Use force to remove Kim Jong Il from power?

[DavidMn]

I'm so sick of hearing about this North Korean guy Kim Jong-Il talking about shooting off missles and this and that. There has got to be a way to force him out of power, be it military or otherwise. Hopefully otherwise. It's time for this guy and his cronies to go. I do believe this issue definitely deserves more attention than Iran does. A far more unpredictable regime.

[Chilly Willy]

I disagree. I don't think he can do us much harm at all and it's just another administration ploy to get us all jingoistic.

Really, the "long-range" missile fell in the ocean short of Japan, and the others were worse. And none of them can carry significant payload.

Plus, if they ever were a serious threat, Japan, Russia and China would slap the s**t out of them quicker than Monkey Boy could get on the tube to make a speech.

There are humanitarian reasons to get rid of the guy, but is that something we want to spend billions on? We'll either ignore it, like we do in Africa, or we'll liberate them like we did the Iraqis.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

I disagree. I don't think he can do us much harm at all and it's just another administration ploy to get us all jingoistic.

Really, the "long-range" missile fell in the ocean short of Japan, and the others were worse. And none of them can carry significant payload.

Plus, if they ever were a serious threat, Japan, Russia and China would slap the s**t out of them quicker than Monkey Boy could get on the tube to make a speech.

There are humanitarian reasons to get rid of the guy, but is that something we want to spend billions on? We'll either ignore it, like we do in Africa, or we'll liberate them like we did the Iraqis.

I'm not so sure about China. They always play both sides it seems on this issue.

[madformac]

The only way he will lose power is assasination and in a country like North Korea its exceptionally difficult. Added to the fact that it won't solve the situation either.

America, with its shiny missiles, new aircraft and well equipped troopers couldn't do the job alone. No matter what Bush is saying about going it alone over diplomacy.

First off the USA has in the region of 480,000 soldiers. Once you've deducted those serving in Iraq (about 180,000) and Afganistan (rumoured to be around 15-20,000), not to mention those posted around the world, you are looking at about 250,000 troops available. Not bad, except for the fact that the North Korean army alone has over a million troops, thats 4-1 in their favour if you threw every man at them. You just can't go marching in.

Add to that the DMZ between North and South Korea contains roughly 2-3 million landmines you can't walk in from South Korea either.

Bombing from the air alone cannot get the job done in this type of situation either.

Now if China, Russia, Japan, Europe and the USA all agreed to action then it might work. But that also means effectively starting a world war. The only other thing to do would be to destroy North Korea totally with nuclear capabilities but this would affect the surrounding regions badly (not to mention the civilian casualties). Not an option you want to take unless NK strikes first and the major powers all agree on this action.

Assasination would work to a degree but then who replaces him? They have a fanatical regime with most of the country supporting the leader. It's not like Iraq, Afganistan or Iran. You fight him you fight them all..

Its a major problem for sure

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by madformac

The only way he will lose power is assasination and in a country like North Korea its exceptionally difficult. Added to the fact that it won't solve the situation either.

America, with its shiny missiles, new aircraft and well equipped troopers couldn't do the job alone. No matter what Bush is saying about going it alone over diplomacy.

First off the USA has in the region of 480,000 soldiers. Once you've deducted those serving in Iraq (about 180,000) and Afganistan (rumoured to be around 15-20,000), not to mention those posted around the world, you are looking at about 250,000 troops available. Not bad, except for the fact that the North Korean army alone has over a million troops, thats 4-1 in their favour if you threw every man at them. You just can't go marching in.

Add to that the DMZ between North and South Korea contains roughly 2-3 million landmines you can't walk in from South Korea either.

Bombing from the air alone cannot get the job done in this type of situation either.

Now if China, Russia, Japan, Europe and the USA all agreed to action then it might work. But that also means effectively starting a world war. The only other thing to do would be to destroy North Korea totally with nuclear capabilities but this would affect the surrounding regions badly (not to mention the civilian casualties). Not an option you want to take unless NK strikes first and the major powers all agree on this action.

Assasination would work to a degree but then who replaces him? They have a fanatical regime with most of the country supporting the leader. It's not like Iraq, Afganistan or Iran. You fight him you fight them all..

Its a major problem for sure

I think the reason that countries are afraid of adopting what I'll call the "Kick-ass mentality" is that I think South Korea, especially Seoul would be in danger of being under almost immideate attack.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I think the reason that countries are afraid of adopting what I'll call the "Kick-ass mentality" is that I think South Korea, especially Seoul would be in danger of being under almost immideate attack.

I disagree to an extent. If they invade South Korea its an act of war and basically an invasion. This will give America more room for action and will also be looked on rather dimly by most other nations even China.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by madformac

I disagree to an extent. If they invade South Korea its an act of war and basically an invasion. This will give America more room for action and will also be looked on rather dimly by most other nations even China.

Thats true. But remember this above all else: when was the last time the North Korean regime exhibited any signs of anything but total unpredictibility?

[ragandbone]

If there were oil reserves to be had, we would have already gone.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Thats true. But remember this above all else: when was the last time the North Korean regime exhibited any signs of anything but total unpredictibility?

The same time Bush and his administration exhibited any signs of anything but total predictability.

Originally Posted by ragandbone

If there were oil reserves to be had, we would have already gone.

America, like the British and Roman empires before it, only invades a country for its own economic interests. Nothing in North Korea apart from a lot of big acting little people. No reason for invasion.

[becca]

The people of N. Korea aren't going to overthrow the creep because they are starving to death, often in the millions, while their people's liberators or whatever communist b.s. they call themselves spend everything on weapons and keeping any resistance from the people as dead as possible. In fact they have their people blaming the U.S. for not feeding them which is hideously ludicrous. They make people rally to show anger at the U.S. for this. The biggest irony of the whole communist spread through eastern Asia is that Marx wrote that asians were inferior and only useful for menial labor, and they have statues of the guy in N.Korea. Very sad.

I think the U.S. is far less able to win a war than in the '50s when the stalemate in Korea began, and then there were troops from Canada and Australia involved too. Assassination espionage doesn't seem to have ever worked against Castro or Hussein, so doesn't look like they can do it in such a tightly controlled N.Korea.

For all people say against Bush (a figurehead mostly though), he hasn't starved to death over two million of his own people to keep spending on weapons escalation, at least not yet.

[bretonbanquet]

At the risk of differing from some people - the best thing is just to leave North Korea alone. The country is a total basketcase and no threat to anyone, least of all the US. All they proved with their missile test is that they have problems firing missiles reliably. They're like a small boy standing in the corner who's trying to let you know he still exists.

A quick way to start a very long-standing nightmare would be to start to push them around. They have a large army, which while not really capable of causing a threat to anyone, will give any invader a very long drawn-out problem. Does the US really want to be involved in yet another military situation that will last for years? It can't handle it. Rest assured the British government would not survive if it attempted to help out.

Then there's the other thing. For a small group of countries to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who can't is wrong. It upsets and provokes certain states and creates bad feeling, and makes a mockery of the ideal that all states are supposedly equal and sovereign. The only threat these countries promise is in response to being pushed around.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by madformac

The only way he will lose power is assasination and in a country like North Korea its exceptionally difficult. Added to the fact that it won't solve the situation either. . . .

I disagree in the sense that him losing power is not the panacea here. All the US has to do is destroy by bombing or missle strike any and all missle possible facilities - an action no major country will be anxious to reproach us for. Then, this a$$ goes back to being a temptest in a teapot.

[madformac]

From a humanitarian view the situation in North Korea is terrible.

As a business model its very successful. Join the army and you are fine. Choose not to and you will either die of stavation or be to weak to put up resistance. For the government its a win win situation. Old fashion communism.

The Bush administration is far too predictable. Money is wasted "all for show" and not much in terms of real breakthoughs. What the hell is happening to the so called intelligence community lately I'm not sure. If the American people knew even a percentage of what the various agencies actually get upto and with whom in the name of their country I think they might be rather shocked. They are basically a money making business for the administration, thats all I'm prepared to say on the matter, they just keep the funds rolling in. MI6 have made rather a lot of mistakes lately too and they are going through a minor crisis behind closed doors.

As for dictators, Castro was a problem 20 to 30 years back but is of no real threat anymore, especially since the splinter of the soviet union, and there seems to be some kind of unwritten agreement there. Hussain used to be on the payroll before he turned and he's never been a "threat" to national security in a real sense. Iran are just playing games, nothing more, just politics. North Korea however are sabre rattling and its a little uncomfortable due to the lack of a real response available.

[madformac]

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

At the risk of differing from some people - the best thing is just to leave North Korea alone. The country is a total basketcase and no threat to anyone, least of all the US. All they proved with their missile test is that they have problems firing missiles reliably. They're like a small boy standing in the corner who's trying to let you know he still exists.

They have been left alone and now they are standing on the brink of being nuclear capable over a long range. They can't reach the UK though, even with the new missile

They can reach China, Russia and Alaska however.. So the world can stick its head in the sand and hope this goes away or it can be worked upon.

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

A quick way to start a very long-standing nightmare would be to start to push them around. They have a large army, which while not really capable of causing a threat to anyone, will give any invader a very long drawn-out problem. Does the US really want to be involved in yet another military situation that will last for years? It can't handle it. Rest assured the British government would not survive if it attempted to help out.

Their million plus army is reasonable useless in attacking given their global positioning but perfectly adequate for defending their territory.

The US has pissed away most of its military budget in Iraq and wasted billions of dollars of equipment. It will take months if not years to build the firepower back up, and thats when they eventually pull out. The Bush administration has put its own citizens in danger by its misappropriation of funds. The Katrina event is one such disgusting example.

The British military is a total joke. No funding, no troops, no firepower = no deterrent. They haven't got the money to buy weapons for the fighter jets so they fly around unarmed.. There is no real threat from the UK in the event of a situation either. 22nd Regiment are still the best soldiers in the world but there are less than 200 of them and that isn't going to save us if we get into any ****.

Blair is now powerless in any military situation. Gordon Brown will be in power for only months before he is voted out too.

Originally Posted by bretonbanquet

Then there's the other thing. For a small group of countries to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who can't is wrong. It upsets and provokes certain states and creates bad feeling, and makes a mockery of the ideal that all states are supposedly equal and sovereign. The only threat these countries promise is in response to being pushed around.

The problem isn't who has nuclear weapons or even what they intend to do with them. The problem is doubt. Since the fall of Soviet Russia and the funding of the defense program and of course the end of the cold war its looked increasingly worrying. In the old days Russia and the USA could sleep well because of mutually assured destruction (or M.A.D. as it indeed is). If one strikes the other strikes and its game over for everyone. No doubts.

Now we have countries such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and possibly Iran looking at nuclear deterrents. They are 50 years behind in terms of government mentality. The difference here is that no one knows what the hell happens if one of these states fires a missile. Now either they can work it out diplomatically or they do nothing. Unless a missile gets fired. (holiday prices would be much cheaper in Hawaii if the beaches were full of fall out!)

If America or China has indeed been successful in constructing a high power neutron bomb then this would change things. A single missle that could wipe out an entire country would make a nuclear warhead look rather pathetic and restore some sanity to preceedings.

[bretonbanquet]

Originally Posted by madformac

A single missle that could wipe out an entire country would make a nuclear warhead look rather pathetic and restore some sanity to preceedings.

Sanity? That is clearly as far from sanity as humanity can get, and would create a situation in which we have one state massively dominant over all others. Anyone who thinks that would bring about global stability needs some help.

Telling India and Pakistan that their governments are 50 years behind ours in terms of mentality is a quick way to p*ss them off as well. It's the attitude that says to less-developed countries "You're not fit to choose how to run your own country" that causes all the problems. When I say 'leave North Korea alone' I mean leave it alone, not grumble and moan about them and wave sticks at them, threatening them if they choose a path you don't like the look of - as the West has done for years. Yes, it's badly run, yes it's a humanitarian disaster zone - but threatening unstable countries with military force is something a 5 year old child might think was a good idea.