Saddam and Bin Laden gone...Is Kim Jong Il next?

[Dr Mindbender]

Any problem?
Most of the people in this thread 'comprehended that water is wet' by saying that the DPRK has nukes,US will not attack them,etc etc.Your post was also,pretty,lets say,a bit of Déjà vu.
But lets not press up on the thread derailing process you tried to start.

I believe that the DPRK will remain in its current state for many decades to come.

Nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons (as in the capacity to deliver a nuclear attack) are not the same thing. the DPRK may have nuclear warheads, but that does not mean they have the ability to USE THEM in anger. That is very important. I dont believe anyone is under immediate threat from a nuclear attack by the DPRK least of all the United States. Their missiles are well out of range of even Hawaii and the ROK or Japan would retaliate without mercy.

I dont believe that NK would dare use an atomic weapon as a defensive weapon. In such a closely confined country they would annilhate their own towns and people.

[Omsk]

Well,if we look at the current military power of the DPRK,it could oppose the US military to the point where they will have to engage with required forces.The civilian population would also be greatly endangered and it would probably fight the invaders,we could have something like a Korean War,exept the fact that the DPRK would not have allies,and it would not fare so well against the US.It would be a bloody conflict.
For anyone interested in a battle plan of the Warsaw pact Czechoslovak People's Army (similar "them vs US" scenario) in the case of a outbreak of conflict in Europe during the Cold War: read this:

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collectio...&navinfo=25996

[PhoenixAsh]

Its more likely to be Iran...given the current geo strategic situation.

[Dr Mindbender]

Its more likely to be Iran...given the current geo strategic situation.

If attacking DPRK would piss off China, wouldnt attacking Iran piss off Russia?

Arent they good allies or something, not to mention Iran being a big customer of Russian munitions?

[Os Cangaceiros]

...except for the fact, as ive already said it shares a border with the worlds largest workforce and the US's most powerful economic competitor.

The economic health of China is inextricably connected to the economic health of the USA, despite the fact that there's economic competition. Invading the DPRK benefits no one.

[Dr Mindbender]

The economic health of China is inextricably connected to the economic health of the USA, despite the fact that there's economic competition. Invading the DPRK benefits no one.

You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy. They dont, its sensible on their part that they see it as a threat which is why they would look to overcut Chinese employers. An open border between Korea and China would assist them in doing just that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy. They dont, its sensible on their part that they see it as a threat which is why they would look to overcut Chinese employers. An open border between Korea and China would assist them in doing just that.

LOL I don't think that you're very familiar with the economic situation here. Or the political situation.

The DPRK would have to start bombarding Honolulu for the Obama admistration to launch an invasion.

You say that as if the USA should feel it is morally obliged to assist the Chinese economy.

Who said anything about morality? Certainly a stable economy in the United States benefits China, for reasons totally unrelated to morality.

[Aspiring Humanist]

A North Korean atomic bomb would be held together with staples and masking tape and could never in a hundred years reach the United States. The only targets they would have are Japan and South Korea and I don't think they're that stupid to attack something that close with a nuclear bomb. I don't know how anyone can defend the DPRK at this point.

[Ocean Seal]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?

The question is why? What does the DPRK have which is of value to the American imperialists? It is valuable from the sense of jingoistic pride of getting rid of another evil dictator but that only matters to those who aren't in control. The bourgeoisie act on their own interest and the DPRK is a country of 20 million people, 5 million of which are either in the military or in the reserves. An army that's 1/4 of a nation's population makes it an impractical target.

[Dr Mindbender]

The DPRK would have to start bombarding Honolulu for the Obama admistration to launch an invasion.

Like i said already, i dont think an invasion would be inherently necessary. All they would need to do is remove Kim Jong Il, his heirs and immediate ideological adherents. With them out of the way it would be much easier to instigate an internal coup de etat.

[Dr Mindbender]

The question is why? What does the DPRK have which is of value to the American imperialists? It is valuable from the sense of jingoistic pride of getting rid of another evil dictator but that only matters to those who aren't in control.

Like ive said before-

1- for the third time, the DPRK is right next to worlds largest labour pool.

2- Removing another anti US bogeyman would practically guarantee Obama another 4 years.

3- In a unified pro western korea, the US could set up shop right next to China. It would be an important outpost for them both economically and militarilly.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Like i said already, i dont think an invasion would be inherently necessary. All they would need to do is remove Kim Jong Il, his heirs and immediate ideological adherents. With them out of the way it would be much easier to instigate an internal coup de etat.

How would that be accomplished, though? Just send a team to take out Kim and his entourage? Lets say that works. Does the USA have some kind of North Korean Hamid Karzai-type figure waiting in the wings to take over? I can't think of one. That's crude speculation on my part, maybe they're in contact with some top DPRK brass in the military, I don't know. If it goes wrong, which is probably more likely, then North Korea will certainly retaliate, most likely against the USA's allies. And that will mean war.

Interestingly enough, back when the DPRK was shelling ROK territory not long ago, the main viewpoint here in the USA and media's coverage of the situation was not "let's go kick Kim's ass!", it was fear that the USA would be drawn into a conflict with the DPRK.

[red cat]

In recent times, the US-UK axis seems to be doing a whistle stop round up of all the worlds 'bad guys'... Saddam, Gaddafi (still pending) now Osama.

Do you think now they've checked off Bin Laden from their list the US will have the confidence and time to potentially invade North Korea and remove Kim Jong Il?

A US invasion of DPRK would be a direct military threat to China. So China would never allow that.

[Sword and Shield]

The United States only attacks weak countries, so no.

[#FF0000]

Algeria's next, after Libya.

Yup.

[chegitz guevara]

Would the retalitory attack by America not be enough to deter Pyongyang in the first place?

Well then, why doesn't Pyongyang just surrender now? The point of a deterrent is to deter. North Korea doesn't attack the South for the same reason the South, and it's guardian, don't attack the North. Mutual deterrent. Of course, if the U.S. attacks the North, it's going to win, and it's going to be horrifically bloody, so the North has nothing to lose by massacring the civilian population of Seoul. Even if the North didn't level the Southern capital, millions of Northerners would be killed, so they don't have any deterrent to not destroying Seoul, which is what deters an attack on the North.

I think they'd be willing to call their bluff.

Which is obviously why we've been in combat with them for the last sixty years.

[Sword and Shield]

Well then, why doesn't Pyongyang just surrender now? The point of a deterrent is to deter. North Korea doesn't attack the South for the same reason the South, and it's guardian, don't attack the North. Mutual deterrent. Of course, if the U.S. attacks the North, it's going to win, and it's going to be horrifically bloody, so the North has nothing to lose by massacring the civilian population of Seoul. Even if the North didn't level the Southern capital, millions of Northerners would be killed, so they don't have any deterrent to not destroying Seoul, which is what deters an attack on the North.

Given their actions in the past, I find it highly unlikely that they'll target a Korean population center. Their artillery is there to engage military targets. They might be willing to nuke a Japanese city (though I'd expect them to try and target our military bases instead), but they are not going to indiscriminately bombard the largest city in Korea.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

[Omsk]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

So you are saying that you would like another war? Another NATO and US bombing campaign against innocent civilians? Hundreds and thousands dead?

Maybe this goes with the 'permanent bloodshed' idea you follow..

[Marxach-Léinínach]

I hope so I have had enough of people assosciating communism with this wacko

Ahem...