Us, S. Korea, Japan Defense Treaty

[Ranger2]

Today in class, we were discussing Kim Jong-Il and his regime in North Korea.
North Korea is known to have nuclear weapons, and has issued a warning that it will fire a missile on July 4, 2009 towards Hawaii, over Japan. American scientists know that the missile will definitely not be able to reach Hawaii, but we don't want to wait until the Koreans have a weapon that does.
We were all talking about pre-emptive strikes, when I got what I believed to be a decent idea.
A defense treaty with the United States, South Korea, and Japan.
Right now, North Korea has tons of missiles and explosives aimed at Seoul, South Korea. If they wanted, they could set Seoul ablaze in a short period of time, and South Korea could do the same to Pyongyang, North Korea.
I'd be fine with a pre-emptive strike at North Korea, since they are threatening the US with a missile strike, but the problem is that the missiles are aimed at Seoul, and Japan. If we did a pre-emptive strike on our own, Japan and South Korea, who are in much more danger than we are, would get hit by Kim's missiles.
I think we need to sit down with South Korea and Japan and organize a defense treaty. We need to work as a team, so that we can defeat North Korea with a minimal of casualties, so that America can attack North Korea with South Korea and Japan's help and approval, so that Tokyo and Seoul do not get bombed in retaliation to an American missile.
In addition, in case of war, we need to send more troops to the DMZ and Japan, since we have military bases all over the Pacific, and Japan.
Of course, war should be the last resort, but what do you think about a US, South Korea, and Japan defense treaty?

[KidneyThief]

Kim might be acting like a child but this "preemptive strike" you are suggesting is like international bullying. Obviously we can't just ignore North Korea but charging in and blowing shit up isn't going to help, and would most likely be frowned upon by the rest of the international community.

[Korriken]

At 6/29/09 09:10 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Kim might be acting like a child but this "preemptive strike" you are suggesting is like international bullying. Obviously we can't just ignore North Korea but charging in and blowing shit up isn't going to help, and would most likely be frowned upon by the rest of the international community.

they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

[KeithHybrid]

Kim's blowing smoke. He knows that if he attacks Seoul or Tokyo, we'd be on them like flies on shit near a nuclear crater.

Seriously, though, a defense treaty with S. Korea and Japan does sound like a good idea...

[KidneyThief]

At 6/29/09 09:17 PM, Korriken wrote: they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

We know North Korea can't hit Hawaii. Your analogy is poor, North Korea hasn't kicked in our front door so to speak. They made a threat, and an empty one at that. I'm also pretty sure that killing someone who threatened to kick in your door is murder.

[Korriken]

At 6/29/09 09:35 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

We know North Korea can't hit Hawaii. Your analogy is poor, North Korea hasn't kicked in our front door so to speak. They made a threat, and an empty one at that. I'm also pretty sure that killing someone who threatened to kick in your door is murder.

true, but why wait until the criminal has shot you, raped your daughter and made off with your television before you decide to try and stop em? He may be saying "I'm firing a rocket at hawaii!" then launch a missile at Japan.

[Christopherr]

At 6/29/09 09:35 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

At 6/29/09 09:17 PM, Korriken wrote: they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

We know North Korea can't hit Hawaii. Your analogy is poor, North Korea hasn't kicked in our front door so to speak. They made a threat, and an empty one at that. I'm also pretty sure that killing someone who threatened to kick in your door is murder.

They said they're going to try, that's enough justification. Your analogy belittles the situation. We're talking about a country that just probablywon't be able to but still is threatening to hit the US with a missile that would kill many thousands of people. Thousands of people in your country.

If intelligence is correct, the new missile has a range of 4,000 km, but given the right wind conditions, it could easily hit Hawaii and possibly even the mainland. http://www.speroforum.com/a/19666/Iran--
North-Korea-Partners-threatening-America

But, speaking with respect to North Korean intentions, if we know the missiles are not powerful enough to make it to the US every time, we should wait for proper weather conditions (those minimizing missile range) and preemptively strike Korea. If we wait, we can be sure that they will develop a longer-range missile, and we can be sure that they will use that one, too. We could end this with minimal US casualties (possibly none) now, or we could end it with more US deaths later, those are our options.

[KidneyThief]

At 6/29/09 10:22 PM, Korriken wrote: true, but why wait until the criminal has shot you, raped your daughter and made off with your television before you decide to try and stop em? He may be saying "I'm firing a rocket at hawaii!" then launch a missile at Japan.

Until they show active aggression we would be wrong to do any more then criticize them and work with the international community to try and compromise. If they actually attack someone, then we get them, and they will get hit hard.

[Silverchaos]

Uh, we do have an alliance with them. We are allies with South Korea, so assisting them is only natural if they get attacked. As for Japan, back after WWII the U.S. set up a treaty that Japan can't organize an actual military force, but if they get attacked we would defend them.

[poxpower]

At 6/29/09 11:16 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

Until they show active aggression

I'm pretty sure that pointing missiles at people is a sign of aggression.

North Korea will probably eventually have to be taken down Iraq-style.

[KidneyThief]

At 6/30/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote: North Korea will probably eventually have to be taken down Iraq-style.

At least we would actually have a reason to go there.

[Ericho]

I was happy to see that this had happened but then I noticed that the title was S. Korea and thought at first it was N. Korea. Oh well...

[Dawnslayer]

Being a resident of the most likely mainland target after Alaska, and assuming Japanese intel on the launch date and target is correct, I find myself in agreement with those who say first strike may be a necessary course of action. From their own territory, a TPD-2 missile could reach Alaska; I hate to think of the consequences of even a lesser missile being hauled out to international waters.

So while I understand that a lot of what Kim says is just rhetoric, the idea of being hit with a nuclear missile is less than appealing; and saying it's unlikely isn't much comfort. So pre-emptive action may be called for. If we're wrong about this missile but act anyway, I think that's an honest mistake; but if we're right and do nothing, then our interception system had better damn well work.

Sidenote: I don't like war. I simply believe there are times when any other recourse would be even more disastrous.

[GrammerNaziElite]

Normally it's good to be courteous and cautious when dealing with foreign policy, but when you're dealing with weapons capable of killing millions a preemptive strike is sometimes the best option.

[ReiperX]

At 6/29/09 09:17 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 6/29/09 09:10 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Kim might be acting like a child but this "preemptive strike" you are suggesting is like international bullying. Obviously we can't just ignore North Korea but charging in and blowing shit up isn't going to help, and would most likely be frowned upon by the rest of the international community.

they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

When did they say this?

The last thing I saw was a warning for boats to stay out of a specific area due to a live fire activity that will be going on there. This is nowhere near the US, and I don't think it's really in a threatening area to Japan either.
Second, US intel (satellite pictures) hasn't actually shown anything major going on in their big missile launch sites. Big missiles take a lot more preparation than the shorter range stuff that they will likely be testing.

[promontorium]

We already have "defense treaties" with Japan and South Korea. What you are talking about is more like a war pact.

Having spent 3 years in the US military working with both Japan and South Korea operating against North Korea, I can tell you America and its allies are more than capable of an assault on that poor nation.

I cannot agree with the idea of preemptive war. It is evil. I do not mean to mitigate your position, but unless your "class" was of the "military A or C school" kind, I have doubts as to your knowledge of the fundamentals of war.

Just because we can do something, does not mean we should. Kim has been sabre rattling for a long time.

Personally, I think North Korea (or South Korea) should have assassinated him long ago. They also should have assassinated his father.

If the Koreans don't mind Kim and his horrible government, if they don't mind all the evil shit he's done, all the innocent people he's kidnapped and killed, if they don't mind the split Korea, and the starvation of millions enough to do something, seriously, America should stay out of it.

Of course the moment that bastard sends a missile right towards Hawaii we should send rain of fire upon the whole of his empire. But we won't. We will not touch Kim. I do not know why. North Korea wouldn't have China's and Russia's backing like they did in the war, North Korea would fall in a day if we actually tried.

I certainly don't think preemptive war will go away, just as it was our excuse in Iraq, it will be again, but it is always wrong. In this instance, Kim and whoever takes his place is untouchable.

[ReiperX]

Just like the US intel was thinking they test fired short range missiles. This is something that they warned everybody that they were going to do.

[Dawnslayer]

At 7/1/09 04:43 AM, promontorium wrote: I cannot agree with the idea of preemptive war. It is evil. I do not mean to mitigate your position, but unless your "class" was of the "military A or C school" kind, I have doubts as to your knowledge of the fundamentals of war.

Point taken and agreed upon. As I said before, we're relying on the accuracy of Japanese intelligence on the matter. The idea of getting nuked is scary, but I don't want to be a sheep; if the decision were mine, I'd want to be absolutely sure of the presence, range, and target of the missile before taking any action.

I certainly don't think preemptive war will go away, just as it was our excuse in Iraq, it will be again, but it is always wrong. In this instance, Kim and whoever takes his place is untouchable.

A curiosity: Kim Jong-il has declared his third son to be his successor. Is it possible that the first or second son might conspire against him out of rejection? And how might such an event alter the political climate of North Korea if it occurs?

(Sidenote: Iraq lacked solid intel. What do we know about the validity of what we've heard on North Korea?)

[ReiperX]

At 7/3/09 06:07 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

(Sidenote: Iraq lacked solid intel. What do we know about the validity of what we've heard on North Korea?)

Well we know what North Korea's launch sites look like and have seen them launched. We also know that they have yet to have a successful long range missile test.

[ForcedDj]

I think they know if they attacked Japan or South Korea, then South Korea will be an island(because they gave us a reason to invade and kick their sorry nuclear ass). But still, there is already a treaty, since they're both US allies, and SK has US troops near the DMZ. If North Korea does attack South Korea, one of 2 things might happen:

A. War, another stalemate or both Koreas gone.
B. South Korea is an island/NK gets assraped.

[xKore]

Tbh I don't think he'll do shit, he most likely knows where he stands, you can't be that ignorant and egotistical in such a situation. imo he's just creating hate figures for his people so they have more reason to follow him blindly some more. Either that or he's looking to go out with a bang, literally, I heard he had a stroke or something recently didn't he?

fuck it, I hardly know any of this world affairs stuff, ill shut up now.

[SadisticMonkey]

To everyone who defends the invasion of Iraq by saying how we have liberated the Iraqi people and freed them from an evil authoritarian government etc etc, then I presume that you suggest we go to North Korea next, hmm?

And what's more this time we know that they have powerful weapons, and they have made explicit
statements of intent of using them against the US.

[TheMason]

At 6/29/09 08:58 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Today in class, we were discussing Kim Jong-Il and his regime in North Korea.
North Korea is known to have nuclear weapons, and has issued a warning that it will fire a missile on July 4, 2009 towards Hawaii, over Japan. American scientists know that the missile will definitely not be able to reach Hawaii, but we don't want to wait until the Koreans have a weapon that does.

Actually, as many others have pointed out, no one has definitely claimed that a North Korean Taepodong-2 missile cannot hit Hawaii. In fact, the belief is these missiles have a range that includes Alaska and Hawaii. Also, it is quite possible that a three stage version could be capable of hitting the Midwest.

The truth is we simply do not know.

But the other part of the equation is that the N. Korean warheads are too large to be fitted upon their rockets. However, they also are known to chemical and (rather advanced) biological weapons.

We were all talking about pre-emptive strikes, when I got what I believed to be a decent idea.
A defense treaty with the United States, South Korea, and Japan.
Right now, North Korea has tons of missiles and explosives aimed at Seoul, South Korea. If they wanted, they could set Seoul ablaze in a short period of time, and South Korea could do the same to Pyongyang, North Korea.

Again, we've had a defense pact with Japan since the end of WWII. We've had a defense pact with S. Korea since the armistice that 'ended' the Korean War in 1953.

I'd be fine with a pre-emptive strike at North Korea, since they are threatening the US with a missile strike, but the problem is that the missiles are aimed at Seoul, and Japan. If we did a pre-emptive strike on our own, Japan and South Korea, who are in much more danger than we are, would get hit by Kim's missiles.
I think we need to sit down with South Korea and Japan and organize a defense treaty. We need to work as a team, so that we can defeat North Korea with a minimal of casualties, so that America can attack North Korea with South Korea and Japan's help and approval, so that Tokyo and Seoul do not get bombed in retaliation to an American missile.

Been doing that for the past fifty years.

In addition, in case of war, we need to send more troops to the DMZ and Japan, since we have military bases all over the Pacific, and Japan.

Nope. In the case of war we can get people there quickly. We will probably lose many troops along the DMZ and in Seoul if Pyongyang decides to unleash hell.

Of course, war should be the last resort, but what do you think about a US, South Korea, and Japan defense treaty?

Already done.

[TheMason]

At 7/3/09 06:07 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: A curiosity: Kim Jong-il has declared his third son to be his successor. Is it possible that the first or second son might conspire against him out of rejection? And how might such an event alter the political climate of North Korea if it occurs?

It is possible. Some believe that when Jong-Il was only 5 years old, he killed his brother by drowning him in the family pool.

But it is just as likely that the military may act against the chosen Kim successor. Afterall, when Jong-Il was elevated to 'Dear Leader' status the military was not happy with the choice. So whoever succeeds the 'Chonger', will have to appease the military top brass.

(Sidenote: Iraq lacked solid intel. What do we know about the validity of what we've heard on North Korea?)

Did Iraq lack solid intel? Afterall, there were verifiable sales of biological precursors and employment of technical experts in bio warfare. The UN had to close several 'dual use' research facilities that could handle pathogens that were of a higher Biohazard safety level than is necessary for peaceful medical or agricultural research.

In fact, in his own documents showing his 'innocence' Saddam admitted to giving off the appearance of having WMDs so as to intimidate Iran.

See the 'art' of intelligence is that you are trying to find out what someone else does not want you to know. There are layers of deception here and many times it is good to let other powers think you have something when you do not.

So in the end intel is never 'solid'.

[zach8109]

At 6/29/09 09:10 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Kim might be acting like a child but this "preemptive strike" you are suggesting is like international bullying. Obviously we can't just ignore North Korea but charging in and blowing shit up isn't going to help, and would most likely be frowned upon by the rest of the international community.

This. "N Korea has been threatining for us for years but now we should just start dropping bombs." Not too good of a plan.

[KeithHybrid]

At 6/30/09 11:43 AM, Silverchaos wrote: Uh, we do have an alliance with them. We are allies with South Korea, so assisting them is only natural if they get attacked. As for Japan, back after WWII the U.S. set up a treaty that Japan can't organize an actual military force, but if they get attacked we would defend them.

They have their own self-defense force.

[Grubby]

You guys speak of Korea like it's just another battlefield.

It's a highly developed society that is similar to our United States in terms of standards of living and atmosphere.

I visited South Korea once to meet my relatives for the first time. I really can't imagine war torn streets and burning high rise apartment buildings that South Korea has strove for for the last 50 years since the economic boom.

A war would mean the probably death of some of my relatives, so war is not a good option. War would also mean my male cousins going to battle in their homeland, and dying.

Not cool, especially for the nation that brought you Hyundai, Maplestory, Starcraft popularity, LG cellphones, Samsung technology, etc.