NationStates Jolt Archive

Haben't seen this brought up here yet, so here it is.

N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

By Con Coughlin
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 24/01/2007

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Under the terms of a new understanding between the two countries, the North Koreans have agreed to share all the data and information they received from their successful test last October with Teheran's nuclear scientists.

South Koreans test gas masks; North Korea aiding Iran in nuclear test
Gas mask sales increased after North Korea's nuclear test

North Korea provoked an international outcry when it successfully fired a bomb at a secret underground location and Western intelligence officials are convinced that Iran is working on its own weapons programme.

A senior European defence official told The Daily Telegraph that North Korea had invited a team of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own — possibly by the end of this year.

There were unconfirmed reports at the time of the Korean firing that an Iranian team was present. Iranian military advisers regularly visit North Korea to participate in missile tests.

Now the long-standing military co-operation between the countries has been extended to nuclear issues.

As a result, senior western military officials are deeply concerned that the North Koreans' technical superiority will allow the Iranians to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapon.

"The Iranians are working closely with the North Koreans to study the results of last year's North Korean nuclear bomb test," said the European defence official.

"We have identified increased activity at all of Iran's nuclear facilities since the turn of the year," he said.

"All the indications are that the Iranians are working hard to prepare for their own underground nuclear test."

The disclosure of the nuclear co-operation between North Korea and Iran comes as Teheran seems set on a collision course with the West over its nuclear programme, although it insists it is entirely peaceful.

Both countries were named in President George W Bush's famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in 2002.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously authorised the imposition of "smart" sanctions against Iran.

This is because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, which most Western intelligence agencies believe is part of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

France expressed concern yesterday over an Iranian decision to bar 38 UN nuclear inspectors from Iran, claiming that Teheran appeared to be singling out westerners from the inspection team.

Intelligence estimates vary about how long it could take Teheran to produce a nuclear warhead. But defence officials monitoring the growing co-operation between North Korea and Iran believe the Iranians could be in a position to test fire a low-grade device — less than half a kiloton — within 12 months.

The precise location of the Iranian test site is unknown, but is likely to be located in a mountainous region where it is difficult for spy satellites to pick up any unusual activity.

Teheran successfully concealed the existence of several key nuclear sites — including the controversial Natanz uranium enrichment complex — until their locations were disclosed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.

Western intelligence agencies have reported an increase in the number of North Korean and Iranian scientists travelling between the two countries.

The increased co-operation on nuclear issues began last November when a team of Iranian nuclear scientists met their North Korean counterparts to study the technical and political implications of Pyongyang's nuclear test.

The Iranians are reported to have been encouraged by the fact that no punitive action was taken against North Korea, despite the international outcry that greeted the underground firing.

This has persuaded the Iranian regime to press ahead with its own nuclear programme with the aim of testing a low-grade device, which would be difficult for international inspectors to detect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/24/wiran24.xml

My prediction is that Iran will get the bomb, and fairly soon. Sanctions and diplomacy aren't working and there's no realistic military option available (not even to the Israelis, although they might try something).

Can we have a do over?

I have big plans for fun in 2007, and I feel this could cramp my style.

The US has already said that North Korea will be held responsible if Iran or its terrorists get the bomb and use it.

The US has already said that North Korea will be held responsible if Iran or its terrorists get the bomb and use it.

And what will the US do then? Bomb Pyongyang and lose Seoul in a sea of fire?

I find this source to be quite dubious... where did magiclly get the expertise and material to build a working nuclear bomb within the next year? Last report I saw said they were still a decade or two off from acquiring such capability...

Hmmm, another item of contention I think. If I remember correctly, Iran had at best, what, 3000 centrifuges? Wasn't it stated at that rate, they'd have enough uranium for a bomb in oh, several years and not next year?

Most bomb designs for nuclear devices can be complex or exceedingly simple. It's getting the uranium that's tricky.

But Iran says that they only want nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. I mean, they seem pretty peaceful, I dont think they would lie about something like this.


(note: this is sarcasm.)

The US has already said that North Korea will be held responsible if Iran or its terrorists get the bomb and use it.

How?

I find this source to be quite dubious...

The two have been helping other for a long time. They've been working on this deal for over a year.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/06/1060064231181.html

where did magiclly get the expertise and material to build a working nuclear bomb within the next year?

:confused: Did you even read the article?

Last report I saw said they were still a decade or two off from acquiring such capability...

They who? DPRK? They already have it. Iran? They're easily less than a decade away, even without the helkp of the DPRK.

But Iran says that they only want nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. I mean, they seem pretty peaceful, I dont think they would lie about something like this.


(note: this is sarcasm.)

Sarcasm maybe, but some posters here buy that line.

I doubt they will by the end of the year, but then, I really don’t care if they get them. Mutually assured destruction has worked since WWII and it will continue to work. Their poor and middle class may be willing to die killing infidels and they may believe that they can not be defeated, but those in power most certainly do not, no matter what they say. Otherwise, they would already be at war with us.

And if you're interested in the Iranian perspective... ;)


An informed Iranian source here Tuesday defined the aim of the recent visit of Iran's deputy foreign minister to North Korea as negotiation with its officials for studying and developing bilateral relations.

[...]

According to the reports, the two sides signed a plan for exchanges in the cultural, scientific and educational fields.

The source also quoted the North Korean deputy foreign minister Kim Yong Nam as saying that the atmosphere for the talks was positive.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0701233718200902.htm


I'll bet it was... :rolleyes:

From North Korea:


A delegation of Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA), visiting Iran officially, on Nov. 18 met President Mahmoud Ahmadiinejad of Iran.

The president told the delegation that the Iranian government and people positively supported the efforts of the Korean people to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
http://www1.korea-np.co.jp/pk/235th_issue/2006121603.htm


From Israel:


Alarming cooperation: North Korea is helping Iran prepare a nuclear test similar to the one the Communist nation carried out some three and-a-half months ago, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday.

According to the report, the two countries have reached an agreement by which North Korea will share all the data obtained during underground nuclear testing performed last October.

A senior European defense official told the Telegraph that North Korea had invited a mission of Iranian nuclear scientists to study the test's results, in a bid to help Iran carry out its own testing, possibly by the end of 2007.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356236,00.html

And what will the US do then? Bomb Pyongyang and lose Seoul in a sea of fire?

How will that happen?

The North Korean nuclear weapon is not yet advanced enough or small enough to be launched by missile. It's also not powerful enough to destroy Seoul.

The explosion has been, according to the experts, somewhere between 250 to 1000 tons of TNT in yield.

According to these nuclear effects calculators, this will ensure 'widespread destruction' in a whopping area of 700 meters radius.

This will have to be carried in a BIG plane and I have no clue how said plane will even GET to Seoul.

How will that happen?

The North Korean nuclear weapon is not yet advanced enough or small enough to be launched by missile. It's also not powerful enough to destroy Seoul.


They don't need nukes. Seoul is very near the border, and North Korea has tons of "conventional" missiles pointed right at it. Hit NK, and Seoul will be subjected to instant, massive bombardment.

By the way, an article on current relations between Iran and the IAEA:


VIENNA, Jan 22, 2007 (AFP) - The International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday it was discussing with Iran its demand to withdraw some nuclear inspectors but was confident it could continue monitoring the country's nuclear facilities.

"It should be noted however, that there are a sufficient number of inspectors designated for Iran and the IAEA is able to perform its inspection activities in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement," IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.

Earlier, the head of the Iranian parliament's national security commission told ISNA news agency that Iran has decided to block 38 IAEA inspectors in a fresh show of defiance over its nuclear aims.


Full article here (with video) (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/middle-east/20070123-Iran-Nuclear-programme.html).

And if you're interested in the Iranian perspective... ;)



I'll bet it was... :rolleyes:

From North Korea:



From Israel:

Good stuff, thanks.

How will that happen?

The North Korean nuclear weapon is not yet advanced enough or small enough to be launched by missile. It's also not powerful enough to destroy Seoul.

The explosion has been, according to the experts, somewhere between 250 to 1000 tons of TNT in yield.

According to these nuclear effects calculators, this will ensure 'widespread destruction' in a whopping area of 700 meters radius.

This will have to be carried in a BIG plane and I have no clue how said plane will even GET to Seoul.

He didn't say nuclear fire. The KPA has enough conventional artillery in place to devistate Seoul in a matter of hours.

Seoul

Approximately forty percent of the South Korean population resides within 40 miles of Seoul. The Seoul corridor, including the Seoul inner city and suburbs, has an outlaying population of over 22 million. While rice paddies offering limited off-road mobility dominate the terrain north of Seoul, the terrain west of Seoul is a wide coastal plan with the main invasion routes to Seoul. North Korean forces attacking Seoul through the Chorwon or Munsan corridors would have to cross the Han or Imjin rivers (while these rivers freeze in the winter, the ice is not strong enough to support heavy armor). The narrow eastern coastal plain is lightly settled and less heavily defended, though mountains make movement of forces from the east coast difficult.

North Korea does not have to achieve a breakthrough across the DMZ to cause significant damage to South Korea. Seoul is within artillery and missile range from the north and most assessments conclude that the DPRK would likely bombard Seoul with a significant number of artillery pieces and missiles. As previously stated, the north is believed to have some 500 artillery tubes in a position to fire upon Seoul. These tubes would likely be able to fire several thousand rounds on the capital before being targeted by defensive forces. Even following targeting, these artillery pieces would likely survive for some time before all could be destroyed.

Estimates vary as to the extent of the potential damage on Seoul. This likely depends on the exact number of pieces that fire on Seoul and the intensity of that fire. However, most assessments agree that an artillery and missile attack on Seoul would greatly damage (both short term and long term) the ROK economy and cause significant civilian casualties (depended on the prior warning to any attack). When the Clinton administration mobilized forces over the reactor at Yongbyon in 1994, planners concluded that retaliation by North Korea against Seoul could kill 40,000 people. Suggestions that North Korea could unleash " ... an artillery attack on Seoul ... that could conceivably kill hundreds of thousands of people in the first few hours ... " would appear to represent a worst-case estimate that is unlikely to result in the absence of DPRK use of chemical munitions.

According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds.

Given all of North Korea's artillery along on the DMZ, it has been estimated by one source that the KPA could fire over 5 million artillery shells per hour. This number would appear to be in error. The roughly 8,000 regular artillery pieces [towed and self-propelled] might be able to fire roughly a half-million rounds per hour [8,000 times an average of six rounds a minute for 60 minutes]. The roughly 2,500 multiple rocket launchers could probably provide some appreciable fraction of this rate of fire [given longer reload times], but surely not some multiple of this rate of fire.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm

Edit: beaten to it.

Solution: Pre-emptive strike to said artillery position first, THEN hit airfields/other potential nuclear delivery methods, then hit Pyongyang.

I wager they arleady have this as some form of a contingency plan though.

...and people laughed at Bush's "Axis of Evil"...

Solution: Pre-emptive strike to said artillery position first, THEN hit airfields/other potential nuclear delivery methods, then hit Pyongyang.

1) Those are hardened sites. They time quite a bit of time to dispose of.
2) Said solution depends on the unrealistic idea that the KPA will idely sit by without opening fire.

I wager they arleady have this as some form of a contingency plan though.


They do. Hint: look at the source of my quote.

...and people laughed at Bush's "Axis of Evil"...

Mostly because he concentrated on the non-threat of Iraq instead of the real threats.

2) Said solution depends on the unrealistic idea that the KPA will idely sit by without opening fire.

This is why you call it a pre-emptive strike. You hit them BEFORE they open fire.

Mostly because he concentrated on the non-threat of Iraq instead of the real threats.

Bah...that's the problem of politicians running wars. Iraq was the easiest...and so Bush went for it. After all...have to keep PR up don't you...

This is why you call it a pre-emptive strike. You hit them BEFORE they open fire.

All of them? At the same time? Simply not possible.

Had America gone for North Korea, today people would be whining:

OMG NOEZ BUSH WENT INTO NORTH KOREA FOR THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES, WTF WHAT ABOUT IRAQ?! IRAQ IS TEH REAL THREAT NOEZ!!11shiftone

Everything is very simple for you, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Had America gone for North Korea, today people would be whining:

OMG NOEZ BUSH WENT INTO NORTH KOREA FOR THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES, WTF WHAT ABOUT IRAQ?! IRAQ IS TEH REAL THREAT NOEZ!!11shiftone

Heh. Everybody sing: "It's just a step to the left...."

I wonder where in the thread this one will end up?

Heh. Everybody sing: "It's just a step to the left...."

I wonder where in the thread this one will end up?

In the right place, strangely enough.

Probably because you mentioned it, so it decided to be awkward. :p

In the right place, strangely enough.

Probably because you mentioned it, so it decided to be awkward. :p

Indeed.

Also on the funny note, I finally noticed my typo in the first word of the OP.

No! Bad commies, bad! No revolution treats for you tonight!

Other. Nuclear weapons, but no test.
I think the N Koreans made a mistake testing theirs. Shows that they have one, shows it's yield, may show other details best kept secret.

NK just need some money to bring their economy on. If they don't get the money, they'll sell their nuclear technology who want it the most, including Iran.

So, the US should give NK the money, so NK will never sell their weapons to 'rogue regimes'.

Nice timewarp! Made yours look like a reply to mine.:cool:

NK just need some money to bring their economy on. If they don't get the money, they'll sell their nuclear technology who want it the most, including Iran.

So, the US should give NK the money, so NK will never sell their weapons to 'rogue regimes'.

NK just need some money to bring their economy on. If they don't get the money, they'll sell their nuclear technology who want it the most, including Iran.

So, the US should give NK the money, so NK will never sell their weapons to 'rogue regimes'.
If I were feeling cynical, I'd say that NK would still sell bombs to get more money, but since NK's nukes are only as potent as a mildly strong onion, I doubt they'd get many buyers.

If I were feeling cynical, I'd say that NK would still sell bombs to get more money, but since NK's nukes are only as potent as a mildly strong onion, I doubt they'd get many buyers.

A kiloton might not be big by nuke standards, but it's the equivalent of a thousand tons of TNT (I know you know, I'm just reminding you.) Add the foul radioactive crap an inefficient detonation would throw around, and rethink that "not many buyers" thing.

I wager they arleady have this as some form of a contingency plan though.
http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20565819-661,00.html

A kiloton might not be big by nuke standards, but it's the equivalent of a thousand tons of TNT (I know you know, I'm just reminding you.) Add the foul radioactive crap an inefficient detonation would throw around, and rethink that "not many buyers" thing.
There wouldn't be much point of having a nuclear weapon if it didn't reasonably match those of your adversaries - not much of a deterrent otherwise. The only other reason why I could see Iran buying nukes off NK would be to develop them into something that goes with a bigger pop, but the Iranians would probably not want to risk thousands of dollars (I assume NK would want foreign currency) on something that could be a really crap design, instead of design one themselves that they know will work.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20565819-661,00.html

Hehe. You're taking the piss, surely?
First link is patent BS from NK, second is from a News Corp paper which I haven't taken seriously since I was a little kid. They're OK for local news, unless it involves race or politics.
:p

Solution: Pre-emptive strike to said artillery position first, THEN hit airfields/other potential nuclear delivery methods, then hit Pyongyang.

I wager they arleady have this as some form of a contingency plan though.

Not likely to work. A strike on that scale would involve a massive coordinated air offensive with impeccable intelligence in order to designate each battery.

Under normal conditions (SNAFU), at best, some several hundred launchers could be hit before retaliatory fire begins. Remember, they're already zeroed in on Seoul. All they need is to load and fire.

Either way, Seoul becomes a giant death trap.

So in exchange for hitting Pyongyang, the US has Seoul burned to the ground, it's forces battered by severe artillery, possible chemical weapons contamination in a wide area, hundreds of thousands of allied civilians dead.

Furthermore, even if South Korea managed to come out of it with a functional government, the US would be summarily ejected out of Korea, and possibly other Asian states. Why? Because who in their right minds would allow someone to station their forces in your territories when it's clear that they'll sacrifice your capital and half your population for "containment" like that?

It would be suicide.

the US would be summarily ejected out of Korea

The point of having the US military in Korea is to protect it from the North.
If the North is vanquished, there's no need for most of the deployment.

Hell... you think the South would be BETTER off is we just sat there and let the North build up nukes?

Additionall, how do you HIDE an artillery battery? Especially a static one? From the world's numero uno miilitary sattelite user?

The point of having the US military in Korea is to protect it from the North.

PROTECT does not mean "I'll beat up your enemies, but let him cut you up in the process"

If the US strikes NK, Seoul burns, no two ways about it. Anything sunnier than that is a pipe dream.


If the North is vanquished, there's no need for most of the deployment.


Hah, you'd think that wouldn't you? The US isn't deployed there just for the sake of NK. China is something the administration wants to contain too, being in line with the world policeman mentality. If NK vanished tomorrow, you can bet the house the US would still want to have bases there.


Hell... you think the South would be BETTER off is we just sat there and let the North build up nukes?

You think the South would be better off if the capital and half it's population burned to the ground?

Remember this too. Both countries, unlike the various blood drinkers on this forum, are looking for eventual reconciliation and unification.


Additionall, how do you HIDE an artillery battery? Especially a static one? From the world's numero uno miilitary sattelite user?

A tarp over a bunch of pipes looks like an artillery piece from space. That's decoy one. Throw in a couple of heat sources nearby, and you can give a fair impression of an important artillery battery.

Artillery can be hidden in dugouts and bunkers and still be able to fire at their targets. Also, camo coverage has been in use to hide artillery and installations from aerial observation for ages. Satellite coverage isn't any much better.

Stop thinking the US is some kind of uber war machine incapable of making mistakes. It makes mistakes by the bucketload. And having a massive ego is a part of that.

The point of having the US military in Korea is to protect it from the North.


You've just made NSA's point for him. Although as he quite rightly points out, that's only one of the reasons why the US wants to maintain a presence in SK. Which is why the US has done everything it could to maintain tensions on the Korean peninsula and to throw spanners into SK's "Sunshine policy" efforts.


Remember this too. Both countries, unlike the various blood drinkers on this forum, are looking for eventual reconciliation and unification.


Indeed. I find it appalling that the media rarely if ever mention that. Sensationalist media are quick to report on incidents between the two Koreas, but seem to consider that ongoing reconciliation efforts are too boring or something.

You've just made NSA's point for him. Although as he quite rightly points out, that's only one of the reasons why the US wants to maintain a presence in SK. Which is why the US has done everything it could to maintain tensions on the Korean peninsula and to throw spanners into SK's "Sunshine policy" efforts.


<snip>

Cute typo. Good post too!

Additionall, how do you HIDE an artillery battery? Especially a static one? From the world's numero uno miilitary sattelite user?

The problem isn't necessarily that they are well hidden, with lots of decoys (they are), but that they are in HARTS (Hardened ARTillery Sites), designed to survive heavy, heavy bombardment.
http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/military/hartsinNK.html

Not likely to work. A strike on that scale would involve a massive coordinated air offensive with impeccable intelligence in order to designate each battery.

Under normal conditions (SNAFU), at best, some several hundred launchers could be hit before retaliatory fire begins. Remember, they're already zeroed in on Seoul. All they need is to load and fire.

Not only do you have to hit them all, but you'd have to be sure to take out all of them, not an easy task. As I said, it's simply not possible.

Stop thinking the US is some kind of uber war machine incapable of making mistakes. It makes mistakes by the bucketload. And having a massive ego is a part of that.

Stop thinking of the DRPK defenses as being impervious.

And yes, the US isn't perfect. But to go from there to say it's 'impossible' to dislodge the regime of KJI by force...

Stop thinking of the DRPK defenses as being impervious.

And yes, the US isn't perfect. But to go from there to say it's 'impossible' to dislodge the regime of KJI by force...

Go back and review this thread. You've misread the what most of us are trying to tell you - that bombing Pyonyang would result in massive destruction, especiaslly in Seoul. (Either that, or you're attempting to sidestep the debate by putting words in NAS's mouth, which is a logical no-no.)

Stop thinking of the DRPK defenses as being impervious.

Stop using rhetoric and start using reading comprehension. It's rude to claim people saying things they never did.


And yes, the US isn't perfect. But to go from there to say it's 'impossible' to dislodge the regime of KJI by force...

Show me where I said that. Come on. Show me. I dare you. From the looks of things, you're the one who's jumping from one statement to these 'conclusions' of yours.

EDIT: Your deliberate selection of points to contest and choice of argument indicates that you are either attempting to foment discord, an act normally associated with trolls, or you are attempting to recover from your debating failures with red herrings.

As it's already been said, North Korea wont bomb the South, they want a reunification of Korea.

What could happen however is the NK people selling a bomb to the Iranians, the Iranians saying they'll have one soon and Israel bombing their test sites.

Which then decends the entire Middle East into a war, where the US, UK and Israel fight on one side and Iran fights with various terrorist groups.

Nasty, and the reason why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. As horrible as Saddam is, he would have been firmly on our side in this. If only we'd invaded North Korea instead... We wouldn't have been in this mess...

I should imagine it is capable, and thus will, conduct a test before the end of the year.

However, why the security neurosis? Provided they do construct a nucleur weapon, they would be hard pressed to reach the USA, Europe, or much of the west. Thus, Israel is their solitary target, in which case, were they to employ such a weapon, they would be nuked to a plate of glass in return.

As it's already been said, North Korea wont bomb the South, they want a reunification of Korea.

They won't bomb Seoul WITHOUT provocation. Invading them sure as heck will provoke them.

And even if that wasn't accounted for, would the invasion have made things better? No, I'm not saying the NK government is nice, in fact, it's a blight on the earth. But would a post war scenario have been better?

Remember, the average people of North Korea may want reunification, but at the same time, they're subjected to serious god worship of the regime, particularly it's leaders.

People who said that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than an invasion always point to the extremely loyal, not to mention terrified, populace who were willing to kill themselves rather than be subjected to occupation (primarily because they were told that the Americans would commit all sorts of atrocities). In North Korea, the situation would be similar, if not even more extreme.

At the same time however, there are key differences. Japan then could not have posed a significant threat to allied assets by then, and had a leadership that was split between demanding peace and continuing to go to war.

North Korea however, poses a significant and real threat to Seoul in the event of an invasion. Furthermore, it is unlikely that there are many elements within NK that would seek peace in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. Reunification yes, but if war comes, all cards are in the air.

Even if such an invasion were successfully carried out, South Korea would not be able to absorb a sudden influx of desperately poor populace without taking significant economic hits. And then there would be reintegration problems. When the Iron Curtain came down, people had to adapt to a whole new world of thinking that they were taught all their lives was evil incarnate. But at least such effects were mitigated a bit by the usual propaganda slinging between both sides, even with heavy censoring.

Under the DRPK, the propaganda is all one sided, and the sudden disappearance of the 'god state' is bound to create countless problems.

So no. Invading NK then instead of Iraq might not have resulted in less mess. Certainly not a mess in Iraq, but in Korea.

I think Israel will either go in on their own or be forced into it by the U.S., and they will be able to stop it.

(If we attack NK..)

They don't need nukes. Seoul is very near the border, and North Korea has tons of "conventional" missiles pointed right at it. Hit NK, and Seoul will be subjected to instant, massive bombardment.
I agree.. they will nuke Japan.. after destroying Seoul.

the whole peninsula + Japan would be destroyed.. Ford+General Motors wins.