aznninjahitman
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*****Warning: very long-winded post*****
Of course, one must look at the big picture. North Korea's history suggests that it's unstable, according to the mass media - I agree with them. The North Korean government is totalitarian and corrupt, there's an avian influenza outbreak and a scarlet fever epidemic, noticeable numbers of the people are trying to escape to neighboring countries, and people aren't getting enough nutrition. Thus, the stage is set for internal instability.
Next, one must examine the history and local destabilizing influences. China borders western North Korea, and (I think) definitely won't stand for war, because there's too much of a possibility of it spilling over into Chinese territorial boundaries, airspace, or maritime holdings. The Chinese government is very rapidly building border walls between itself and North Korea, as well, to help keep out the North Koreans. To North Korea's south, as all should know, lies South Korea (ROK), which is very definitely working to undermine Kim Jong Il's regime's power. Also, there's Japan, Taiwan, and the American 7th Fleet, and quite a large number of American servicemen and other personnel nearby, primarily in Japan.
As America is sworn to defend Japan and Taiwan (Japan being one of the largest potential enemies to North Korea) and also working as closely with the ROK as it'll permit, and China and Russia growing antsy over North Korean nukes, it's pretty easy to infer that North Korea's hemmed in. China and North Korea are trade and ideological partners, but China would see more value in maintaining good-enough relations with the rest of the world than with Korea, because of the obvious market values. Besides, the communist nomme the Chinese government works under is more of a ritualized shell - the country and its people (my people) have too strong capitalist roots and regionalism to submit to communes and the communal good for the long run, in that large of an area.
That said, one must also consider international opinion, ie world opinion. Most of the world will make grumpy noises and protest - but that's truly all it can amount to, because so few nations trade actively with North Korea. Nations that contribute aid will have more of an impact, but I can't forecast how that will turn out (North Korea might posture and rattle its swords to try to get the aid back, like it's done in the past)... the UN can't truly send in a peacekeeping force in the immediate future, either, and there isn't enough provocation in any case.
Most likely, there won't be a military coup of any sort...
So back to the topic subject. Diplomatically, the US can truly only posture and threaten to cut off trade/impose sanctions. Economically, there isn't much that the US can do, either. The biggest thing the US can do is cut off aid and pressure other nations to cut off aid, trade, and diplomatic relations with the DPRK. The United States is already stretched thin, militarily wise. That doesn't mean its toothless - far from it - but it will need regional agreement before launching any action. After all, the American military will need to fly from airbases or carriers, will need clearance when crossing sovereign airspace, and will need to supply itself. A unilateral action is out of the question - world opinion probably wouldn't allow it, anyway.
So onto the topic of military possibilities... the best bet at any military action would probably be small groups - probes, really - of soldiers. Some are based in South Korea already, others could be brought in, but most likely they wouldn't be the elite forces that would be best used in such attacks. The true problem is shifting assets so that, if the American, South Korean, or other militaries in the region decide to attack North Korea in any way, the forces there can react and either hold the line, or push forwards, or mount an effective rearguard, whatever happens. The soldiers on the possible probes can be any of a myriad of choices - the problem is choosing what branch to draw them from. Should they be Rangers, SEALs, Delta Force, or regulars? Or should they be blue-card contractors, or other mercenary forces (mercenary = deniable and dependable, but more expensive). How expendable are they, and how much can the United States afford to lose in the inevitable skirmishes?
Cruise missile attacks are another military possibility, especially if Kim Jong Il's whereabouts, and those of his higher-level subordinates, can be found, and one does not mind a rather high possibility of collateral damage and the accompanying negative publicity. Nukes are out of the question - don't even go there. Bombing strikes represent another tactical possibility, but again, with precision bombing weapons/techniques and no state of war, one must be absolutely sure of the target and willing to risk some level of collateral damage - the days of saturation-bombing civilian areas are long gone, and such a unilateral approach of attacking is very ill-advised, in any case.
In reality, the American government has its hands tied behind its back. With myriad military possibilities, but almost no viable options (the UN and the world won't agree to war yet, because there aren't enough provocations, and the US can't really afford too much more negative publicity), I must say the North Korean administration has played this brilliantly. Though they've done things that seem incredibly stupid, like test-launching missiles over Japan (loads of risk for them) and constant saber-rattling, not to mention horrible infrastructure and management, they have the world on edge. Their main enemies (Japan and South Korea) should prove ineffectual, at the moment. Japan has a purely defensive military, and though some are seeking to expand the military and use it against North Korea offensively, preemptively, any buildup will take time. South Korea's population is largely reconcilist and complacent, to the best of my very limited knowledge, and the South Korean military is filled with less-than-motivated conscripts.
The United States' main hope is to play along with the UN and convince the rest of the Security Council to take their course, and North Korea's is to improve the conditions for its people and soldiers slightly and quell internal unrest, and to keep surviving and put its enemies in awkward positions (ie the US and its current quandary), and ultimately playing sides off against one another. Who knows what will happen? |
|
