@Human - Please stop the condescending attitude. If you want to discuss this like an adult, then fine. But name calling isn't helping you make your point. In fact, it is hurting it.

"This is one of the poorest nations on earth that we are talking about. They can dig in all they want. When we destroy one artillery positon, it is gone for good. It can not just be reproduced. "

And if you don't kill that artillery position in the first hour it will have unloaded dozens shells into population and military centers along with its 13000 brothers and sisters whle the hold outs fire continuously until the run out of ammo or they are knocked out as well

For you how many dead is acceptable for "breaking" North Korea?

HumanWave:

You have yet to name a single source for anything you are saying. Your traveling experiences in North Korea did not get you this information; another thing did. Cite it.

I did, google it... Its common knowlege as you will see if you google it

IF YOU GOOGLED IT, POST THE URL.

@Human - fail. Cite your sources or admit you have none.

Ironic Fact of the day - the same crowd who was against military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan were also against military intervention in North Korea before North Korea was prenukeulur.

Nowadays the military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan have (more or less) eliminated the Ba'ath junta and Taliban's (respective) viability as military actors. North Korea, who we felt couldn't be bombed for reasons of political acceptability, are now as brinksman as they've ever been.

Doesn't WMD seem like one situation where preemptive military action is really really justified? Or am I just old and crazy? Is there a lesson learned here?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/north-korea-puts-artillery-forces-on-highest-combat-alert-level.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903717,00.html

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=118309

Want more?
http://blog.keia.org/2013/02/north-koreas-conventional-weapons-threat/

That enough bo_sox?

That'd do it, bro. Now you have a talking point.

Nice. Still reading.

I read most of them. What I have seen is:

1. They have a large and poorly trained military. (No argument)
2. They have the capability to do a lot of damage to Seoul. (I said earlier that there would be destruction on the SK side. No argument)

What I did not see is anyone saying that they could hold out against us. Or that they could sustain an attack. Or that we would not have air superiority very quickly. Or that the ruling dynasty would survive. Basically, they can do a shit ton of damage and then cease to exist as they do now. And, like I said earlier, they are not suicidal. They know that this would be the war equivalent of shooting their wad before NK, as we know it, ends.

Did anyone argue that they would? If it was a matter of a video game where little pixels were killed and there was no hard feelings, sure the us and its allies would eventually prevail. That is not how war works. The United States and South Korea cannot win a war against North Korea without a staggering cost. For that reason war should not and likely will not be contemplated. Neither side would truly win. Humanity would lose.

This is like asking who would win a nuclear exchange between superpowers but on a smaller but nonetheless equally ludicrous scale.

Lets not even mention political, social, and economic ramifications of a full scale war in a time of economic instability

The issue is the military of NK. No one knows exactly who is actually running things. A full on, coordinated attack from NK to SK would cause massive casualties. But if the situation is in a constate of flux, there is a chance that NK will overplay their hand and some regional general will launch an attack on his own. Remember, it was just recently that they sunk that SK ship and bombed an island. If that happens, then SK and the US will be able to respond in a way that will prevent a large scale coordinated attack from NK. Still, the results will be SK causalities, but not nearly the number.

We are arguing the same thing albeit from different angles.

1. North Korea is a real threat with or without china because of the human toll they can inflict on the south

2. With or without china a full scale war on the peninsula is neither desired, feasible, or likely.

I think we can leave it at that

btw, the TIMES article is four years old...

im sure that the korean arsenal has considerably diminished since then...

Seriously...

of course...i agree with most of your points, but just wanted to mention it :)

I agree with HumanWave with regards to the inevitable loss of life. Would be an acceptable figure in order to reunify Korea? Fifty thousand, a hundred thousand, a million? Maybe if we wait long enough without conflict the situation will resolve itself, much like the fall of the iron curtain in Europe. This would be the ideal scenario.

On the other hand the conflict already has cost millions of lives without a shot being fired in the form of famines in North Korea.

Also if North Korea is allowed to go down the path towards being a fully-fledged nuclear power, how many lives will that cost in the long run?

On the subject of North Koreas strength: a large army, and a difficult mountainous terrain, and proximity to South Korea are their primary assets.
However they are poorly equipped with hopelessly out of date weapons. Moreover you would have to wonder committed to the fight they would be once it starts. Surely there must be some dissension in the ranks in North Korea by now. There must be enough people who are aware of how successful South Korea has become. Maybe the state of North Korea would collapse within about a week of the conflict starting. What have they got to fight for?
Lastly North Korea has no allies. It's not going to be a repeat of the original Korean War. And I don't human wave tactics would succeed in this day and age.

"Surely there must be some dissension in the ranks in North Korea by now."
No, probably not. They're into the third generation of brain-washed citizens now and the rulers of the DPRK have gotten very good at it. Their people *believe*!

The DPRK has the 4th largest standing army in the world. The DPRK's planned "human wave" attack into the South is the main reason why America wouldn't sign up to a land-mine ban. The area south of the border is the most heavily mined land in the world. The 13,0009(ish) heavy weapons mentioned earlier are probably initially aimed at certain areas of this mine-field in order to blast paths through it for their troops. They'll be aimed at the military bases and cities in the South later - while their rockets bombard Japan.

The worst problems caused by a war down there won't be the fighting - take a look at your phone, computer, TV, TIVO, flash drives - how many were made in South Korea or Japan? If the DPRK does attack, watch these things disappear from the shops. Watch the stock markets world-wide drop like a rock too.

Just my two-penneth.