|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Reform very good, anarchy bad, and they'd own their own militias directly in that event anyway. can they be reformed? they sure don't seem like they want to be reformed. probably cause they're filled to the brim with KKK and nazis
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 22:59
|
|
In a number of developing countries it is routine for even fairly small scale businessmen to have some legbreakers on call because it's cheaper and more reliable than bribing the police to do it for you.
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Condiv posted:can they be reformed? they sure don't seem like they want to be reformed. probably cause they're filled to the brim with KKK and nazis I mean, "hollow out the whole goddamn structure and rebuild it" is a reform. In many cities I think less drastic solutions might work pretty well but I'm basically arguing against the insane and apparently not totally hyperbolic option of abolishing law enforcement and seeing what happens from there, because we know what happens, it's petty warlordism. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:build a fake Seoul a few miles to the left so the north koreans get confused and shoot at that one instead All I ever hear about NK is about their nukes. How good is their early detection/warning systems? I know the sheer amount of rockets, artillery, and other ordinance aimed at Seoul is massive, but if the US was to conduct an Alpha Strike could we successfully take out enough of their equipment to negate or drastically, drastically reduce the effectiveness of any reprisals? I'm not condoning such a strike, mind, just curious because my knowledge on this subject is rather limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I mean, "hollow out the whole goddamn structure and rebuild it" is a reform. In many cities I think less drastic solutions might work pretty well but I'm basically arguing against the insane and apparently not totally hyperbolic option of abolishing law enforcement and seeing what happens from there, because we know what happens, it's petty warlordism. who's gonna hollow them out? the fbi that loves the right wing so much they let them camp out in a government building for a month or two? on another note, apparently cops can't read https://twitter.com/stlcountypd/status/909607645195022336/photo/1 an unknown chemical called "apple cider"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
khy posted:All I ever hear about NK is about their nukes. How good is their early detection/warning systems? I know the sheer amount of rockets, artillery, and other ordinance aimed at Seoul is massive, but if the US was to conduct an Alpha Strike could we successfully take out enough of their equipment to negate or drastically, drastically reduce the effectiveness of any reprisals? no - a nuclear strike is completely off the table because of the literal and political fallout it would generate north korea is thought to have a pretty robust anti air system. many parts of north korea's military are super lovely and anemic due to national poverty but they do have a few solid and dangerous capabilities - namely elite infantry, and both anti-ground as well as anti-air artillery it is unlikely the us could pull off a first strike to neuter north korea's ability to fight in the vein of the attacks against iraq. iraq was set up to fight other regional powers, north korea has known for decades that the most likely nation to take another swing at them is the united states
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
khy posted:I know the sheer amount of rockets, artillery, and other ordinance aimed at Seoul is massive, but if the US was to conduct an Alpha Strike could we successfully take out enough of their equipment to negate or drastically, drastically reduce the effectiveness of any reprisals? No. North Korea has more artillery pieces than we have cruise missiles. If there is a full scale war it will be bloody as gently caress and have a poo poo ton of civilian casualties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Xae posted:No. it would be pretty bad but then again south korea has known for decades that seoul is right next to the border and the north has a ton of artillery so it's not like they would be getting helplessly attacked. south korea has a very robust military themselves and have certainly gamed out the counterbattery action necessary if the north opened up. any northern artillery repeatedly firing would be quickly detected and destroyed by southern countermeasures likewise south korea has had plenty of time to prepare for this possibility in terms of civilian evacuation and shelter, iirc there are tons of informal shelters all over the place in terms of reinforced basements required by building codes as well as formal shelters in the form of subway stations and other civic infrastructure which can be quickly repurposed. within a short period of the bombardment starting civilian casualties would likely drop rapidly once the initial shock is passed and local governments start evacuating civilians
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it would be pretty bad but then again south korea has known for decades that seoul is right next to the border and the north has a ton of artillery so it's not like they would be getting helplessly attacked. south korea has a very robust military themselves and have certainly gamed out the counterbattery action necessary if the north opened up. any northern artillery repeatedly firing would be quickly detected and destroyed by southern countermeasures It's more that it's just kind of absurd to say that there are military options that leave Seoul (or South Korea in general) "safe." No one is really questioning the ability of the US/ROK military to win a war with North Korea, but there's nothing we could feasibly do that wouldn't put people in South Korea in serious danger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's more that it's just kind of absurd to say that there are military options that leave Seoul (or South Korea in general) "safe." No one is really questioning the ability of the US/ROK military to win a war with North Korea, but there's nothing we could feasibly do that wouldn't put people in South Korea in serious danger. besides, who loving trusts trump to win a war against north korea? or to go to war at all? like we need another, dumber iraq
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:as opposed to the warlordized militias we have now that are run by the rich? I was looking for an image or gif that summaries the fact that I thank you and agree with you and you're saying exactly what I had in mind, but then I realized that'd be gimmick infringement on KM, and plus she's got better ones anyways. So let me just say, yeah, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's more that it's just kind of absurd to say that there are military options that leave Seoul (or South Korea in general) "safe." No one is really questioning the ability of the US/ROK military to win a war with North Korea, but there's nothing we could feasibly do that wouldn't put people in South Korea in serious danger. there's a ton of people who like to repeat the overblown fear that "seoul would be flattened within minutes by north korean artillery" when this isn't remotely true, you'd see thousands of civilian casualties but not like hundreds of thousands both khy and zae were alluding to this - "I know the sheer amount of rockets, artillery, and other ordinance aimed at Seoul is massive" and "North Korea has more artillery pieces than we have cruise missiles"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no - a nuclear strike is completely off the table because of the literal and political fallout it would generate Sorry, I didn't mean nuclear but alpha strikes (IE : Hitting hard with everything you can muster all in a single blow all at once). Basically could we saturate the northern part of the DMZ with enough conventional ordinance rapidly enough to take the oomph out of any retalation they'd attempt, and if so would they see it coming in time to be able to blunt any attempts at doing so (or get off a few thousand shots into Seoul before the missiles hit). Xae posted:No. That's what I was afraid to hear. It boggles the mind to think that NK has that much military ordinance not only stockpiled but actively aimed at a place like Seoul. What's more, I can't quite understand their goal here - let's say they do get a hydrogen bomb mounted to a rocket, and are fully nuclear capable of strikes against SK, Japan, or the US. Do they think that somehow having those weapons will make us end sanctions against them? Do they think that they can hold a knife to our throat to get their way? The way they're impoverishing themselves to reach nuclear capabilities it seems like once they get there the country will be utterly, utterly destitute. So what happens next?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
khy posted:Sorry, I didn't mean nuclear but alpha strikes (IE : Hitting hard with everything you can muster all in a single blow all at once). Basically could we saturate the northern part of the DMZ with enough conventional ordinance rapidly enough to take the oomph out of any retalation they'd attempt, and if so would they see it coming in time to be able to blunt any attempts at doing so (or get off a few thousand shots into Seoul before the missiles hit). no, not without telegraphing our intentions via a sudden buildup of forces as well as loving the political situation right now north korea is basically a turd in the middle of the floor and china, south korea, the united states, and japan are all looking at each other waiting for someone else to touch it first so it becomes their problem to clean up khy posted:That's what I was afraid to hear. It boggles the mind to think that NK has that much military ordinance not only stockpiled but actively aimed at a place like Seoul. they don't really, a lot of their artillery is probably old and wore out and the amount of it they can dedicate to a pointless task like shelling civilians is limited because the more an artillery piece fires, the easier it is to detect and destroy the stalemate of the DMZ is that both sides have spent a half century wargaming what would happen if the other side crossed the border suddenly like the summer of 1950. so neither side really can. and there are very few scenarios in which it makes sense for the north to just start attacking the northern suburbs of seoul khy posted:What's more, I can't quite understand their goal here - let's say they do get a hydrogen bomb mounted to a rocket, and are fully nuclear capable of strikes against SK, Japan, or the US. Do they think that somehow having those weapons will make us end sanctions against them? Do they think that they can hold a knife to our throat to get their way? The way they're impoverishing themselves to reach nuclear capabilities it seems like once they get there the country will be utterly, utterly destitute. So what happens next? having a nuke means the us won't invade you, which to be fair is super high up on the list of existential threats to north korea boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's a ton of people who like to repeat the overblown fear that "seoul would be flattened within minutes by north korean artillery" when this isn't remotely true, you'd see thousands of civilian casualties but not like hundreds of thousands This is pre-nuclearization rhetoric. Post-nuclearization, I have to ask: How confident are you that the North doesn't have nuclear artillery pointing at Seoul?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:This is pre-nuclearization rhetoric. first explain why you think north korea would be so irrational as to drop a nuclear weapon just outside of their border on a civilian target randomly shelling civilians with conventional artillery is already enough of a caricatured villain move but nuking them is just so moustache twirly i wonder what you think they would gain from it
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:there's a ton of people who like to repeat the overblown fear that "seoul would be flattened within minutes by north korean artillery" when this isn't remotely true, you'd see thousands of civilian casualties but not like hundreds of thousands Oh, well as long as it's only thousands of casualties...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Oh, well as long as it's only thousands of casualties... they're not rich americans so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Oh, well as long as it's only thousands of casualties... i dunno about you but i think in any situation where a war breaks out, thousands of dead is a much better outcome than hundreds of thousands of dead. that's just me though, maybe you do math differently
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Goddamn blue states using their freedoms to gently caress the poor to instead help the poor. Well gently caress that, I vote no. Louisianans, you've got the power to fix this country. You've just got to get high enough to find scenarios where John Kennedy's votes to destroy America and basic human decency could theoretically be judo thrown into fixing America and nurture basic human decency. And then share those scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dunno about you but i think in any situation where a war breaks out, thousands of dead is a much better outcome than hundreds of thousands of dead. that's just me though, maybe you do math differently General Turgidson makes the same argument in "Dr. Strangelove", interestingly enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:General Turgidson makes the same argument in "Dr. Strangelove", interestingly enough. i dont know what point you're trying to make here but i do know that you don't know what point you're making either. try reading my posts please, especially the one where i say attacking north korea is a bad idea that wont work
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:having a nuke means the us won't invade you, which to be fair is super high up on the list of existential threats to north korea I might be looking at it too rationally but it just seems like every time I turn around there's new sanctions or new measures that are all being passed with the goal of bankrupting the country because of their nuclear program, so once it's completed it's not like those sanctions and measures are just going to disappear and the economy will be instantly revitalized. Hell right now isn't the only reason that NK has any money at all because China routinely ignores the sanctions and trades with them illegally? At the same time, I still don't fully understand why China is so dead set on supporting NK since they make about a billion times more money off of trade with the US and propping up an unstable dictatorship doesn't seem like it rewards anything worth the effort and cost. boner confessor posted:both khy and zae were alluding to this - "I know the sheer amount of rockets, artillery, and other ordinance aimed at Seoul is massive" and "North Korea has more artillery pieces than we have cruise missiles" Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think that Seoul would be instantly wiped out or anything ridiculous like that. But despite the fact that NK couldn't just erase Soul from existence, I've seen estimates of anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 pieces in NK's arsenal. Seoul is a very densely populated place. Even without knowing how many pieces are in service, how much ammo and how rapidly they could fire, how many have the range to hit some of the major skyscrapers, how much accuracy you can get from guns that have been emplaced and not fired in fifty years, it's still a reasonable assumption that saturation fire from that much artillery could kill or injure thousands quite easily, and tens of thousands is not impossible. Given the situation it feels better to assume the worst. khy fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
khy posted:I might be looking at it too rationally but it just seems like every time I turn around there's new sanctions or new measures that are all being passed with the goal of bankrupting the country because of their nuclear program, so once it's completed it's not like those sanctions and measures are just going to disappear and the economy will be instantly revitalized. Hell right now isn't the only reason that NK has any money at all because China routinely ignores the sanctions and trades with them illegally? nobody wants to foot the bill for reconstruction and modernization after the dprk collapses
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
khy posted:I might be looking at it too rationally but it just seems like every time I turn around there's new sanctions or new measures that are all being passed with the goal of bankrupting the country because of their nuclear program, so once it's completed it's not like those sanctions and measures are just going to disappear and the economy will be instantly revitalized. Hell right now isn't the only reason that NK has any money at all because China routinely ignores the sanctions and trades with them illegally? north korea has been an economically and diplomatically isolated pariah state for a long time so it's not like sanctions are that effective. i mean the sanctions hurt but we don't really want to destabilize the north korean government because nobody wants to clean up the mess, so we engage in largely ineffective token sanctions to say "we are really, really mad at you" for not putting the nuclear cat back in the bag khy posted:At the same time, I still don't fully understand why China is so dead set on supporting NK since they make about a billion times more money off of trade with the US and propping up an unstable dictatorship doesn't seem like it rewards anything worth the effort and cost. china knows the us isn't going to cut off trade over north korea or really any other reason because it would shoot our economy in the gut as well china puts up with north korea for two reasons 1) it's good to have a easily controlled satellite state there adjacent to two strong us allies that dislike china. the alternative would be a us-aligned unified korea right on the border with china 2) when north korea implodes and millions of refugees start looking for food there's only one direction they can go. they won't be able to sneak through the DMZ if south korea isn't willing to accept them. assuming north korea collapsed tomorrow, china would be shouldering the largest burden in cleaning up the mess and restoring order. and the best outcome for them would be... an easily controlled satellite state, which they already have
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:first explain why you think north korea would be so irrational as to drop a nuclear weapon just outside of their border on a civilian target It's deterrence. Your position appears to be, "They're freedom loving pacifists!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:It's deterrence. i dont think you understand that the point of nuclear deterrence is to not use your nukes also if i'm saying north korea is pacifist now please confer with the other guy who is accusing me of advocating first strikes against north korea so you can swap notes about who is dumber
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont think you understand that the point of nuclear deterrence is to not use your nukes That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont think you understand that the point of nuclear deterrence is to not use your nukes You've either confused me for someone else or hallucinated a whole bunch of poo poo. I pointed out that this -- quote:the overblown fear that "seoul would be flattened within minutes by north korean artillery" when this isn't remotely true, you'd see thousands of civilian casualties but not like hundreds of thousands You should not be getting, "They'll initiate a first-strike," or something out of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You've either confused me for someone else or hallucinated a whole bunch of poo poo. ah cool, so you were unaware of the context of a previous discussion and were just inserting your awkward hot takes about how conventional weapons differ from nuclear weapons. thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah cool, so you were unaware of the context of a previous discussion and were just inserting your awkward hot takes about how conventional weapons differ from nuclear weapons. thanks He does have somewhat of a point that a single nuke can do far, far more damage than the ten thousand artillery pieces. The question of whether or not they'd use it seems kind of a moot point as right now their MRLs and artillery is already serving as a fairly effective deterrence against invasion or attack; increasing the size of the gun they have to Seoul's head therefor seems kind of pointless and redundant. The only reason I can see to expand that deterrence is either a) If they think someone can effectively neuter their artillery's effectiveness and they want something more robust to replace it with, or b) If they plan to aim the nuke at Seoul and use this as an opportunity to point the artillery elsewhere? But where exactly is SK as vulnerable as their capital? Or do they want to aim the nuke at someone else, in which case we still wouldn't invade due to the artillery so it becomes even more redundant. khy fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah cool, so you were unaware of the context of a previous discussion and were just inserting your awkward hot takes about how conventional weapons differ from nuclear weapons. thanks You hosed it up, so... Edit: Nuclearization has upped the stakes. It's time to abandon your, "Sorry, the stakes are actually low," talking points. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont know what point you're trying to make here but i do know that you don't know what point you're making either. try reading my posts please, especially the one where i say attacking north korea is a bad idea that wont work I mostly agree with your posting but that particular phrasing was pretty crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
khy posted:He does have somewhat of a point that a single nuke can do far, far more damage than the ten thousand artillery pieces. it's the same problem of why you would allocate scarce military resources to attacking civilians instead of, you know, military targets, during a war people really love to get all wigged out that north korea is going to go all cartoon bad guy and just start murdering women and children. it's the same reason people believe that kim jong un has people executed by strapping them to cannons, british empire style - it feeds into an established narrative of unrealistic behavior simply because they are the "bad guys" Accretionist posted:You hosed it up, so... you really have no idea what i'm saying or how to respond to me so i'm just going to ignore you now. i feel like you want to burn me for being a war hawk or too doveish or basically making you mad somehow but i dont know or care what i said or why so just google "seoul flattened artillery debunk" or something if you'd like to actually learn something instead of just limply dropping turds itt boner confessor fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Sep 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:first explain why you think north korea would be so irrational as to drop a nuclear weapon just outside of their border on a civilian target Are we the bad guys? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
twice burned ice posted:Are we the bad guys? pretty much but we had long crossed that line by the time the bomb was a thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:You hosed it up, so... I don't think NK has given any sign that they intend to nuke Seoul?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's the same problem of why you would allocate scarce military resources to attacking civilians instead of, you know, military targets, during a war I'm not trying to paint them as good, evil, or anything else (Though truthfully I do believe them to be pretty drat evil) as much as I just don't see how nuclearization makes any real sense. The country is a hole that they cannot modernize for fear of the population finding out just how badly they've been trampled and possibly acting against the regime. Pouring all this time, energy and money into developing a nuke doesn't make much sense to me as it won't improve things in any way. Maintaining the current status quo seems like the best option for the current regime, and a nuke doesn't seem to help that at all. You say that the advantage of having a nuke is to prevent invasion from the US, but from where I sit it doesn't seem like that's been imminent or anything. Hell, it seems like pushing for the nuke has been causing all the conflict and had they continued to hold the artillery gun against Seoul's head it would have meant they could continue to lord over the place while nobody else gives a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
its probably because nk keeps putting out press releases claiming that they're going to attack civilian targets as soon as they have the capability and generally making official government communication that's all threats of violence. the language of deterrence usually isnt supposed to be "hit me or i'll hit you first bitch"
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
khy posted:I'm not trying to paint them as good, evil, or anything else (Though truthfully I do believe them to be pretty drat evil) as much as I just don't see how nuclearization makes any real sense. The country is a hole that they cannot modernize for fear of the population finding out just how badly they've been trampled and possibly acting against the regime.  north korea is moderinizing though? they have their own internet. just because north korea is a weird isolated dictatorship with a broken economy and hostile, malicious government doesn't mean that it's not arguably modern. if anything, a big threat to the north korean government is the growing illegal free market that the government can't crack down on which undermines the control of information previously propping up the statekhy posted:Pouring all this time, energy and money into developing a nuke doesn't make much sense to me as it won't improve things in any way. Maintaining the current status quo seems like the best option for the current regime, and a nuke doesn't seem to help that at all. You say that the advantage of having a nuke is to prevent invasion from the US, but from where I sit it doesn't seem like that's been imminent or anything. Hell, it seems like pushing for the nuke has been causing all the conflict and had they continued to hold the artillery gun against Seoul's head it would have meant they could continue to lord over the place while nobody else gives a gently caress. a huge number of nations regard the united states as the biggest threat to world peace because we have been stomping around invading people a lot in the last 130+ years. most citizens of other nations would agree that it's more likely the us would attack north korea than north korea attacking the us. look at iraq, got invaded twice just a short time after receiving us support to attack iran. the only way to make sure you don't end up on the wrong end of the american military and our capricious foreign policy is to join the nuclear club it's easy to forget if you are an american or other first world citizen that even though we think of ourselves as the bearers of noble democracy and freedom, if you look at our actual track record of when we go to war to liberate the oppressed, and when we go to war for stupid territorial or imperial reasons...
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's the same problem of why you would allocate scarce military resources to attacking civilians instead of, you know, military targets, during a war I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 00:43
|
|