One thing though chip. I have to wonder if the North Korean people would be as hostile as the Iraqis? They have suffered through famine and totalitarian rule for going on 60 years now.

I have to wonder if the North Korean people would be as hostile as the Iraqis? They have suffered through famine and totalitarian rule for going on 60 years now.

That is a good point. I think in time, the average North Korean would be happy to be fed, clothed, and generally allowed a more free lifestyle. The problem that we would run into with civilians at first would be the distrust and fear of Americans that is felt by a large portion of the NK population. 60 years of brainwashing, which is honestly what happens there, would be hard to overcome. Many NK defectors/agents have talked for years of the fear and distrust that has been built up to such a degree, that NK children honestly believe that Americans are the boogey man. The belief that the treatment they would receive at our hands would be truly worse than what they are undergoing now, is widespread, although, probably not as complete as it was 20 years ago. The sheer number of people that flee to China in hopes of getting to the US, SK, or anywhere, shows that this belief is weakening. So, overall, I think, whether through war or just a break down of the regime, if unification came to the Korean peninsula, we, along with the South Koreans, would be able to gain the trust from the average North Korean civilian.

The problem that we would have would be with the SOF agents. These agents are often selected by the party because of their loyalty and abilities. They would carry the war over, even after conventional threats were disarmed. They are trained to fight behind the lines, blend in, and carry on for the party, even if the party is 'gone'. They would cause as much havoc, if not more, than the insurgents we are seeing in Iraq. Most of them are highly trained military agents and they work in small cells very well.

I highly recommmend reading 'Tears of my soul' by Hyun Hee Kim. You can get it used on amazon fairly cheap and it's a quick read. While it won't give much insight specifically about NK and nuclear arms, it will provide an insight into how North Koreans are taught from childhood that the party and regime are the most important and central parts of their lives. Also, it provides a look at how they train their agents, how effective they can be, and how difficult it is for them to 'break' their brainwashing. That would be the obstacle we would need to get over.

>On the other hand, if he were attacked, he'd probably pull out all stops and launch everything, but as I said above, he'd
>probably 'hit' nothing further than Japan and that would be just because he could.

I believe they have a three stage Taepondong ICBM that can hit California ... In the end it really only takes ONE!

Why dont we try a more sensible tactic ...
LEAVE OTHERS ALONE AND MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS

"I believe they have a three stage Taepondong ICBM that can hit California ... In the end it really only takes ONE!"

To attack California, sure. The fact remains that we could turn North Korea into a Martian landscape without dipping into nukes. They, on the other hand, can't feed themselves without help from nations they threaten. It just screams superiority, huh?

This wasn't dealt with because of the "quagmire" thing. Americans can't stomach that kind of bloodbath anymore. Sadly, they can't seem to stomach anything else that would avoid it, either.

I wonder if they could stomach the mad midget Kim selling nuclear materials to anyone that wants them?

That's what i'm wondering Baker. It seems more likely to me than him actually firing an ICBM.

Also, the TAEPONDONG missle can hit further inland than that. THe CIA figures it can reach as far as the west slope of the rocky mountains. Which is where i live.

I'll try to find the article and post later.

Also, the TAEPONDONG missle can hit further inland than that. THe CIA figures it can reach as far as the west slope of the rocky mountains. Which is where i live.I'll try to find the article and post later.

You can find info about the weapons and ranges at globalsecurity.org. They have a wealth of open source and declassified info on countries from all over the world.

http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/index.html

What is not addressed, or at least I couldn't find it there easily, was the guidance systems. NK's guidance systems for their missiles are largely untested at the high range missile level. I think it would be more likely (although, I'm no rocket scientist and could very well be wrong), that an error in the guidance would cause a short crash into the Pacific than, say, hitting the wrong target at the right range. At least, at the stage they are at. I will try to find more info on this.

I wonder if they could stomach the mad midget Kim selling nuclear materials to anyone that wants them?

That's what i'm wondering Baker. It seems more likely to me than him actually firing an ICBM.

This is truly worrisome because it would be very difficult to stop this from happening. The fact that we are virtually powerless from stopping them from making and exporting drugs shows how easily they could sell WMD to other countries/organizations. I can't remember which drug, but NK is one of the world's leading exporters of something... heroin? opiates? meth? Carp, I can't remember off the top of my head. There was a bust a couple years back in Australia of one of their ships, though. But, we'd pretty much have to board and search every ship in and out of NK (NK's minisub fleet would still make this difficult at best) AND still get help/cooperation from China and Russia to cover the land routes to prevent this.

All in all, none of this really answers the question you really posed in the first place. Why didn't we do more to 'fix' this earlier. The obvious, and easy, answer (although, not really a good one) is that NK is much more complicated than Iraq.

I really think we dropped the ball at the end of WW2. We should have maintained a military presence then.

---thatoneguyinsic

This is easy to say now, but I know from hearing my great uncles and older family friends talk that, at the end of the war, everybody just wanted to go home. Everyone was tired of the military and the war. Patton, though, wanted to rearm the Germans and go after the Soviets since, in his opinion, we were going to have to do it later anyway. He was shot down, of course.
Churchill (and then Atlee) and Truman saw the Cold War starting, but the people wanted an end to things, so the military was reduced drastically, and the Soviets were aceded to for political reasons. Silly now, but hey....hindsight and all that.

The real question is, how could be go for 50 years building global dominance on the back of a nuclear arsenal and NOT expect other countries to view it as an easy path to prominence? This is the misbegotten love child of the USA and USSR, and it wants some attention from its parents.

----Myrrander

I agree with this, but WOW...he actually blamed the Russkies, too! Wonders never cease......

And Clinton and Albright DID screw up big time. The woman who refused to appease Milosevic on genocide was more than willing to let a nutjob like Kim Jong Il get a chance to possess the bomb. Go figure.