The fear of North Korea

[Jason]

Why do we give their threats so much credence when we know they're absolutely incapable of military action, and will never follow through with nuclear retaliation, ever?

Their bravado is purely to protect the ruling regime, and they would never do anything out of character that might risk destabilising the status quo.

We really ought to ignore them

What they're "threatening" is the viability of threats, embargos, and other forms of non-military pressure enacted by many nations, but, most importantly and primarily, the United States of America. They're giving the global bully the finger. If they're allowed to get away with it then that sets a precedent for other nations to do the same.

[Ian]

though the current situation where our aircraft carriers are positioned only to support Afghanistan does not help.

Untrue. The Navy generally has at least 1 carrier either in the western Pacific or able to get there on rather short notice if need be.
The rest of your posts convey some excellent points though.

I did not know that about Japan's military budget, Warren. Thanks. What I was talking about, though, is specific towards changing their constitution to allow Japanese forces to engage in overseas combat. Ostensibly so that they could protect their own peace-keeping troops, but ultimately...who knows?

Not only that, but count on Japan being more assertive in throwing its weigh around over the coming years/decades. And not only is their public increasingly in favor of greater militarism, they've gotten positive signals from Washington, considering the development of the PLA and the continuing problem of North Korea. And Japan may have to become more assertive, considering their demographic plunge; they won't be quite as able to merely throw economic weigh around and count on the US as a security guarantor. And this may or may not include Japan developing their own nukes.

Same with Russia, for that matter. For a great number of reasons, I'm convinced that we're going to start seeing Russia acting much rougher within the next few years, mostly with several of its neighbors (former Soviet states). It won't be a new Cold War, but in certain regions it'll look like Cold War Lite. But it won't last as long; time is not on Russia's side. (I've been contemplating starting a Russia thread.)

[Jason]

In the coming decades I'll be very surprised if the US has any carriers, never mind in the western pacific.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

I would also note that China's plan if North Korea goes to war with the south is a preemptive invasion of North Korea. North Korean nuclear facilities would have to be destroyed before the Chinese got there. I think we could let the Chinese take care of things on the ground, though.

They may well end up fighting with NK troops, and destroying the current regime, but only to install a puppet government subservient to China, with zero possibility of re-unification to form a democratic Korea. Also, it would be irrelevant whether the NK nuclear facilities were destroyed or not - they won't contain anything of technological value to the Chinese......

In the coming decades I'll be very surprised if the US has any carriers, never mind in the western pacific.

Whatever shrinkage may occur in the US military in the coming decades, reducing the carrier fleet will not be one of them. Post-Afghanistan reductions in army and airforce units overseas, particularly in Europe, sure...

But naval forces give the US its best chance of remaining a global player...

[Ian]

In the coming decades I'll be very surprised if the US has any carriers, never mind in the western pacific.

Trying to start a silliness contest, or were you being serious?

[Ian]

549356_525767927489284_537843519_n.jpg (34.14 KiB) Viewed 539 times

406383_525753577490719_1720325912_n.jpg (32.3 KiB) Viewed 539 times

[Svartalf]

What artillery can fire 50 km "easily"?

The new railguns the USN is developing?

Seriously, you ought to know better than all of us save FBM that they have conventional arty emplaced where they can level Seoul if they want.

[Svartalf]

You always hear this "turn x into a glass carpark" as if the consequences would politely stop at the border of the country destroyed. I think the consequences of such an action, even for the "winning" side, would make it an idiotic gamble.

I notice that the US dropped two nukes on Japan and didn't suffer too much back blow...

[JimC]

You always hear this "turn x into a glass carpark" as if the consequences would politely stop at the border of the country destroyed. I think the consequences of such an action, even for the "winning" side, would make it an idiotic gamble.

I notice that the US dropped two nukes on Japan and didn't suffer too much back blow...

The context of "first use" is very different to the context of the use of nuclear weapons after the genie had left the bottle...

[Svartalf]

By the way, there has been scuttlebutt here lately about SK acquiring their own nukes, independent of the US. Just mentioning that to suggest the way the local sentiment is leaning.

You mean that hasn't been done years or decades ago?

[FBM]

549356_525767927489284_537843519_n.jpg

406383_525753577490719_1720325912_n.jpg

[FBM]

By the way, there has been scuttlebutt here lately about SK acquiring their own nukes, independent of the US. Just mentioning that to suggest the way the local sentiment is leaning.

You mean that hasn't been done years or decades ago?

Nope. Not as far as the public knows, anyway.

[FBM]

@ Ian: All these island territory disputes makes me think Japan's expansionist mindset is seeing a revival.

[JimC]

@ Ian: All these island territory disputes makes me think Japan's expansionist mindset is seeing a revival.

Within rather more geographical constraints than before, I think...

Islands are a rather different proposition to a manifest destiny on the Asian mainland...

[FBM]

Yep. I think the reason they're doing it is to expand their EEZ and thus their fishing industry. Their economy has been anemic for a very long time.