North Korean leaders 'won't be around much longer' if they strike US

a reply to: Metallicus

The protection of Seoul is the main priority. If the North's artillery isn't almost instantly destroyed then Seoul will be destroyed. If the artillery wasn't entrenched in mountains, a massive air assault with fighters and bombers, or even conventional cruise missiles would suffice. But they are entrenched in heavily fortified locations.

Therefore, South Korea and U.S. are discussing the use of tactical nukes, mostly B-61 special weapons. They can be delivered by F-16 and F-15 fighters. Those could disable the artillery.

They were removed from South Korea during the G.H.Bush administration.

Source: Mattis: Use of tactical nuclear weapons discussed with South Korea

Here's the rub: Tactical nukes are still nukes. Use of nukes is nuclear war. Neither China nor Russia will be likely to go along with U.S. use of nukes on their continent. It is likely that a preemptive strike by U.S. will result in nuclear war with China and Russia.

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
a reply to: Kandinsky

Oh no doubt the task would be much harder, but we are Americans. We are problem solvers.

This issue could easily be handled with the most minimal amount of bloodshed. That is of coarse if your not looking to profit from another war.

I wish it were so.

I'd ordinarily be 100% behind the protocols of international laws and letting justice take its course. In this guy's case, there's no doubt about the atrocities he oversees and the risk he poses to neighbours *might* justify a little of the old 'pre-emptive.'

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Metallicus

The protection of Seoul is the main priority. If the North's artillery isn't almost instantly destroyed then Seoul will be destroyed. If the artillery wasn't entrenched in mountains, a massive air assault with fighters and bombers, or even conventional cruise missiles would suffice. But they are entrenched in heavily fortified locations.

Therefore, South Korea and U.S. are discussing the use of tactical nukes, mostly B-61 special weapons. They can be delivered by F-16 and F-15 fighters. Those could disable the artillery.

They were removed from South Korea during the G.H.Bush administration.

Source: Mattis: Use of tactical nuclear weapons discussed with South Korea

Here's the rub: Tactical nukes are still nukes. Use of nukes is nuclear war. Neither China nor Russia will be likely to go along with U.S. use of nukes on their continent. It is likely that a preemptive strike by U.S. will result in nuclear war with China and Russia.

Highly doubt that. Russia and China will guarantee their own assured destruction for NK. If it really pops off over there, watch how quickly China and Russia flip sides and join us....or at least know better than to get in a full scale nuclear war with the baddest military on the planet. Realistically we could fight a 2 front war and still come out on top.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

If the U.S. was serious about minimizing casualties, they would negotiate with Russia and China first, before attack.
The final agreement would look like:

1) Since China's main interest is to keep U.S. off it's border:
U.S. relinquishes all rights to the installation of an interim government in North Korea.
2) China gets full right to set up interim government in North Korea.
3) Russia stays out of it completely.

If "protection of citizens" is the goal of U.S. it's a win for U.S. even though U.S. bears the full cost.

Can U.S. tolerate such an outcome?

a reply to: pthena

I agree we need to let China have a 'win' here to make diplomacy work.

I just feel bad for the Korean people since they still won't have a united country.