Will we go to war against North Korea if...

[generic]

From Wahington Post on Sunday

Could go either way I guess. I really hate anonymous officials, though. Man up or shut up, you attention whores.

Looks like it may be have been confirmed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_nkorea_test

 

[Pete]

...how about the argument that if he is so effing crazy AND is developing the bomb, why maybe, just maybe he's crazy enough to wipe Red Cloud off the face of the earth?

It's one thing for them to face a conventional force, quite another to face annihilation. For the sake of what?

Why would he nuke the very place he wants to take over, he would gain a wasteland. He wants the specter of being a nuclear power, not to use them tactically but strategically. He goes conventionally into South Korea and puts his hand under his coat in case it goes bad and it looks like he is going to get beaten and over run.

And just what is our intent? The South is stable and prosperous. They have something to fight for. China is stable and prosperous; they have something to fight for. As for our global image, what are we going to be thought of if he nukes 2nd ID, the Great Idiots? I submit to you that getting out of Korea would enhance our image with we, the people. it ain't our gig any more. That's a good thing. Job done, c'yah! Our interests in the region is trade with the Chinese and the South. We need 35,000 troops to trade with them? It's in THEIR interest to stabilize. WE'RE the customer. Let them do it.

Our intent is to honor our pledge to the South and defend them. To pull out now when things are tense would irreparably mar our image world wide with the allies we do have. Who is ever going to go along with us on our word again? "Trust us, we have your back."

I will agree once a secure peace is reached then scale back and eliminate our force, but as long as the specter of the North invading the south still exists we need to honor our word and stay.

There's a solid disagreement there. If gas goes to $10, ethanol would become a major supplement in one crop cycle, 6 months, and become THE fuel in 3 cycles as infrastructure comes on line; 1 year and a half. In the mean time federal subsidy with deficit spending would ease much of the pump and home heating pain and the Chinese and global money would be buying up our debt in record levels in a rush to get there money protected from manufacturing downturn in China.

How many acres of corn is it going to take to produce that much Ethanol? How long would it take to grow it, harvest it, convert it, refine it, and deliver it?

Now how many of the 270 million vehicles in the US can run on E85? How many furnaces? A typical gasoline engine can run on 10% Ethanol but needs modification to run on E85. How much does it cost? Where do we get the parts, China? where we going to get the processing capacity? Where are we going to get the corn? China ownes the Panama canal now so it cannot come through there.

You think we are still going to be cozy with China if they don't defuse NK? China provides 100% of NK fuel, food and weapons. They have the ability to control NK and they are not. To think they will still be our pals if this goes ugly is optimistic.

Guess what else? Raising costs of limited goods from China means...economic viability back here; a resurgence of domestic manufacturing. China can NOT risk that long term seismic shift.

Where is the switch that gets flipped that starts up our manufacturing capability overnight? We do not make consumer electronics, appliances, heavy equipment or most other things. Walk around the house and start looking at tags. Made in China, Korea, Taiwan, the very part of the world that would be thrown into upheaval.

It's precisely because we are an IMPORT power that our influence over China is so strong. Who would YOU rather be? The customer putting a buck back in your pocket or the producer with full shelves and no customers? The pressure on them would be FAR greater than on us.

I disagree in that China has many other customers than just the US and we have very few vendors other than Asia. In years past before we became bloated and lazy we had a better chance but hell we have millions who have never cooked an actual meal that did not involve peeling back the plastic cover and microwaving on high 3 minutes. again look at the 2 cultures. In China and NK they ride their bike 2 miles to get a pound of rice and half a chicken. In the US we drive our Hyundai that does not burn E85 to the store where we get a premade, prepackaged meal, we drive back home and microwave it in our Chinese microwave.

Allow me to clarify; we would NOT come back. We have no need or national interest to do so. If we did anything, we nuke them, which is what we would do anyway if they over ran the South. So, we get our guys out of the way first.

You think China is going to be pleased with us lobbing multi megaton warheads right into their breadbasket?

So, if Kim nukes Red Cloud, wiping out 35,000 US service personnel in an
instant, sends 700,000 troops pouring over the border, we won't nuke them? Why Pete, what names would the world hurl at us then? Stupid chicken ####s?

An assumption that he is going to use nukes tactically.

THEN WHY ARE WE THERE AT ALL if we will NOT confront the challenge that we face in the first place?

I didn't say we wouldn't engage, I just said I don't believe we would go nuclear.

I'm hearing a 50 year old attitude on your part; develop and stabilize the region through economic development. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. We customer, they producer. It is up to them now.

I think the real enemy is hiding behind NK watching us to see what we will do. If we leave now I believe we will make it clear to them we don't have the stomach or the nerve.

 

[Larry Gude]

Pete...

Why would he nuke the very place he wants to take over, he would gain a wasteland.

Good, then we have even less reason to be there.

Our intent is to honor our pledge to the South and defend them. To pull out now when things are tense would irreparably mar our image world wide with the allies we do have.

You just implied he won't use the weapons, so, what tension? I will try and make this as clear as possible; 'our' image is trumped by our national interest, in my opinion. The last thing I think matters to us is how the world views us. As long as we have a GOP'er on the Oval office, we will be cowboys and war monger. The next dem and our PR will suddenly be gold. It's worked that way since Carter.

will agree once a secure peace is reached then scale back and eliminate our force, but as long as the specter of the North invading the south still exists we need to honor our word and stay.

What is our word? Is there some document that says we will keep troops in SK as long as there is the 'specter' of the North invading, ie, as long as there is two Koreas?

How many acres of corn is it going to take to produce that much Ethanol? How long would it take to grow it, harvest it, convert it, refine it, and deliver it?

Using existing technology, we get about 300 gallons of gas per acre of corn. Several crops produce far more per acre. We use about 300,000,000 gallons of gas a day. A corn crop cycle is more or less 6 months or 180 days, so, we'd need a rotation of 180 million acres of corn out of the over 900 million we have in farm production, much of which is in federal subsidy to NOT grow anything.

We have huge expanses of acreage that is not being used for anything that could be put into sugar cane, beets or switch grass, all of which yield more energy for less input than corn. That would replace, 100%, all the fossil gas we use. Gas needs to be around $3 a gallon for ethanol to be economically viable.

We get one good storm and gas jumps $.50 a gallon on fears of a 2-3% production loss for a month or two. If we simply aimed to replace 50% or even less of our gas use with bio fuels, gas would drop to well under $1 a gallon in no time.

The refinery process could be ramped up in 18 months or less. They're giant stills. The distribution chain would adapt rapidly.

Give me $10 a gallon gas the whole thing would happen sooner. Domestically. From engine changes to pumps and distribution. It would be a domestic panacea for jobs and industry if we had a serious energy and trade war with China. Mexicans would be rolling in for $30 an hour factory jobs and I'd be stuck cutting my own grass.

You think we are still going to be cozy with China if they don't defuse NK? China provides 100% of NK fuel, food and weapons. They have the ability to control NK and they are not. To think they will still be our pals if this goes ugly is optimistic.

Cozy with China? The moment we get the hell out of the region, China is stuck with their mess. They can choose to kiss our azz by doing what they need to by helping NK in order to keep trade humming along with us or they can let all that business go elsewhere AND deal with a crippled NK.

Do you apologize to your Walmart sales professional if you're not happy with your purchase as though it is your fault? I can't over emphasize this; We customer, they producer.

Where is the switch that gets flipped that starts up our manufacturing capability overnight? We do not make consumer electronics, appliances, heavy equipment or most other things. Walk around the house and start looking at tags. Made in China, Korea, Taiwan, the very part of the world that would be thrown into upheaval.

Yes and how long, 18 months, two years, before they say 'made in Mexico' or made in Iraq or made in South America or made in, don't laugh, the USA? Listen to what you are saying. No, we don't make that stuff but we have the cash to buy all that stuff. We don't spend it with China, it finds it's way to whomever steps up to supply it. China can NOT allow a period of time where new factories and new production channels and new raw goods channels start to get established.

Again, I ask you; would you rather have money with no product to buy or have product with no customer? Who is in the drivers seat?

I disagree in that China has many other customers than just the US and we have very few vendors other than Asia.

So, China doesn't need us and we can't find another supplier? You're concept of supply and demand is backwards in my opinion. If China doesn't have us, they have double the goods and half the market. Can you say CRASH? If we are engaged in a belligerent situation with them, it ain't real hard to get congress to embargo them. That means we have the inflation to make new industry viable, just like the energy description and that means the rest of the world, China's remaining customers are FLUSH with cash because everything they bought from them before is now dirt cheap and they will be looking for places to put all this extra money; invest it.

Guess where? Emerging industry that is replacing China.

You think China is going to be pleased with us lobbing multi megaton warheads right into their breadbasket?

No, they won't be happy which is why THEY can't let things get that bad. it's their breadbasket, not ours.

I didn't say we wouldn't engage, I just said I don't believe we would go nuclear.

I believe your not thinking this through. NK invades, we gonna issue a draft to come up with 250,000 troops to go to Korea? How long would it take before Pelosi and Kennedy are standing at the front of the 'Nuke em all' chorus, especially if we have a Dem in the Whitehouse? They gonna ignore 35,000 troops being over run and scream for us to leave? I don't think so.

think the real enemy is hiding behind NK watching us to see what we will do. If we leave now I believe we will make it clear to them we don't have the stomach or the nerve

We lose China as a trading partner, we suffer a recession. Two, maybe three years. They suffer a catastrophe. We end up with new manufacturing and industry closer to home, if not here all together, an economic renaissance replete with a robust, domestic energy supply.

Then the world faces collapsed energy prices and fire sales of raw materials and excess capacity in shipping as China tries to get out of contracts and unload excess supply.

All to our benefit after a few years of belt tightening.

Talking about the average Chinese as a chicken eating bike rider is irrelevant; the economy is not about them. They're expandable now, then and forever. It's about the hurt on the ruling elites, their dreams and futures evaporating.

 

[Pete]

We just have to agree to disagree.

 

[itsbob]

The only thing I can see that you are missing as far as pulling out of South Korea, is that we are still at war with North Korea. There was a cease fire signed, but the war has not ended. There was no surrender, no victor, that is why there is to this day a vast DMZ between the North and South, AND if I recollect the ceasefire was between us and the North, not the North and the South. If we pull out that alone would be reason enough for the North to invade, and consider the cease fire null and void.

 

[Larry Gude]

Who Cares?

The only thing I can see that you are missing as far as pulling out of South Korea, is that we are still at war with North Korea. There was a cease fire signed, but the war has not ended. There was no surrender, no victor, that is why there is to this day a vast DMZ between the North and South, AND if I recollect the ceasefire was between us and the North, not the North and the South. If we pull out that alone would be reason enough for the North to invade, and consider the cease fire null and void.

...what next? The treaty between us and Sitting Bull was never properly ratified and we have to give back South Dakota?

Let's quit. Let's inform Pyongyang that they win; we're out of there. We leave all our gear to the South and withdraw by Christmas. It'll be cheaper than moving it home and the South Koreans are damn fine soldiers anyway.

No one has offered a national interest in staying other than the 'world' will call us names.

Things have changed on the Korean peninsula. We have NO national interest there anymore. The South is a fabulously successful entity and have their own national interests at stake. The Chinese want the North as a strategic, long term buffer, their own Golan Heights if you will. They don't want a war and they don't want nukes all over the place. They sure as flying hell don't want Japan to feel the need to go, officially, nuclear.

The ONLY people who have positive influence over NK is China. The people with the most interest in a stable NK is China. The people who can most effectively and with the least amount of international feather ruffling do whatever it is that needs to be done with NK is...China.

If we were doing ANY good over there, for us or the world, NK would not be doing what they are doing. We are an agitant over there and we are a target over there.

 

[Pete]

...what next? The treaty between us and Sitting Bull was never properly ratified and we have to give back South Dakota?

Let's quit. Let's inform Pyongyang that they win; we're out of there. We leave all our gear to the South and withdraw by Christmas. It'll be cheaper than moving it home and the South Koreans are damn fine soldiers anyway.

No one has offered a national interest in staying other than the 'world' will call us names.

Things have changed on the Korean peninsula. We have NO national interest there anymore. The South is a fabulously successful entity and have their own national interests at stake. The Chinese want the North as a strategic, long term buffer, their own Golan Heights if you will. They don't want a war and they don't want nukes all over the place. They sure as flying hell don't want Japan to feel the need to go, officially, nuclear.

The ONLY people who have positive influence over NK is China. The people with the most interest in a stable NK is China. The people who can most effectively and with the least amount of international feather ruffling do whatever it is that needs to be done with NK is...China.

If we were doing ANY good over there, for us or the world, NK would not be doing what they are doing. We are an agitant over there and we are a target over there.

Bullchit, I gave you several reasons, you don't agree but it does not make them null and void.

I don't buy this mystical idea we can just yell "Oh Snap! now we are going to have to replace a 100 year old dependence on petroleum with Ethanol 100% in 18 months."

I also think the economic realities of a global economy mean that we would suffer worse should there be a war in Korea and China sides with them. We are not going to go "Oh Snap! now we have to take the shutters off our idled industry and gear up in a year to replace what we lost from China.

Mexico can make some damn fine tortillia's and pinatas and even a few car parts but they are not technologically capable of making what comes out of Asia.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Bullchit, I gave you several reasons, you don't agree but it does not make them null and void.

Our intent is to honor our pledge to the South and defend them.

Where is this written and what are the detail?

To pull out now when things are tense would irreparably mar our image world wide with the allies we do have. Who is ever going to go along with us on our word again? "Trust us, we have your back."

Like Iraq?

but as long as the specter of the North invading the south still exists we need to honor our word and stay.

Like, forever?

You think we are still going to be cozy with China if they don't defuse NK? China provides 100% of NK fuel, food and weapons. They have the ability to control NK and they are not. To think they will still be our pals if this goes ugly is optimistic.

So, this commitment we're honoring really doesn't have anything to do with NK, seeings how China controls them?


I guess I need to read up on this 'commitment' and what it means? I've asked you to explain this. You want me to just accept that we need to be there forever at face value and that's the end of the argument?

That's our national interest, being locked into a cold war mentality forever?

 

[itsbob]

ALl I can say is there are a few million South Koreans that are VERY happy we are there. They know they will be living under communist rule shortly after we pull out.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is that the way it is?

ALl I can say is there are a few million South Koreans that are VERY happy we are there. They know they will be living under communist rule shortly after we pull out.

...does everyone believe that the moment we leave NK invades? South Korea can not defend themselves? A fully functioning, productive, industrialized nation needs foreign troops to protect their home? 50 years later?

And we NEED to be there? And we're gonna actually commit the resources necessary to turn back 1,000,000 soldiers? Yet not use nuclear weapons?

 

[Larry Gude]

And another thing...

...I was under the impression that the North represented some massive hoard; they have 23 million peeps.

The poor, put upon people of the South have...48 million.

Things have changed, folks.

 

[Pete]

...does everyone believe that the moment we leave NK invades? South Korea can not defend themselves? A fully functioning, productive, industrialized nation needs foreign troops to protect their home? 50 years later?

And we NEED to be there? And we're gonna actually commit the resources necessary to turn back 1,000,000 soldiers? Yet not use nuclear weapons?

South Korea, the economic, civil member of the world community and global economy v. North Korea the military state that starves its people so it can buy more AAA and tanks, then begs food off other countries?

I think it is a certainty. As long as the 2 ID is sitting there making Kim Jong Ill think twice, they are serving their purpose. Killing other countries soldiers in NOT the only use for a standing army.

Pulling out now would have no benefit to us anyway, why take the risk?

 

[itsbob]

...does everyone believe that the moment we leave NK invades? South Korea can not defend themselves? A fully functioning, productive, industrialized nation needs foreign troops to protect their home? 50 years later?

And we NEED to be there? And we're gonna actually commit the resources necessary to turn back 1,000,000 soldiers? Yet not use nuclear weapons?

Yes. In the case of NK and SK they might be at 1:1 more than likely NK has the numerical advantage by 3:1 or 4:1. South Korea being a civilized country, would probably surrender fairly quickly instead of seeing millions of their citizens die at the hands of the North Koreans to have them surrender anyways.

NK would not fight fair, even if you take out the Nuclear option, you'd see very few prisoners taken on their side, and you would have mass killing fields similar to the ones in Cambodia. They would bomb the cities killing 100's of thousands civilians until the South Korean Government capitulated.

If you were a South korean and didn't concede Kim was God, you'd be in a mass grave somewhere.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

South Korea, the economic, civil member of the world community and global economy v. North Korea the military state that starves its people so it can buy more AAA and tanks, then begs food off other countries?

I think it is a certainty. As long as the 2 ID is sitting there making Kim Jong Ill think twice, they are serving their purpose. Killing other countries soldiers in NOT the only use for a standing army.

Pulling out now would have no benefit to us anyway, why take the risk?

...from what I understand, NK's army is CRAP. Their equipment is old, poorly maintained, their morale is poor. Their officer corp ain't exactly West Point.

Pulling out 35,000 US troops from a nation that has a distinct advantage over it's supposed opponent in manpower and technology and money, is of no benefit to us?

So, tell me, another 50 years? 100? To baby sit Seoul and pick up their military tab as well as serve as their primary defense force?

 

[Larry Gude]

Nope...

Yes. In the case of NK and SK they might be at 1:1 more than likely NK has the numerical advantage by 3:1 or 4:1. South Korea being a civilized country, would probably surrender fairly quickly instead of seeing millions of their citizens die at the hands of the North Koreans to have them surrender anyways.

NK would not fight fair, even if you take out the Nuclear option, you'd see very few prisoners taken on their side, and you would have mass killing fields similar to the ones in Cambodia. They would bomb the cities killing 100's of thousands civilians until the South Korean Government capitulated.

If you were a South korean and didn't concede Kim was God, you'd be in a mass grave somewhere.

CIA:

NK; 23 million people.

SK: 48 million.

 

[Bronwyn]

...I say again, why stay?

Our troops serve as a 50 year old trip wire. Kim ain't afraid of 35,000 US troops; it's what attacking them would bring that is the deterrent. That deterrent is far more accurate and powerful these days making our guys, literally, nothing more than sacrifices if NK moves.

Let them start raking the leaves.

If NK attacked SK, our 35,000 troops would be wiped out. There is no way we could get in there fast enough to back them up or pull them out after the attack begins.

 

[itsbob]

From GlobalSecurity

North Korea continues to position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning. Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000 troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of “creeping normalcy”—a significant movement over a period of many years that would attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or months.

996,000 in their active military, and another SEVEN million in reserve, in a county of 23 million..

This so called "trip-wire" has worked for FIFTY years, why screw with something that apparently works very well??

 

[Pete]

...from what I understand, NK's army is CRAP. Their equipment is old, poorly maintained, their morale is poor. Their officer corp ain't exactly West Point.

Pulling out 35,000 US troops from a nation that has a distinct advantage over it's supposed opponent in manpower and technology and money, is of no benefit to us?

So, tell me, another 50 years? 100? To baby sit Seoul and pick up their military tab as well as serve as their primary defense force?

Blame it on Truman.

 

[Bronwyn]

...irrelevent?

I mean, if it was a dud or a fake, does that mean, whew, we can forget about it? I think not. This is like Kitty Hawk for them; It might have only gone 120 feet, but the goal is much greater. So, the question, as with Iran, is how close are they to being an actual nuclear threat? What to do with that time?

Iran is watching this show like a hawk. They want to know how we are going to deal with the whole sutuation.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bob!

This so called "trip-wire" has worked for FIFTY years, why screw with something that apparently works very well??

...works for WHO???

What is our national interest in continuing to baby sit a nation with a huge advantage in money, manpower, technology and industry over their annoying little borther?

What are we 'honoring'? They are succesful by any measure. Let them step up and take care of their own business.

If we have reason to be there now, under what conditions will we ever have reason to leave?