Why does North Korea have nuclear weapons?

[TotalMayhem]

I like your sense of humour. The Koreans invaded Korea, and attacked the US.
What was the US doing in Korea, exactly? There for a picnic ?

There were no Americans in Korea, picnicking or otherwise. They have left in 1948 after they have liberated the country from Japanese occupation. They only came back when the Commies pulled their little stunt. With a mandate from the United Nations, mind you. Due to recent historic events, the Americans and the British Commonwealth had by far the most troops in the region but even the mighty military power of Luxembourg sent soldiers to prevent South Korea from falling into the hands of the Communists.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Oh please... the cold war was long over when this madman Kim Jong Il came to power.

To the North Koreans it hasn't. They consider the South to be part of their territory, and thus occupied at the moment by what they see as an illegitimate 'puppet' government of the US. Reunification on their terms, whether by armed force or otherwise, is the second major goal of the regime after regime survival. To them, their nuclear weapons would only be deployed as part of an assault to retake the South or in retaliation for an attack by ROK or US forces. Their key aim in using the weapon as deterrence is to deter US ground troops taking part in any future conflict, as they rightly see them as having turned the tide against them in the First Korean War. They also judge, whether correctly or not, that it's not politically feasible for the US to use nuclear weapons against a country bordering China, as it would flip the Chinese out.

[TotalMayhem]

They consider the South to be part of their territory, and thus occupied at the moment by what they see as an illegitimate 'puppet' government of the US.

Kim was installed by the Soviets, so, whatever this Commie puppet saw as his territory is by and large irrelevant.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Kim was installed by the Soviets, so, whatever this Commie puppet saw as his territory is by and large irrelevant.

Kim was certainly installed by the Soviets, but he had a mind of his own, as the rest of his rule showed. North Korea never received the same amounts of aid or technical assistance from the USSR or China (the Chinese Volunteers in the Korean War being the huge exception) that other states did, and Kim Jong-Il kept North Korea aloof from both sides during the Sino-Soviet split. Kim Il-Sung was no puppet, whatever else he was.

[TotalMayhem]

Kim Il-Sung was no puppet

Kim's invasion of the South was sanctioned by Stalin and Mao. Kim went to Moscow and Beijing for approval. What was he then, if not a puppet? Kim and his puppeteers are clearly to blame for providing the Americans with the opportunity to bomb North Korea "back into the stone age" (Eisenhower's words, not mine).

[antiestablishmentarian]

[quote=TotalMayhem;214280]

Kim's invasion of the South was sanctioned by Stalin and Mao. Kim went to Moscow and Beijing for approval.

He did not go to seek 'sanction', he was the one who came up with the idea for the invasion independent of and in contravention of the wishes of Stalin, who only agreed to give aid for it when Kim convinced him that he could defeat the ROK on his own and that the Americans wouldn't get involved. The Chinese and Soviets only got involved post-Incheon when there was the real possibility that the US would continue North to the Yalu and Tumen rivers, which bordered both states. That was when the Chinese Volunteers were formed and marched into the northern mountains of Korea. Kim Il-Sung might have put it off without the promise of support, but that was more a tactical issue of securing supplies. A puppet would not have come up with a scheme such as Kim's proposed invasion, especially when there were so many ways it could have blown up in the face of their puppet master and was a distraction from that puppet masters main sphere of interests (which was Eastern Europe and Germany). Kim would probably have launched an invasion of the South without 'sanction' if he thought he'd have gotten away without any need for support.

Kim and his puppeteers are clearly to blame for providing the Americans with the opportunity to bomb North Korea "back into the stone age" (Eisenhower's words, not mine).

There was no justification for the extent of the destruction that was wrought on North Korea- yes, they invaded, and any action taken to expel them from South Korea by the South Koreans and UN was justified, but the North was a poor state and had no industrial base worth talking about in 1950, so effectively it had shot its bolt, and post Incheon was no longer a threat to South Korea. Yes, attacks on war factories, military bases etc in the North was justified, but the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than were dropped on Europe by both sides during the Second World War. I don't think that was justified in any way, nor can the North Koreans be blamed for that level of destruction.

[TotalMayhem]

Stalin, who only agreed to give aid for it when Kim convinced him that he could defeat the ROK on his own and that the Americans wouldn't get involved.

Stalin was not that stupid. On the contrary, he correctly assumed that the Americans would get involved so he had free reign in Eastern Europe. That's why he did not send troops but left the dirty work to the Chinese. Kim asked him for troops but Stalin sent him to Mao.

And whether actions in a war are justified is a rather moot point. Kim must have been aware of the fate of German and Japanese cities in WWII, so he he brought this devastation upon the people of North Korea by a stupid act of miscalculation. He knew full well what they had coming, did his gamble not play out.

[C. Flower]

To the North Koreans it hasn't. They consider the South to be part of their territory, and thus occupied at the moment by what they see as an illegitimate 'puppet' government of the US. Reunification on their terms, whether by armed force or otherwise, is the second major goal of the regime after regime survival. To them, their nuclear weapons would only be deployed as part of an assault to retake the South or in retaliation for an attack by ROK or US forces. Their key aim in using the weapon as deterrence is to deter US ground troops taking part in any future conflict, as they rightly see them as having turned the tide against them in the First Korean War. They also judge, whether correctly or not, that it's not politically feasible for the US to use nuclear weapons against a country bordering China, as it would flip the Chinese out.

Surely you would concede that Korea has been tartetted by US nuclear weapons for decades? And also that regimes such as Iraq and Libya, without nuclear weapons, have been subject to illegal regime change attacks by the western capitalist powers?

[TotalMayhem]

Surely you would concede that Korea has been tartetted by US nuclear weapons for decades?

That goes indeed for the entire planet, as the combined nuclear powers (capitalist, communist or otherwise) have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, not just once but many times over, It's called nuclear overkill or pounding the rubble.

Why are you so desperately determined to grant the Commies in North Korea an exceptional status in this regard?

[Kev Bar]

Kim's invasion of the South was sanctioned by Stalin and Mao. Kim went to Moscow and Beijing for approval. What was he then, if not a puppet? Kim and his puppeteers are clearly to blame for providing the Americans with the opportunity to bomb North Korea "back into the stone age" (Eisenhower's words, not mine).

Thought that was Curtis Lemay

[TotalMayhem]

Thought that was Curtis Lemay

Him too... but I believe, Eisenhower took particular pride in it during a talk with his successor Kennedy.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Surely you would concede that Korea has been tartetted by US nuclear weapons for decades? And also that regimes such as Iraq and Libya, without nuclear weapons, have been subject to illegal regime change attacks by the western capitalist powers?

Where have I said that it wasn't? On another thread that was posted here, I made the argument that North Korea has developed the way it has because of the threat and perceived threat from the outside world. The thing is, North Korea's main deterrence against attack is not its nuclear weapons (which it has no reliable way of deploying) but this



In the event of a war, their DMZ based artillery would cause millions of casualties and devastate a large part of South Korea before it could be neutralised by the US or ROK. Given the ensuing decimation of the South Korean economy, which is now one of the 15 strongest in the world, this threat is far more serious to the US/ROK than the threat of North Korea's primitive nuclear weapons.

[C. Flower]

Where have I said that it wasn't? On another thread that was posted here, I made the argument that North Korea has developed the way it has because of the threat and perceived threat from the outside world. The thing is, North Korea's main deterrence against attack is not its nuclear weapons (which it has no reliable way of deploying) but this



In the event of a war, their DMZ based artillery would cause millions of casualties and devastate a large part of South Korea before it could be neutralised by the US or ROK. Given the ensuing decimation of the South Korean economy, which is now one of the 15 strongest in the world, this threat is far more serious to the US/ROK than the threat of North Korea's primitive nuclear weapons.

There's a big difference in war between could and would. What is their air force like? Iraq had a large ground force, but with the US in command of the air, it was very quickly destroyed. The USSR had a large nuclear response prepared to nuclear attack by the US, but when USSR systems showed an incoming attack in 1983, orders to fire were ignored by Russian military personnel.

26,000 bombing raids were made by NATO on Libya, in a few weeks. The Libyan army was destroyed.

In many ways, attack is easier than defence.



What are those guns, btw ?

[TotalMayhem]

What is their air force like?

About 600 fighters and bombers, mostly old Russian design, the most modern are 3 dozens MIG 29 Fulcrum.

Cannon fodder in general.

What are those guns, btw ?

The M-1978 (KOKSAN) is a 170 mm self-propelled (SP) gun of North Korean design and manufacture.

Caliber 170 mm
Rate of fire ~1-2 rounds per 5 minutes
Effective range ~40-60 km
Maximum range 60 km (with RAP round, Rocket Assisted Projectiles)

(I wish all photos in our Christmas Quiz would have been that easy)

[antiestablishmentarian]

[quote=C. Flower;214313]

There's a big difference in war between could and would. What is their air force like? Iraq had a large ground force, but with the US in command of the air, it was very quickly destroyed. The USSR had a large nuclear response prepared to nuclear attack by the US, but when USSR systems showed an incoming attack in 1983, orders to fire were ignored by Russian military personnel.

There's a difference of terrain- the Iraqi army and the Libyans were fighting in areas with little effective cover against air-raids, whereas the North Koreans have dug their artillery into hardened and concealed bunkers in the mountains along the DMZ and their ground forces are well concealed too. Alot of tanks have been dug into tunnels, and the whole length of the border is mined on both sides, with the North Koreans deploying illegal anti-personnel lasers too in places. North Korea's terrain is quite defendable because of the mountains and rivers, and airpower and armour won't be as effective against such a numerically large foe operating with alot of fire support out of fortified positions, and relying on huge supply stockpiles (the army is estimated to have enough food stockpiled to last for 500 days of combat, and similar levels of fuel and ammunition reserves). The US and ROK would win such a war, but it would cause them horrendous casualties and need a huge commitment of resources.

The North Korean airforce is large, but mostly aging ineffective models, they only have 30-40 modern aircraft, though there was a mission about 9-10 years ago where they successfully intercepted a US spy plane over the Sea of Japan which military analysts say showed good intelligence, radar and effective command control. It's been suffering from a serious lack of flying time though (fuel shortages), and as most of its planes are junk, much of it will be shot out of the air pretty quickly (though its sheer size will be a nightmare in logistical terms and also mean alot of mopping up, as it has between 1,600 and 1,700 planes in its inventory).

What are those guns, btw ?

The M-1978 or Koksan. It has an effective range of 60km (far enough from the border to reach Seoul), and has been used quite succesfully by Iran in the past, who used it to shell Iraqi rear bases during their war in the 1980s.