North korea on the verge of superpower status

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
Unless China intervenes with a heavy hand by exploiting NK's almost total dependence on trade with China, NK could achieve superpower status as a nuclear armed country within five to ten years. Remember that two atomic bombs forced the militaristic, fanatical Japanese government to surrender unconditionally in WW2.

It wouldn't take long for NK to develop atom bombs and missiles that target Tokyo's 25 million people. If it succeeded in developing an advanced diesel submarine that could aim a missile at the US or in developing an ICBM, it could limit US military power. Could a US President risk the destruction of a single major US city such as Los Angeles?

Continued development of NK's nuclear weapons creates potential nightmare scenarios where NK would launch a nuclear war if the regime is threatening to collapse or if the leader whose power seems absolute becomes suicidal in his hostility to the US.

China may have been using NK's nuclear weapons development as a foil to the US,perhaps suggesting that the US should be grateful for China's potential role in curbing NK's "nuclear dabbling". But the development of NK's nuclear weapons has now reached a stage where China must act decisively by closing down NK's trade if necessary or risk major sanctions on its trade with the US.

If China doesn't act decisively this year,influenced by his administration's highly respected military advisers President Trump would likely launch a massive attack on NK's nuclear weapons sites.He would argue it is simply intolerable that a minor country anywhere, especially a warlike and extremely repressive police state, could threaten the existence of the US and its superpower status. Bombs like the MOAB dropped on the caves in Afghanistan recently could presumably hit deep bunkers if two or three were dropped in succession on the same sites.

China's reaction would likely be furiously verbal but not a military response. The big powers know they have to keep their control of nuclear weapons and prevent nuclear proliferation.
 
Last edited:


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
No. Having a (weak) nuclear weapon does not even begin to make one a superpower. The idea that North Korea is on the verge of great power status, let alone superpower status is absolutely ludicrous.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,509
Unless China intervenes with a heavy hand by exploiting NK's almost total dependence on trade with China, NK could achieve superpower status as a nuclear armed country within five to ten years. Remember that two atomic bombs forced the militaristic, fanatical Japanese government to surrender unconditionally in WW2.

It wouldn't take long for NK to develop atom bombs and missiles that target Tokyo's 25 million people. If it succeeded in developing an advanced diesel submarine that could aim a missile at the US or in developing an ICBM, it could checkmate US military power. Could a US President risk the destruction of a single major US city such as Los Angeles?

Continued development of NK's nuclear weapons creates potential nightmare scenarios where NK would launch a nuclear war if the regime is threatening to collapse or if the leader whose power seems absolute becomes suicidal in his hostility to the US.

China may have been using NK's nuclear weapons development as a foil to the US,perhaps suggesting that the US should be grateful for China's potential role in curbing NK's "nuclear dabbling". But the development of NK's nuclear weapons has now reached a stage where China must act decisively by closing down NK's trade if necessary or risk major sanctions on its trade with the US.

If China doesn't act decisively this year,influenced by his administration's highly respected military advisers President Trump would likely launch a massive attack on NK's nuclear weapons sites.He would argue it is simply intolerable that a minor country anywhere, especially a warlike and extremely repressive police state, could threaten the existence of the US and its superpower status. Bombs like the MOAB dropped on the caves in Afghanistan recently could presumably hit deep bunkers if two or three were dropped in succession on the same sites.

China's reaction would likely be furiously verbal but not a military response. The big powers know they have to keep their control of nuclear weapons and prevent nuclear proliferation.

It's all the public sectors fault surely ?
 

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,695
No they are utterly incapable when it comes to force projection. Their conventional forces are getting worse by the year. What they have is a deterrent they have never and will never (in their current state) have the ability to project force. Which is kind of essential to the whole idea of being a super power.
 

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
951
Unless China intervenes with a heavy hand by exploiting NK's almost total dependence on trade with China, NK could achieve superpower status as a nuclear armed country within five to ten years. Remember that two atomic bombs forced the militaristic, fanatical Japanese government to surrender unconditionally in WW2.
The Japanese were effectively already defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. America needed to assess the effectiveness of the bombs to determine further development of them. Japanese civilian casualties were collateral damage.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
Do Pakistan & India enjoy superpower status ?
If Pakistan's government were taken over by the Taliban insurgents,admittedly a slim possibility, there would be a real fear of a nuclear war that could destroy the USA.. That fear would confer a form of superpower status on Pakistan.

It isn't the nuclear weapons alone that matter but the perceived risk that an extremist government would be capable of using them without much provocation.

Putin has exploited Russia's nuclear arsenal to intimidate NATO, stating that tactical nuclear weapons could be used against massed NATO army formations. That was incredibly irresponsible because any large scale use of tactical nuclear weapons could quickly escalate to all out nuclear war. An army general who lost say 100,000 troops in a tactical nuclear attack would be inclined to advise his political masters to respond with strategic nuclear attacks.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
No they are utterly incapable when it comes to force projection. Their conventional forces are getting worse by the year. What they have is a deterrent they have never and will never (in their current state) have the ability to project force. Which is kind of essential to the whole idea of being a super power.
But they could wipe out Tokyo and Seoul nearby.

President DeGaulle who began France's nuclear weapons programme said his goal was limited to "tearing off an arm,maybe a leg" of the Soviet Union. Presumably,he felt that would be sufficient to deter an attack on Western Europe.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
The Japanese were effectively already defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. America needed to assess the effectiveness of the bombs to determine further development of them. Japanese civilian casualties were collateral damage.
The American military estimated that it would have cost four million American battle casualties to conquer Japan in conventional warfare in WW2.Japan's largely mountainous terrain favoured defence.
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,812
If Pakistan's government were taken over by the Taliban insurgents,admittedly a slim possibility, there would be a real fear of a nuclear war that could destroy the USA.. That fear would confer a form of superpower status on Pakistan.

It isn't the nuclear weapons alone that matter but the perceived risk that an extremist government would be capable of using them without much provocation.

Putin has exploited Russia's nuclear arsenal to intimidate NATO, stating that tactical nuclear weapons could be used against massed NATO army formations. That was incredibly irresponsible because any large scale use of tactical nuclear weapons could quickly escalate to all out nuclear war. An army general who lost say 100,000 troops in a tactical nuclear attack would be inclined to advise his political masters to respond with strategic nuclear attacks.
Yea , really intimidating placing all those bases right next to NATO , or was it the other way around . Europe needs to wise up quickly to who its real enemy is , its behind you
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
No. Having a (weak) nuclear weapon does not even begin to make one a superpower. The idea that North Korea is on the verge of great power status, let alone superpower status is absolutely ludicrous.
In a few years, NK could be in a position to destroy a few major US cities such as Los Angeles. That threat could hobble US military power, conferring a form of superpower status on NK.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
Yea , really intimidating placing all those bases right next to NATO , or was it the other way around . Europe needs to wise up quickly to who its real enemy is , its behind you
Do you think like Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a historical disaster?
 

Angler

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,600
No they are utterly incapable when it comes to force projection. Their conventional forces are getting worse by the year. What they have is a deterrent they have never and will never (in their current state) have the ability to project force. Which is kind of essential to the whole idea of being a super power.
Could they project force by the simple expedient of using shipping to deliver nuclear devises into strategically important locations . A bomb in a container would create havoc in a busy port .
 

Jack O Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
6,812
Do you think like Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a historical disaster?
Dont really care Pat , i do know that we have a superpower / empire that is a great threat to world peace and it is not Russia
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,119
No they are utterly incapable when it comes to force projection. Their conventional forces are getting worse by the year. What they have is a deterrent they have never and will never (in their current state) have the ability to project force. Which is kind of essential to the whole idea of being a super power.
An advanced diesel submarine and improvement in missiles in the next few years could provide modest force projection which is all that's needed for destruction of Tokyo and Seoul.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
If Pakistan's government were taken over by the Taliban insurgents,admittedly a slim possibility, there would be a real fear of a nuclear war that could destroy the USA.. That fear would confer a form of superpower status on Pakistan.
No, it wouldn't. Fear doesn't confer superpower status on anyone. Capabilities are what matters. Pakistan's capabilities do not at all change in your scenario.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a superpower as: "a state that possesses military or economic might, or both, and general influence vastly superior to that of other states."

Ian Bremmer defines a superpower as: "a country that can exert enough military, political, and economic power to persuade nations in every region of the world to take important actions they would not otherwise take."

Paul Dukes describes a superpower as: "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology"

It is patent nonsense that North Korea (or other nuclear states aside from the United States and possibly China) are superpowers. None have the capability necessary.

As an addition, here's Mearsheimer's definition of a great power: "Great powers are determined largely on the basis of their relative military capability. To qualify as a great power, a state must have sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most powerful state in the world. The candidate need not have the capability to defeat the leading state, but it must have some reasonable prospect of turning the conflict into a war of attrition that leaves the dominant state seriously weakened, even if that dominant state ultimately wins the war. In the nuclear age great powers must have a nuclear deterrent that can survive a nuclear strike against it, as well as formidable conventional forces."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Unless China intervenes with a heavy hand by exploiting NK's almost total dependence on trade with China, NK could achieve superpower status as a nuclear armed country within five to ten years. Remember that two atomic bombs forced the militaristic, fanatical Japanese government to surrender unconditionally in WW2.

The DPRK is already a nuclear armed state, just like Israel. Good luck with trying to take the nukes off either one of them.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
An advanced diesel submarine and improvement in missiles in the next few years could provide modest force projection which is all that's needed for destruction of Tokyo and Seoul.
The DPRK can already wipe Seoul off the face of the earth within minutes with conventional artillery.
 

PC Principle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
4,828
Unless China intervenes with a heavy hand by exploiting NK's almost total dependence on trade with China, NK could achieve superpower status as a nuclear armed country within five to ten years. Remember that two atomic bombs forced the militaristic, fanatical Japanese government to surrender unconditionally in WW2.

It wouldn't take long for NK to develop atom bombs and missiles that target Tokyo's 25 million people. If it succeeded in developing an advanced diesel submarine that could aim a missile at the US or in developing an ICBM, it could checkmate US military power. Could a US President risk the destruction of a single major US city such as Los Angeles?

Continued development of NK's nuclear weapons creates potential nightmare scenarios where NK would launch a nuclear war if the regime is threatening to collapse or if the leader whose power seems absolute becomes suicidal in his hostility to the US.

China may have been using NK's nuclear weapons development as a foil to the US,perhaps suggesting that the US should be grateful for China's potential role in curbing NK's "nuclear dabbling". But the development of NK's nuclear weapons has now reached a stage where China must act decisively by closing down NK's trade if necessary or risk major sanctions on its trade with the US.

If China doesn't act decisively this year,influenced by his administration's highly respected military advisers President Trump would likely launch a massive attack on NK's nuclear weapons sites.He would argue it is simply intolerable that a minor country anywhere, especially a warlike and extremely repressive police state, could threaten the existence of the US and its superpower status. Bombs like the MOAB dropped on the caves in Afghanistan recently could presumably hit deep bunkers if two or three were dropped in succession on the same sites.

China's reaction would likely be furiously verbal but not a military response. The big powers know they have to keep their control of nuclear weapons and prevent nuclear proliferation.
There's only one super power and that's the USA. Won't be changing.

North Korea? FFS.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top