Which option would you like to see POTUS take with respect to North Korea?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 22:55:04 -0400

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 10:59 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 22:59:05 -0400

I am working on a piece for the command post right now that takes a different perspective on this whole mess. Essentially refocuses our approach to actually helping the regime stabilize and normalize through the acknowledgment of their weapons program. In doing so, we have a different kind of opportunity to pull the regime into some of our international mechanisms that could vastly increase communication and deconfliction. I think, now more then ever, we need to start respecting the regime as rational actors and make stronger attempts to bring them into the international order as a mid-level country thereby securing the regime and mitigating its need to stay in a constant state of threat to ensure its existence.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 4 at 2017 11:04 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:04:14 -0400

Too many unknowns to make a call. If we could be certain that we could wipe out the arty along the DMZ and use precision missiles to kill the fat boy, Wipe out the nuclear ICBMs, I would say go for it. However, in my estimation, we will continue with diplomacy unless they actually hit us or our allies.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 11:08 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:08:13 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member it's a challenging question sir. I'm all for starting off with diplomacy but doubtful of it success especially now we seem to be at cross roads with North Korea and what ever we decide ther e is no going back. If there is a military response I have to say after careful review of the situation and what I know so far the most favorable outcome at least in regards to the area should a military option be necessary should be a large unrestricted surgical first strike. It'll take at least 1 million troops completely securing all military and strategic installations quickly and decisively.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 4 at 2017 11:09 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:09:53 -0400

How is that different from our policy for the last three decades. The current situation is a result of extortion and pacification on our side?

Response by SPC Anthony Schepis made Sep 4 at 2017 11:23 PM

SPC Anthony Schepis — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:23:33 -0400

Ignore it

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Sep 4 at 2017 11:23 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:23:37 -0400

We should really be working China hard right now. If we need to do something, we will need them either to let it go, or at least not open hostilities with us. Their Territory Grab in the Pacific isn't stopping. It has just slid to the back burner. China is the key to any lethal strike of any type. Of course, if Kim goes high and right and strikes us or an ally, the gloves come off, total war.

I am wondering what would happen if we shot down a NorK ICBM, like exactly 12 miles into international airspace.

There is of course the humanitarian implosion and meltdown allied nations would inherit that looms behind almost all courses of action, provided ROK and our allies want to soak up the destruction and death on the front end in Seoul. Couple that with the NorK population, born and raised to hate us and our "running dogs".

There is no real key leader caste that isn't already Nuremberg level of guilty , so they are all in on this level of crazy that lil Kim is perpetuating. Getting all of them is a tall order.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Sep 4 at 2017 11:25 PM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:25:11 -0400

Remember, defenders do not get the luxury of surprise, only attackers. Seems like it is better to be on the attack instead of being a target. For USA and our military, the attack would be the safest for us, because we get to use surprises.... Defense will cause us to lose initially.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Sep 4 at 2017 11:26 PM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:26:32 -0400

If we continue diplomacy, will will deal with a nuclear nKorea who states they want us in a sea of fire... seems to me that to prevent that, we have to take action, preferably before they finish their next ICBM.

Response by SGT Jason Keefer made Sep 4 at 2017 11:37 PM

SGT Jason Keefer — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:37:59 -0400

Having served in Korea, I'd dread an actual fight in that terrain. I'd fear for the lives of the millions that live in Seoul. But, god, there would be no greater thing than to erase that totalitarian regime from the face of the planet and allow Korea to unify.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 11:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:45:17 -0400

We'll keep rattling the saber. Only way we go to war if NK strikes first. Way too many unknowns if we do a preemptive strike. You can't guarantee you'll hit the nuke sites and NK has already shown they can launch from anywhere within the country.

One more question, why hasn't anyone called Kim out yet? I mean has anyone actually seen him give a speech yet?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 4 at 2017 11:54 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 23:54:37 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member There are no good options. Wait him out. Let him attack first, and then destroy North Korea's military capability.

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Sep 5 at 2017 12:21 AM

A1C Charles D Wilson — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:21:25 -0400

I say it is simple. Do nothing at all. Do not respond to North Korea at all. Let them make the mistake of a strike (that will not happen I hope). North Korea is using the US as a pawn with China and Russia. North Korea is like a very very rich kids spoiled child that does not know their place, so mom and dad (China and Russia) need to correct North Korea. If North Korea strikes any ally or the US then we can take affirmative action on the leader(s) and the leader(s) only, while we confirm the actions with China and Russia. The only reason China and Russia do not want us to remove said leader(s) the country would become a full state again and they do not want the US on their borders.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 5 at 2017 12:39 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 00:39:33 -0400

We need to put an end to the regime and utterly destroy all of their nuclear capability.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2017 1:12 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 01:12:23 -0400

I think it's past time for a change in leadership. un should be spread across the entirety of the north.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Sep 5 at 2017 1:50 AM

SCPO Morris Ramsey — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 01:50:09 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member If we can crack the code Cyber is our best option.

Response by PFC Jonathan Albano made Sep 5 at 2017 2:54 AM

PFC Jonathan Albano — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:54:14 -0400

While diplomacy is the ideal solution, I'm not willing to say strict diplomacy. I'd stick to diplomacy unless "macho" man decided to try and flex again, in which case, primary objective would be ICBM sites. Ideally, this would send the intended message. (However, reality often loves to crap on expectations.) I'd shy away from assassinations as they create power vacuums that we would have little to no say in who filled. If it came down to a North Korea leadership change, I think it would serve us best to go big or go home.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2017 3:16 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:16:36 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, unfortunately, I have to agree with the majority here. We can't strike North Korea without China being in bed with us. The majority of South Koreans don't want us to conduct a preemptive strike either. The only scenario where Seoul is not a wasteland with hundreds of thousands dead is through continued dialogue and acceptance of the status quo. China isn't happy with North Korea, but they also have to be defiant towards Washington. They have to stand as the alternative to the United States, especially in the region. Their own interests demand it. They do not like having a nuclear North Korea on their border, but they don't like the idea of a unified Korean peninsula under democratic rule either. To us, the latter is obviously more preferable than the former, but that's not the mindset in China. Status quo enables the Chinese long term interests. Unfortunately that leaves us in the situation we are in and we may have a little more empathy with Israel now. If North Korea gains the ability to strike U.S. territories in the Pacific or on the West Coast, we now have a credible threat. Sure, Russia and China have had that capability for a while, but the stalemate between nuclear powers has always been one of responsibility. In the hands of an unstable regime, it's a different story. We now have a constant and justifiable threat. Then however, the game becomes even darker. If North Korea can strike, how much can they strike? If a missile could get through, or even two, what would we lose in comparison to the overwhelming destruction we could cause? Then we have a return of brinksmanship that we haven't seen since the 1980's. A new status quo. Can we keep up pressure when there is a gun pointed at the West Coast of the United States?

Response by SGT Christopher Hayden made Sep 5 at 2017 3:26 AM

SGT Christopher Hayden — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 03:26:55 -0400

We invaded a country and took out their Dictator because we THOUGHT they MIGHT have had Weapons of Mass Destruction. We know NK has them and wants to use them. Yet, we're just going to sit on our hands because of big, bad China not wanting us to take over the North after we wipe out the regime.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 5 at 2017 6:47 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 06:47:39 -0400

I'd examine the past 3 NK leaders along with diplomacy and determine the outcome. Diplomacy is only one facet of national power. I think we have not answered the China question and until that is discussed we will just kick the can down the geo political road so to say. Will China support NK if .... if NK strikes first? If US strikes first? If NK tests a missile that falls into another country's air space and kills their citizens? Economic war against the region would be the first arrow out of my quiver. I'd stop receiving ships from China. This could be an overt Political move by the President or Congress or a covert move. My observation is China uses MK as leverage against the US. So, let's offer nukes to the region as well. Reposition troops in the region as well. Build up a defense posture in the region with full UN acknowledgment. Where is Cyber Command in our options? Can we possibly jam the communication network and control functions of the NKs? Whatever we do we need to remember that the US will get blamed for whatever action we take or fail to take, we need to remember the Political realities as well. We have one Political Party that is overtly working to take out our current President. Therefore time is an issue. Just remember Sen. Harry Reid's comment toward Gen. Petreaus that the US had lost the war in Iraq while we had just kicked off the Surge. So Politics will play in Biggly as a factor. And last, soon we will have simultaneous Nuke threats: NK in the Pacific and Iran in the Middle East. My bet is Washington is filled with Max Boot Stratigists and Theorists and the status quo will continue.

Response by SSgt Holden M. made Sep 5 at 2017 10:26 AM

SSgt Holden M. — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:26:43 -0400

I would actually pick two. Preemptive strikes of ICBM sites and lethally neutralize DPRK key leaders

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Sep 5 at 2017 10:18 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Tue, 05 Sep 2017 22:18:00 -0400

I voted for lethally neutralize key leaders, but personally it doesn't matter because any situation involving N. Korea is a lose-lose situation. We've seen the propaganda that's drilled into their heads at an early age. If we put boots on the ground, we'll be seen as the evil invaders and I wouldn't be surprised if the civilian population doesn't throw themselves upon our bayonets to protect their beloved leader. If we assassinate the leaders, we've turned them into martyrs. If we use diplomacy, we're trying to have a civil conversation with a madman. If we only target their icbm sites, we're still incurring casualties amongst those who are either too brainwashed to know better or too coerced to do otherwise. If we go full scale war, tremendous casualties. If we provide minimal support, then we're only proving the propaganda right that "we stole South Korea from the rightful North Korean rulers.

Lose - lose no matter what we do.

Response by SGT Jim Arnold made Sep 7 at 2017 3:54 PM

SGT Jim Arnold — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:54:04 -0400

China has to be the key to disarm N. Korea, I don't want a recurrence of the 1950's incidence where thousands of Chinese came to the rescue of N.Korea.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 7 at 2017 6:14 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:14:27 -0400

One of the best series of articles on this subject. It didn't go into missile defense systems in this one.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would-retaliate

How North Korea Would Retaliate

Pyongyang would counterstrike using its considerable artillery, rocket and missile arsenal, but there are limits to these weapons' effectiveness.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2017 3:19 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:19:57 -0400

I believe POTUS is handling it as I prefer, with diplomacy first, bringing in other national interests (more pressure to bear on NK). As for preemptive strikes...NO! Our military and that of your firends, should be ready to rain hellfire on North Korea as a RESPONSE to action.

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Sep 8 at 2017 4:09 PM

SSgt Boyd Welch — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:09:57 -0400

Quite frankly,. I'm tired of watching politicians decide op tempo and objectives of war. Police actions accomplish nothing but make armament companies and contractors rich while our young men and women come home underneath a flag. If we are going to suffer the loss of men and women who more than likely will come home deceased or "changed forever", then make their sacrifice count for something more than someone's ego. While this may not be politically correct dogma, I believe in the scorched earth policy. If any infrastructure becomes off-limits to targeting where do you think the enemy will place their war-fighting capability? If you do not have the stomach to utterly destroy every living thing in a given quadrant, then don't commit our forces. Our people are much too valuable to just be considered "expendable". Okay...enough of my rant.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Sep 24 at 2017 3:47 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:47:09 -0400

This THAAD System has become an embarrassment. The world is waiting to see if it works or is a trillion dollar HOAX. China and Russia are going to be watching but so are those Eastern European countries that joined NATO to be protected by it. If we don't use it we will be a Paper Tiger. North Korea is just a way for the Russians and Chinese to see if it works