|
Any Koreans or non-Korean living in Korea who have views they want to share? In my previous post I mentioned how US has seemly co-opted what should have been foremost, a Korean affair. Especially since they just elected a president who favors a more peaceful approach to the north. It seems like if they have a take on the whole situation. it's already drowned out by all the gun blazing, cowboy rhetoric that the US is favouring. Is South Korea just chopped liver now as far as the Americans are concerned?
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Personally I'm fairly sure that war with North Korea is inevitable, so we may as well stick the Republicans with the Butcher's Bill. What's it like walking around the surface of the earth without a human soul? Do cats hiss when you walk by? Do lightbulbs flicker briefly when you enter a room, and is that annoying?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:If the goal is ending NKs ability to produce nuclear weapons is the goal than actually, yes, strategic bombing would greatly improve the situation. There's no need for a ground invasion. Dead or starving people can't design No amount of bombing is going to lead to North Korea's nuclear scientists feeling even the slightest pang of hunger. It's not too hard to feed a couple hundred people. Everyone else might starve, but who cares about that? You clearly don't. What's a few war crimes in the face of our righteous quest to ban people we don't like from having weapons that can threaten us? And no, don't even try to pretend you're just concerned about proliferation. After all, North Korea has had working nuclear weapons for over a decade now. If they wanted to sell nukes, they could've done it long ago. The only thing that's changed over the past few days to motivate this sudden outpouring of concern is that they're now demonstrating missiles capable of directly threatening US soil. Ironic, isn't it? One non-nuclear ICBM is doing more to motivate the US toward North Korean denuclearization than a decade-plus of actual nuclear detonations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Burt Sexual posted:Can he? The authorization of military force passed the house at least. Will certainly pass senate soon. Right?! Short answer: Yeah, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. And, for the record, Sean Spicer asserted the same earlier this year when asked directly about North Korea. Long answer: Pretty much every military action that Presidents George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump have undertaken overseas are done under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The language is sufficiently vague in there to basically allow for pretty much anything they want to do, though recent moves in Congress are essentially sunsetting that, but that doesn't take effect until sometime next year and it seems that Republicans are looking to pass a new one, but that's all speculation at this point. Also, it's worth pointing out that the role of Congress in dealing with the military, beyond budgeting, is a matter of legitimate dispute. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which requires the President to get authorization from Congress before using military force. However, although Presidents since then have gotten approval from Congress for various military actions, including the one on September 14, 2001 which is still in effect, it's a poorly kept secret that the law is almost certain to be ruled unconstitutional if it ever came to challenge. So, there's this weird balancing act that's been going on for the last few decades, where Presidents generally push the limits of what is allowed and Congress hems and haws about checks, because the President generally doesn't want to be seen acting without the authorization of Congress (ostensibly the representatives of the people) and Congress doesn't want to lose what leverage they have if the War Powers Act were declared unconstitutional. As the Constitution is written, it expects Congress to exercise control over the military via the so-called Power of the Purse, in that if they don't like what the President is doing with the military, they can withhold funding, change funding levels, and do all kinds of things in that vein to hamstring the President, but in practice that threat works really poorly with our massive military-industrial complex. As for how this applies to North Korea, think of how it would go if Trump ordered the Secretary of Defense to bomb the poo poo out of somewhere that they know Kim Jong-un is known to be. The Secretary of Defense would go to the Joint Chiefs, who would then work down the military chain of command. At what point, and via what mechanism, can Congress then step in? I don't know of one, though there may be some arcane legislative procedure McConnell or Ryan could try, but I doubt it. If Trump pressed them to execute the order and Congress tried to take it to the courts, under what mechanism would the courts intervene? Assuming that the order, however crafted, is not illegal, I don't see how Trump could really be stopped. Cockmaster posted:I was just wondering: Has anyone bothered to do any polls or anything regarding people's opinions on going to war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:As the Constitution is written, it expects Congress to exercise control over the military via the so-called Power of the Purse, in that if they don't like what the President is doing with the military, they can withhold funding, change funding levels, and do all kinds of things in that vein to hamstring the President, but in practice that threat works really poorly with our massive military-industrial complex. Congress had zero problem using this power to force Guantanamo Bay to stay open. If Congress wanted to, they could easily ban the executive from spending any money to move troops to Korea and that would be that, but as you said that's practically impossible because the military-industrial complex drools for more wars and congress always has the option to take the MIC's campaign donations and then handwring about the executive and pretend they just can't do anything. Although sometimes the MIC can be overcome by pure partisanship, they didn't get their Syrian ground war because the President was so black that Republicans' lizard brains wouldn't let them support him on anything not even the war their paymasters so desperately crave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm tell us what intervention is necessary. Targeted bunker busters or possibly nukes delivered to the appropriate facilities via stealth fighters, followed by cruise middle strikes to take out artillery pointed at Seoul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Targeted bunker busters or possibly nukes delivered to the appropriate facilities via stealth fighters, followed by cruise middle strikes to take out artillery pointed at Seoul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Faustian Bargain posted:Lmfao if you think the rest if the world would shrug at us doing this, especially China. and what would they do? (Especially if it turns out a nonnuclear but big as hell bunker buster is what's needed so they can't whine about first use of nukes)
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Targeted bunker busters or possibly nukes delivered to the appropriate facilities via stealth fighters, followed by cruise middle strikes to take out artillery pointed at Seoul. Cool, how many Korean lives is that worth?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Cool, how many Korean lives is that worth? Yup, you're right, the risk is too great. probably should let them nuke Seoul before we do anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Yup, you're right, the risk is too great. probably should let them nuke Seoul before we do anything Why haven't they nuked Seoul in the last 11 years?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Targeted bunker busters or possibly nukes delivered to the appropriate facilities via stealth fighters, followed by cruise middle strikes to take out artillery pointed at Seoul. Setting aside apparently pointless questions like morality, do you even have any idea how cruise missiles are launched or aimed? Your idiot plan to start WW3 isn't even a militarily viable plan to start WW3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Ok so I admit I was being hyperbolic. What do you all think is a reasonable line in the sand for a strike?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
It works like in Starcraft right? You just have the ghost illuminate the artillery piece with a laser and 20 seconds later a missile drops down from the sky and obliterates it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:Any Koreans or non-Korean living in Korea who have views they want to share? In my previous post I mentioned how US has seemly co-opted what should have been foremost, a Korean affair. Especially since they just elected a president who favors a more peaceful approach to the north. It seems like if they have a take on the whole situation. it's already drowned out by all the gun blazing, cowboy rhetoric that the US is favouring. The bolded is wrong, because it implies that the issues on the Korean peninsula have ever been considered a Korean affair to begin with. South Korean media is really weird about this. Even though the news constantly reports on North Korea stories, there's almost never any sense of agency. It's never been "what will our country do about North Korea?", "it's what will the United States do about North Korea?". I've only lived here since 2011, so I can't go back too far, but everything I've seen and read about previous administrations indicates they had the same basic policy of deferring to American discretion regardless of whether they were on the left and right, and Moon Jae-in is continuing that policy. This was true even during Sunshine, and it's the main reason Sunshine fell apart and why North Korea has no interest in starting it up again. Approachment with South Korea is pointless as long as the American military alliance is maintained, and the Americans are refusing to consider any kind of negotiation at all. All it would take is a single election to wipe out all the gains of the policy, which is what happened when Lee Myung-bak was elected back in 2007. Also bear in mind that North Koreans are still pretty cheesed that Kim Dae-jung got all the credit for Sunshine when Kim Jong-il had to overcome about the same amount of internal domestic opposition* to get it moving. If Moon Jae-in did manage to start it up again, odds are he'd get to be the peacemaking hero while Kim Jeong-eun, just like his father, would continue to be mocked and belittled worldwide as a funny-looking violent Asian cult leader with a tiny penis. It's also always worth noting that, because of his education Kim Jeong-eun was exposed to Western propaganda about North Korea. He saw that the main way we mocked Kim Jong-il was by making him out to be the leader of an incompetent backwards country incapable of any technological development. Their being able to develop ICBMs so quickly just through sheer effort renders that talking point incomprehensible. Not that this stops the usual idiots (some of which are even in this thread) from repeating it. *Ironically said opposition was mainly from the military, which is why Kim Jong-il had to placate them with a military first policy in regards to domestic resources. Which was of course refitted into American propaganda to declare that Kim Jong-il starves his own people in order to put the military in charge. Seriously- for all this talk of how we have no good options for dealing with them, they have no good options for dealing with us either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Cool, how many Korean lives is that worth? I love how myopic you are. Really. If you're okay with NK being ok with deliverable nuclear weapons, you're okay with any no matter how crazy nations having nuclear weapons. Seriously man, draw a line in the sand. Are you okay with further nuclear proliferation ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Ok so I admit I was being hyperbolic. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
de_dust posted:I love how myopic you are. Really. Nobody's ok with it, but lol if you don't think the ship has sailed on that. If you were serious about stopping proliferation you'd be advocating boots on the ground intervention in Pakistan right now. Reiterpallasch fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Pakistan has nukes though and because of that we must prop up their government any way we can no matter what and back them forever, invasion and conquest is only for countries who don't have nukes or are foolish enough to give up their weapons programs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
drat. Remember how Dubya was considered bad with words? Trump couldn't come up with a quote this good if he had a year to think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
I guess we see if nukes mean no invasion if Donny tries to invade North Korea anyway, huh? Burt Sexual posted:Can he? The authorization of military force passed the house at least. Will certainly pass senate soon. Right?! America is still at war with North Korea. And this is authorized by the UN security council ruling that started the war officially in response to the North invading. America already has all the legal room to claim North Korea breached armistice first and the wars back on
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
de_dust posted:I love how myopic you are. Really. And how myopic are you being? How can you not see that the position you're advocating is one of the main drivers of nuclear proliferation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:In my previous post I mentioned how US has seemly co-opted what should have been foremost, a Korean affair. It seems like if they have a take on the whole situation. it's already drowned out by all the gun blazing, cowboy rhetoric that the US is favouring. history-of-korea-20th-century.txt
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
For those of you against any sort of military action, what do you think of easing sanctions like with what Obama did/wanted to do with the whole Cuban embargo? If it's inevitable that the North Korean dictatorship will continue to develop nuclear weapons, what's the point of sanctions and icy relations with them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:drat. Remember how Dubya was considered bad with words? Trump couldn't come up with a quote this good if he had a year to think about it. Bush probably didn't come up with that though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The bolded is wrong, because it implies that the issues on the Korean peninsula have ever been considered a Korean affair to begin with. South Korean media is really weird about this. Even though the news constantly reports on North Korea stories, there's almost never any sense of agency. It's never been "what will our country do about North Korea?", "it's what will the United States do about North Korea?". I've only lived here since 2011, so I can't go back too far, but everything I've seen and read about previous administrations indicates they had the same basic policy of deferring to American discretion regardless of whether they were on the left and right, and Moon Jae-in is continuing that policy. this is a very good post
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:The bolded is wrong, because it implies that the issues on the Korean peninsula have ever been considered a Korean affair to begin with. South Korean media is really weird about this. Even though the news constantly reports on North Korea stories, there's almost never any sense of agency. It's never been "what will our country do about North Korea?", "it's what will the United States do about North Korea?". I've only lived here since 2011, so I can't go back too far, but everything I've seen and read about previous administrations indicates they had the same basic policy of deferring to American discretion regardless of whether they were on the left and right, and Moon Jae-in is continuing that policy. Thanks for the response, I really don't know much about Korean history so always appreciate a different perspective. You're confirming what I found to be most problematic of the whole issue, that despite being a sovereign nation, South Korean government is basically a puppet to whatever American interest happens to be in the Korean peninsula. Unfortunately since Iraq and Afghanistan, American just doesn't do subtle very well anymore. It is now the proverbial bull in China shop, the only way it resolves issue is to trash the whole place, leaving everyone else to pick up the pieces. Maybe I'm just too optimistic, but I do believe that neither US nor China jumping in and trying to interfere is helpful in anyway; both are foreign powers with their own self-interests in the area. North Korea traditionally paints the US as an imperialist nation meddling in what they considered to be Korean affairs. After hearing about the relationship between US and SK government, I can't help but feel that NK is not entirely wrong on this. If SK is content to simply align themselves with US agenda and never willing to step up to the plate take responsibility, then I think war will happen. Maybe not now, but eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
So my knowledge of North Korean relations extends to what I red in occasional news headlines. As such, I'm well aware it's woefully incomplete. All I hear is talk of them being an irrational, murderous tyrannical regime. Which might be true but the emphasis is always on them being a threat to the wider world. Anyway, I was watching a news show talking about the ICBM test and the recent history of North Korean weapons development, where the reporter said the Clinton Administration struck up a deal with North Korea to crease their nuclear program in exchange for aid. It was the Bush Administration, claims the show, with its dick-waving and pointing at Iraq that made North Korea resume its hostile policies and start to put everything into developing weapons. They cited this book. "Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis" Is this totally wrong, totally right, or somewhere in-between? Has anyone read this book? I was thinking of buying it so I can finally start to actually learn about all this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Korea has always been "Yankee Go Home" except when their people are starving or menaced by a large army and all of a sudden it's "Where did Yankee Go?" Korea has never seriously attempted to assert their own independence regarding their own affairs and there's no reason to think they would start now. That requires way too much responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/882886552438935553
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Korea has always been "Yankee Go Home" except when their people are starving or menaced by a large army and all of a sudden it's "Where did Yankee Go?" It's hard to do that when whitey has military bases and intelligence services running around all over your country Don't forget what the CIA did to ngo dinh diem when he went off the leash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Why use the term 'whitey.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
de_dust posted:I love how myopic you are. Really. Well, we were okay with further nuclear proliferation when India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Israel did it.  It's odd how the level of US concern about nuclear proliferation lines up so neatly with how much the US likes the country going nuclear, and how "nuclear proliferation is bad" so often seems to be code for "it's bad for countries to go nuclear without the permission of the already-nuclear countries".Look at it from other perspectives. North Korea's greatest enemy, a huge powerful militarily-interventionist country with a reputation for regime change and invasions, is demanding that North Korea give up the most powerful weapon they've ever invented, a weapon that the US and many of their strongest allies already possess. North Korea is never going to denuclearize, because "we, your primary global enemy who are still at war with you, fear what you might do with that weapon, give it up or we'll bomb you and invade you" isn't a very persuasive pitch!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Why use the term 'whitey.' I know, I feel like honky is more fun to say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, we were okay with further nuclear proliferation when India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Israel did it. Well the way things are looking, north Korea is going to denuclearize because their current nukes aren't going to keep President Moron from launching a war against the North and eliminating its independent existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
So seeing as how North Korea now has a missile that can potentially reach Alaska, how long will it be before they have a missile that can reach the east coast?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Trump talks the talk but he won't walk the walk. Like every other president he too will fall in line once the joint chiefs and other advisors explain the political and humanitarian costs of a Korean War II. No president wants to go down in history as having started that mess. There will never be a Korean War unless the North Koreans shoot first. But they did this already. There have already been skirmishes and shots fired that could've spiralled into war and yet no war took place. They've kidnapped Japanese citizens, American Citizens and still no war has taken place. Both sides will threaten total devastation, salting the earth, mass military strikes and the apocalypse because neither can afford to look soft on the other. But at the end of the day if war happens, the regime is gone along with millions of lives on both sides. With the way global supply chains are so interconnected now, there will be shortages and severe repercussions to life outside the war. This isn't some backwater like Afghanistan where the occasional terrorist blows himself up somewhere. You're talking about an economy that among other things has a lot of American money in it. Try explaining the mass job losses, stock market crash and cellphone/electronics shortages to American citizens over an easily avoidable war. North Korea could have TOPOL-M MIRV launch platforms with hydrogen bombs and they still wouldn't launch for the same reason the Soviet Union never launched. JFK concealed evidence that AA gun fire from Cuba damaged American planes during the Cuban missile crisis because he knew that would've sparked WW3. People like Trump and Kim aren't the most stable people out there but they understand the opportunity cost of starting a war to be unbearable on both sides. What recent events show is that Korea has cemented the status quo for another generation. Everything you see now including Trump's statements is just for the cameras. North Korea's strategy is to placate its military arm and make any war with them a costly Pyrrhic victory. They have already achieved this. Now they just stay put and enjoy their little Kingdom. The threat of war keeps their people in line while the Kim Family rules in luxury with their personality cult. Any other rhetoric you see is just fuel for video games, Tom Clancy novels, and something to shake up the boredom of living in the Pax-Americana. We want a good old fashioned war in the style of how they fought Vietnam or Korea if its a war we can enjoy in our living rooms on TV seeing our boys take care of business while life in western countries continues as if no war was taking place. A Korean War is not that kind of war. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Not taking sides on either part of this, but this is a pretty bad comparison. The Iraqi WMDs were a straight up falsehood that didn't exist and used to justify an invasion that had other reasons behind it. We actually have verifiable proof that North Korea has nukes and the capability to deliver them because they keep waving them around and saying "Look, we have nukes and the capability to deliver them!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Why use the term 'whitey.' D&D has changed. I got banned before in D&D for asking a white guy why he'd be afraid of racists. Willo567 posted:So seeing as how North Korea now has a missile that can potentially reach Alaska, how long will it be before they have a missile that can reach the east coast? They potentially do now however NK does not now nor will they ever potentially be a threat to mainland USA. It's all sabre rattling and fear mongering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They potentially do now however NK does not now nor will they ever potentially be a threat to mainland USA. It's all sabre rattling and fear mongering. Unless Trump orders a per-emptive strike, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:38
|
|