[quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]
Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins.
