Do Economic Sanctions Work

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Reviving this post for the NK situation. I am curious if any here could define a line where a military solution becomes viable. I am talking about the old shock and awe type solution, not a flyover or decapitation strategy.

It's my opinion that the NK army is a straw man like the first gulf war. I believe that if you barrage the frontline artillery positions that can reach Seoul, and at the same time take out the known missile launchers, that the North soldiers would surrender en masse.

BUT, At what point is that option even viable?
Now, I don't think so.

but what if a missile lands at or near Guam? or Alaska?

What is your point of no return? As Schneed said above: There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

The issue with use of force is with first strike would have to be the biggest military coordination use of force since WW2 because of NK troop size in terms of mass installations, we would have to be sure all nuclear site would be totally destroyed and then we have knock out many leadership positions.

The biggest thing we fear is South Korea and Seoul in particular is vulnerable to the point they certainly would sustain substantial damage. If North Korea does anything first, it would be to do as much damage to SK as possible...that's their number one priority and enemy.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The issue with use of force is with first strike would have to be the biggest military coordination use of force since WW2 because of NK troop size in terms of mass installations, we would have to be sure all nuclear site would be totally destroyed and then we have knock out many leadership positions.

The biggest thing we fear is South Korea and Seoul in particular is vulnerable to the point they certainly would sustain substantial damage. If North Korea does anything first, it would be to do as much damage to SK as possible...that's their number one priority and enemy.

It would be massive no doubt with the focus like you said to knock out the immediate threat to Seoul, and Japan, but between our troops there and the naval and air force power we/Japan/SK could commit, an immediate blitz attack would almost certainly lead NK's surviving forces/leadership to sign a near immediate armistice. (Assuming China stays out of it).

Again, not saying this should happen, but what line would have to be crossed to make this option even viable.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It would be massive no doubt with the focus like you said to knock out the immediate threat to Seoul, and Japan, but between our troops there and the naval and air force power we/Japan/SK could commit, an immediate blitz attack would almost certainly lead NK's surviving forces/leadership to sign a near immediate armistice. (Assuming China stays out of it).

Again, not saying this should happen, but what line would have to be crossed to make this option even viable.

Seoul is so close to the border, 4th largest metro population in the world with like 25 million. They are in the kill zone range of NK weapons.

If Seoul was in the South...we would have already attacked North Korea.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Seoul is so close to the border, 4th largest metro population in the world with like 25 million. They are in the kill zone range of NK weapons.

If Seoul was in the South...we would have already attacked North Korea.

Agreed