|
sincx posted:He could have stopped after the last ICBM test. That test was successful enough as a deterrent. There was no reason to launch a MRBM over Japan, or perform the latest nuclear test. All he's going to get is more sanctions. His previous nuclear test was a failure and until the Japan test no one believed he could hit mainland US. He does this for the same reason everyone has military drills, to show strength. And it's working. Would you call US/SK irrational actors for having drills near the DMZ? Or NATO for having drills in northern Norway? You're selectively calling out one actor for something that everyone does for a very specific reason. Fojar38 posted:I'm gonna be crazy and say that they should stop being a lovely pseudo-feudal military dictatorship But enough about the US
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm gonna be crazy and say that they should stop being a lovely pseudo-feudal military dictatorship I'm going to disappoint liberals and say that Steve Bannon was absolutely right about our preemptive military options in North Korea. There are none. For one, Seoul has about 10 million residents and it's in artillery range of NK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:I'm going to disappoint liberals and say that Steve Bannon was absolutely right about our preemptive military options in North Korea. On the other hand, I'm sure Trump is willing to sacrifice however many South Koreans his ego requires.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
VideoGameVet posted:I'm going to disappoint liberals and say that Steve Bannon was absolutely right about our preemptive military options in North Korea. There are pre-emptive military options depending on what people are willing to risk versus the potential rewards. Nobody is willing to risk Seoul to get rid of the Kims. People aren't even willing to risk a temporary spike in consumer prices. It's not that the US doesn't have preemptive military options, it's that nobody actually cares enough about North Korean nukes to pay the price of getting rid of them. US/Japan/South Korea, when the chips are down, seem to be confident enough in their ability to deter a North Korean attack that the gepolitical status quo is going to remain, albeit with a much more heavily armed Northeast Asia, which ironically puts China on the losing end of this when all is said and done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:For one, Seoul has about 10 million residents and it's in artillery range of NK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
There are some people out there who believe losing millions of lives is worth it to disarm North Korea As long as the millions who die are mostly not white
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:There are some people out there who believe losing millions of lives is worth it to disarm North Korea Well I remember from the 2016 election threads that a large portion of democrat voters think Kissinger is a stand up guy, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
How is it relevant though what "some people" think about this. Some people think vaccines cause autism. Many people are racist. Surprising, I know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
i like kim jong-un
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:I've read many an armchair expert analysis that says very few of those guns can actually make the distance. My business partner was stationed there (Army) in the 1980's. They would disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:I can't determine how crazy Kim is until I get a clarification on the execution method he used on his uncle. He had his half brother assassinated with nerve gas in an busy international airport! That's literal Bond villain stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:No they haven't literally said "we're going to nuke you" but that is the height of pedantry. The US has obviously, repeatedly threatened North Korea with nuclear annihilation in the event of a war. It's obvious what the intent of flying a nuclear bomber close to NK's border means. It's obvious what Trump means when he threatens "fire and fury" against North Korea. The US had nuclear missiles in South Korea for decades after the war, and it's 100% obvious they were there as a threat against North Korea. The US actually considered nuking NK after China intervened during the Korean war, which is a matter of public record. The threat of nuclear force is something that the US has repeatedly used against the North and there is no such thing as a non-belligerent nuclear threat. you can't threaten self defense if someone tells me they're going to come to my house and kick my rear end, and i say "if you break into my house, i will shoot you in the face", it's not a threat. you can only threaten to do illegal things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:you can't threaten self defense Threatening to shoot people in the face is in fact a threat, even if it were legal to shoot people in the face. Also weird analogy, I get the feeling you fantasize about shooting people in the face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Like has been mentioned, the ball is firmly in the North Korean regime's court now, and the big question mark left in the geopolitical calculus is how they intend to play their hand. Its a pretty strong one, but do they intend to go the safe route and use it simply walk away with a guarantee of the status quo of maintaining NK sovereignty and survival of the regime (like so many posters in this topic seem convinced of)? Or will the hardline hawks in the regime win out and they put it all on the line, thinking this strong hand with a good enough poker face and convincing enough bluff can win them the whole drat pot (the BR Meyers hot take)? "Maybe we can get the annual US/SK exercises cancelled. Maybe we can get the sanctions lifted. Maybe we can get the Americans off the peninsula. Maybe we can jerk Japan around..." It really depends on how rational/crazy and how content/greedy you think the regime is, or will be in the future. All I can say is the diplomacy for the situation for the next few years is gonna one hell of a wild ride. Kerning Chameleon fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Sep 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:the demonstration of capability is not the same as a demonstration of intent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
HAT FETISH posted:I agree, North Korean nuclear testing is nothing to worry about North Korean testing coincides with statements of intent to use nuclear weapons on their perceived "aggressors."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:North Korean testing coincides with statements of intent to use nuclear weapons on their perceived "aggressors." Intent to use as a retaliatory strike, which is the same as US stated policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:North Korean testing coincides with statements of intent to use nuclear weapons on their perceived "aggressors." And yet they haven't nuked anyone. Isn't it tiring to panic like this every time they do a thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:My business partner was stationed there (Army) in the 1980's. They would disagree. It's actually kind of interesting how armchair experts on the internet tend to assert how DPRK artillery is antiquated, poorly supplied, the crews barely if at all trained, and therefore the threat of leveling Seoul or any kind of major infrastructure damage to SK, barring the use of nuclear weapons, is false. Yet anyone who has been stationed on the theater will emphatically assert it's a genuine and frankly terrifying threat, and that the only way to NK is through the DMZ, which would be nightmarish by modern US attrition standards. But I guess they're only exaggerating because the military has to prepare for the worst, right? Iraq was a cakewalk so North Korea, a starving country with 50s era technology at best, would be even easier, right? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:My business partner was stationed there (Army) in the 1980's. They would disagree. I hear you. So many look down on third world countries like they can't fight, as we head into year loving 17 of the afghan war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:
uhhh but that's not true at all We could open with heavy bombings + airdrop paratroopers + amphibious landings + spec ops. we don't need to march up. There's also a strong possibility that if NK struck first China would not just stay neutral, but send in troops from the North.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's actually kind of interesting how armchair experts on the internet tend to assert how DPRK artillery is antiquated, poorly supplied, the crews barely if at all trained, and therefore the threat of leveling Seoul or any kind of major infrastructure damage to SK, barring the use of nuclear weapons, is false. I agree with this, but also at this point the artillery is something of a red herring. North Korea has hundreds, if not thousands of short and medium range missiles - Scuds, NoDongs, short and medium range solid fuelled missiles - proven technology that North Korea has started practising salvo-firings of. They also have at this point perhaps 30, probably compact, nuclear warheads of Hiroshima level strength. They may also have deployable H-Bombs*. If it comes to war, a war that North Korea well knows it will lose, will they really restrict themselves to conventional artillery? Hopefully military planners are assuming not. *feasibly the weapon tested recently could have been a boosted atomic bomb rather than a true H-Bomb, but at upwards of a hundred kilotons it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:There's also a strong possibility that if NK struck first China would not just stay neutral, but send in troops from the North. And according to a party newspaper, if the US strikes first, China will come in on the side of the North (as it has a treaty obligation to do). ...Obviously it most likely wouldn't. But this is a tricky situation for China, and they aren't going to crush North Korea just because the US wants it to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Personality test: Let's say America gets nuked to oblivion, uninhabitable for centuries; it doesn't matter who does it. You're the last person alive with the capability to launch nukes, and bunker-busting missiles are headed your way. You have about 5 minutes to live. Do you launch America's nukes knowing that it would lead to the end of humanity? Or not launch them and accept defeat?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Lube banjo posted:Personality test: What were the standing orders given by the legitimate authority of the US government? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:What were the standing orders given by the legitimate authority of the US government? Well, as the last American, you're effectively the POTUS 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Lube banjo posted:Personality test: I don't launch. I don't want to end humanity out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
I'd like to think I wouldn't, but in the heat of the moment after knowing everybody I ever cared about just got killed, I probably would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'd like to think I wouldn't, but in the heat of the moment after knowing everybody I ever cared about just got killed, I probably would. If there was only a button that said "nuke the whole world" nah. If there was a button that said "nuke the gently caress out of the crazy bastards who started this poo poo so they can't nuke anybody ever and I'd really rather not reward them for being homicidal loving maniacs in the same way that I wouldn't want to reward someone for successfully raping and murdering their neighbors" yeah, I'd mash that button repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's actually kind of interesting how armchair experts on the internet tend to assert how DPRK artillery is antiquated, poorly supplied, the crews barely if at all trained, and therefore the threat of leveling Seoul or any kind of major infrastructure damage to SK, barring the use of nuclear weapons, is false. Not to mention the terrain. And the weather. One of the local VC's is one of the Chosin Few. As in a survivor of the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:There are some people out there who believe losing millions of lives is worth it to disarm North Korea Exactly. White people learned nothing about their failures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Please stick to bullying little nations like Grenada please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Lube banjo posted:Personality test: Sorry but I can't take this tests unless they're a "trolley dilemma" kind of question. Could you please rephrase the question into something like "all of America is on one track, and on the other there's Kin Jong Un"? Oh and while you rewrite it, could you emphasize Kin Jong Un's obesity in the problem? Put something like "he's so fat the ralis are bending under his weight", ok? tia
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's actually kind of interesting how armchair experts on the internet tend to assert how DPRK artillery is antiquated, poorly supplied, the crews barely if at all trained, and therefore the threat of leveling Seoul or any kind of major infrastructure damage to SK, barring the use of nuclear weapons, is false. I was in the navy stationed outside of korea and spent a lot of time on station watching for DPRK missiles. And it's still an overblown threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Artillery isn't the problem. Short and medium range missiles are a much larger threat to ROK than the conventional artillery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I Love Annie May posted:Sorry but I can't take this tests unless they're a "trolley dilemma" kind of question. Could you please rephrase the question into something like "all of America is on one track, and on the other there's Kin Jong Un"? Oh and while you rewrite it, could you emphasize Kin Jong Un's obesity in the problem? Put something like "he's so fat the ralis are bending under his weight", ok? tia No, I'll start with the first reason: I have no talent for writing Second: If KJU read something like that about his obesity it would just kill him. And you wouldn't want that. He's adorable with mickey ears Thirdly, Even if some deity came down from the hills or heavens, and blessed me with this vast knowledge of writing eloquence and proper punctuation, backwards and forwards. I still wouldn't do it If this was the make-a-wish foundation and you were going to die in 20 minutes, just long enough for you to read my perfectly crafted story about KJU's obesity. I still wouldn't write it and here is the end reason: life is too loving short to read or write about KJU's obesity problem e: i thought this would be a lot funnier Setset fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
If NK shoot a nuke at Tokyo/LA/Seoul, the US/SK will level NK from the south; China (and maybe Russia) will go in from the north, to setup the "refugee safety zone", basically NK gets cut in half. If NK shoot a nuke at China, the Chinese army will go in and will never leave for the next 50 years. So basically NK has extremely low motivation and shoot an actual nuke. What the US want to focus on is proliferation prevention. In the long run, the number one player (i.e. US) has most geopolitic influence to lose in the event that a rogue state aquire nuke. China OTOH, has lower incentive to make NK lose the nuke. If China play the card right, they might angle NK the mad dog to drag US into another exhausted and costly war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If NK shoot a nuke at Tokyo/LA/Seoul, the US/SK will level NK from the south; China (and maybe Russia) will go in from the north, to setup the "refugee safety zone", basically NK gets cut in half. True, but they have a high motivation to convince everyone they're willing to actually shoot an actual nuke at a moment's notice, to get the best possible deal at the negotiations table. Brinkmanship with a regime that will do everything to make you believe they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, oh boy. quote:What the US want to focus on is proliferation prevention. In the long run, the number one player (i.e. US) has most geopolitic influence to lose in the event that a rogue state aquire nuke. That battle's been lost, mate. We're gonna have to switch tactics to inter-country dispute diplomacy on a case-by-case basis, because the Arms Race is back on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If NK shoot a nuke at Tokyo 80% of South Koreans hate Japan. There's no way a NK strike on Japan provokes a strong military response from SK. Koreans aren't going to war to defend Japan from their own people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:True, but they have a high motivation to convince everyone they're willing to actually shoot an actual nuke at a moment's notice, to get the best possible deal at the negotiations table. Brinkmanship with a regime that will do everything to make you believe they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, oh boy. I suspect North Korea might pivot more towards "So we've got the nukes, and it's our problem to keep them secure, which means keeping our regime secure is now your problem, too". The nukes being used in anger is probably the smallest fear; bigger ones are probably proliferation (North Korea selling weapons), diversion (such as during the chaos of a national collapse), and North Korean nuclear expertise being recruited and utilized by unsavory non-state actors. So this all means that North Korea can now press for wheat, rice, heating oil and whatever as they need them. It means they can press for some sanctions to be reduced or removed (though I suspect North Korea isn't looking for totally free trade; rather, just enough that Kim Jong-un can play Stalinist Santa Claus and maintain his power by awarding or removing perks and privileges). North Korea also gets more time and potential resources to maintain and/or stabilize their internal status quo, too. It also means that the humanitarian concerns in North Korea are "solved", in that we (that is, the US, China, South Korea, and Japan) will probably view nuclear concerns as being the most pressing issue vis-a-vis North Korea, and the lesson from history is that we will view it as pragmatic to accept that a small percentage of North Koreans will languish in brutal camps while the broader population deals with oppression and deprivation. This is especially true when the alternative is a regional conflagration or regime collapse that threatens a bigger humanitarian crisis, conflict, and possible political destabilization following economic devastation. So this means that the aforementioned we are now coerced into maintaining the current situation in North Korea by propping it up or backing off from radical ideas of changing it, making us complicit in the human rights abuses going forward. Nothing new, really, just the fact as I'm seeing them. And it may be a breaking point in relations with North Korea, as our shock and disgust (which I think has been fading for a while anyway) gives way to utilitarian realpolitik concerns. It's a normalization of North Korea, kind of how killing can become normalized after the initial stress of doing it for the first few times. How should we respond? Don't acknowledge the North as being an "official" nuclear power in the geopolitical club, but do treat them as one. As North Korea has upped the ante and forced everyone to go along with its shenanigans by erasing every line in the sand that's drawn for them, we've conceded out of fear of how to handle a crisis or conflict that spirals out of control on the Korean peninsula, in the humanitarian and political sense. But even though that ante has been upped to the seeming line of "put up or shut up" on North Korea's part, there's still some room for negotiating based on what I would call "unthinkables" - scenarios and ultimatums that are hopefully never realized, but could happen. So this is the ultimatum - we will leave North Korea alone. We may reduce sanctions and help keep them afloat. In exchange, they have to prevent proliferation and not detonate any more nuclear weapons. Any nuclear incident that seems like an intentional act of hostility must immediately be met in kind, even if that means nuking Pyongyang and possibly killing millions of North Korean civilians. Emphasis on "intentional", of course, lest someone accuse me of mindlessly foaming at the mouth for North Korean blood. Far from it. Absolute nuclear weapons non-proliferation was always a pipe dream, I guess, but that doesn't mean that it should be disregarded or abandoned as an ideal. And the way to do that, when all the brakes have seemingly failed to stop a country from developing nuclear weapons, is to hold them to MAD (be it "mutually assured destruction" or just "Matched Amount of Destruction") and make sure they're aware of the unthinkable ultimatums they're risking by being in the nuclear big kid's seat. It sucks to high heave, but c'est la univers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:80% of South Koreans hate Japan. There's no way a NK strike on Japan provokes a strong military response from SK. Koreans aren't going to war to defend Japan from their own people. Yeah I'm sure that South Korea will just take a 'whatevs' policy to a North Korean nuclear strike on a huge population centre 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:48
|
|