What Prevents the USA from invading North Korea?

North Korean technology, Russian technology, China technology, or other? I side for all four.

they have nukes

We have no business doing so?

Becuase we are to pre-occupied with Iraq and North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world. And stupid Russia said they would veto any secruity council resloution resulting in the invasion of North Korea. Its very complicated and would take a while before the US could invade.

The conventional forces that might oppose a US invasion of North Korea aren't preventing an it from happening. The threat of nuclear war is. Any military action against NK would risk the introduction of nuclear weapons, but an invasion of NK would almost guarantee it.

N. Korea is in poverty. Kim is directing everything he has at some military
buffooning. China supports N. Korea, but relies on Russia for most of it's
technology. ( as an aside, they are used to develop some tech for them)

Russia relies heavily upon the world community, after the collapse of Communism,
to support their economy.

Why would the U.S. attack a pawn of a nearly third-world country ?

My 2 cent,
Lex

Originally posted by vor78
The conventional forces that might oppose a US invasion of North Korea aren't preventing an it from happening. The threat of nuclear war is. Any military action against NK would risk the introduction of nuclear weapons, but an invasion of NK would almost guarantee it.

Hello? Didn't their missle test fail miserably? How are they a threat to us?

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by vor78
The conventional forces that might oppose a US invasion of North Korea aren't preventing an it from happening. The threat of nuclear war is. Any military action against NK would risk the introduction of nuclear weapons, but an invasion of NK would almost guarantee it.

Hello? Didn't their missle test fail miserably? How are they a threat to us?

The reasons the US currently views the NK nuclear program as a threat is a side-issue to this discussion. I am not addressing that issue.

The original poster asked what is preventing the US from invading NK. If the US were to invade NK, there is a high risk that NK would retaliate against the invading forces by launching nuclear warheads on their proven short range missiles or by simply burying them into a mountainside and waiting for US troops to pass by to detonate it. This is why an invasion of NK is not a viable option for the US.

Vor78,
"simply burying them into a mountainside and waiting for US troops to pass by to detonate it".
Why would troops even need to "pass by" ? We could bomb from miles away.
Comments ?

Lex

Originally posted by vor78

The reasons the US currently views the NK nuclear program as a threat is a side-issue to this discussion. I am not addressing that issue.

How does that become a side issue and why won't you address it? Come on sweetie - spill the beans.

Originally posted by Relentless

Hello? Didn't their missle test fail miserably? How are they a threat to us?

They're not a threat to North America. They're a threat to South Korea. Any invasion of the north will cause an immediately catastrophic retaliation to the south, most likely ending the lives of millions of SK civilians and soldiers, not to mention the thousands of American troops stationed there.

Originally posted by Relentless

Originally posted by vor78

The reasons the US currently views the NK nuclear program as a threat is a side-issue to this discussion. I am not addressing that issue.

How does that become a side issue and why won't you address it? Come on sweetie - spill the beans.

I'm not addressing it because I don't want to hijack the original poster's thread. He did not ask why the US currently views NK as a threat.

The topic at hand is a discussion of the practical military considerations that would prevent the US from invading NK. I have stated my position on the matter and that I do not believe it is a viable option. But I'll state it again, for the third time: If the US were to invade, once within North Korean borders, US military forces would be at an extremely high risk of suffering a NK nuclear counter-attack, whether it is delivered by ballistic missile or another means.

Lexion,

If the US were to invade NK, the ultimate goal would be to militarily take control of the country. To do that, you are going to have to put troops on the ground inside NK. The point is that there would be more ways than just a short range ballistic missile to deliver a nuclear warhead to an invading army.

Due to Neo Con dumbness and conceit, in equal portions, we have no troops to spare to invade Iran or North Korea.

Thank you God for (very) little blessings.


Actually, North Korea is a "double barreled" shot on the American people.
1) A November 7 electoral ploy (Fear Trumps Reason) and
2) An excuse for yet more Star Wars money.








[edit on 7/7/2006 by donwhite]

Vor, you have a U2U.
Please respond in kind, when you have time. No hurry.
No need to clutter the thread.

Lex

If there ever is another flareup, South Korea would just get pummeled in the initial artillery barrage that N.K. would launch on them. Take a look at how some of S.K.'s major cities are well within striking distance of 11,000+ pieces of N.K. conventional artillery.

Add on top of that a fairly formidable army in defensive favoring terrain and it just really isn't a very appealing venture unless you want to sustain massive casualties on the U.S., S.K. and N.K. sides. The terrain in the area will not allow U.S. forces to use fast strike strategies and narrows your options down as to attacks. Direct assaults would be a nasty slugfest.

North Korea's Military

My big question is how did such a realtively poor country manage to get nuclear weapons in the first place? It sounds like th whole country starves except for the army and party officials.

posted by pavil

If there is a flare-up, SK would just get pummeled in the initial artillery barrage the NK would launch on them. Some of SK's major cities are well within striking distance of 11,000+ pieces of NK conventional artillery.

Add a formidable army in defense favoring terrain and it really isn't very appealing [to counter-attack] unless you want to sustain massive casualties. The terrain will not allow US forces to use fast strike strategies and narrows options down as to attacks. Direct assaults would be a nasty slugfest.

My question is how did such a relatively poor country manage to get nuclear weapons in the first place? It sounds like th whole country starves except for the army and party officials. [Edited by Don W]

Right on starving. As to nuclear weapons? It must be a lot easier than we imagine. The problem is simple. How do you take refined ore at 99.7% U238, and extract the 0.3% U235? It looks as if the centrifuge is the current method of choice. Ore in aluminum cans is apparently spun at high speed to cause the physical separation. The goal is 5% U235 or so for power plants. 70% U235 or better is needed for bomb making.

The former Clinton ambassador to NK said - 2 months ago - that she believed NK had enough U235 for 2 bombs in the year 2000, and now had enough for 6 to 10 bombs. She does not believe NK has actually made a bomb yet, which is a very sophisticated technological enterprise. Ask Pantex of Amarillo. How much does it take to make a bomb? I have read 2 kg. About the size of a golf ball. To avoid the critical mass, you machine 2 uranium metal halves and keep them separated. The trick in bomb making is to bring those two pieces together fast enough to melt the pieces into one, but not so hard or fast as to shatter or break the metal parts.

Based on the lack of concern or interest in the NK “threat” displayed by the SK’s, I am thinking most of this powerful army and so on is DoD hyperbole concurred in by the CIA. We must have an identifiable enemy to keep up the Cold War budgets. We spend $455 billion on-budget, and $6 billion a month off budget. Add to that the $30 billion for the VA and $200 billion for the defense part of the interest on the national debt, and you can see how we are spending about 3/4ths trillion dollars a year on WAR. Without enemies, even the simple minded would begin to object.

Hosanna! Bush has given us enemies. The Axis of Evil. A perpetual war on terrorism. Iraq. Iran. North Korea. Sweet Jesus! What did we do to deserve this?

?lleh ot enog dna deid lla evah ew ebyaM



[edit on 7/8/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Hosanna! Bush has given us enemies. The Axis of Evil. A perpetual war on terrorism. Iraq. Iran. North Korea. Sweet Jesus! What did we do to deserve this?

Yeah like these countries were America's first enemies under the second Bush administration. How did these countries became America's enemies? I'm sure it didn't started with the three words Axis of Evil.

First of all NK is Not a thread to the US.

US have no need to embark in a confrontation with that country at all.

Regardless of the claims of NK and what the US may thin they have or not they are not a country that the US would lose sleep over.

Is North Korea a threat to any nation? Japan sure seems to feel threatned, why is that? Building nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems are never a good way to Not threaten other countries.