Could Trump Reignite the Korean War?

[quadraginta]

Do they have the accuracy to hit Guam?

Or ...

Do they have the accuracy to miss Guam?

A North Korean plan to fire four missiles near the US Pacific territory of Guam will be ready for Kim Jong Un's consideration in days, state media has reported

 

[Belz...]

The only way the US could take out NK's capabilities would put Seoul in danger of retaliation, a danger I don't think we can deal with before it's too late.

Is it even possible to evacuate Seoul beforehand? Not without NK knowing about it, I gather.

 

[Wolrab]

This is all obviously fake news because Obama got NK to promise to halt their nuke program for food shipments.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

You're thinking too strategically, which unfortunately Trump does not do. You can bet China does. I wonder, what do the Chinese get out of having this bristling bit of militaristic peninsula attached to it? Why does China put up with it? Or Russia?

China puts up with it because as long as they like not having South Korea on its border. They don't want it to devolve into a real war which means at the very least, a ton of refugees flooding into the country. At worst, its a conflict with the US, which I don't think either side is at all interested in getting into. Even just on an economic level, the US getting into a conflict with North Korea is dangerous for China.

One would hope that if things start getting dangerous enough, China would support a coup or just march in and put things in order.

There's not much that I can see that the US can feasibly do that it hasn't already been doing. We can't even just drop a few bombs to take out missile platforms or the like. Anything the US does militarily would be met with a devastating attack on Seoul.

Maybe we can just make a time machine that will let us go back and not try to unify the Korean peninsula after pushing the N Korean invasion back.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The only way the US could take out NK's capabilities would put Seoul in danger of retaliation, a danger I don't think we can deal with before it's too late.

Is it even possible to evacuate Seoul beforehand? Not without NK knowing about it, I gather.

The solution is to omit them from our strategic planning.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think that Guam is part of the United States (and Korea and Okinawa are not)
is the reason; Kim wanted to directly threaten the United States,and his missiles don't have the range....yet....to hit Hawaii or the Continential US.

No longer true based on their last missile test.

 

[angrysoba]

Or ...

Do they have the accuracy to miss Guam?

​

Much pithier than my response!

 

[a_unique_person]

At least Mr Kim is more polite than Hitler. He tells you in advance when he is going to attack.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

No longer true based on their last missile test.

Awesome!

Regardless, the North Koreans have insisted they do have this capability, and earlier this week repeated threats that they can hit "the heart of the U.S." with a nuclear warhead. It followed comments last weekend from CIA Director Mike Pompeo that the North Korean people "would love to see" regime change.

Can their missiles reach the White House?

 

[theprestige]

China might want to leak nuclear technology to NK to avoid war, believing that the rule still holds that Nuclear Powers don't go to war with each other.

I don't think that's ever actually been a rule. There is a rule that powers generally don't go to war if they can't win, or if the cost is greater than the gain. You can see how a face-off between two Nuclear Powers would fall under this rule.

The question would be whether North Korea having a few nukes, of less-than-intercontinental range, would be enough to gain them protection under the rule. Or at least enough for them to be able to extort concessions.

Also, war has been avoided for over fifty years without North Korea having nukes. It's not clear why they suddenly need nukes now, if the status quo is their goal anyway.

 

[Spindrift]

I don't think that's ever actually been a rule. There is a rule that powers generally don't go to war if they can't win, or if the cost is greater than the gain. You can see how a face-off between two Nuclear Powers would fall under this rule.

The question would be whether North Korea having a few nukes, of less-than-intercontinental range, would be enough to gain them protection under the rule. Or at least enough for them to be able to extort concessions.

Also, war has been avoided for over fifty years without North Korea having nukes. It's not clear why they suddenly need nukes now, if the status quo is their goal anyway.

Their goal is not status quo. They want sanctions removed.

 

[alfaniner]

I have this vision of Gen. Kelly wrestling with The PDJT and his phone, and shouting "Don't hit 'send'! Don't hit 'send'!"

 

[caveman1917]

Since the truce how often have they initiated armed attacks against any other country?

0, which is about 40 countries less than the US. In doing so they have caused 0 deaths, which is about 20 million less than the US.

 

[Spindrift]

0, which is about 40 countries less than the US. In doing so they have caused 0 deaths, which is about 20 million less than the US.

South Korea doesn't count?

 

[caveman1917]

South Korea doesn't count?

When have they attacked South Korea after the truce?

 

[Babbylonian]

0, which is about 40 countries less than the US. In doing so they have caused 0 deaths, which is about 20 million less than the US.

When have they attacked South Korea after the truce?

The first statement is highly inaccurate and your question is answered in the link.

 

[crescent]

When have they attacked South Korea after the truce?

Many times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea#2000s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

Of course, NK disputes all of this - but they are not the most credible of sources.


(Ninjad by Babbylonian)

 

[caveman1917]

The first statement is highly inaccurate and your question is answered in the link.

"highly inaccurate"

Even if you want to include minor border skirmishes, which may very well have been initiated by the South instead, under "attacking another country" then it would still only go from 0 to 1. Which is still less than the error in "about 40" for the US.

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[caveman1917]

Many times:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea#2000s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Yeonpyeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

Of course, NK disputes all of this - but they are not the most credible of sources.


(Ninjad by Babbylonian)

Your second link (the first one denoting a specific incident) says South Korea initiated military force. Given that you're linking to, quite staunchly, pro-NATO sources and even then they themselves admit that it was the South which initiated military force, I'm not gonna waste my time with the rest of them.

You do understand that, even if we accept your contention, the difference between 0 and 1 for the "countries attacked by North Korea" is still less of an error than the "about 40" for the US, right?

 

[caveman1917]

Besides, the US should learn to know what it wants. Under article 13(d) of the truce which ended the Korean war, no new weapons could be introduced to the Korean Peninsula. In the late 1950's the US declared that article null and void so as to be able to proceed to deploy nuclear weapons to the peninsula. Seems only fair that North Korea did the same thing in response.