Do we have the troops and infrastructure to fight North Korea?

[jman220]

Today, North Korea essentially "declared war" on the world:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ons/index.html

This is just rhetoric at this point, but my question is, can the U.S. fight North Korea, if the U.S. or one of its allies were to be attacked, with such a large number of its armed forces tied up in Iraq?

[Exsubmariner]

The simple answer is no. The strategic balance comes from the presence of tactical nuclear weapons to turn the human wave.

[iron81]

Submariner is correct. The main means we have to handle Korea at this point is deterrence. Neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote his last column on this topic that I think is close to correct (even though I hate his guts).

He wrote that it was too late to either buy the North Koreans off or to wage war to disarm them. His solution was a two pronged nuclear deterrant. First, that we should nuke North Korea if they launched nuclear missiles (obvious). But he also wrote that we should also threaten to nuke NK if a terrorist anywhere in the world used a nuke. The logic behind this is that if a terrorist got his hands on a nuke, according to Krauthammer it would be a pretty safe assumption that it came from NK because NK is the only "rogue state" with nukes. I don't think its that simple because there is the problem of loose nukes from the former Soviet Union, but he is correct in that deterrence is the best way to handle NK.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
The logic behind this is that if a terrorist got his hands on a nuke, according to Krauthammer it would be a pretty safe assumption that it came from NK because NK is the only "rogue state" with nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he is ignoring the open market Pakistan had on nuke technology, or the Iranians who would be glad to give terrorists the fruits of their programs.

SO yeah, if you ignore Pakistan, Iran, and the lose stuff floating around the former USSR, then it HAS to come from NK.

[Stu Pidasso]

Between us and the South Koreans, we have plenty of troops to deal with North Korea.

Stu

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
we should nuke North Korea if they launched nuclear missiles (obvious).

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we" and "they"? Not so obvious.

"My gang should murder this entire family if one of them fires a gun (at someone else, presumably?)."

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The simple answer is no. The strategic balance comes from the presence of tactical nuclear weapons to turn the human wave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You have to define what you mean by "fight the North Koreans". Do we want to march into the capital and take it over? That could be a bit problematic. Do we want to disable their infrastructure (such as it is) and eliminate missile firing sites, storage facilities, and production sites? We certainly have the airpower on hand to do that. It really boils down to whether or not we need to put troops on the ground or not. I dont think we need to, but then again Im not a general. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Exsubmariner]

You are technically correct. I was referring to the specific scenario of the DPRK storming the 38th parallel this afternoon.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Between us and the South Koreans, we have plenty of troops to deal with North Korea.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too mention that the NK troops are too hungry to fight effectively...

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
Between us and the South Koreans, we have plenty of troops to deal with North Korea.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

define "deal"