I was even born.  That being said you are right in that Kim won't negotiate regardless the amount of pain, which is why the only solution is the absolute and utter destruction of North Korea and Korean Unification.

In many ways it is time to finish unfinished business.

First, game theory is just that, theory.  It applies where it does, and doesn't in this case.  

Gravity is also a theory but it is the basis of all modern physics. Evolution is a theory but it is also the basis of all modern biology. Are you planning on brushing those aside as "just a theory" too?

Quote:Second, you are pretty free with taking risks that others might suffer.  We're still safe here in our distant continent, but the South Koreans and Japanese, not so much.

The South Koreans and Japanese are likely to suffer if we do nothing as much as if we do something. I don't see what they have to lose by neutralizing a existential threat to both states. As as been pointed out elsewhere, in order for the Norks to not be totally obliterated in a war with the ROK-US-Japan alliance either the PRC has to back them (Russia would have severe logistical problems doing so even if they wanted to, and it isn't clear that they do) or would have to overwhelm ROK and US forces in a human wave.

I do not think the Norks can possibly win a conventional war, even with PRC assistance. Their technology is dated, their military and population is starving and in short the maths just aren't on their side.

(09-25-2017, 01:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: A post where we mostly agree.  Great!

Be sure to mark it on your calendar as having happened.

[Kinser79]

(09-26-2017, 06:42 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: That link is rather interesting.  However, it fails to take into account two very large factors.

1.  With nuclear weapons the DPRK would have a real deterrent against US involvement.

True, that is why DPRK is pursuing them.  I would so the same if I were them.

Quote:The ROK with its large industrial base, and high GDP would be prime targets for the DPRK to take over to prop up the regime.

This is true too, but it ignores the whole point of the link. Just because North Korean would like South Korean plunder doesn't mean they can win the war they would need to fight to get it.

If North Korea uses nukes against the South or Japan or US forces then our response would be genocidal.  China and Russia would do the same if their territory/sphere of interest were attacked with nukes. So they would protest vehemently against American genocide (and the collateral damage that falls on them), but there would be no WW III. We know that, they know that, Kim knows that. If Kim wants to fight it will start conventional. The war potential arrayed against him is enormous.  For him to win, it would have to be right away.  Hence an examination of the forces deployed right now, their kind, number and quality would be useful, which is what the article was for. It does not look like Kim could achieve a quick victory without using nukes, which then will result in total destruction of North Korea, including Kim, his government, his military, his family legacy and everything else he cares about. 

Totalitarian rulers like Kim do not preserve their power by taking foolish risks.  He's the third generation of Kims. They apparently know what they are doing and so he will take no foolish risks.

Mike you do realize that you are essentially making my argument for me right?  Kim is acting rationally for the conditions of the DPRK, however, unlike other nuclear powers the DPRK regularly threatens two non-nuclear powers which are allied to the US.  This isn't Pakistan and India bickering over some useless semi-arid mountain pass here, it is a nuclear arms possessing state threatening two non-nuclear arms possessing states.

That being said, if we want proliferation of nuclear arms I imagine Japan could get an H-bomb in about a year.  They already have natively a large base on which to build a program.

[Kinser79]

(09-26-2017, 07:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:00 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 09:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-21-2017, 01:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: As Kinser pointed out, rationality doesn't change from West to East.  The mathematics of game theory and Nash equilibria are universal.

As long as we knock out his capability to produce new nuclear weapons - which is the easy part - we gain hugely, even if he retains a few weapons.  For example, he currently has no counterforce capability, but at his current rate, he will in five or ten years, giving him first strike options.

That's the same thinking that we employed when we entered Vietnam, and you see how that went.

Wrong.  We went into Vietnam to keep South Vietnam alive, which necessitated ground troops.  A strike to destroy North Korea's nuclear program doesn't require ground troops.

And what sort of "strike" do you think would destroy North Korea's nuclear program?  Surely you haven't forgotten the Iraq war? The original objective for that war was to destroy Iraq's WMDs, particularly their nuke program.  Don't you think if we could have achieved that goal with a "strike" rather than an invasion, we would have done that? Surely you haven't forgotten they we had total control of the airspace above the country?

It is not possible to take out North Korea's (or Iraq's) nukes using an air strike unless you want to go nuclear.  Are you advocating starting a nuclear war with a first strike?  How do you recommend we respond when China nukes Israel (tit for tat, you nuke our client we nuke yours)?  Do you really want to go there?

Normally I don't answer for the posts to others, but this question needs to be answered by someone who completely disagrees with Warren as someone who wants both Regime Change and Korean Unification under the auspices of "finishing unfinished business".  It is my view that nothing short of a full scale invasion and occupation of the DPRK will neutralize the Nork Nuke Threat ™.

Ideally the greater portion of the burden of the occupation of the north half of the peninsula would fall to the Army of the Republic of Korea with the US and Japan playing mostly support roles in Air power, Sea power and Logistics.

Reintegration of the northern half might also require some immediate aid to the ROK but it would provide the ROK with room to expand economically.

[Mikebert]

(09-26-2017, 07:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You actually believe that? 

No, but what I thought is irrelevant.

The point is eliminating WMDs was used as the pretext.  And nuclear weapons were included in that category of weapon.  Biological weapons are in many ways just as fearsome as fission weapons and we had more concern about them. Chemical weapons were stressed because we knew they had once been there and the Bush administration was certain that some were still left because Saddam acted like there were.  Thus, when they invaded surely they would find some and that would prove that their war was justified after all.

There was much discussion in 2002 about whether or not America should invade Iraq to eliminate this threat.  If your argument that we can eliminate the WMD threat NK poses to our allies by "strikes" then the same threat Iraq posed to our allies could have been eliminated by "strikes" also. Curiously nobody opposed to the war pointed this "fact" out.

But then the idea is ludicrous.  After all we flew more than 100,000 sorties against Iraq in the 12 years preceding the 2003 invasion as part of the "no fly" policy. Don't you think that if it were possible to take out Iraq's nuclear and biological WMD programs from the air, were would have directed some of those 100,000 sorties to do just that?

And if it was accepted as obvious in the 1990's and in 2003 that taking down an enemy's nuke and bioweapon programs using air strikes was not really possible why are you now asserting that it is?

Quote:chemical weapon production facilities are far easier to hide than nuclear weapon production facilities

This is really only true for facilities for the production of fissile material. The actual weapons can be assembled elsewhere in facilities that are not distinguishable from any other kind of manufacturing/industrial facility. Same is true of chemical or biological weapons. 

Furthermore, WMDs can be placed on shorter range missiles that employ mobile launchers, which would remain hidden (and not "strike-able") until their location is revealed by a launch.

So what would your "strike" accomplish?  Well you could blow up their nuclear reactors and known R&D facilities, taking out their ability to make more fissile material and killing some of NK's scientists. You would leave in place facilities that could make nuclear weapons out of existing stockpiles of fissile material and possibly bioweapons (weaponized anthrax is not that hard to make). More importantly you would initiate a hot war while leaving their existing weapons intact. Then what?

[Mikebert]

(09-30-2017, 12:39 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Mike you do realize that you are essentially making my argument for me right?  

No I am not.  You still need to make it.

Quote:Kim is acting rationally for the conditions of the DPRK, however, unlike other nuclear powers the DPRK regularly threatens two non-nuclear powers which are allied to the US.

 
Yes, and I am not questioning that

You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

[Kinser79]

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own. Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle: Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech. Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men. While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

[Warren Dew]

(09-30-2017, 08:41 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Don't you think that if it were possible to take out Iraq's nuclear and biological WMD programs from the air, were would have directed some of those 100,000 sorties to do just that?

Again you incorrectly conflate nuclear weapons with "WMD" in general.  Biological weapon production can happen in a very limited space with little more industrial support than a refrigerator.

And since both you and I agree that WMD weren't the driving force for the Iraq war in the first place, it's irrelevant anyway.

Quote:

Quote:chemical weapon production facilities are far easier to hide than nuclear weapon production facilities

This is really only true for facilities for the production of fissile material. The actual weapons can be assembled elsewhere in facilities that are not distinguishable from any other kind of manufacturing/industrial facility. Same is true of chemical or biological weapons. 

Furthermore, WMDs can be placed on shorter range missiles that employ mobile launchers, which would remain hidden (and not "strike-able") until their location is revealed by a launch.

So what would your "strike" accomplish?  Well you could blow up their nuclear reactors and known R&D facilities, taking out their ability to make more fissile material and killing some of NK's scientists. You would leave in place facilities that could make nuclear weapons out of existing stockpiles of fissile material and possibly bioweapons (weaponized anthrax is not that hard to make). More importantly you would initiate a hot war while leaving their existing weapons intact. Then what?

The strike would limit North Korea's nuclear capability to a small number of weapons with no replacements.  The prevents their ever acquiring counterforce capabilities, and leaves them with very limited deterrent capabilities against large nuclear powers like the US.  It also greatly reduces the likelihood of their selling nuclear warheads to terrorists for foreign exchange, and of course limits the number that could be so sold.

If we leave their production capabilities in place, in contrast, they'll likely be a nuclear power on par with the US and Russia within five or ten years.

[Mikebert]

Quote:Again you incorrectly conflate nuclear weapons with "WMD" in general. 

WMD is an acronym for weapons of mass destruction and  includes nuclear weapons.
 

Quote:Biological weapon production can happen in a very limited space with little more industrial support than a refrigerator

And if constrained to be so nuclear weapons can be developed and constructed in facilities that can not be identified as such from the air.  They will just rebuild their facilities in a less detectable fashion.
 

Quote:And since both you and I agree that WMD weren't the driving force for the Iraq war in the first place, it's irrelevant anyway.

No, you are dodging the issue. If strikes could stop Iraq’s nuke program then how did it come to pass that an invasion based on removing this threat was publicly justified without anyone pointing out that the we could remove the Iraq threat with "strikes".

And if you want to keep insisting that nukes did not factor at all in the case that Iraq was a threat to the US, then please explain why nonnuclear WMDs in the hands of Saddam were so much of a threat that regime change was absolutely necessary to deal with it, while nonnuclear WMDs in the hands of Kim is not.  You can’t possibly believe Kim is somehow “better” than Saddam so that we do not wish regime change in NK.

Quote:The strike would limit North Korea's nuclear capability to a small number of weapons with no replacements. 

And leaves his existing stock pile intact and in the hands of a power with which we would be at war that we started.
 

Quote:The prevents their ever acquiring counterforce capabilities, and leaves them with very limited deterrent capabilities against large nuclear powers like the US. 

No it only delays it.
 
And you ignore the consequences of a strike that leaves the bulk of NKs military capability intact.  You will have started a war by a sneak attack like Japan did in 1941 and put the US in the position as the revisionist belligerent power (the role played by Germany and Japan last 4T).
 
Unlike Kinser I do not believe NK would prevail over the South in a bilateral war that was begun by NK.  If NK started the war China and Russia would almost certainly refrain from helping out the North Koreans. On the other hand, since US troops would be in theatre, they would acknowledge that the US has a right to defend its own people.  NK knows there is only one outcome that could come from such a war they started, they would be defeated and destroyed.

It is not so clear that China and Russia would not intervene in a war that the US started. I asked you about this before and you haven't addressed it.

[Mikebert]

(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own.  Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle:  Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech.  Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men.  While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

They don't have a 10:1 edge in manpower, more like 2:1. They are numerically inferior in tank number.  All told, the South Korean military matches up pretty similarly to how NATO matched up against the Warsaw Pact. Also the US would necessarily be involved since we have troops in theatre.  If NK started a war it would go ill for them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccart...edc54828b4

https://www.google.com/search?q=nato+vs+...cIJudGdkQM:

[pbrower2a]

(10-01-2017, 06:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own.  Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle:  Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech.  Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men.  While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

They don't have a 10:1 edge in manpower, more like 2:1. They are numerically inferior in tank number.  All told, the South Korean military matches up pretty similarly to how NATO matched up against the Warsaw Pact. Also the US would necessarily be involved since we have troops in theatre.  If NK started a war it would go ill for them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccart...edc54828b4

https://www.google.com/search?q=nato+vs+...cIJudGdkQM:

I have seen plenty of images of South Korea. Except for the Hangul writing and that the people do not look European, South Korea looks as if it might be a part of western Europe. North Korea looks like a Hell-hole of the Third World except in its showcase Pyongyang. North Korea lacks the mobility necessary for a swift conquest of the South.

A Northern occupation of South Korea would not go well. As is typical of a developed country, South Korea has lots of motor vehicles. public and private. DPRK troops would have cause to fear vehicle bombs at every turn. If you thought Iraq and Afghanistan bad places to be an American soldier, wait till you see South Korea for a North Korean.

It's telling that South Korea can typically turn a North Korean infiltrator in two days. The first day of captivity is intense interrogation. The second day is a guided tour of a South Korean supermarket.

North Korean infrastructure is well described as primitive. A well-developed country has plenty of redundancy in its roads, pipelines, power lines, and communications network. Well-guided air strikes can ensure the destruction of command-and-control systems and break down logistics.

[Warren Dew]

(10-01-2017, 06:26 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Quote:Biological weapon production can happen in a very limited space with little more industrial support than a refrigerator

And if constrained to be so nuclear weapons can be developed and constructed in facilities that can not be identified as such from the air.  They will just rebuild their facilities in a less detectable fashion.

Nuclear weapons production require either a nuclear powerplant, for plutonium, or a uranium enrichment facility, for weapons grade uranium.  Both of these can be identified by satellite, let alone the air.  Heck, we've identified underground facilities by satellite.

Quote: 

Quote:And since both you and I agree that WMD weren't the driving force for the Iraq war in the first place, it's irrelevant anyway.

No, you are dodging the issue. If strikes could stop Iraq’s nuke program then how did it come to pass that an invasion based on removing this threat was publicly justified without anyone pointing out that the we could remove the Iraq threat with "strikes".

Just to go over this again, air strikes not only could take out Iraq's nuclear weapons capability but had already done so.  Airstrikes could not do the same for chemical and biological weapons, thus why people who foolishly believed the WMD explanation didn't object to an invasion.

Quote:And if you want to keep insisting that nukes did not factor at all in the case that Iraq was a threat to the US, then please explain why nonnuclear WMDs in the hands of Saddam were so much of a threat that regime change was absolutely necessary to deal with it, while nonnuclear WMDs in the hands of Kim is not.  You can’t possibly believe Kim is somehow “better” than Saddam so that we do not wish regime change in NK.

China has suggested that they would intervene militarily if the US sought regime change in North Korea.  We don't want a war with China, therefore we should push for regime change if it is not necessary.

Iraq had no such powerful patron, so we went with regime change.  Plus, what we really wanted in Iraq was regime change anyway, irrespective of "WMD", which was just an

Quote:

Quote:The prevents their ever acquiring counterforce capabilities, and leaves them with very limited deterrent capabilities against large nuclear powers like the US. 

No it only delays it.

False.  If they try to rebuild the production facilities, we just destroy them again.  At some point we let China replace the regime, taking out the current regime first if necessary.

Quote:It is not so clear that China and Russia would not intervene in a war that the US started. I asked you about this before and you haven't addressed it.

Actually, I have addressed it, though possibly in responses to people other than you.

[Warren Dew]

(10-01-2017, 06:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own.  Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle:  Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech.  Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men.  While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

They don't have a 10:1 edge in manpower, more like 2:1. They are numerically inferior in tank number.  All told, the South Korean military matches up pretty similarly to how NATO matched up against the Warsaw Pact.

That's true.  Of course, most experts believed that NATO would have had to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a Warsaw Pact victory had they chosen to invade.  We had tactical nukes in Europe; we don't in Korea.

Quote:Also the US would necessarily be involved since we have troops in theatre.  If NK started a war it would go ill for them.

If they get to the point they can destroy US cities, they can easily dictate that we remove the troops.  If we refuse, they start shelling Seoul.  If we invade, they nuke New York City.  That's why it's important we not get to that point.

[David Horn]

(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own.  Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle:  Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech.  Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men.  While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

Your assumptions are off a bit.  The DPRK has an army of 950,000 and the ROK has forces of 495,000.  Having had some time up close and personal with two of the ROK divisions (White Horse and Tiger), I'll put my money on them in a ground war any time.

[David Horn]

(10-01-2017, 06:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: ...  Of course, most experts believed that NATO would have had to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a Warsaw Pact victory had they chosen to invade.  We had tactical nukes in Europe; we don't in Korea.

We had tactical nukes in the ROK but removed them to lessen tensions. They are quite portable as nukes go, so putting them back could be accomplished in short order.

[Galen]

(09-30-2017, 12:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-24-2017, 10:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'd also argue that at some level, it makes sense to limit the franchise to people who pay taxes.  This would control the problem of people on the dole becoming a majority and voting for economic collapse.  It might be difficult to implement in practice, though.

It might be easier to limit the franchise to people who either earn X number of dollars per year, or Y amount of property in the form of land/assets.

This was originally how it was done in Colonial America and the early Republic.  The idea does have considerable merit since people who depend on government checks would tend have a less than stellar decision making process.  This would be a good way of reducing the moral hazard of a welfare state which is no bad thing.  The fact that the libtards will scream about it is another point in its favor.

[Mikebert]

Warren Dew Wrote: Nuclear weapons production require either a nuclear powerplant, for plutonium, or a uranium enrichment facility, for weapons grade uranium.  Both of these can be identified by satellite, let alone the air.  Heck, we've identified underground facilities by satellite.

All but one of the nuke production sites we know of were disclosed by NK. They did not disclose all of them since we managed to locate one they did not disclose. How are you so sure that was the only one they did not disclose? And even if it was and we took out all known sites this time, when they rebuild them they would all be hidden.  How are you so certain all of them would be detected?
 

Quote:Actually, I have addressed it, though possibly in responses to people other than you.

This is cop out.

[Eric the Green]

(10-01-2017, 06:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(10-01-2017, 06:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this.  You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.

They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own.  Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle:  Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech.  Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men.  While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.

Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.

They don't have a 10:1 edge in manpower, more like 2:1. They are numerically inferior in tank number.  All told, the South Korean military matches up pretty similarly to how NATO matched up against the Warsaw Pact.

That's true.  Of course, most experts believed that NATO would have had to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a Warsaw Pact victory had they chosen to invade.  We had tactical nukes in Europe; we don't in Korea.

Quote:Also the US would necessarily be involved since we have troops in theatre.  If NK started a war it would go ill for them.

If they get to the point they can destroy US cities, they can easily dictate that we remove the troops.  If we refuse, they start shelling Seoul.  If we invade, they nuke New York City.  That's why it's important we not get to that point.

I doubt they would actually hit a US city, knowing that if they did, that would be the end of them. Mutual Assured Destruction deterred the Russians for 40-odd years. Is Kim Jung Un more likely to attack if it means Unilaterally Assured Destruction for his regime?