The Nato chief is saying that North Korea is getting access to Russian missile and nuclear technology, in exchange for troops. If this is true, should South Korea launch a preemptive attack on North Korea before these new technologies are properly integrated and utilized?
No.
Starting a war is astonishing unwise.
Also, what will happen with South Korea’s strongest military ally (the US) in less than a month?
No. NK has a bunch of artillery hidden in the forested mountains just north of the border. And and SK has a lot of population centers within within firing distance. And this includes rockets/missiles with some rather spicy warheads.
And rough terrain ensures that a quick blitz to topple the government and their nuclear arsenal won’t work.
Sure, NK will not be able to hold off SK in the long run, especially if SK invites friends. But Seoul will be leveled.
Plus, China really does not want a US ally on its border, and are likely to intervene.
I guess the counter argument would be that the situation will only get worse the longer you wait. That argument has been used many times in history.
Why do you think the situation can only get worse given more time?
I don’t think so. Probably not. It’s a classical argument when starting a war (Germany/WW1 and Japan/WW2), that’s why I brought it up.
I.e. if you believe there is a very high risk for war at SOME point, then you probably want to take control of the situation and start the war at a time and place of your choice. If you can destroy 90% of NKs ICMBs (or other kinds of carriers) today, it’s better to start the war now, if the new technology will bring that number down to say 50% by tomorrow.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that it’s not impossible that the recent coup attempt in SK was somehow related to this kind of thinking. This is how the military tend to reason after all.
Interesting related video: https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
War is very seldom inevitable. We tend not to focus much attention on wars that never started, because that does not make for very engaging history content. It happens far more frequently than a war actually starting though.
True!
It kinda can’t, though. ‘South Korea will be leveled’ is basically the worst imaginable outcome, unless you’re saying they’ll nuke the friends SK invites. Realistically, ‘no nukes/missile strikes at other countries’ is probably going to be China’s only requirement for assistance. Which would make it a horrible grueling land war. Which is going to suck with or without Russian ICBMs in NK.
that will really bother china; so, no. this would be another step in the direction of ww3
Isn’t it possible that China will find this situation intolerable as well? I find it quite likely that North Korea will change its attitude towards China if balls grow too big. Make demands etc.
they havent seemed to want to control the issue yet. lots of words, but no action.
north korea is chinas little bitchy sister… its heavily reliant on china for resources and such. it doesnt have much of a choice if china decided to actually act.
the only thing that would prompt china to act is if it looked like some nato nations wanted to take out NK, cuz china does not want the west on their border
Korea is the pathway to invade China, like what happened in WW2. China does not want the US in Korea. Right now North Korea acts as a buffer.
They are one and the same country, divided by two governments. You should rather hope that they can reunite, instead of pursuing evil phantasies of war.
I agree. But hopefully I’ll learn some educated arguments by asking this.
One would think that out of all countries, South Korea should be the least worried about North Korean nuclear attack. They’re next door neighbors a handful of miles apart from each other geographically, and wind exists to carry fallout right back to Kim Jong Un’s house.
Same reasons it always seems so odd whenever Russia threatens to nuke Ukraine.
That’s an argument I don’t agree with. I believe the perceived risks of nuclear fallout is negligible in most cases. Especially when talking tactical nukes. For sure a risk North Korea (or Russia) would be willing to take.
Depends on bomb type, but Ukraines and russias region is gigantic compared to the region affected by bomb fallout.
If it wouldn’t be so bad for the wildlife, it would be a decent strategy for Ukraine to dirty bomb along the whole border to russia, so crossing it by land would mean cetain death within a week. It could even be on Ukraines side to demonstrate it’s a defensive measure. Dirty bombs are less difficult to make and Ukraine has a lot of experience dealing with radioactive contamination, too.
You would also shit 50 big piles along your own garden fence just to keep the neighbor’s cat out?
If the neighbours cat is killing my children every day, I absolutely would.
North Korea nukes Japan. Japan: wtf again? We didn’t even do anything.
But in all seriousness, Seoul would be nuked. You nuke the invading country and if the North Korean regime is going down they don’t care about winds.
No. As belligerent as North Korea sounds, it has generally abided by the armistice with South Korea.
Doesn’t North Korea likely have nuclear weapons now already? If it does, then you can imagine the result.
South could just provide tools to Ukraine…
No.
