Trump by name......

If we lose Seattle or Los Angeles, our victory is still Pyrrhic. We cannot have confidence in our defenses.

And yet they have not, demonstrating that even minor attacks on the us have disproportionate effects. Your initial assertion that it wouldn't be influential is in light of this slightly ridiculous.

Were the us to lose a city, South Korea to lose Seoul, Japan to lose Tokyo, and North Korea to lose thirty million of its citizens it would represent an unthinkable failing of diplomacy. In light of those losses I'm not sure what is to be gained by victory.

You suffer a failure of imagination then. Efforts to turn the populace against Kim Jong Un's regime have been successful. Sanctions and negotiations have a chance of working.

Our conversation will be more productive if you do so.

 

It's quite possibly the end of Kim Jong Un if he does back down. His generals do not seem the loyal sort.

 

Because that's the only route to any measure of success for North Korea. Mobilise the entire population in a guerrilla war against the South.

This talk of targeted strikes also assumes that the US will know in advance where an ICBM will come from, or have enough time to intercept it. Neither can be taken for granted. What if the US destroys launch sites and then a truck comes out of a bunker somewhere else and nukes Seoul in retaliation?

 

I'd guess that having the US launch strikes against North Korea and Kim Jong-un doing nothing in retaliation would be a bigger loss in his eyes.

How many lives would you be willing to bet that they don't have a hidden silo somewhere?

 

I think you overestimate the use of satellites as an intelligence-gathering method. There were people on the ground guiding a lot of those missiles to the Scud sites.

EDIT: How many marines do you think it would take to unify Korea?

 

Just as a elibitory, the scud missiles where harder to hit the coalitionn air force flew over and destroyed Iraq early warning radar and radar attached to SAM batteries, the scuds where harder to hit as the terrain made it harder than expexted to hunt an destroy the mobile scud missiles anyway.

 

The point is that we don't have magic satellites that can see everything happening in real time on the surface of the planet, and they definitely can't see what's going on in bunkers.

Effective intelligence still relies on having eyes on the ground. That wasn't easy in Iraq pre-invasion, but it is even harder in North Korea.

 

I don't think that addresses the problem so much as kicks it down the road; we've set up a system where the rational course of self preservation for every tin pot dictator is to acquire nukes. Beyond that, the presence of these generals is likely to make Un more desperate and rash rather than less. I'm sure he's seen what happens to dictators who try to run and hide...

 

So they didn't want to see and hear the Scud launchers? I'm not sure the families of those who died trying to tag them would be happy to know that.

Even without ICBM's, North Korea could easily fire nuclear material at South Korean cities with conventional artillery, or even take a dirty bomb in a suitcase anywhere in the world.

 

I have no idea for the use of satellites in Iraq past recon for maps and GPS. (and other stationary objects) If a satellites focused on a area, it might be able to see the longer ranged ballistic missiles due to burning time and the amount of fuel they would have. They have enough artillery aimed at Seoul to metaphorically level it, i think anyway. Add some gas canisters etc.

 

Why don't you tell me what your point was, rather than getting angry?

Given your insider information on satellite technology, what is different in the case of North Korea compared to Iraq?

 

How to Deal With North Korea

I thought this was a good essay that outlines potential responses to North Korea and why acceptance might be the best, temporary, measure. Ironically a nuclear DPRK might be more tractable; the way down is the way up.