If South Korea remains an ally, then we have to worry about Seoul, and can only go to war against NK if they do something intolerable, like ship nuclear bombs to the Middle East. If SK tells us to screw off, however, then we could go to war with NK preemptively without worrying about Seoul. That won't happen however.

Given everything we know about how hapless was/is the technology of the communist dictatorships, why believe that they'd even be able to get off a second strike if we hit them hard first?

A lot depends on how far along they are, how they've dispersed, concealed, and protected their weapons, and how good our intelligence is. If in fact there's a high probability we could destroy their nuclear capability in a first strike, then personally I'd support striking, taking out their army and Kim Jong Il as well as the weapons, and telling the South Koreans to reunify. But that doesn't seem Bush admin style.

Since the South Koreans might end up extra crispy in the event of an NK first strike, you can understand their trepidation.

I am puzzled by the apparent unanimity of

opinion that N. Korea could blast Seoul

because it is just 35 miles from the border.



Isn't there an ROK Army? Isn't it equipped

with modern weapons. Aren't its troops

highly qualified and patriotic?



It's true that in 1950, the No. Koreans rolled

over the South, but the South didn't even

have an army then.



Has nothing happened during the past half

century?



My current thinking, after today's statement

that any sanctions would be an act of war, is,

let's declare war on No. Korea and then do

nothing. Just establish a state of war. Then

let them think about whether they want to

join in.



I think they are crazy but I don't think they are

that crazy.

why is war with north korea the only option for regime change discussed ? There are others.



IMHO their nuclear saber rattling is a transparent attempt to extort more money and oil from the u.s., but time is on our side, not theirs. we could adopt the european style of diplomacy and talk, talk, talk -- discuss the situation with north and south korea, japan, china, russia and whoever else might be interested -- but somehow these extended negotiations never arrive at any conclusion. the situation in the north will continue to deteriorate, while we can appear to be reasonable, but more demanding than in the past, and "multilateral."



all that is required for regime change is a little patience and discipline, not some ill considered war -- and in the process we might also achieve some regime change in south korea and japan.

"continue to deteriorate"? People are grazing like cattle. How much worse does it need to get?

Here
is a pretty decent article on a possible war with NK. This paragraph on the NK order of battle is telling:



Some 700,000 of the 1.1 million active-duty North Korea soldiers, roughly 2,000 tanks and 8,000 artillery systems are arrayed within 100 miles of the 155-mile-long Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, that separates North and South Korea. About 20 million South Koreans -- half the civilian population -- live in and around Seoul, within artillery range of the North. According to U.S. officials, North Korea can field more than 12,000 self-propelled and towed artillery weapons.




In other words, as their first strike in a war, NK could drop as many as 10,000 artillery shells on Seoul without warning. An American general is also quoted as saying that the NK army is getting better, year on year.

That link took me to "space elevators."



Not all those 12,000 artillery pieces are within

range of Seoul.



Don't overestimate the effect of 10,000

unregistered artillery rounds spread over 10,000

square miles.

Sorry 'bout that. Wrong hobby horse. Here's
the link I meant.



The North Koreans have maps too, Harry. I'm not sure why you think they can't target Seoul.

I was not impressed by the UPI piece.



Conventional artillery has a range of about

15 miles, though only a very few guns have

this capability.



At extreme range, and without opportunities

for "registering" fire and without forward

observers to correct fire, you cannot hit

anything on purpose.



The world, even congested Seoul, is more

empty than full. Most shells would fall more or

less harmlessly, as most shells have always

done.



The UPI sources make two assumptions that

are just plain crazy.



1. That if the N. Koreans launched an offensive,

it would carry forward. Yet an offensive needs

a superiority of around 3 to 1 to have much

chance, especially against a forewarned

opponent. More, if the offense doesn't have

air superiority, which the N. Koreans wouldn't.

The ROK ought to be more than capable of

defending its border.



2. That in event of war, the ROK/US would

invade N. Korea, resulting in a slugging match

in the mountains. I am not a big admirer of

U.S. generals, but they are not that stupid.