|
Keep in mind that the first test was almost certainly a fizzle and the fourth test was claimed to be an H-bomb but almost certainly was either a failure, or a boosted fission device rather than an actual thermonuclear device. Boosted fission makes sense given the main restriction on the North Korean nuclear program is the amount of weapons-grade material they can produce. This has also been described as a hydrogen bomb, and is clearly not a thermonuclear device, but very likely a boosted fission device. Whether this particular device is 'real' or not is impossible to know for sure, but the expert analyses I've half-assedly browsed through suggests that if it is real, it would likely have a detonation force similar what we've seen in their most recent tests. It's certainly small enough to fit on a missile, and it's not really surprising they've gone from 'first failed nuclear test' to miniaturized devices much more quickly, since they haven't exactly had to independently reinvent modern electronics from the vacuum tube to the present  At this point there's not really any reasonable doubt that North Korea has some sort of nuclear capability, though the exact numbers of devices and their form factors are still a bit of a mystery. I'm sure there's some people who will only be convinced when a North Korean nuke levels D.C. I'm a bit surprised they haven't done any above ground, let-it-all-hang-out Trinity-style testing just so they could put the footage on YouTube and gloat. Admittedly North Korea doesn't exactly have a huge amount of unpopulated space to worth with. Whether North Korea will actually USE these, who knows? Internally the regime derives its credibility entirely from projecting the image of being so militarily powerful that the dastardly Yankee bastards with their giant noses and greasy lifestyles of debauchery and miscegenation are afraid to mess with pure and clean North Korea. If, somehow, the regime really were to defeat the US once and for all, it would lose all reason to exist, likewise, if there were ever a lasting accord developed, again, the regime would lose all reason to exist. The usual cycle has been to demonstrate some new capability, rattle sabers, then negotiate for more aid and concessions, portraying these internally as the peace offerings of flummoxed and chastened American imperialist jackals who have been cunningly defeated yet again by the might and virtue of Kim Jong Un. The risk is that one side or the other will over-play their hand and paint their opponent into a corner, and given the current state of affairs in the US right now... 
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
How credible is The Daily Beast as a news source? I'm fairly to this so I'm not sure. They're reporting that the US will likely be attacking North Korea in a few months. http://www.thedailybeast.com/top-us-general-hints-at-military-action-against-north-korea-in-a-few-more-months Also, a number of nuclear experts believe that North Korea's ICBMs have more range than they had previously demonstrated and will likely be demonstrating this during this week's expected test (if not tonight). I might be panicking too much, but I worry that when they display this ability, the Trump administration will have people whispering in ears that a preemptive nuclear strike will be the best decision. http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/nort...campaign=buffer
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
A preemptive nuclear strike would be the fastest path America gets to becoming a pariah state and/or Trump being impeached.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
brockan posted:How credible is The Daily Beast as a news source? I'm fairly to this so I'm not sure. It's just reading tea leaves. The US is certainly dialing up the aggressive rhetoric against North Korea and pulling back from diplomatic solutions...but we do that every time a Republican takes the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:A North Korean offensive is pretty deep into the category of "not happening", though. And sending a bunch of foot infantry through tunnels into the midst of enemy territory with no vehicles, artillery, anti-aircraft weaponry, or air support doesn't exactly sound like the height of strategy. You're looking at it from a modern Western perspective. Such an operational approach would absolutely result in very high casualties for the forces thus deployed, but that's okay. The objective of putting a few thousand troops in the rear areas in not to cause massive casualties or even simple attrition, but to buy time. Most of the ROK and US heavy armor formations are far enough south from the DMZ to stay out of artillery range. If you can delay their move north by even a day or two, it could make a big difference, and allow attacking forces to push much further south. fishmech posted:So what did you train for then? An all air war? South Korea invading the North without provoking a response from the north? Aside from the usual maneuver, gunnery, and obstacle emplacement work, the operational focus was on moving quickly to a staging area and positioning vehicles to minimize the effects of hostile artillery. We were far more concerned with artillery than with enemy special forces/infantry elements in our rear. We certainly considered it ("Don't necessarily trust MPs telling you a bridge is out"), but the #1 contingency was dealing with artillery. Nobody I talked to thought any armed conflict would be fought solely in the air. That said, the most likely operational scenario was actually dealing with a sudden collapose of the regime, moving north and figuring out how to feed millions of people suddently without a functioning government. Even that would be a challenge, of course: China would probably be quite uncomfortable with a significant ROK and US formations nearer its border. Current rhetoric aside, while North Korea's nuclear capability may be purely a deterrant, its military is focused very heavily on offensive rather than defensive operations. North of the DMZ is heavily overgrown with brush and forest. South is fully cleared. That alone is enough to show, "On this side of the fence they're worried about being invaded, and on this side of the fence they are prepared to invade." Not that an invasion can't be "defensive" or a "deterrant", but you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You're looking at it from a modern Western perspective. Such an operational approach would absolutely result in very high casualties for the forces thus deployed, but that's okay. The objective of putting a few thousand troops in the rear areas in not to cause massive casualties or even simple attrition, but to buy time. Most of the ROK and US heavy armor formations are far enough south from the DMZ to stay out of artillery range. If you can delay their move north by even a day or two, it could make a big difference, and allow attacking forces to push much further south. What are they buying time for? The US and South Korean forces (plus whatever coalition forms to participate in the invasion) won't be slowly grinding their way north from the DMZ to Pyongyang like they're stages in a video game. Their goal is going to be a rapid decapitation strike; in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the actual invasion was started with an airstrike directly on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad. North Korea's status as a peninsula would theoretically allow for attacks from every direction except north (and that's assuming China does nothing to aid in toppling the Kims). The first thing that's going to happen if the US and North Korea go to war is a lot of bombs suddenly land on the governmental and military centers. Invading Seoul isn't going to stop that from happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A preemptive nuclear strike would be the fastest path America gets to becoming a pariah state and/or Trump being impeached. If someone tells me they're going to shoot me and I shoot them first, it's legal. (Look up "stand your ground" laws) If someone points a gun at me, I can shoot them NK has repeatedly threatened to nuke us. It might not be a smart move, from both a humanitarian and tactical POV (conventional bunker busters probably better suited) But I fail to see how it would be an impeachable offense. (Then again I still don't understand why Trump isn't out on his rear end due to the emoluments clause)
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
That's my issue with a lot of the arguments that doing this thing will get Trump impeached or doing that thing will isolate America from the rest of the world. He's shown on multiple occasions that he either doesn't care, or he doesn't think ahead enough to take it into consideration. Not to mention that those who have the power to do something about it, aren't. And that's only with all those other circumstances. When it comes to launching a nuclear missile, no one can actually stop him. Literally everyone is saying that NK will have the ability to nuke the US before the end of Trump's first term. So we're going to have to deal with how he's going to respond to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:If someone tells me they're going to shoot me and I shoot them first, it's legal. (Look up "stand your ground" laws) This same argument legitimizes a NK first strike hope you know
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
In general, it's probably a bad idea to use criminal law as a metaphor to understand foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You're looking at it from a modern Western perspective. Such an operational approach would absolutely result in very high casualties for the forces thus deployed, but that's okay. The objective of putting a few thousand troops in the rear areas in not to cause massive casualties or even simple attrition, but to buy time. Most of the ROK and US heavy armor formations are far enough south from the DMZ to stay out of artillery range. If you can delay their move north by even a day or two, it could make a big difference, and allow attacking forces to push much further south. Why are you calling the literal starting front line of the war a "rear area"? This is what I don't get out of how you apparently see this. By the time the area north of Seoul becomes a rear area instead of the actual border between two hostile nations, how can North Korea sneak things across the border any more? You would already occupy or be in the midst of fighting from Kaesong all the way to Kosong, you should therefore control any potential tunnels or cleared over-DMZ routes quite handily. To get into the area North of Seoul and south of the DMZ, North Korea would need to be sneaking paratroopers or something across all the anti-air presence, if that area's become a rear area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You're looking at it from a modern Western perspective. Such an operational approach would absolutely result in very high casualties for the forces thus deployed, but that's okay. The objective of putting a few thousand troops in the rear areas in not to cause massive casualties or even simple attrition, but to buy time. Most of the ROK and US heavy armor formations are far enough south from the DMZ to stay out of artillery range. If you can delay their move north by even a day or two, it could make a big difference, and allow attacking forces to push much further south. I'm not especially worried about any attempt by the North Korean army to buy time to advance out of the cover of their defenses and terrain for the sake of pushing into fortified-and-prepared enemy territory in which their enemy has total air supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why are you calling the literal starting front line of the war a "rear area"? This is what I don't get out of how you apparently see this. I'm not sure I understand you. At the start of a hypothetical armed conflict, the DMZ is the front line. At that time, areas behind the front line are the "rear". I'll fully admit that in modern operations, "front" and "rear" areas are often ambiguous. I was just using the normal use of the term. Like most posters here, I don't think there's any doubt of the likely eventual outcome of widespread convention conflict on the Korean peninsula: the North Korean military would be largely destroyed as a conventional fighting force. That said, even their conventional forces have the ability to inflict a tremendous amount of casualties--both military and civilian. It would not be like the 1990 Gulf War at all, at least for anybody on the ground. For those who don't like to think the North Koreans would embark on such a hopeless enterprise, consider the information that actually reaches the decision makers. To the outside world, North Korea often looks like an irrational actor. That's possible, of course: Kim Jong-un might be crazy. But even if he's not--even if he's perfectly rational, and intelligent, and insightful--the information he receives goes through so many filters and proxies, its entirely possible for him to mis-attribute intentions, or even be Just Plain Wrong about facts on the ground. The lack of HUMINT on the ground in North Korea makes it difficult for the rest of the world to ascertain what North Korea's intentions are, but at least there's a large number of observers collecting information independently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
With modern surveillance and absolute air superiority, there's no way that the North could manage to mass enough troops for a reasonable invasion without having a decent portion of the U.S. Air Force and every carrier nearby put in striking range of the North. The second they cross the DMZ, or possibly even before, there'll be near-constant airstrikes on anything and everything within the North, and there will be no such thing as the "rear" because the "rear" implies a relatively safe location. Everything from the Yalu to the DMZ is gonna be the "front".
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them If we keep waiting, they'll have a nuclear ICBM that can reach all parts of the U.S., and that'll be the moment Trump goes for an preemptive strike
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them That's the million dollar question, isn't it. Attack now and keep the casualties (civilian and military) in Asia, or risk an unstable regime with nukes that can reach the US and hope that strategic missile defense works every time. Personally, I think we should cut a deal with China. They roll in and remove the current regime, setup a provisional government with the goal of reunification in 10 years, the US military leaves the Asian mainland, we recognize those stupid manmade islands in the South China Sea, etc. I have no idea if such a deal could be made, but I think trying for it would be preferable to either conventional war or the threat of a local nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That's the million dollar question, isn't it. Attack now and keep the casualties (civilian and military) in Asia, or risk an unstable regime with nukes that can reach the US and hope that strategic missile defense works every time. Where would NK target? A scenario where NK wipes out DC, then we wipe out NK might be win-win 
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them Suck it up and admit that there's really nothing we can do to prevent them from getting nukes, and that it was never a realistic goal in the first place. Resign ourselves to coexistence with North Korea, rather than maintaining a relationship built entirely on threats and baseless predictions of regime collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them The US has never really committed to negotiation (as distinguished from the issuing of ultimatums), so, could try that. Might not be enough trust left at this point, but the other options, as you say, look bad. Unless, for whatever reason, you happen to benefit by stretching out the status quo as long as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Suck it up and admit that there's really nothing we can do to prevent them from getting nukes, and that it was never a realistic goal in the first place. Resign ourselves to coexistence with North Korea, rather than maintaining a relationship built entirely on threats and baseless predictions of regime collapse. The current status quo is coexistence with the North. It's just a pretty lovely country and will remain that way for a while. Opening up the isolationist autocracy and becoming friendly with the great enemy it supposedly functions to protect against is a thing that may actually cause the government to collapse. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them The fun part about nuclear weapon is that, everybody wants to own one, but nobody wants to actually use it, because it's suicide. For all the horrific damage one nuke can do, it will not flip the balance of power between NK and US. For every nuke that NK has, US probably has 50, enough to hit every known city in their country. I think for NK, a nuke is essentially a permission slip to tell the US to gently caress off and leave them along.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Legitimate question - what the hell is the U.S. supposed to do? Sanctions don't do poo poo to them That's the rub: back in the 90s the US made a gamble: that either China would "go our way" or that the NK regime would collapse before developing advanced nuclear and missile technology. Turns out we lost that bet in the end, and now we (or, perhaps more accurately, South Korea and Japan) have to deal with the consequences of being wrong and having no real backup plan. Negotiations pretty have to be on the table now, except now NK has a position of relative strength to argue from. I honestly wouldn't be too surprised if we get sued for a controlled lifting of sanctions. It's a pretty lovely situation if you like representative democracy and non-proliferation, but it's great news if you love dictatorships and the black market arms race being on again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
That's been the topic by a lot of experts lately. That the least bad option is to live with NK as a nuclear state. The problems that stem from this are assuming that NK will suddenly being to start acting more rational, or that the Trump administration won't let pride get in the way (which is something they've been known to do). Those same experts have also come to realize that their ideas mean nothing in terms of US politics and how they will respond to situations. And the issue on top of that is that it most likely will not just be South Korea and Japan that suffer the effects. I find it impossible to believe that China and Russia are going to just idly sit by and let the US start a global or even nuclear war on their own. brockan fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
20/20 hindsight, the best move would have been an invasion in the early 90s. But that's no longer on the table. And obviously at the time there was no way to know that, everyone was utterly convinced that the famine would be enough to collapse the regime, or at the very least to prompt a realignment. They couldn't really be expected to predict that the realignment would be toward an even more bellicose posture than previously. And since there's no guarantee that a preemptive strike of any sort NOW would wholly eliminate the DPRK's ability to retaliate nuclearly, we're.. pretty much stuck with them forever. Now, it's entirely possible that in 2 or 3 or 4 generations, even North Korea will gradually liberalize and unfuck itself, but the risk is that sooner or later there will be an internal legitimacy crisis that kicks poo poo off in a big way. And that's not even considering the potential of an outside threat kicking the nuclear hornets' nest. hailthefish fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
I hope trump nukes the loving norks. if he gets impeached gently caress it hell get pardoned and rerun 2020
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:20/20 hindsight, the best move would have been an invasion in the early 90s. But that's no longer on the table. And obviously at the time there was no way to know that, everyone was utterly convinced that the famine would be enough to collapse the regime, or at the very least to prompt a realignment. They couldn't really be expected to predict that the realignment would be toward an even more bellicose posture than previously. Of course, we didn't do anything in the 1990s since we thought they were on the edge of collapse anyway and they would come to us...we were wrong. The only country that could really do that at this point in China and the Chinese leadership seems generally fine with a NK nuclear program. Basically, we are going to keep hearing the same stories coming out of the peninsula for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:20/20 hindsight, the best move would have been an invasion in the early 90s. But that's no longer on the table. And obviously at the time there was no way to know that, everyone was utterly convinced that the famine would be enough to collapse the regime, or at the very least to prompt a realignment. They couldn't really be expected to predict that the realignment would be toward an even more bellicose posture than previously. First, it's pretty hosed up to imagine that the US has the right to simply invade whatever place they want. Second, if you catch yourself thinking that the people of North Korea really would have been better off under a (second) US military occupation, it's worth asking yourself exactly what evidence exists for that belief.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
I think his working assumption is that a military occupation would have been preferable to the mass starvation on the 90s and the very real threat posed by an unstable actor with nuclear weapons. At the risk of creating a straw man, such assumptions may be incorrect or unjust, but they're not irrational.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:First, it's pretty hosed up to imagine that the US has the right to simply invade whatever place they want. Second, if you catch yourself thinking that the people of North Korea really would have been better off under a (second) US military occupation, it's worth asking yourself exactly what evidence exists for that belief. How well South Korea has turned out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I think his working assumption is that a military occupation would have been preferable to the mass starvation on the 90s and the very real threat posed by an unstable actor with nuclear weapons. I guess I can't think of a time when a military invasion has ameliorated, rather than exacerbated, a famine. Charlz Guybon posted:How well South Korea has turned out. After they got rid of their American puppet dictator, you mean. Sure, it might have turned out so well. But the recent history of US military intervention shouldn't fill you with confidence. This is ignoring the question of the initial justifiability of that kind of unilateral intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
brockan posted:That's been the topic by a lot of experts lately. That the least bad option is to live with NK as a nuclear state. NK acts rational enough. They're not 100% perfect logical robots, but neither is any other country. Generally, when people complain about the North being irrational and crazy, all they're doing is failing to understand the situation. As for Trump...he's about as likely to nuke North Korea as to lock up Hillary Clinton. He talks a big game, but it's just talk. He'll spend the entirety of his term just blustering and threatening, which international observers will call "raising tensions" but which won't meaningfully escalate. Yes, this means we'll be stuck with the Kims for many years to come...but we've put up with them for seven decades already, so let's not pretend this represents anything more than taking some of the uncertainty out of the status quo the US has tolerated for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
I would say at least as their nuclear program goes, it is honestly fairly logical since there are so many upsides to the regime. It not only takes regime change off the table but allows them to use their warheads as leverage against the US. That said, for the US, the opening for regime change is off the table and in all honestly has been for a while, but I think it is very hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea that the Kims are here to stay unless China says otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
At this point, there are no good options for dealing with North Korea, there aren't even bad options, there's only degrees of holy-poo poo-everything-is-insanely-hosed options left now. The best scenario at this point, as I've advocated in this thread in the past, would be for some kind of a palace coup by a high-ranking general who is friendly with China. From there, foreign investment could flow in, just like in China after they opened up to the West, but with reasonable guarantees that it won't all be nationalized or just straight-up stolen as inevitably happens now. This would be a multi-decade project, but it's the only one that doesn't plunge South Korea into an immediate multi-year recession, as any kind of disorderly regime collapse would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
It's going to impact South Korea no matter what. If China wanted to pick up 100% of the cost of rehabilitating North Korea, wouldn't they be doing it now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Why are people so scared of North Korea? They ain't going to do poo poo, just let them have their little kingdom, they aren't going to nuke anyone because it's suicide for them. Either China takes them down from the inside or outside or the regime finally falls apart after ??? generations. OMG North Korea could get a single nuke to maybe hit *americans*. A bunch of countries have nukes that can hit other countries, why are we worrying about closing the barn doors at this point? They aren't going to nuke the US, they aren't going to invade the south, they're going to sit there being a lovely dictatorship and making a lot of noise but little else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why are people so scared of North Korea? They ain't going to do poo poo, just let them have their little kingdom, they aren't going to nuke anyone because it's suicide for them. Either China takes them down from the inside or outside or the regime finally falls apart after ??? generations. OMG North Korea could get a single nuke to maybe hit *americans*. A bunch of countries have nukes that can hit other countries, why are we worrying about closing the barn doors at this point? They aren't going to nuke the US, they aren't going to invade the south, they're going to sit there being a lovely dictatorship and making a lot of noise but little else. Because they're (pick one or more of the following) a terrible oppressive regime that continues making its people suffer, a speedbump when it comes to America rolling over everyone it doesn't like, an insult to a liberal and open world, an affront to your ego since you already said they'd get steamrolled and now you can't steamroll them But yeah, I basically agree, the only option that doesn't result in North Korean issues spilling over into all surrounding countries to an extent that nobody wants to deal with in reality is allowing Kim Jong Un to continue being the fattest dictator on the planet until some internal issue becomes too much for him to handle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 21:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
All this depends on the degree to which China is either unwilling or unable to get things under control. If it's the former, then sanctions on Chinese entities are still a path that hasn't been adequately explored. If it's the latter, then military action is the only option and it might be better to just rip the band-aid off and be done with it. Problem is that I don't think even the Chinese know if its unwillingness or inability since I strongly suspect that the left hand in Beijing doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:A preemptive nuclear strike would be the fastest path America gets to becoming a pariah state and/or Trump being impeached. Americans are far stupid to impeach Trump over anything he does or will do. A pre emptive nuclear strike on NK will just play into his tough guy image and every insecure middle aged white guy in the country will be thrilled we finally taught those commie bastards a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why are people so scared of North Korea? They ain't going to do poo poo, just let them have their little kingdom, they aren't going to nuke anyone because it's suicide for them. Either China takes them down from the inside or outside or the regime finally falls apart after ??? generations. OMG North Korea could get a single nuke to maybe hit *americans*. A bunch of countries have nukes that can hit other countries, why are we worrying about closing the barn doors at this point? They aren't going to nuke the US, they aren't going to invade the south, they're going to sit there being a lovely dictatorship and making a lot of noise but little else. Forget the nukes. Do you know how many people would be killed from chemical weapons launched into Seoul and maybe Tokyo if we attacked NK? This doesn't get talked about enough. NK has huge stockpiles of WMDs including crazy poo poo like VX and more than enough ballistic missiles to launch it with. You might think it would be suicide and so therefore it wouldn't happen , but we don't know what the hell the Regime would do if it felt it's existence was in danger. I guess you probably don't care about thousand, probably tens of thousands of civilians killed in Seoul or Tokyo because they aren't American. Well I hate to break it to you but we base our military in these countries and the governments certainly do care. So if we want to get all cowboy and nuke Pyongyang we are going to need their approval and I highly doubt they will want to sacrifice their civilians for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Forget the nukes. Do you know how many people would be killed from chemical weapons launched into Seoul and maybe Tokyo if we attacked NK? This doesn't get talked about enough. NK has huge stockpiles of WMDs including crazy poo poo like VX and more than enough ballistic missiles to launch it with. You might think it would be suicide and so therefore it wouldn't happen , but we don't know what the hell the Regime would do if it felt it's existence was in danger. Indeed. Thankfully, there is one group of people all involved parties remain willing to sacrifice to ensure their own continuing security and relative prosperity: the average NK citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 02:00
|
|