[Apollo]

With that I can agree. If nobody brings it down it'll collapse be itself. IMHO, the former possibility would be preferable, since if it collapses by itself, nobody will know when or be able to exert any sort of control over it, which could lead to a disaster (possibly a nuclear one).

Unfortunately, I don't see any way to accomplish that. China might still back them up, and Seoul would be devastated by artillery fire.

[Dragon]

NK recently pissed off China, so perhaps something could be worked out in cooperation with them. Artillery remains a problem, but I think that if the attack was swift and accurate enough, it could be taken out before it does too much damage. At this point, I think that tactical nuclear strikes could be a valid option (if it wasn't for political implications, that is).

[headdie]

not to mention the effects on the civilian population and the medical emergency that will follow

[Mongoose]

What would be the purpose of a nuclear strike on North Korea?  There's nothing of consequence there that conventional munitions couldn't deal with.  And as has been stated repeatedly before, there isn't any sort of preemptive strike on the North that could avoid significant civilian casualties in both the North and South.

[Apollo]

NK recently pissed off China, so perhaps something could be worked out in cooperation with them. Artillery remains a problem, but I think that if the attack was swift and accurate enough, it could be taken out before it does too much damage. At this point, I think that tactical nuclear strikes could be a valid option (if it wasn't for political implications, that is).

The problem is that China doesn't want a US-friendly, American troop-filled capitalist nation on its doorstep. They would (perhaps justifiably) consider it a huge risk to national security.

The potential repercussions of a nuclear strike are far, far too severe for that to be on the table. That leaves us with the prospect of fighting their army with conventional weaponry. I have no doubt we could defeat them, but we'd have to take out their howitzers extremely quickly or risk the destruction of Seoul.

I sympathize with your desire to take down North Korea's government. Sadly, there are huge issues that make that plan unfeasible.

not to mention the effects on the civilian population and the medical emergency that will follow

oh yeah and that too.

[Mika]

Finland should invade North Korea and install a functioning government

"Functioning", as in the one we have now?

Oh, and this.

EDIT: How do I keep missing stuff like this?

i keep telling you guys you should invade sweden first

No, then we wouldn't have any place where we could run to when first bullets are fired. At the rate of **** ups the current government is pulling of, you won't find a conscript who would like to defend them 

[Dragon]

NK recently pissed off China, so perhaps something could be worked out in cooperation with them. Artillery remains a problem, but I think that if the attack was swift and accurate enough, it could be taken out before it does too much damage. At this point, I think that tactical nuclear strikes could be a valid option (if it wasn't for political implications, that is).

The problem is that China doesn't want a US-friendly, American troop-filled capitalist nation on its doorstep. They would (perhaps justifiably) consider it a huge risk to national security.

They also don't want nuke-toting psychopaths on their doorstep (they never supported NK's nuclear ambitions). The question is, which one they consider worse. An US-friendly state right by their borders would be a security risk for China, but so would nuke happy NK. So far, NK has been worth the trouble for China, but when it stops to be (and it seems to be going this way), all bets are off.

What would be the purpose of a nuclear strike on North Korea?  There's nothing of consequence there that conventional munitions couldn't deal with.  And as has been stated repeatedly before, there isn't any sort of preemptive strike on the North that could avoid significant civilian casualties in both the North and South.

The NK artillery batteries are most likely well hidden in forests and would be hard to find and hit with precision-guided munitions. With a tactical nuke, I think it'd be possible to thin them out quickly enough that Seoul isn't too badly hit. Of course, it'd be preferable to take them out with precision weapons, but we're talking howitzers, I don't think that'd be possible. NK most likely has a lot of them, and they're very small and easy to camouflage.
Of course, any attack on NK, especially a nuclear one, would result in massive causalities. The question is, wouldn't refraining from an attack cause even more deaths? Nobody knows how many people starve to death in NK every day, and if the regime collapsed uncontrollably, the final death toll could be higher than even that of a nuclear attack. At this point, I'm afraid that it's a matter of choosing a solution resulting in the least amount of victims.

[BloodEagle]

NK recently pissed off China, so perhaps something could be worked out in cooperation with them. Artillery remains a problem, but I think that if the attack was swift and accurate enough, it could be taken out before it does too much damage. At this point, I think that tactical nuclear strikes could be a valid option (if it wasn't for political implications, that is).

The fallout would hit South Korea.  And, quite frankly, they hate The U.S. enough as it is.

[Apollo]

NK recently pissed off China, so perhaps something could be worked out in cooperation with them. Artillery remains a problem, but I think that if the attack was swift and accurate enough, it could be taken out before it does too much damage. At this point, I think that tactical nuclear strikes could be a valid option (if it wasn't for political implications, that is).

The problem is that China doesn't want a US-friendly, American troop-filled capitalist nation on its doorstep. They would (perhaps justifiably) consider it a huge risk to national security.

They also don't want nuke-toting psychopaths on their doorstep (they never supported NK's nuclear ambitions). The question is, which one they consider worse. An US-friendly state right by their borders would be a security risk for China, but so would nuke happy NK. So far, NK has been worth the trouble for China, but when it stops to be (and it seems to be going this way), all bets are off.

The thing is, North Korea doesn't really intend to nuke anybody. They're trying to scare us into giving them food, direct their populace's anger at an external "threat", or both. China understands this, and while they are (as far as we know) annoyed I doubt they'd be willing to let us remove their buffer state.

What would be the purpose of a nuclear strike on North Korea?  There's nothing of consequence there that conventional munitions couldn't deal with.  And as has been stated repeatedly before, there isn't any sort of preemptive strike on the North that could avoid significant civilian casualties in both the North and South.

The NK artillery batteries are most likely well hidden in forests and would be hard to find and hit with precision-guided munitions. With a tactical nuke, I think it'd be possible to thin them out quickly enough that Seoul isn't too badly hit. Of course, it'd be preferable to take them out with precision weapons, but we're talking howitzers, I don't think that'd be possible. NK most likely has a lot of them, and they're very small and easy to camouflage.
Of course, any attack on NK, especially a nuclear one, would result in massive causalities. The question is, wouldn't refraining from an attack cause even more deaths? Nobody knows how many people starve to death in NK every day, and if the regime collapsed uncontrollably, the final death toll could be higher than even that of a nuclear attack. At this point, I'm afraid that it's a matter of choosing a solution resulting in the least amount of victims.

You could argue that, although the long-term radiation and fallout from nuke would kill many people. The bigger issue is the effect a nuke would have on the world stage. North Korea's ally China has a large nuclear arsenal, and if you want to nuke the former you better make damn sure the latter (and all the other nuclear states) fully support it. The problem is this would require quite a large amount of preplanning, allowing China to warn North Korea or in the worst case scenario even nuke the USA (unlikely, but who knows).

Oh, and let's not forget that the fallout would hit South Korea and Japan, our allies.

[Suongadon]

The NK artillery batteries are most likely well hidden in forests and would be hard to find and hit with precision-guided munitions.

Most of their long range artillery is thought to be in bunkers, actually. Like this one.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Oh, and this.

How does one recognize a military dictatorship? People wear medals on their trousers!

EDIT: Interesting piece here, from someone who's actually dealt with high-ups in the NK military - seems at least some of them actually believe that they can take on the rest of the world and emerge victorious... Some of the comments are also interesting, a few more eyewitness reports of people who went there.

[Col.Hornet]

Medals you say xD? I was thinking that they were presenting some new type of scale armour

[Nuke]

i assumed some kind of exotic codpiece.

[Dragon]

You could argue that, although the long-term radiation and fallout from nuke would kill many people.

Fallout from tactical nukes is less of an issue than most people imagine. A small thermonuclear warhead like B61 shouldn't produce that much fallout if dropped in right weather conditions. Though if their artillery is indeed hidden in bunkers, that point is kind of moot. If those bunkers can be pinpointed, they could probably be destroyed with conventional munitions.

The bigger issue is the effect a nuke would have on the world stage. North Korea's ally China has a large nuclear arsenal, and if you want to nuke the former you better make damn sure the latter (and all the other nuclear states) fully support it. The problem is this would require quite a large amount of preplanning, allowing China to warn North Korea or in the worst case scenario even nuke the USA (unlikely, but who knows).

Yes, the biggest problem with nuke deployment are politics surrounding it. Though really, any action against NK would require convincing China that they're more trouble than they're worth. At least an agreement from them would be needed, and at best, active cooperation. At present, this seems unlikely, but this could change given the recent events.

The thing is, North Korea doesn't really intend to nuke anybody.

I'm starting to doubt that. Some North Korean officials seem to believe their own propaganda. FSF posted a link to an article that further reinforces this. NK leader isn't exactly the paragon of mental health, so it's hard to say for certain what they'll do. That's the main issue. If we knew those are just ineffectual attempts at bullying, there wouldn't be a problem. But if anybody is dumb enough to start a nuclear war in present day, it's North Korea.

[Flipside]

Well, according to recent intel , NK appears to be at the very least pretending to prepare its Nuclear test site for another test.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22061377

Not sure how the nearby countries are going to react to this, but it's another example of how blatantly self-destructive they are becoming. What worries me most is that, given NK's obvious lack of technical skills, how long is it going to be before one of these things goes up in their faces, especially if they decide that 'proving a point' is more important than following safety procedures. Every time North Korea has rushed something through in an effort to impress, it has failed spectacularly.

[NGTM-1R]

Accidentally detonating a nuke is pretty-low-order-of-probability event. Even for one that's designed to go off and not safe itself. They're not simple to blow up, so they're not simple to blow up, which has been the problem.

Even North Korea can't magically accidentally nuke themselves.

[Flipside]

The risks of Nuclear testing go some way beyond a simple premature detonation though. Probably shouldn't have used to the term 'goes up in their faces' in hindsight, I meant it in a different form to the way it comes across.

[Nuke]

it doesn't even have to be an accidental detonation. it can be something stupid. like that one nuclear test we did where we were expecting 5 megatons and got 15 instead.

[deathfun]

Someone sneak the Tsar Bomba into their testing schedule

[Grizzly]

Oh, and this.

How does one recognize a military dictatorship? People wear medals on their trousers!

EDIT: Interesting piece here, from someone who's actually dealt with high-ups in the NK military - seems at least some of them actually believe that they can take on the rest of the world and emerge victorious... Some of the comments are also interesting, a few more eyewitness reports of people who went there.

Nice one FSF. That was a rather interesting (and scary) read.