# U.S. Intel Official: North Korea Is Bluffing



## Marauder06 (Dec 17, 2010)

I hope he's right...




> Despite all the recent huffing and puffing from Pyongyang, U.S. officials say they’ve seen little physical evidence that North Korea might actually be preparing to go to war. Just hours after Seoul blamed the North for the March 26 sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il publicly ordered his armed forces to get ready for military action, according to sources quoted in _The Guardian_. But two U.S. national security officials, asking for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, tell Declassified they’re not aware of any intelligence reporting on significant military mobilization or redeployments inside North Korea.  The North Korean military is always on the move somewhere, one of the officials said, but at the moment whatever movements are being noted by Western intelligence agencies are regarded as not particularly threatening. A third U.S. foreign policy official, who also asked for anonymity, told Declassified that U.S. agencies are picking up “nothing of extreme concern” in what North Korean forces are currently up to.


----------



## Electric Eye (Dec 17, 2010)

North Korea is a basket case, and even the soldiers in conventional units suffer from malnutrition. The last and only hope of the NK regime is the nuke, of which even that is of questionable operability. The north Koreans spout stuff everyday since 1948; propaganda is really all they've got.


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2010)

Anyone who is worried about going to war with NK shouldn't be IMO.

I pray NK invades the south.

What is NK's economy like? What does it cost to run a modern conventional war?
The war would last a week before NK ran out or money and fuel etc... Sure they've probably got years worth of ammo but if it cant get to the guns it's worthless.

Here's the timeline:

D day, NK invades the south.

D + 2 the south is in headlong retreat, US airpower is ramped up.

D + 4 US starts bombing missions and US Mil engages NK forces.

D + 10 NK is running short on fuel, US airpower is begining to cripple NK supplylines and armor, US ground forces are decimating the old tech NK forces.

D + 15 NK troops are abandoning gear and either streaming north or surrendering in droves.

D + 30 We're getting drunk in Pyongyang.

:cool:


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 18, 2010)

> two U.S. national security officials, asking for anonymity when discussing sensitive information



This always rattles my cage when I see this phrase in a news article.  Who can you trust these days?  Apparantly, not too many.

Reporters shouldn't ask.  They should be good stewards of the information they recieve instead of deciding for themselves that all information should be open source and "declassified" regardless of the consequences. (i.e. NY Times and others publishing classified documents)

Those who know, shouldn't tell or refuse to talk to reporters when asked about "sensitive information" or information they aren't allowed to talk about.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 18, 2010)

If DPRK had a go at the South they'd get rolled, and quickly, but not before they'd destroyed Seoul and ruined ROK's economy for the next 15+ years.


----------



## pardus (Dec 18, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> If DPRK had a go at the South they'd get rolled, and quickly, but not before they'd destroyed Seoul and ruined ROK's economy for the next 15+ years.



= plentiful amounts of cheap hookers for 15+ yrs....

The downside is?


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2010)

Where does N. Korea rank, in terms of GDP:

N. Korea GDP : $30 billion

Alaska G(S)P:  $30 Billion

Kazakhstan GDP: $40 Billion

Idaho G(S)P: $43 Billion

New Hampshire: $51 Billion


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 19, 2010)

Only reason we're that low is because of green fucks being scared of more holes in the ground around here... and those green fucks don't even LIVE HERE.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 20, 2010)

pardus said:


> = plentiful amounts of cheap hookers for 15+ yrs....
> 
> The downside is?



Well you know, I don't have to pay so it wouldn't really affect me like it would you...


----------



## pardus (Dec 20, 2010)

You are showing your youth and inexperience now.
Hookers are FAR cheaper than a relationship...



SpitfireV said:


> Well you know, I don't have to pay so it wouldn't really affect me like it would you...


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 20, 2010)

Yes but when I'm away who will clean the house???








Heh heh heh.


----------



## pardus (Dec 20, 2010)

Dumbarse, Asian hookers will do that for you while you are with them.

It's a fucking win, win!


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2010)

Ranger Psych said:


> Only reason we're that low is because of green fucks being scared of more holes in the ground around here... and those green fucks don't even LIVE HERE.


That, and some other differences become evident when one compares data like this:

Population of Alaska: 690,000

Population of North Korea: 24,000,000

That's about 35 North Koreans for every ONE Alaskan.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 20, 2010)

So going by GDP in ratio to population, we punk them like a bitch. Now I smile.


----------



## lockNload (Dec 20, 2010)

pardus said:


> Anyone who is worried about going to war with NK shouldn't be IMO.
> 
> I pray NK invades the south.
> 
> ...



I disagree with this assessment. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us that we can roll through just about anyone in a conventional war in a short period of time. However, any potential enemy would be smart to go to ground and engage us in a protracted counterinsurgency. China got involved last time NK was getting their ass kicked and it stands to reason that they would do the same this time around. Even if China wasn't directly involved militarily they could still be providing logistical support on many levels including supplying food and ammunition. I don't want to speculate on the morale of their Army as I've read it's low, but that an invasion may result in a unifying nationalism. With all the propaganda inside NK for their "Dear Leader" they may be highly motivated in an actual war, I don't know. Even if 90% of their military surrendered that still leaves a very formidable 100,000 + that we would have to defeat. Iraq and A-stan show what a low budget enemy can do to a superpower and their will to fight a long war. I certainly wouldn't underestimate their ability to wage war against us.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 20, 2010)

I was stationed in Korea, north of Seoul, for two years.  That is some brutal terrain, and I'd hate to have to fight my way through it, especially after nK artillery reduced everything to huge heaps of rubble.

I also think that any type of determined or protracted campaign against the north would be seen as a threat to the regime, with the result that nK would use chem and nukes.  I'm sure somewhere on the Internet there's a chart that shows the range fans for nK's rockets, missiles, and big artillery.  Overlay that with ROK population and economic centers, and you'd see how bad it could really get before it was over.

That said, I think over time nK will only get worse, and their capacity to inflict real harm will continue to increase.  If we need to fight them let's do it now, before they get MORE nukes, before they get MORE unstable, before they're even MORE of a threat to the world.


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2010)

lockNload said:


> I disagree with this assessment. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us that we can roll through just about anyone in a conventional war in a short period of time. However, any potential enemy would be smart to go to ground and engage us in a protracted counterinsurgency. China got involved last time NK was getting their ass kicked and it stands to reason that they would do the same this time around. Even if China wasn't directly involved militarily they could still be providing logistical support on many levels including supplying food and ammunition. I don't want to speculate on the morale of their Army as I've read it's low, but that an invasion may result in a unifying nationalism. With all the propaganda inside NK for their "Dear Leader" they may be highly motivated in an actual war, I don't know. Even if 90% of their military surrendered that still leaves a very formidable 100,000 + that we would have to defeat. Iraq and A-stan show what a low budget enemy can do to a superpower and their will to fight a long war. I certainly wouldn't underestimate their ability to wage war against us.



It has been disclosed that China has communicated that their position is amenable to the idea of a unified Korean Peninsula with Seoul as the Capital.  A reshaping of power in favor of South Korean leadership is judged by Chinese officials to be in their security and economic interest, and the N. Korean regime's policies have reduced it to the status of parasite, utterly reliant upon the Chinese teat.

In my humble opinion there are only two main reasons there has not been a _(*South *Korean-led) _invasion yet:


1.) because of the high likelihood of a massive humanitarian crisis.  The destruction of the Jong Il regime would exacerbate the already existing starvation problems
2.) because of China's unsavory position with regards to displaced populations and their likely mass migration in the wake of conflict and collapse.  They just don't want them flooding into China.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 20, 2010)

I do not believe that NK would engage in a ground invasion of SK, I think they would launch whatever nuke type bombs they had, use air power and arty to fuck with SK and push SK to invade NK. Then I think NK would hold their own in pre established fortified position where supplies are prepositioned. As for the US involvement, I am not really sure where the US support would be if China was not clearly on our side. Meaning if China kept its current policy with NK, I doubt we would be quick to enter into a joint war with SK to invade NK.

As for funding for war, the US doesn’t have the ability to fund a big war in our current state IMHO. I think we would have to borrow more money from, yep that’s right China. And I don’t see that happening either…

All in all, this is nothing more than the same old song and dance from the NK’s trying to fuck with the semi US backed SK’s in an effort to get more attention to the current state of emergency in NK. I think NK is so fucked right now that they need some form of a deal and the way they see getting a deal is by being offensive towards SK as they have done in the past 60 years…


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2010)

JAB said:


> {snip} I think we would have to borrow more money from, yep that’s right China. {snip}



Very interesting point, especially in light of recently published Chinese comments that they would be "o.k." with a unified Korea- with Seoul as the new capital.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 20, 2010)

JBS said:


> Very interesting point, especially in light of recently published Chinese comments that they would be "o.k." with a unified Korea- with Seoul as the new capital.



I don’t think you can take that as anything more than possible “we could see this if this happened” type of politics. China is not going to lose a buffer zone to a country with US bases in it, just my opinion. They might say that over time the two Koreas could unite to become one again, through diplomacy. But I doubt they will allow it through armed conflict directly on their border. Especially when China has played big brother to NK for the last 60 years, what kind of a world statement would that make?


----------



## JBS (Dec 20, 2010)

I totally understand your position, but it is certainly conceivable if- as you put it- China was going to basically finance the whole thing.

They stand to gain:


a. additional financing revenue (although we are crapping ourselves here in the States about debt, China apparently still has a relatively high degree of confidence that we can perform on our international debts; looming American austerity overtures slated for roll out in 2011 have [rightly] bolstered that confidence in us)

b. the end of dealing with the open sore that is N. Korea; leaked documents suggest some in China are fed up with the instability caused by NK.

c. a new and prosperous neighbor, led out of Seoul
Its also of note that China has apparently drawn a "hard line" on the fact that they officially want no US forces to proceed past the current DMZ.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 20, 2010)

The only way I can see China settling for a unified Korean peninsula with Seoul as its capital- that's NOT dominated by a sympathetic (i.e. Communist) regime is if it got something major it wanted out of the deal.  Like, I don't know, maybe Taiwan.  And boy would China be getting the better deal out of that.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 20, 2010)

North Korea isn't exactly unwanted by China. They're a useful conduit for all sorts of things for the PRC.

And remember that just because China said they would be open to the idea of a unified Korea to a US diplomat doesn't mean they actually are open to it. Diplomacy isn't always about telling the truth!

Another thing to consider, and it's a very low consideration, is the prospect of China annexing DPRK.


----------



## Scotth (Dec 21, 2010)

I don't think NK is interested in war.  They are once again throwing a tantrum and they are getting exactly what they want.  They have Bill Richardson in country to talk and there will soon be an announcement of a new financial aid package that will include food commitment like 100 million or more worth of wheat etc.  The size of the deal will be dependant on how much they want to open there country up for nuclear inspections.

Being belligerent is the only way for NK to get attention.  They are playing the only hand they know to get more foreign aid.

Trying to have the Korean Peninsula go through a reunification would be a bigger mess then when West Germany reunified with East Germany and would be a huge financial burden on the international community and the US.


----------

