|
sincx posted:Okay, say USAF B1s bomb NK's enrichment facility and launch complex. SK is given a heads-up 1 hour before the bombs drop, China is told 5 minutes before the bombs drop. The US makes an announcement immediately after the bombing saying that there will be no other action taken unless NK does another ICBM launch or nuclear test. Probably limited North Korean shelling at a minimum, and then escalation/deescalation from there. You're assuming that Kim Jong-un's only priority is preservation of the state, but preservation of his regime is going to be a concern too. It may make more sense to risk a wider war if the alternative is being deposed and executed anyway.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/01/politics/lindsey-graham-north-korea-donald-trump-white-house/index.html Since when does Lindsey Graham speak for Trump? As a Trump foe throughout the campaign, I severely doubt he has any special insights into what's happening in the White House. sincx posted:Okay, say USAF B1s bomb NK's enrichment facility and launch complex. SK is given a heads-up 1 hour before the bombs drop, China is told 5 minutes before the bombs drop. The US makes an announcement immediately after the bombing saying that there will be no other action taken unless NK does another ICBM launch or nuclear test. I'd guess "China and SK are both incredibly pissed at us, while NK has been mildly inconvenienced and rebuilds their facilities within a few months". Surgical strikes in peacetime are useless for anything besides generating good press by pretending we've done anything more than briefly delaying the inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
I was going to say, they would make the next enrichment complex much more difficult to bomb. And keep in mind they probably already have dozens of nukes, so stopping enrichment isn't really going to change the state of affairs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Probably limited North Korean shelling at a minimum, and then escalation/deescalation from there. You're assuming that Kim Jong-un's only priority is preservation of the state, but preservation of his regime is going to be a concern too. It may make more sense to risk a wider war if the alternative is being deposed and executed anyway. That's what this article suggested as one scenario (written in April, so there's no mention of bombing the US). Since NK has far too many underground bunkers and unknowns for a single strike to accomplish much, it theorizes that KJU will decide that he will likely prefer to use his weapons than loses them and ends up retaliating. http://theweek.com/articles/692872/how-preemptive-strike-north-korea-could-end-killing-millions
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
brockan posted:That's what this article suggested as one scenario (written in April, so there's no mention of bombing the US). Since NK has far too many underground bunkers and unknowns for a single strike to accomplish much, it theorizes that KJU will decide that he will likely prefer to use his weapons than loses them and ends up retaliating. I just can't see Kim retaliating for anything except an all-out offensive. Say the US did some sort of strike comparable to what was done after the Syrian gas attacks. I feel like any counterattack by North Korea on South Korea or Japan may as well be an attack on California. All out war would be disastrous for both sides. Nobody really wants it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:I just can't see Kim retaliating for anything except an all-out offensive. Say the US did some sort of strike comparable to what was done after the Syrian gas attacks. I feel like any counterattack by North Korea on South Korea or Japan may as well be an attack on California. All out war would be disastrous for both sides. Nobody really wants it. If he doesn't retaliate, he loses all credibility with his regime and that would most likely result in his death. At that point, he decides that he either backs up what the Kims have been touting for decaces and wipes Seoul, Tokyo, or parts of the US off the map because he's dead anyway, or he's killed by his own people. And in that scenario, it's unlikely that he'll choose to sympathize with his enemies. It's not all that different from MAD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
People are sniffing their own farts too much in here. If NK sank a Navy ship, do you think the US would retaliate with limited airstrikes or a full offensive? If NK launched conventional missiles against the US bases in Okinawa, do you think the US would retaliate with limited airstrikes or a full offensive? I mean, nobody wants all out war, so maybe America would make de-escalation overtures?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:People are sniffing their own farts too much in here. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. North Korea has sunk an ROKN ship in the relatively recent past and the response was deescalation. They've shelled an ROK military installation and the response was deescalation. If the US launches an air strike against North Korea, the thing that Kim Jong-un is going to want more than anything else is peaceful deescalation. The problem is that he's also probably going to need to risk some kind of limited military response to keep his own political position stable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Correct, you didn't understand the point: I didn't say South Korea. I said US military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
How does Kim Jong Un know that a multi pronged strike against his nuclear and missile bases is a limited 'punishment' strike, and not the first wave of an all out attack? Given the disparities in power, the North Koreans have a real incentive to 'use it or lose it'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Correct, you didn't understand the point: I didn't say South Korea. But who is sniffing their own farts? Your post is confusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Correct, you didn't understand the point: I didn't say South Korea. So your assertion is that if the DPRK, say, launched a missile at a USN ship that the response would be a full invasion with the intended goal of toppling the regime?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Burt Buckle posted:But who is sniffing their own farts? Your post is confusing. There's some logic going on here, that because nobody wants to gently caress with the US, a minor nation like NK is just going to lick their wounds if they get airstrike and reluctantly accept de-escalation terms. I mean, that's just what minors do, right? But if American soldiers lost their lives in a DPRK military strike, I bet you people far and wide would start screaming to the high heavens for nork blood and Kim's head on a pike. Because there are different standards at play here, and the standard that is being applied to NK when reasoning what their response would be to getting bombed is just the same as the one applied to every little third world country America bombs when it feels like it, despite the fact that calling the situation unique is an understatement. And yes, this also goes to assuming they'll take the same stance SK does when NK pulls bullshit like sinking ships or plotting assassinations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:So your assertion is that if the DPRK, say, launched a missile at a USN ship that the response would be a full invasion with the intended goal of toppling the regime? With Trump in charge, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
If the US was planning to attack NK, why wait until now? It becomes an increasingly bad idea as time goes on. I don't think the US has any intention of attacking North Korea under any reasonable circumstance
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. North Korea has sunk an ROKN ship in the relatively recent past and the response was deescalation. They've shelled an ROK military installation and the response was deescalation. If the US launches an air strike against North Korea, the thing that Kim Jong-un is going to want more than anything else is peaceful deescalation. The problem is that he's also probably going to need to risk some kind of limited military response to keep his own political position stable. I arrived in the ROK in 2009. Korea has changed over the last decade. I really doubt that the South will just sit back and take it the next time the North attacks a ship or an island. They will retaliate in kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
mediadave posted:How does Kim Jong Un know that a multi pronged strike against his nuclear and missile bases is a limited 'punishment' strike, and not the first wave of an all out attack? Yeah, it's a bit beyond something like a single missile being fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
brockan posted:If he doesn't retaliate, he loses all credibility with his regime and that would most likely result in his death. Say that Trump does lob a bunch of missiles at military targets in North Korea, along with the message assuring them it isn't the start of a war, and for the sake of argument, let's say that North Korea actually believes that, which is by no means a guarantee. There's a high degree of likelihood that Kim Jong-un then orders what they consider to be a proportional artillery strike on South Korea. Is South Korea gonna sit by and get shelled and not respond at all because of something that the U.S. decided to unilaterally do? How does THAT play internally in South Korea? Do they now have to respond to North Korea? I would say yes, so they respond by bombing the crap out of any and all artillery that fired and probably a bunch that didn't. Now, North Korea's been hit twice, but only responded once, and Kim can't look weak, so we start up another round of bombardment or maybe a missile lobbed at the U.S. base on Okinawa...and I think you see where I'm going. There's a very real danger that we bumble into a war that we don't really want because the world's largest oompa loompa decided to blow some poo poo up to distract from the crap happening around him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:If the US was planning to attack NK, why wait until now? It becomes an increasingly bad idea as time goes on. I don't think the US has any intention of attacking North Korea under any reasonable circumstance 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
I'm reluctant to place much blame on Trump in this hypothetical situation, since by all indications he's content with just nodding on whatever his generals tell him. While this of course thoroughly undermines the concept of civilian oversight of the military, his fault would lie on signing off the problem for them to deal with instead of seeking other approaches, and not on himself demanding war with NK. Though naturally, the current POTUS being preemptively in approval of military action when that becomes an option doesn't make the situation any better 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say the reason is simply that North Korea is still a functioning state at least explicitly practicing an ideology (practice is another thing), while pretty much the rest of the second world moved on to strict state capitalism and Yugoslavia is in a lot of little pieces. That said, in reality even North Korea is moving in state capitalist direction and there are satellite photos of markets popping up even in the provinces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
sincx posted:NK is the one problem that Trump isn't responsible for. Also, I don't know how much better a Hillary, Sanders, or Kasich can do to solve the NK problem. It is a really hard problem. This is the first foreign policy crisis of Trump's presidency and the fact that war hasn't happened is a somewhat reassuring sign, to be honest (it's month 7 lmao) Honestly "beefing up American military assets in Northeast Asia and bolstering South Korean and Japanese defenses" is a reasonable response that virtually any president probably would have done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
So why was this thread moved out of gbs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
we should send in bill richardson to personally dismantle the nk regime (with murder)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This is the first foreign policy crisis of Trump's presidency and the fact that war hasn't happened is a somewhat reassuring sign, to be honest (it's month 7 lmao) Did we already forget about Qatar?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This is the first foreign policy crisis of Trump's presidency lol wut
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I'm reluctant to place much blame on Trump in this hypothetical situation, since by all indications he's content with just nodding on whatever his generals tell him. While this of course thoroughly undermines the concept of civilian oversight of the military, his fault would lie on signing off the problem for them to deal with instead of seeking other approaches, and not on himself demanding war with NK. I think the fear is that both sides will need to save face. First, the USA launches a limited strike to take out NK facilities. Second, Kim lobs a missile at a US base or ship because he has to do something in response. Tit for tat. However, that missile actually manages to kill a dozen US service men. Third, Trump stops listening to his generals. America has been attacked. Trump looks weak, his supporters demand blood, and we spiral into a real war. Whoops, Azathoth said the same thing, missed his post. We are going to bumble into this war. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Cold War except there's no hotline and both sides think it'll be costly but there's a way to win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
sincx posted:Fojar is a super pro-US jingoistic Canadian who hates China and thought Trump was going to go hard against the PRC after the Taiwan call. Then Trump got easily bribed by Xi with a few trademarks and a couple hundred million dollars in Chinese investments, but Fojar and his ilk still have a bit of a soft spot for Trump. Hence his Trump apologism. What the hell are you talking about? Saying "hey this foreign policy move is probably what any President would have done" now not only means that I love Trump but also that I hate China? That's one hell of a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
have any other world powers like russia or china chimed in on a response?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
China sent out a politely worded statement not specifically referencing North Korea that basically asked Trump to stop tweeting provocative things. I assume Putin told him what he thought via whatever usual way he gives Trump his marching orders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
EX250 Type R posted:have any other world powers like russia or china chimed in on a response? Russia is condemning US for imposing sanctions on NK. They along with China, suggested a double suspension where both NK suspends its nuclear program and US suspends military exercises, but both sides are rejecting it. Russia is also preventing the UN from taking unified action against NK. They're also downplaying both of NK's ICBM launches, calling them IRBMs and giving them much lower numbers than what everybody else has suggested. Many suggest this is Russia trying to undermine the US. Some believe that while this may be true, it could also mean that Russia seriously believes this, and their systems are outdated and flawed. Which plays into Jeffrey Lewis's nightmare scenario where a US missile interception would look like an attack on Russia's computers, leading to them nuking the US. China is claiming that they don't have as much influence over NK as US claims they do. Whether that's true or not, they're basically saying that NK isn't their responsibility and it's up to the US and NK alone to de-escalate. Which is incredibly dangerous, considering who's in charge on both sides. That was one article (I don't remember where I found it) that theorized that China is trying to call the US's bluff and gamble the possibility of the US attacking NK, hoping that the US will eventually reach the point where they de-escalate, allowing China to claim more influence in the region. They've also been moving troops alongside NK's border. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-missiles-china-idUKKBN1AA090 http://www.atimes.com/article/another-reason-chinas-adding-troops-border-north-korea/ Then there was this bit today that was pretty alarming: https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/892743788313104385 I know that that's Fox News. But it was also confirmed here: https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/892762840121188352 https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/892763197194809344 https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/892828000881958918
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
brockan posted:Russia is condemning US for imposing sanctions on NK. They along with China, suggested a double suspension where both NK suspends its nuclear program and US suspends military exercises, but both sides are rejecting it. Russia is also preventing the UN from taking unified action against NK. So what's the most likely reaction China will take if the U.S. attacks North Korea first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So what's the most likely reaction China will take if the U.S. attacks North Korea first? Lock down their border to prevent a catastrophic influx of NK refugees, and deny operational assistance unless they get disproportionate economic and geopolitical concessions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So what's the most likely reaction China will take if the U.S. attacks North Korea first? Build some more replicas of US military hardware, blow them up, and declare victory
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:What the hell are you talking about? Saying "hey this foreign policy move is probably what any President would have done" now not only means that I love Trump but also that I hate China? That's one hell of a strawman. you definitely hate china
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:So what's the most likely reaction China will take if the U.S. attacks North Korea first? That depends on so many of the details of exactly how and why the US carries it out that it's impossible to meaningfully answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:18 |
|
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/security-council-vote-north-korea-sanctions-170805153043100.html apperently it was unanimous and is harsher then normal. so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2017 02:03
|
|
