There are two questions. At what point do you do something and when you have made that decision, what are you going to do? The threat from N Korea has evolved over time

1967 sank a S Korean vessel

1994 N Korea threat a sea of fire

2002 Threatened to mercilessly wipe out aggressors

Even now, what case does anyone have to take action against N Korea? Sanctions are already in place.

Do you think China will sit back and allow military intervention?

Well they were involved in supporting the Japanese Red Army, and attacks across the far east among Western Allies.

They're not a threat to the west now either. Its a potential risk, but North Korea isn't going to launch a nuclear strike on a couple of US cities, as it knows that it would cease to exist within 7 minutes or so.

Its not even mutually assured destruction - just destruction. Plus the command and elite of North Korea are just as likely to replace the supreme leader as follow any order that ends their comfortable or privillaged existence.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

They probably already have nuclear weapons, so utilising any kind of military intervention is going to result in them using them (probably on South Korea and Japan). We know that they certainly have the missile capability to hit those two countries.

That's not counting their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Their missile technology is sufficient to deliver mass casualty weapons sufficient to devastate Western Client-States and allies through out the far east.

So a direct military intervention is more problematic than waiting.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

This is very true.

However, once NK has developed...which it has or is near to developing, missiles which can strike your military bases and from there goes on to develop missiles with the explicit ability to reach your country....Once this option becomes a near reality non action is no longer an option.

Well, it is for plenty of people it seems.

For me I would not accept what is so obviously coming.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 11.48am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Jamie as you have pretty much stated your support for essentially the CND position I don't really have that much faith in your analysis as to what is and what isn't a threat.

The leadership of NK feel under constant threat already....and that's just from their own countrymen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had built an extensive underground complex for the main bigwigs and a lot of the army.

A nuclear war is unlikely but not unfeasible. The main point for NK is to blackmail the region and the west. China is quite happy to have an anti western state dependent state on its flank. I have little trust in the honestly of the face it shows towards the west in this regard.

What the Obama era and his supporters have given us is a world in which this region is now in also constant fear of war.

They passed the buck....Obama wasn't respected by China nor Russia and we live in a more dangerous world because of it.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

North Korea already has missiles capable of striking US bases throughout the far east (notably the US bases in South Korea and Japan).

The reality of any attack on North Korea by the US, is that they will launch retaliatory strikes aimed at Japan and South Korea. That has always been their plan. Even if they had intercontinental missiles, I suspect they would still focus their nuclear armoury (around five devices) at Japan and South Korea simply because their certain to strike and neither country has any theoretical capacity to bring them down.

Five nuclear strikes on say South Korea or Japan isn't going to be an acceptable price for preventing North Korea having a missile capable of hitting the US (that's without counting their capacity with more conventional weapons of mass destruction).

So you'd need to be certain that you could obliterate their capacity to retaliate. Or be absolutely certain that its a bluff.

Its a cold war stalemate. They can't assure our destruction, but they probably can assure that the cost in lives to our allies, and economy is catastrophic, whilst we could in theory reduce the whole of the North to a nuclear wasteland (of course that's not going to go down well in South Korea, once the wind changes direction).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]