Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 03 Sep 2017 22:09

Here is something I have been asking/wanting to discuss but have never managed to push it through because the discussion about a nuclear exchange always had India on one side - so the discussion always veered towards who would win and who would lose.

But here's a scenario.

Let me state right off that North Korea has a nuclear deterrent that will prevent others from doing a first strike on them. But what if NoKo actually nukes someone. Mind you I don't thing Kim Young One is that crazy. He is rational, but let us say that something goes wrong and Noko launches a nuke on say Guam and/or Japan.

At this point, my view is that his "deterrence" will fail because he has used it and others are free to respond as they wish. The US (I guess) will hit back In my view the US will use a combination of massive conventional ordnance and a few small nukes for troublesome targets. I am certain the US will deliberately not use big nukes to keep fallout to a minimum. (In fact the US is on record as trying to develop very accurate, low yield weapons that would take out choice targets) The US may even deny using those nukes but winds will soon carry the evidence to others. I also suspect that such a war will end with total destruction of all NoKo facilities and the death of the Young One.

Let me go one step further and say that there will be some nuclear fallout issues in say Guam and/or Japan and over Korea itself because of what the US had to use. The world will go through the usual round of condemnation of all parties at the UN which will mean zilch when a security council member is doing his own thing

What happens after that? I have the following specific questions that occur to me:
1. Even if the US action is quick - lasting say 2-3 weeks (impossible without nukes IMO) will China keep out?
2. Suppose China and Russia keep out (I think they will) what will be the geopolitical effects of such a nuclear war?
3. Will non nuclear nations start having a rethink about their non nuclear status seeing the devastation caused to an enemy - a sight that almost no one alive today has experienced?
4. Will every country start testing nuclear weapons again to try and get very accurate, pinpoint low yield weapons that would make a nuclear war 'winnable" as I suspect the US will do to Korea
5. Or will people suffer great guiilt and decide to give up nukes?
6. Would a war against NoKo that has used a nuke be winnable with just conventional weapons? I doubt it - but welcome others' views
7. Does anyone think the US will use largest multi-kiloton nukes in numbers ( I man they may use one or max 2)

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9678
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Sep 2017 22:13

Will a US war against NoKo as described above lead to a South-Korea-led reunification of Korea?
IMO, such a reunification will be unacceptable to China.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 03 Sep 2017 22:42

As far as discussions and debates about nuclear war goes the general consensus has been that "no one will win and hence nuclear wars must not be fought". This has been axiomatic and the reasons quoted are usually "nuclear winter", "fallout" etc.

But all this is a hangover of the US-Soviet cold war from the 1950s when the prospect of two nations using a total of several thousand nukes was the most likely scenario.

Times have changed, the world has moved on. Two points to ponder
1. There are many more countries with relatively small arsenals who are threatening other nations
2. A country with even one or just 2-3 nuclear weapons is considered to have a deterrent.

But are 2-3 nukes really a deterrent? Will the US be deterred by 2-3 nukes used against its territory? For that matter will any nuclear armed nation take it lightly if hit by "just one nuke"?

To my knowledge the US (and probably other nations too) have thought this through. While everyone sings the mantra of "No nuclear war" is is sensible and simple common sense to make nuclear war winnable - by making just 1 aggressor nation lose while keeping the world relatively safe from fallout. I am again referring to pinpoint accuracy missiles/bombs - perhaps with a CEP of a few meters and a yield of 0.2 kiloton.

For example - that airfield in Syria. How many cruise missiles were fired? Was it 60? Well one single O.2 kiloton nuke in the middle of the runway would put it out of action. One such munition on NoKo's main site would take it out and leave a lot less fallout than the usual 200, 500 or 1000 kiloton weapons that we talk about. This technology - if it exists and is used - could make future nuclear wars attractive. Why would the US, whose powerful hands are tied by a nation that was a pipsqueak in its eyes not apply that - to be copied later by others?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 417
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby nam » 03 Sep 2017 23:11

I go by the notion that countries which are not conventionally powerful enough to NOT use nuke should not have nuke. Ofcourse the point of interest conventionally powerful against whom. For NK, it is against US, where this theory absolutely useless.

If NK fires a nuke and US does a Paki style TNW warfare, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Specially for us. Pakis will glow bright boasting their theory works and we would have to make a very difficult decision. Chinese will be tempted to deploy/use TNW on LAC to cater to their disadvantage in numbers and not wanting to bear the cost of large deployments.

Either US convinces Russia & China, that it needs to pre-empt, so that the "question" is not be answered or US needs to go "large", once the NK nuke lands. However once US goes large, it will break the deterrence...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15715
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby NRao » 03 Sep 2017 23:18

China.

Will NOT keep out. She cannot.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9457
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby pankajs » 03 Sep 2017 23:23

^^
Why will a TNW for Nuke set a dangerous precedence and how does it support Bakis theory?

The bakis theory, as I understand it, is a TNW for a *conventional attack* that they could not repulse. In return India has promised a nuke for a TNW.

As far as india is concerned a nuke is a nuke whether it is a nuke or a TNW. The same will hold for China too. We will hit back at their military base in retaliation if they launch a TNW at our forces.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9678
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Sep 2017 05:10

Also, if the choice for China is between a Japan that sheds its pacifism and re-arms and maybe becomes nuclear-armed, and a defanged North Korea, perhaps reunified with South Korea, which one will it choose?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 05:33

I brotest! The proper thread for this is "Morbid Rubbernecking"... now buried deep in the PeeAref trash heap. :((

But here the issue is simple: NoKo today **does not** have a new clear detergent. YET. Think back to Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy decided to act ***BEFORE*** the missiles were installed and ready to launch. Trumps has 1 week to win or lose vs. Chinese dominance.

Sanctions are garbage. 90% of NoKo trade is with China and the rest with Russia. Can't do diddly-squat there, and it has no effect: the NoKos will starve, eat grass etc as ZAButto said, but they will put those thermonukes on those missiles and get them ready. And put a few on submarines, and that's that.

Trump ***HAS*** to hit before all that and it's incredible that he has a whole flotilla and bomber force ready there and has not hit yet, I would have expected the strike to hit 15 minutes after the 6.3 was confirmed.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 05:36

Choice for China? Nuclear-armed Japan is still a Japan that can't do anything about Chinese encroaching on their islands. That one is a no-brainer. Reunification with SoKo? Why? In time, as the US becomes irrelevant, SoKo will be absorbed into NoKo and the Chinese Empire.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9678
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Sep 2017 06:16

Japan not dependent on the US nuclear umbrella is a gamechanger for that part of the world. China will not be happy.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/poli ... o-nuclear/

Frankly, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Japan is the only thing that really gets Chinese officials to stand up and take notice. History may not mean much in the U.S. mindset, but the historical animosity between China and Japan rivals anything coming out of the Balkans in sheer depth, especially after the atrocities of the 1930s and 1940s.

China clearly does not want a nuclear rival in East Asia; it is already uncomfortable with India having nuclear weapons.


What should frustrate diplomats is that China could do much more to compel Pyongyang to stand down, but does not believe it in its interest to assert that pressure. Simply put, Trump and Tillerson should make clear to Beijing that, unless they bring North Korea’s nuclear program to a full stop, the United States will not stand in the way of a revision of the limits Japan’s post-war constitution put on its military and its nuclear doctrine.

Indeed, as China becomes ever more aggressive, not only by proxy through North Korea but also in the South China Sea and in Sikkim, a firmer response that goes to the heart of China’s security concerns is important. After all, while Western diplomats see talks and negotiations as ways to find a win-win solution, all indications are both Pyongyang and Beijing see diplomacy as an asymmetric warfare strategy meant to distract adversaries while consolidating military gains and capabilities.

Only if Beijing and Pyongyang step back from the brink might Washington and Tokyo reconsider. If Japan reaps diplomatic rewards and concessions from China, all the better. After all, why shouldn’t the pattern of incentives in response to proliferators go both ways?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 06:25

This whole thing is bravado and chest-thumping by utterly impotent and cowardly entities. Ooooo! Hold me back before I allow Japan to go nuclear!!!! I don't want to terrify the Chinese!

What threat can a nuclear-armed Japan pose to the vastly larger China? In half a day chinese strikes can wipe out Japan, so Japan having nukes is absolutely no deterrent to anyone. Yeah, Japanese raped and killed some 300,000 in Nanjig, but in 2 days some 400,000 died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a million died of radiation later. Karma.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 06:52

NRao wrote:China.

Will NOT keep out. She cannot.

Question in my mind is what will China do if the US starts hitting NoKo? Will they nuke the USA? Or will they start shooting down American planes?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 06:59

nam wrote:
If NK fires a nuke and US does a Paki style TNW warfare, it will set a very dangerous precedent. Specially for us. Pakis will glow bright boasting their theory works and we would have to make a very difficult decision. Chinese will be tempted to deploy/use TNW on LAC to cater to their disadvantage in numbers and not wanting to bear the cost of large deployments.

I think the expression TNW is archaic and inappropriate. What I am talking about is the "judicious" (I mean in small numbers) use of low yield weapons to accurately take out pinpoint targets to win a war outright while keeping fallout and civilian casualties to a minimum. At the end victory is declared. Dear leader is dead and NoKo is defanged and the radiation risk is minimum because and only 20,000 dead or something like that

That is not the same as "theater nuclear weapons" (TNW). But please let us leave India out of this because in the short term it is no skin off our nose.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 07:00

Unless US boot BOG in NoKo, my bet is that China will do nothing. Firstly, US will have a "provocation" to cite (Seagull flying out of NoKo 'bombed' the starched uniform of the Admiral), and China has made clear that if NoKo provokes, then China will not come to NoKo's aid.

China will hesitate for a fatal 48 hours, within which NoKo regime will be ended.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 07:01

NoKo can (and will) win this by not nuking anyone. THAT is "deterrence". All this tamasha will be if they nuke someone. If they don't - then it is thumb in Musharraf time for the entire world.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2684
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Sep 2017 07:26

Much will depend upon the willingness of Japan and soko to enter a conflict. Such willingness has not been shown so far. The time to attack was around 2001, now all they can do is acqiuesce. Welcome the bad boy into the new world, that's all they can do.

highly unlikely that the US will attempt action without Japan and soko wanting them to, which means nothing will happen.

Just that cheen will become more troublesome through it's Munna.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9678
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Sep 2017 07:26

UlanBatori wrote:What threat can a nuclear-armed Japan pose to the vastly larger China? In half a day chinese strikes can wipe out Japan, so Japan having nukes is absolutely no deterrent to anyone. Yeah, Japanese raped and killed some 300,000 in Nanjig, but in 2 days some 400,000 died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a million died of radiation later. Karma.


Ya, exactly like India and Pakistan. India can push around Pakistan anytime, because Pakistan's nukes don't matter at all.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9576
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby sum » 04 Sep 2017 07:35

Cain Marko wrote:Much will depend upon the willingness of Japan and soko to enter a conflict. Such willingness has not been shown so far. The time to attack was around 2001, now all they can do is acqiuesce. Welcome the bad boy into the new world, that's all they can do.

highly unlikely that the US will attempt action without Japan and soko wanting them to, which means nothing will happen.

Just that cheen will become more troublesome through it's Munna.

My understanding is this is exactly what will happen

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 07:56

Cain Marko wrote:Just that cheen will become more troublesome through it's Munna.

I have a problem (ok - half a problem) with blaming NoKo's actions on China. In terms of "truth and complete disclosure" one must blame China. But it comes with a different sort of mental baggage. When we blame China for NoKo's actions we also start worrying about what China might do if NoKo is attacked. So all action against NoKo is hamstrung by worries about Chinese reactions.

This of course is exactly what China wants. This is what they did with Pakistan also There is only one way to deal with this and funnily enough only India has chosen that route and that is to deal with Pakistan and be ready to deal with China simultaneously if they should interfere. From 1962 India has always factored in conflict with China in addition to Pakistan. China has never joined even though Pakistan used to be a more "respectable" state than NoKo ever was.

Be ready to hit China if they interfere - or else simply hit NoKo. I bet China will not have the guts to interfere

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6802
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby JE Menon » 04 Sep 2017 08:14

What happens if North Korea launches a "nuclear attack" against international waters, not too far from Guam?

In the escalatory ladder that seems to be an inevitable step, even if not the next one.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 08:22

That I think will give Naranja Bandar the excuse he needs to give the order. If he doesn't, his POTUSness is over.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Sunday shot back at North Korea's latest nuclear provocation with a blunt threat, saying the U.S. will answer any North Korean threat with a "massive military response -- a response both effective and overwhelming." While he said America does not seek the "total annihilation" of the North, he added somberly, "We have many options to do so."

Commentary:
he seemed to take it a step further with the reference to "total annihilation."

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Suresh S » 04 Sep 2017 08:43

deleted
Last edited by Suresh S on 04 Sep 2017 08:50, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 08:46

^^Suresh could we please keep Pakistan and India out of this unless it is relevant to NoKo? Or please move your post to the deterrence thread

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 09:25

JE Menon wrote:What happens if North Korea launches a "nuclear attack" against international waters, not too far from Guam?
In the escalatory ladder that seems to be an inevitable step, even if not the next one.

A Machiavellian idea - which I am sure will occur to Kim or his advisors. It will be chai biskoot only - if no one is attacked directly or hurt - there will be no support for action against Kim.

Ironically I am reminded of a rude joke - at a live sex show everyone was cheering excitedly while one man was sitting and looking deflated. Someone asked him, "Man where's your enthusiasm?". The man shook his head sadly and said "It's flowing down my left thigh now"

I mean the great enthusiasm with which Iraq and Libya were attacked and the great song and dance about Iran must have taught Kim a few lessons. The US's enthusiasm is not apparent up front and appears to have been expended earlier. The US is the only nation capable of using force with some degree of success against NoKo. The Chinese will do nothing and, if you ask me, they can't do nuthin' either

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2804
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Shanmukh » 04 Sep 2017 09:36

How much detergent does North Korea have? What can they take out before they are wiped out? Seoul? Tokyo? Guam? California? What?

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 09:48

I think nuclear war or any war against NK initiated by the west is a non-starter. What the west needs is an economic dyke against Chinese economic war and nuclear threat. Ban all trade, commerce, people exchange, Comm's with China and NK. This will have salutary economic benefits for manufacturing economies of west and SE nations as well teach a lesson to master puppeteer.

Problem is that China has bought out elite in most of the nations through their intel and economic/business arms.

Hence, nothing going to happen. Chinese jaggurnaut will march on.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6802
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby JE Menon » 04 Sep 2017 10:43

^^I think a US first strike against North Korea is a distinct possibility, at this point even a probability. The economic dyke against China is an aftermath option, and that will be simply in the form of a tariff on goods aimed at rebalancing the trade deficit - something very very well within American rights at the moment.

China has bought out the elite? Are you serious? They may have influenced a few, but these European okes (and I include the Americans in this) did not become global superpowers and the rule the world for well nigh half a millennium by not knowing where their interests lie, and how to protect them.

If anything, it is the Chinese who are being predictable here. Too predictable, in fact. And there is a reason for this, and that is that their real elites are too small for the country and population they control. They are the ones who can be bought off, effectively. The "bought out" ones in the West consider it business as usual. In China, it is treason.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3521
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Karthik S » 04 Sep 2017 10:52

The window for US to strike NoKo is closing down fast. If NoKo develops their Hwasong-14, they can hit Pacific coast. One risk is that NoKo may hit Japan in return if attacked now, but how much the US will be considerate about that is the question.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Philip » 04 Sep 2017 11:12

The argument that we ( US/West/allies) attack NoKo now becos tomorrow will be too late is asinine becos that bus left years ago! NoKO possesses N-weapons and can and will if attacked by the US and its allies,vaporise SoKo,large parts of Japan and may even be able to squirm an ICBM or two onto Guam,Hawaii,etc. The time is ripe for calm heads and cool minds,not overheated "twitterers" like Trump,trumpeting his own expletives without forethougt or foresight. The US mil establishment,esp. the nuclear boffins must be drooling at the thought of witnessing and evaluating N-strikes upon NoKo. Decades ago they swarmed ll over Bhopal like vultures to the feast collecting blood samples for their chem-warfare experts.I knew well a fine yanqui, gent ,good friend ,reg. visitor to India attached to a firang NGO.He was at Bhopal before the gas cloud had even dispersed! It was only then that I suspected his CIA connections.

Britain's maverick FM BoJo,who was earlier saying that "all options are on the table",has suddenly come to his senses and has warned the US that Seoul would be vaporised if NoKo was attacked.Read on.

'Seoul will be vaporised': Boris Johnson's warning as US threatens to annihilate North Koreas
Boris Johnson condemns North Korea's latest missile test
Gordon Rayner, political editor
3 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 10:40PM
Boris Johnson has warned President Donald Trump that taking military action against North Korea could provoke Kim Jong-un to “vaporise” the South Korean population in response.

Pyongyang announced on Sunday that it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded onto a long-range missile, which Mr Johnson described as “a new order of threat”.

The Foreign Secretary condemned Pyongyang’s “reckless” act, and said that “all options are on the table, but we really don’t see any easy military solution”.

President Trump led world condemnation of North Korea’s biggest ever nuclear test, describing the actions of the “rogue nation” as “very hostile and dangerous” to the US.

He added that “appeasement with North Korea will not work”, having recently promised to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea if it continued to threaten the US.

South Korea launched a ballistic missile exercise late on Sunday in response to Pyongyang's provocative detonation, state news agency Yonhap reported. "S. Korea's military stages ballistic missile exercise in response to N. Korea's nuke test," the agency said.

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis warns North Korea of "massive" military response
Jim Mattis, US defence secretary, warned that "any threat to the United States or its territories, including Guam, or our allies will be met with a massive military response, a response both effective and overwhelming".
"We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea. But as I said, we have many options to do so," he added.

Mr Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe later condemned in a phone call North Korea's "continued destabilising and provocative actions," the White House said.

The President also reaffirmed that Washington would defend itself and its allies "using the full range of diplomatic, conventional, and nuclear capabilities at our disposal," the White House said.

The nuclear weapon test registered with international seismic monitoring agencies as a man-made earthquake of magnitude 6.3, making it 10 times more powerful that North Korea’s last nuclear test a year ago.

Hours before the explosion, the North Korean state news agency had released pictures of Kim inspecting a silver-coloured, hourglass-shaped warhead, which was markedly different from a ball-shaped device detonated last year.


Experts said it indicated a two-stage thermonuclear device, suggesting Pyongyang has made significant progress towards its goal of a long-range nuclear missile.

The UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting on Monday to discuss the latest development and possible responses.

Mr Johnson said: “It’s certainly our view that none of the military options are good...the distance between North Korea and Seoul is very, very small and they could basically vaporise large parts of the South Korean population even with conventional weapons, so that’s not really very easy to threaten or to deliver.”

Calling on China to take stronger action against its client state, he went on: “We have to consider how to respond and it’s our view in the UK, overwhelmingly that peaceful, diplomatic means are the best and we think the sanctions route still holds potential.

“China is responsible for 90 per cent of North Korea’s trade and North Korea only has six months of oil supplies left. There is scope to continue to put pressure on the regime."

Theresa May, meanwhile, called on the United Nations “urgently” to look at fresh sanctions.

The hydrogen bomb test, the sixth to be carried out by Kim and the first since Mr Trump became president, follows a series of long-range missile tests that pose an increasing threat to the US, and comes just days after a missile was launched that flew over Japan.

Mr Johnson said: “They seem to be moving closer towards a hydrogen bomb which, if fitted to a successful missile, would unquestionably present a new order of threat.”

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China met at a pre-planned summit in Xian, where they agreed to adhere to "the goal of denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula”.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:34

Repeat
Last edited by Gyan on 04 Sep 2017 11:39, edited 1 time in total.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 835
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Gyan » 04 Sep 2017 11:39

JE Menon wrote:^^I think a US first strike against North Korea is a distinct possibility, at this point even a probability. The economic dyke against China is an aftermath option, and that will be simply in the form of a tariff on goods aimed at rebalancing the trade deficit - something very very well within American rights at the moment.

China has bought out the elite? Are you serious? They may have influenced a few, but these European okes (and I include the Americans in this) did not become global superpowers and the rule the world for well nigh half a millennium by not knowing where their interests lie, and how to protect them.

If anything, it is the Chinese who are being predictable here. Too predictable, in fact. And there is a reason for this, and that is that their real elites are too small for the country and population they control. They are the ones who can be bought off, effectively. The "bought out" ones in the West consider it business as usual. In China, it is treason.



USA elite is bought off completely by Saudi and Chinese interests after Clinton Era. Clinton sold off his nation for some pussy and little cash. USA elite thinks of China as their Slave labour colony and piggey bank but things changed with the bang. Don't worry, we are no better. What is the business model of Chota bhai? Cocaine Queen meeting Chinese Ambassador at his home? Brothels in Hong Kong specially for some tired Babus?

Chinese cannot be bought on strategic issues as their leaders think of China as their permanent fiefdom. US leaders are temporary post holders who will give up everything for pussy and election funds.

Kushner would sell UK to Hitler to own Big Ben.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47343
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2017 11:40

Philip,
Exactly the game has changed.
Instead is thread title consider, the opposite.
Geopolitical consequences of no nuclear action on NoKo.
It will be some sanctions and eventual reconciliation.

And we should stop this bs of global consequences and whoiltic, strategic picture etc.

Think about what it means to India. That's the forum charter.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Philip » 04 Sep 2017 12:07

I can see many itchy fingers in 3 countries,Iran,Japan and Pak.Forces in Japan and Iran wanting their nations to go nuclear,calls in SoKo too and one is sure that our N-boffins have also made future plans...What Dear Young Un Kim has done though is within a v.short time,demonstrated his unyielding desire for making NoKo a true ICBM N-power.Possessing ICBMs that can hit the US mainland will he believes give him regime change insurance.The rest is all kabuki.

In the context of the recent Doklam incident,what the GOI should do after Mr. M returns from his trip abroad,is to also "shake his rattle",by further tests of our own ICBMs and sub-launched BMs.They will further complicate the happiness of Xi Gins who is under fire right now. Just to send a message to the Dear Young Leader too,our ICBMs should also prove a point to him,that we too can reach NoKo with our own equiv. of his "Ding-Dongs".We too need to start testing Agni-6++

What is another development is the defiance of the NoKo regime to diktat from China.This is bound to upset China who have previously treated NoKo like a mischievous nephew. The Paki mil establishment will also look at the lengths to which NoKo's defiance has b*ggered the US as well,which wants to mercilessly punish the impious regime and its leader but is scared of the consequences. Pak in aprticular is also being threatened by the US over its Afghan terror/Taliban protection policies.Watch its establishment start to misbehave in similar fashion.
Last edited by Philip on 04 Sep 2017 12:24, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 417
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby nam » 04 Sep 2017 12:22

shiv wrote:I think the expression TNW is archaic and inappropriate. What I am talking about is the "judicious" (I mean in small numbers) use of low yield weapons to accurately take out pinpoint targets to win a war outright while keeping fallout and civilian casualties to a minimum. At the end victory is declared. Dear leader is dead and NoKo is defanged and the radiation risk is minimum because and only 20,000 dead or something like that

That is not the same as "theater nuclear weapons" (TNW). But please let us leave India out of this because in the short term it is no skin off our nose.


The point I was trying to make is any use of low yield nuke would make it a legitimate war fighting weapon. If a very low yield is okay, then a greater yield will be justified. It is like 250Kg vs 500kg vs 1500kg on a target.

If US can use low yield weapon to take out hard targets, why should Russia waste time and effort using FAB1500 in Syria. They might as well use nukes. China might as well arm it's ASHM with nuke warhead against American carriers and stop wasting time with ASBM. Countries could openly declare their intention to build low yield weapon, as it is legitimate war fighting weapon.

US & Russia have developed MOAB,FOAB instead of going through the route of low yield weapon. The argument that US has used low yield against a nuke state will hold until Russia drops one in Syria. And will get away with it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17016
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Philip » 04 Sep 2017 12:33

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... im-jong-un
'The Chinese are pissed off' – but what can Beijing do about North Korea?
China’s president Xi Jinping has few options to bring Kim Jong-un into line but he also has to contend with an unpredictable US leader in Donald Trump

South Korea to approve US missile defence system – live updates
Chinese President Xi Jinping has few easy choices when dealing with North Korea.

Tom Phillips in Beijing
Monday 4 September 2017 06.15 BST Last modified on Monday 4 September 2017 06.44 BST
On Friday afternoon, the eve of North Korea’s most powerful ever nuclear test, China’s football-loving president received a gift from the world’s greatest ever player.

“Good luck,” read the handwritten message from Pelé on a canary yellow Brazil jersey handed to Xi Jinping by his South American counterpart, Michel Temer.

Xi needs it. Experts say Kim Jong-un’s latest provocation – which some believe was deliberately timed to upstage the start of the annual Brics summit in China – exposes not only the scale of the North Korean challenge now facing China’s president but also his dearth of options.

Live North Korea nuclear test: South Korea to approve US missile defence system – live
Seoul is poised to give green light to install four more batteries of controversial Thaad system amid tensions with Pyongyang
Read more
“The Chinese are pissed off, quite frankly,” says Steve Tsang, the head of the Soas China Institute.

“But there is nothing much they will actually do about it. Words? UN statements and all that? Yes. But what can the Chinese actually do?”

Zhao Tong, a North Korea expert from the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing, believes there are a number of possible answers.

Sanctions or turning off the taps
The first is to further tighten sanctions on Kim’s regime by targeting its exports of textiles and clothing.

“After the last round of UN resolution sanctions, textile products and clothing is now the most important source of foreign income for North Korea,” says Zhao.

Xi could also deprive Kim of another key source of revenue by agreeing to limit or completely prohibit up to 100,000 North Korean labourers from working overseas, including in China.

A third and far more drastic option also exists: cutting off North Korea’s crude oil supply. “This nuclear test is one of the few things that might trigger a cut-off of oil supplies, but we are still very reluctant to do so,” one person close to Chinese foreign policymakers told the Financial Times after Sunday’s detonation.

Zhao doubts Xi will choose that risk-strewn path. He believes turning off the taps could prove an irreversible decision since the pipeline delivering oil to North Korea is old and would corrode and break if left unused. Crucially, though, it would cripple North Korea’s economy, almost certainly bring down Kim’s regime and create a massive refugee and security crisis just a few hundred miles from Beijing.

“That is one of the most radical measures China could ever take and it could have strategic implications if the regime’s stability is affected,” says Zhao. “It is not going to be immediate but over time it could have an impact on the regime’s survival.”

Cheng Xiaohe, a North Korea expert from Renmin University in Beijing, also admits tightened sanctions are the only feasible response: “China has been pushed into a corner and has few options left.”

Growing frustration
That said, some believe appetite is growing in China for a more robust response to Kim Jong-un’s continued provocations.

“This is an insane country, and he is an insane leader,” says Zhu Feng, an international security expert from Nanjing University. “We are now at a historic turning point and – from my point of view – China needs to strengthen coordination and cooperation with the international community, particularly with the US, Japan and South Korea.”

“I think the domestic discussions about cutting crude oil supply are increasing,” says Zhao, who thinks the mood in China – North Korea’s key ally and trading partner – may be starting to shift.

Zhao believes Xi’s ability to take tougher action against Kim partly hinges partly on how much he can strengthen his political position ahead of next month’s 19th Communist party congress, a once-every-five-years conference marking the end of his first term in power. Recent weeks have seen tantalising glimpses of the internal power struggle that is raging at the top of China’s Communist party, with the purging of one senior official tipped as Xi’s possible successor and a major reshuffle in the leadership of the armed forces.

“If things settle down very quickly … that will give Xi Jinping some leeway to take more radical measures against North Korea,” Zhao predicts. “But if domestic politics continues to play out until the 19th party congress, then I don’t think China has any room to take radical measures.”

Smart cookie and the wildcard
Tsang believes the apparent lack of effective options to halt Kim Jong-un’s nuclear ambitions underlines what a shrewd strategtist he is and how successfully he was toying with both China and the US: “He is a smart cookie – a very, very smart cookie.”

As long as China was not a direct target of North Korean aggression, Xi would view Kim as an irritant rather than a threat that needed to be immediately crushed: “At the moment nobody seriously sees the North Korean missiles and nuclear weapons as a threat to China ... The most likely target would be the Japanese. Now how unhappy would Xi be with the prospect of ... the Abe administration being blasted to pieces? Neither outcome would actually make Xi lose any sleep.”

But for both Kim and Xi, there is one wild-card and he goes by the name of Donald J Trump. Tsang says conventional military advice suggests the US president would not risk a military strike against North Korea for fear of sparking a devastating counter-attack against South Korea and a broader regional conflagration that would inevitably suck in China.

“You’re talking about 10,000 different pieces of [North Korean] artillery ... which could lob shells into the vicinity of Seoul and cause huge damage,” said Tsang. “So Kim’s reasonable calculation is that there is not actually a lot that Trump can do about it and there is almost certainly nothing the Chinese will do about it in concrete terms.”

Trump, however, was no conventional president. “The problem is somebody like Trump does not behave necessarily in line with your normal Obama and Clintons of this world and therefore the risk of him ignoring professional military advice is not negligible,” says Tsang.

“It would be negligible under Obama and extremely unlikely under Clinton or, for that matter, probably even George W Bush. But we can’t say the same of Trump. That’s one thing about Mr Trump, isn’t it?”

Additional reporting by Wang Zhen

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9678
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Sep 2017 14:34

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ns/538794/

So what do the North Koreans aim to get out of their ceaseless pursuit of new and more shocking demonstrations of missile and nuclear technology? In blunt terms, they want to give Washington other ideas. After observing China’s acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1960s and watching it stare down America’s “policy of hostility and imperialism” by the early 1970s, the Kim regime seems to believe it can pull off the same trick. According to Pyongyang, America must end its “hostile policy,” which translates to no more sanctions, no more condemnations on human-rights grounds, no more bomber flights and aircraft-carrier movements in its vicinity, and no more annual cycle of combined military exercises with South Korea.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 16:39

I am trying to figure out why Trump despite all his rhetoric, and despite having accumulated forces nearby for the past 6 months, is not striking. A US strike on NoKo nuclear facilities within minutes of the H2 explosion, would have been seen as logical and expected. So why no action? At least I would have expected at least the sinking of a NoKo sub or two.

Is it because the weapons are clearly Chinese and battle-ready not NoKo and developmental - so hitting development facilities does nothing? Or do spy sats show that the weapons have already been moved back inside China? But despite all that, what matters is that NoKo is now a H2-bum State. Is the US going to accept that with tail between legs?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8352
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby UlanBatori » 04 Sep 2017 16:55

New missile launch coming?

SEOUL, South Korea -

South Korea's Defense Ministry said Monday that North Korea appeared to be planning another missile launch, possibly of an ICBM, to show off its claimed ability to target the United States with nuclear weapons, though it was unclear when it might happen.

The South also fired missiles into the sea on Monday to simulate an attack on the North's main nuclear test site, a day after Pyongyang detonated its largest nuclear test explosion to date.

In addition, Seoul said Monday that it would temporarily deploy four additional launchers of the U.S. THAAD missile defense system, once it finished an environmental impact assessment. That proclamation quickly demonstrated the difficulties of unifying other nations around a response to the North Korean threat.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33316
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby shiv » 04 Sep 2017 16:57

nam wrote:The point I was trying to make is any use of low yield nuke would make it a legitimate war fighting weapon. If a very low yield is okay, then a greater yield will be justified. It is like 250Kg vs 500kg vs 1500kg on a target.

If US can use low yield weapon to take out hard targets, why should Russia waste time and effort using FAB1500 in Syria. They might as well use nukes. China might as well arm it's ASHM with nuke warhead against American carriers and stop wasting time with ASBM. Countries could openly declare their intention to build low yield weapon, as it is legitimate war fighting weapon.

US & Russia have developed MOAB,FOAB instead of going through the route of low yield weapon. The argument that US has used low yield against a nuke state will hold until Russia drops one in Syria. And will get away with it.

Yes. this is precisely what I am getting at. When nations like the US and Russia - at the top of the nuke heap find themselves at a dead end of their own making, it would be temping to bend the rules and go into hitherto taboo areas. Winning nuclear war with low yield, accurate nuclear PGMs to take out the hardest targets, and conventional bombs for the rest. This would be tempting against an adversary like NoKo I would have thought. But not for long

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 582
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Geopolitical consequences of possible nuclear conflict in Korea

Postby Deans » 04 Sep 2017 17:01

I think there are 2 more plausible scenarios to the one Shiv had outlined. These stem from the increasing compulsions both sides face:

NoKo's economy has collapsed. Its people are literally starving. Despite being a police state, there is an increasing possibility of the people
revolting (perhaps with the arm'y support). Their only asset is their nuclear arsenal which they will need to `monetise' and do it quickly.
OTOH, the longer US delays action, the more powerful and credible NoKo's arsenal gets and the high the eventual price to shut it down.

Hence 2 possible scenarios:
1. The US uses a low yield Nuke to take out Dear Fat boy and the NoKo leadership. Without the leadership, there is no will (or instructions) to
use nukes. US/Korean intel is reasonably good w.r.t determining the approx location of Kim. The death of thousands of Noko civilians is acceptable, because its better than the deaths of thousands of SoKo/ Japanese civilians. President DT is certainly not concerned about the moral implications of nuking NoKo civilians. After the strike, SoKo psyops ensure the NoKo army does not retaliate. Then SoKo offers reunification.
If intel is wrong however, Seoul gets turned into a radioactive wasteland from a retaliatory NoKo strike.

2. Dear Fat boy asks for $ 100 Billion in food aid, infrastructure etc to keep his regime in power else he will nuke SoKo and/or Japan.
China & possibly Russia assure (in exchange for the elimination of the NoKo nuke program) that the US will not attack. Though this extortion
Japan and China may sign up. Eleven shores up his position at home.
If the US/SoKo/Japan do not accede to this demand, can NoKo sell a Nuke to ISIS ? (transported overland through China/Russia) ?

Possibilities and implications for each scenario ?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Balaji and 30 guests