|
Fat Kim is calling orange turd bluff, I love it.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Isn't this potentially incredibly counter-productive for North Korea? My understanding is that the US has had to restrain South Korea at least once or twice from developing their own nuclear weapons program, and Japan's long been known to have a substantial breakout capacity. If they become convinced the US won't actually live up to its mutual agreements, doesn't that greatly increase the likelihood that one or both countries will say "gently caress it, if they're getting the bomb so are we"? That's far more of a problem for the US and UN than it is for North Korea. Not only would it badly humiliate the groups and countries leading the nonproliferation push, it would also discredit the anti-nuclearization measures they've been taking against North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly no 😓 People that never watch the news and decide to tune in on any given day would probably think WW3 is around the corner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:japanese "self defense nukes" would be a hard sell The nuclear deterrent is self-defense for North Korea after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:People that never watch the news and decide to tune in on any given day would probably think WW3 is around the corner. we can hope
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:https://twitter.com/martyn_williams/status/902279496337956864 How do you know all this? Their intentions, the fall down from the missle trash, their accuracy rates?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Pyongyang-provocation/Japan-US-look-to-cut-off-North-Korea-s-oil-supply Haven't seen this posted here yet. "The U.S. and Japan will call for an international embargo on oil exports to North Korea".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Pyongyang-provocation/Japan-US-look-to-cut-off-North-Korea-s-oil-supply I will go out there and say I honestly hope that China wouldn't comply with such an embargo. That is quite literally an direct attack on the population itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I will go out there and say I honestly hope that China wouldn't comply with such an embargo. That is quite literally an direct attack on the population itself. I suspect China and/or Russia will not go along with it, but the intent seems clear. The US/Japan/SK are going to continue to ratchet tensions from this point forward until NK knuckles under or a full blown war starts. "The policy of strategic patience is over" and all that. NK will continue to try and provoke an attack that looks like it came from the other side first so they can call on China to intervene. The fact that Trump is in office while this is all going down makes me feel sick to my stomach...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:I suspect China and/or Russia will not go along with it, but the intent seems clear. The US/Japan/SK are going to continue to ratchet tensions from this point forward until NK knuckles under or a full blown war starts. "The policy of strategic patience is over" and all that. NK will continue to try and provoke an attack that looks like it came from the other side first so they can call on China to intervene. The fact that Trump is in office while this is all going down makes me feel sick to my stomach... I assume the ploy is to either force China/Russia to veto the measure or openly undermine it. It allows Trump to look tough by making the situation worse than it already was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
North Korea States that the next target is Guam. Oh come on...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
They're not going to actually target Guam. More state tv dickwaving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:You're in Seoul? Sejong, 100-150 meters from the Government Complex
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I will go out there and say I honestly hope that China wouldn't comply with such an embargo. That is quite literally an direct attack on the population itself. US/Japan's embargo to NK means dick. Trump's thread means dick. Fat Kim will rub one out whenever Japan/NK is in election or when US is busy in the middle east, and then Putin and Xi chuckle in unison. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/902875515534626817 Blustering today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
This continuing escalation in the face of worldwide condemnation is simply the action of a logical, rational regime that definitely doesn't have a death wish of any kind. Hey maybe we'll get lucky and they'll sell their nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia and we can see a nuclear Middle East, that would be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:This continuing escalation in the face of worldwide condemnation is simply the action of a logical, rational regime that definitely doesn't have a death wish of any kind. is Israel not part of the middle east ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
skipThings posted:is Israel not part of the middle east ? Israel is a sort of but not really exception. Things would change massively if, say, the Sauds or Iran got their hands on some nukes, or god forbid ISIS finds a way to get a missile or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
The Saudis have no need for North Korea to provide nuclear or missile tech. They would purchase such weaponry from Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Saudi doesn't need to purchase anything since they already paid for Pakistans nuclear program
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:This continuing escalation in the face of worldwide condemnation is simply the action of a logical, rational regime that definitely doesn't have a death wish of any kind. Did you read the statement? It said that the missile is a step toward containing Guam, not "hey, we're attacking Guam lol"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Did you read the statement? It said that the missile is a step toward containing Guam, not "hey, we're attacking Guam lol" What kind of moronic statement is "containing Guam"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What kind of moronic statement is "containing Guam"? Next time you enjoy living in a world not dominated by the oppressive jackboot of Guam, thank a North Korean dictator.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What kind of moronic statement is "containing Guam"? Presumably they meant containing offensive US military capabilities based out of Guam, but maybe they really did mean fending off the Guamanian threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Presumably they meant containing offensive US military capabilities based out of Guam So they meant attacking Guam to destroy the military bases. Because that's the only way that statement makes sense, that's the only way you can use a missile to "contain Guam".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So they meant attacking Guam to destroy the military bases. Because that's the only way that statement makes sense, that's the only way you can use a missile to "contain Guam". No, it isn't. Credible threat of retaliation can be used as a means of containing offensive capabilities from being used against you or can slow massing of offensive capabilities in an area until proper defensive measures can be put in place at a location like Guam. Then again, the US already set up THAAD in Guam years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No, it isn't. Credible threat of retaliation can be used as a means of containing offensive capabilities from being used against you or can slow massing of offensive capabilities in an area until proper defensive measures can be put in place at a location like Guam. Then again, the US already set up THAAD in Guam years ago. No, sorry, that's just bullshit. Either they actually send a missile against Guam to damage it, or they're not containing poo poo. Just like their missiles aren't currently containing any of the South Korean or Japanese US bases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, sorry, that's just bullshit. Either they actually send a missile against Guam to damage it, or they're not containing poo poo. Just like their missiles aren't currently containing any of the South Korean or Japanese US bases. I think the general idea is that if they can nuke the base in Guam it can't be reliably used as a safe staging ground for an invasion against them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think the general idea is that if they can nuke the base in Guam it can't be reliably used as a safe staging ground for an invasion against them. Bingo, there is a difference between a no-poo poo shooting war RIGHT NOW and creating a more difficult situation for potential adversaries to attack you. "Contain" is an odd word choice, sure, and I wonder how much that is a translation issue, but that doesn't mean their options are war or useless item.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What kind of moronic statement is "containing Guam"? It means "humiliating the US" while maintaining the narrative that they're just defending themselves against unjustified US aggression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think the general idea is that if they can nuke the base in Guam it can't be reliably used as a safe staging ground for an invasion against them. So why aren't they issuing statements that they're going to "contain" any of the bases much nearer that are actually designed to be a staging ground for invading mainland Asia, namely US bases across Japan and South Korea. Well it's simple, because it's a continuation of their threat to attack Guam specifically that they've been making for the past month or so rather than anything about actually preventing an invasion. mlmp08 posted:Bingo, there is a difference between a no-poo poo shooting war RIGHT NOW and creating a more difficult situation for potential adversaries to attack you. "Contain" is an odd word choice, sure, and I wonder how much that is a translation issue, but that doesn't mean their options are war or useless item. Either they do nothing and nothing is "contained". Or they actually hit an honest to god US military base and that's war. It is essentially them bragging they're going to attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Either they do nothing and nothing is "contained". Or they actually hit an honest to god US military base and that's war. It is essentially them bragging they're going to attack. Well, if your only interpretation is that they're bragging of a first strike that they'll perform, I sure am glad you aren't in charge of national security.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Well, if your only interpretation is that they're bragging of a first strike that they'll perform, I sure am glad you aren't in charge of national security. So your interpretation is that what they actually meant to write is a blank press release advocating no action, or what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So your interpretation is that what they actually meant to write is a blank press release advocating no action, or what? "We can hit your precious base in Guam which acts as an easy threatening boogieman we've built up in our propaganda. Now the unnamed country will think twice about invasion, which has thus made Korea safer and contained a threat" It's pretty easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Here's a very short but real answer: They were signaling a capability that has emerged over the last year or two that gives them much more credibility in reaching out and hitting strategically important targets. This is not the same as imminent planning to hit said targets. It's a way to signal that if anyone feels like decapitating the regime or attempting to surgically destroy nuclear capabilities, said enemies stand a more serious chance than before of eating a weapon in what were previously considered safe spaces from DPRK weapons. It's more like your neighbor going from "don't gently caress with me or I'll cut you" and brandishing a knife vs now saying "don't gently caress with me or I'll shoot you" and brandishing a pistol. That doesn't mean your neighbor is gonna just shoot you, but he's now showing off that should you decide to gently caress with him, he has more tools in his toolbag to make it hurt for you. So no, I don't think that was a "blank press release." If that still doesn't make sense, I dunno, man. I guess assume they announced an imminent attack on US territory and then wonder why no one's fighting back and/or why this attack never materializes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:"We can hit your precious base in Guam which acts as an easy threatening boogieman we've built up in our propaganda. Now the unnamed country will think twice about invasion, which has thus made Korea safer and contained a threat" So saying "we can totally do a first strike" and in fact threatening to do it then. You know, just like they were threatening missile strikes "near" Guam less than 6 weeks ago. It's a threat, to strike Guam with missiles. mlmp08 posted:This is not the same as imminent planning to hit said targets. They literally claimed to be doing that in press releases earlier this month, saying they were investigating launching missiles "near" Guam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
It's a threat to rehearse what it would be like to strike Guam with missiles by striking the sea around Guam with missiles, to be precise. I think they would much prefer to not follow through on that threat, to be honest (hoping instead for resumption of dialogue,) but if pushed they might.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So saying "we can totally do a first strike" and in fact threatening to do it then. You know, just like they were threatening missile strikes "near" Guam less than 6 weeks ago. This is a very poor reading of the situation and points to a general ignorance of many things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
north korea is free to do whatever it wants in international waters, include firing missles into the sea imagine the uproar if nk insinuated SK doing exercises in international waters would result in an attack, we'd all be whining and clutching our pearls over the flagrant disregard for international norms or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 22:16
|
|