Good points.
I think that most of the foreign policy with North Korea seems to be revolving around waiting or hoping for a controlled collapse.
US invades Venezuela and North Korea instead of Iraq
- Thread starter Joseph Solis in Australia
- Start date
Good points.
I think that most of the foreign policy with North Korea seems to be revolving around waiting or hoping for a controlled collapse.
I was gonna argue point by point on what you said, but I'm too lazy.
What I am gonna say however is that, although you are partly true, I beg to differ in the overall argument. The US is not going to find indoctrinated people screaming blood, they're going to find emaciated soldiers screaming for food.
(If you don't believe me, please PM me in detail why you believe the US is going to have a bad time.) Also, happy belated Chuseok.
fwiw
lol thanks
Yeah, I agree a "new" DPRK run by a docile Beijing puppet is the likely ultimate outcome of a war started by North Korea for some unfathomable reason. If the U.S was really stupid enough to invade, they'd be stupid enough to walk up to the border, start building permanent bases, and act shocked when China reacts negatively.
Reunifying Korea is.......arguably implausible at this point. When you look at how much reunification cost Germany ($2 TRILLION and counting) and how weak East Germany still is 25 years later...
Well damn. Obviously this would be more extreme in Korea. To say nothing of the social and cultural problems in a country ravaged by generations of Stalinism. You very well might see the virtual theocracy of Kim Worship live on as its own religion, complete with prophecies about Great Leader returning to liberate mankind with Juche.
Then again, hey, nothing gets America to rebuild your country faster than losing a World War to them, right?
lol thanks
Yeah, I agree a "new" DPRK run by a docile Beijing puppet is the likely ultimate outcome of a war started by North Korea for some unfathomable reason. If the U.S was really stupid enough to invade, they'd be stupid enough to walk up to the border, start building permanent bases, and act shocked when China reacts negatively.
Reunifying Korea is.......arguably implausible at this point. When you look at how much reunification cost Germany ($2 TRILLION and counting
) and how weak East Germany still is 25 years later...
Well damn. Obviously this would be more extreme in Korea. To say nothing of the social and cultural problems in a country ravaged by generations of Stalinism. You very well might see the virtual theocracy of Kim Worship live on as its own religion, complete with prophecies about Great Leader returning to liberate mankind with Juche.
Then again, hey, nothing gets America to rebuild your country faster than losing a World War to them, right?
And these thoughts have surely occurred to the Chinese leadership, but their thinking is prolly summin like:
#1 - "Status Quo works for *us*. Ain't broke, don't fix it."
#2 - "How 'controlled' can any collapse be in a militarized nation of 25 million people?"
#3 - "If mass unrest, political upheaval, and a revolutionary wave can hit THEM, it can certainly spread to US."
Oh I know they're a hot mess that can barely feed their army, but my bias is to lean against "kick down the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" thinking when it comes to war. Six decades of prep time has to count for something lol. Even if there's mass desertions etc. they should still inflict more damage than any U.S President would be willing to accept without a very, very, VERY damn good reason.
Full Disclosure tho: I *was* one of those anti-war guys that thought Saddam would be able to drag things out and make a bloody last stand at Tikrit. So yeah, maybe OTL would go all Ameriwank on us again...
Redhand
Banned
Oh I know they're a hot mess that can barely feed their army, but my bias is to lean against "kick down the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" thinking when it comes to war. Six decades of prep time has to count for something lol. Even if there's mass desertions etc. they should still inflict more damage than any U.S President would be willing to accept without a very, very, VERY damn good reason.
Full Disclosure tho: I *was* one of those anti-war guys that thought Saddam would be able to drag things out and make a bloody last stand at Tikrit. So yeah, maybe OTL would go all Ameriwank on us again...
The thing about dictatorships like Saddam and Kim have is that the whole basis of their power runs on fear of authority and cult of personality. Once authority is shown to be hollow, as Saddam's was once his vaunted Republican Guard ran with their tail between their legs and his entire air force disintegrated, the rank and file soldier thinks his entire world is collapsing and deserts. The same thing started happening in Germany after Operation Varsity.
I have no doubt that NK has the firepower to make things really hot to start, but the lack of air superiority and the horrible logistical shape of the NK military would quickly cause mass desertion. They may call up their reserves only to find out that they cannot feed them. And once the cult of personality is shown to be hollow with defeat and bloody destruction, the psychological situation would completely overwhelm the NK forces, who already routinely steal food from the population because they are so hungry.
People seem to really over-egg Chavez's opposition to America. It was excellent fodder for the tabloids but America was his number one customer for oil. He might call Mr. Bush a donkey but he isn't going to encourage military activity.
Also in 2003 whatever has become of the Chavista regime had not developed, it was still internationally recognised as democratic (still is really just of a very compromised Berlusconi kind) so the US would have no grounds to attack. It would prove every Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky fanboy fear come true and would obliterate Washington's foreign standing.
Try getting a Coalition of the Willing to roll into a peaceful, democratic country with absolutely no ties to Al-Qaeda. Even our Tony would probably blanche at the idea.
I think he means accusing N Korea of having WMD's would be a truthful accusation, whereas Saddam didn't even have the toy brand WMD's North Korea had/has.
Redhand
Banned
It wasn't specifically about the WMDs though. It was about Saddam's ties to radical Islamist groups AND the fact that he might have had WMDs. Saddam didn't help matters by hinting and implying otherwise.
The thinking was this:
Saddam w/WMDs + support for terrorist groups = Terrorist groups getting access to WMDs
Bush was scared shitless after 9/11 that more attacks would happen, and Cheney and the Neo-Cons were always convinced that Saddam was a threat and needed to be dealt with. I think in Bush's mind, he was trying to avoid a nuclear 9/11 part 2, and after that went awry, he tried to salvage the situation that was inevitable ever since Sykes-Picot happened.
NK with WMDs is annoying, but we know that China will reign them in if need be. Saddam hated everyone and everyone hated him. There was no such guarantee. Therefore there would be no reason to attack them as for one thing it would piss off China and for another thing, the potential threat really only exists for SK and Japan.
The reason that people are so upset about Iran getting WMDs is not that there is some secret club of people with them and we are not admitting new members so piss off (although maybe a little bit
) but rather that their leader has stated on multiple occasions that Israel should be wiped off the map.It doesn't have any WMD's. They got their first "nuke" in 2009
Apart from some chemical stockpiles I imagine they have, I don't think that reason would be credible. Also it's north Korea, they aren't exactly known for their Islamic fundamentalism, nor is Venezuela.A conventional invasion on North Korea would likely succeed in 4 - 6 weeks. However I suspect the US/South Koreans would have to face a nasty insurgency led by all those North Korean Special Forces and communist die hards. A large chunk of the country is mountainous and heavily forested With a fanatical cmmunist nsugency i can see the US beig bogged down in North Korea for years. Plus the pssibilities of entanglemens with China.
It doesn't have any WMD's. They got their first "nuke" in 2009
They have a massive amount of chemical and biological weapons, often as deadly as Nuclear ones.
redlightning
Banned
I don't think an invasion would be likely, instead the US and South Korea could launch a massive campaign of bombings and airstrikes in the North to weaken the government there. In Venezuela, all it would take to get rid of Hugo Chavez would by a cou or assassination by the CIA.
Kim Jung Il dies suddenly of a heart attack before he has time to appoint an heir. A miltary cou takes place and the country falls into civil war. The regime uses biological and chemical weapons on its own population in the battle to keep control. US leaders authorize airstrikes to dismantle such weapons so they don't fall onto the black market to fund the regime's battle to keep control or get into the hands or terrorists. The North retaliates by trying to shoot down American and South Korean aircraft, it happens and the US retaliates by further airstrikes upon targets on the ground. The North responds further and begins attacking American air and sea bases in the South with artillery, which sparks a full scale operation.
The US Air Force bombs targets in the North and begins to support rebels fighting against the surviving members of the regime with financial support, advisers, and weapons. The US eventually uses air strikes against key aspects of infrastructure in the North to undermine the regime and help the rebels. The refugees fleeing from the North caused by the war in the North causes a major humanitarian crisis. China sends troops over the border to deal with the crisis and makes certain parts a protectorate. Eventually, the surviving members of the Un family flees the country into exile, probably in China, and the regime collapses as the capital becomes part of the new, transitional government backed by South Korea and the US.
A massive humanitarian crisis lasts for years and costs billions of lives and hundreds of thousands of lives. The Korea begin a long term battle for reunification with a government that would be appeasing to both China and the West and its allies.
Kim Jung Il dies suddenly of a heart attack before he has time to appoint an heir. A miltary cou takes place and the country falls into civil war. The regime uses biological and chemical weapons on its own population in the battle to keep control. US leaders authorize airstrikes to dismantle such weapons so they don't fall onto the black market to fund the regime's battle to keep control or get into the hands or terrorists. The North retaliates by trying to shoot down American and South Korean aircraft, it happens and the US retaliates by further airstrikes upon targets on the ground. The North responds further and begins attacking American air and sea bases in the South with artillery, which sparks a full scale operation.
The US Air Force bombs targets in the North and begins to support rebels fighting against the surviving members of the regime with financial support, advisers, and weapons. The US eventually uses air strikes against key aspects of infrastructure in the North to undermine the regime and help the rebels. The refugees fleeing from the North caused by the war in the North causes a major humanitarian crisis. China sends troops over the border to deal with the crisis and makes certain parts a protectorate. Eventually, the surviving members of the Un family flees the country into exile, probably in China, and the regime collapses as the capital becomes part of the new, transitional government backed by South Korea and the US.
A massive humanitarian crisis lasts for years and costs billions of lives and hundreds of thousands of lives. The Korea begin a long term battle for reunification with a government that would be appeasing to both China and the West and its allies.
Goodbye Seoul. Tokyo will get extremely familiar with Taidong missiles.
Tried that.
How many assassination attempts failed against Castro?
As I said, goodbye Seoul.
No one can win a conventional warfare vs USA in 2003. The technological difference is very big with USA in 2003 than in otl Korean War.The after effects are different each country, Venezuela would be disastrous for the US. North Korea would depend on how far US will take it.
2003, China is still a smaller economy compare to Japan or USA. It's military even more less advanced. Russia's economy is even smaller.
On that ATL world, Russia and/or china along with Korea would probably have smaller economies in 2014 especially if they faced USA in battle in 2003. Just like otl Korean War, japan would benefit the most so Japan's economy with be larger than otl.
True. On the other hand, getting dragged into a land war in Asia is never a good idea.