North Korea

[chequita guevara]

In that case the nukes become the MAD weapons.

MAD still applies.

[yavoon]

also. if u decide to treat conventional weapons suchas artillery as MAD then u r inviting North Korea to use nukes(once in a MAD scenario holding back becomes moot). so unless ur willing to turn the korean continent glowing in the dark cuz north korea lobbed shells at seoul then u r entering extraordinarily bizarre waters. u've escalated conventional warfare to the equal of a nuclear weapon.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In that case the nukes become the MAD weapons.

MAD still applies.

well if a nuclear weapon hits Los Angeles then i certainly agree MAD applies. and the korean continent will glow in the dark in all likelihood. I thot we were talking about arty raining down on seoul tho.

[chequita guevara]

The principle of mutually assured destruction is simply this:

You may get me, but I'll get you too. Since neither of us will survive, let's not fight.

Nukes and H-bombs are not the only weapons that can do this. Germ warfare certainly can, and the massed firepower of the DPRK can threaten enough casualties to make an attack against it not worth the reward. We may get them, but they'll leave us with so many dead Koreans it will have been a pyrrhic victory.

[Arrian]

Arty on Seoul = conventional bombing of NK. It isn't MAD, of course. I said "an element of MAD." What I should have said was it would result in a similar level of destruction wreaked upon NK. MAD, just not the MAD we think of when we discuss the Cold War (nukes, and therefore, TOTAL destruction).

If the Arty is followed by ground invasion, the response is the conventional conquest of NK by SK & US, or even UN forces, ala the (1st) Korean War. This time, I seriously doubt China would bail the North out.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

The fact that the DPRK now has both nukes and massed arty doesn't mean that the latter is now no longer a serious threat. Missiles can be destroyed on the ground or even shot down by a plane based laser (one of the few anti-missile systems which does work, IIRC). You still have to worry about Seoul being powdered.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The principle of mutually assured destruction is simply this:

You may get me, but I'll get you too. Since neither of us will survive, let's not fight.

Nukes and H-bombs are not the only weapons that can do this. Germ warfare certainly can, and the massed firepower of the DPRK can threaten enough casualties to make an attack against it not worth the reward. We may get them, but they'll leave us with so many dead Koreans it will have been a pyrrhic victory.

who is protecting seoul again? the US? south korea has no nukes. or artillery pieces aimed at pyongyang. it seems they'd win a conventional war. but wut if north lobbed nukes? would the US lob nukes at North korea JUST to protect the south? are we willing to lose LA just to respond to seoul? I think u r taking the concept of the threat too much for granted. remember this is only a derivative of MAD. South has no nukes and the North certainly can't destroy america.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I agree wholeheartedly with Arrian's recommendation.

same here

[Arrian]

If NK nuked SK, I think there is a pretty good chance we would respond in kind. Especially this administration.

-Arrian

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that the DPRK now has both nukes and massed arty doesn't mean that the latter is now no longer a serious threat. Missiles can be destroyed on the ground or even shot down by a plane based laser (one of the few anti-missile systems which does work, IIRC). You still have to worry about Seoul being powdered.

its all well and good to threatan NK when they just had artillery on seoul(artillery seoul and we nuke u). but if they use the artillery on seoul BUT NOT the nukes on LA then do we STILL nuke them? do you want to make that decision? South would probably nuke them, BUT THEY HAVE NO NUKES.

[Arrian]

No, we bomb the everliving**** out of them. Primary targets would be any nuke facilities US intel knows about.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and I think if NK really gets nukes, we should give SK nukes too.

[chequita guevara]

I doubt we would nuke them even if they did level Seoul. IIRC, the non-proliferation treaty also says that signatories shall not be the first side to use nukes. Only if biochem or nuke weapons were used would you have enough support to use the weapons.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, we bomb the everliving**** out of them. Primary targets would be any nuke facilities US intel knows about.

-Arrian

as it has been presupposed many times by both sides. Kim just wants to keep his power. If u enter a regime changing bombing campaign, what would stop him from using nukes? I don't see the big guarentee that he'll see our b-52's and think "well since they're fighting fair i guess they can have my country."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and I think if NK really gets nukes, we should give SK nukes too.

That would be illegal.