Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
Looks like 38north.org can't handle all this talk of war. It ran out of bandwidth and is unreachable :(

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Stairmaster posted:

North korea already has a nuclear strike capability. It just won't let them hit anything farther than japan.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but do we actually know that NK has the ability to put a nuke on any kind of missile? For all we know the nukes they have could be the big gravity bomb type like fat man or little boy dropped in WW2. In which case I don't see how NK could actually use them.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

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.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

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.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Conspiratiorist posted:

The ultimate goal for NK is to get the US off the Korean Peninsula.

Nukes are their best chance at a negotiation card that can be used for this purpose (and failing that, easing/rescinding sanctions).

They don't need to 'be able to wage nuclear war' with the US. They just need strike capability, any strike capability, because as far as the DPRK is concerned (and rightfully so), they're under constant existential threat - and any time America does one of their schizophrenic administration switches, that WH could be the one that finally decides to invade and destroy them. This also means they don't care if using their nuclear armament means the US might decide to fully retaliate and annihilate them, because ideologically they already equate a failure of their state as total destruction.

So what do they want the nukes for if they can't effectively wage war with them? To make the US think twice about military intervention by ensuring they can give them a big bloody noise for their troubles: as has been mentioned in the threat, a few good blasts and the EMP knocks out the power and communications grid for the nation. That's one hell of an economic and political blow for loving around with a tiny backwards nation from across the globe.

Bet your rear end the US wouldn't be so gung ho about interventionism in the Middle East and elsewhere if any of those nations could cause an economic recession at the push of a button.

I can see the North threatening to invade the south and if the US intervenes say goodbye to a large chunk of LA.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
I'm pretty sure South Korea could defend itself without us right?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
I've always been curious how a post Kim regime NK (or maybe just "Korea?") Would handle the sudden inflow of the modern world. Like would the people be completely overwhelmed with the advancements the rest of the world has made while they were stuck in the 50s? If Korea was reunited would the northerners. Be able to travel freely down south? I cant imagine what a northerner would think seeing Seoul for the first time. Although I guess we know from defectors what that would be like for them.

I know the closest comparison would be the German reunification after the wall fell, but I don't the think the east Germans were anywhere near as far behind as the NKs are.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Burt Sexual posted:

And lost the totality of little credibility he had since being elected, meeting with the g20, trying to get legislation passed, etc etc

We are a laughing stock, accept it and move on.

I don't think you understand the "Today Trump became president" meme

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

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.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

817 posted:

Well let's calculate just how deadly a North Korean artillery retaliation against Seoul could be by using the East Ghouta gas attack as the baseline.

The Syrians used 1x330mm rocket with about 60l and at least 8x 140mm rockets with 2.2l of sarin each. According to the US government the attack killed some 1400 people.

So if 77,6kg of sarin killed 1400 (sarin density about the same as water), how many would the Norks kill with its chemical weapons? Well, we know that they have VX in their stockpiles. According to FAS, VX is about 2,3 times more lethal when inhaled than sarin is. According to Stratfor, using only their 300mm MRL's they could deliver some 350 000 kg of HE to target if every launcher fired once. If we assume trotyl density for their warheads (1,654kg/l), we get 212kl of payload to target.

Using a linear relationship between payload and deaths, we get 18 deaths/l of sarin used in Syria. If VX is 2,3 times more lethal, that would be 42 deaths per liter. So if the Norks managed an equivalently efficient coverage for their warheads as Assad did, they would kill some 8,9 million people with the first salvo.

Even if we use minimum estimates (355 Ghouta deaths, 16*140mm rockets for full salvo, 50l capacity for 300mm rocket, only half would fire, sarin warheads, half of steel density for payload) we would still get 175 thousand fatalities. We've basically entered the real of wishful thinking here though since the Norks have far more tubes available than that, VX is persistent unlike sarin and oh yeah they have H-bombs now.

Thanks for bringing up NKs chemical weapons. I don't think this gets talked about enough.

Also they have a lot of short range missiles (think scuds/frog missiles) that can hit anywhere in Seoul, and im sure they have the warheads to deliver chem weapons. So we have to add that to the equation.

But wouldn't the population density of Seoul vs Ghouta also be a factor? There's a big difference between a chemical weapons attack in a densely populated metropolitan city vs a bombed out hellhole like Ghouta.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
So did this missile fly over Japan again?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
So the US is sending F22s and F35s to South Korea for joint wargame training. Of course like usual this pisses off North Korea and I kid you not this is how they responded:

"The stealth fighters which the enemies boast so much of will not escape the fate of a tiger moth," the North Korean commentary said.

OH poo poo THEY HAVE TIGER MOTHS!!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/03/asia/north-korean-us-tensions-wargames-intl/index.html

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Willo567 posted:

You know what? Everybody's right, that was loving retarded of me to say

There's no excuses for that, and I apologize

It was the gooniest thing I've read in a while on this dead comedy forum and it made me laugh. Plus your heart is in the right place.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
Another North Korean soldier defected to the south:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/asia/north-korea-soldier-defection-dmz/index.html

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

EasternBronze posted:

What about the threat of unlimited nuclear proliferation?

I guess when we find out that NK has been selling nuclear warheads to the next ISIS we will just have to shrug and hope nobody gets hurt.

A regime that only cares about its own survival would totally sell a nuclear warhead to an international terror group, thus resulting in the biggest excuse the US ever needed to take out said regime.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

EasternBronze posted:

This exact reasoning could be used to discount much of what NK has done over the last year.

If we are deterred by a fledgling arsenal back by dubious delivery vehicles, why would we do anything in ten years when they could have an arsenal to rival China or France?

NK is the textbook definition of a rogue state. If we accept them as a nuclear power than literally anyone can be.

At this point literally anyone can be anyway. It's an old technology, and the only real limiting factor are the political considerations.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

EasternBronze posted:

So what exactly is your point? That non-proliferation is pointless and anyone with a few billion dollars should be allowed to get as many as they want?

Should we go to war with every single country that begins a fledgling nuclear program?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

EasternBronze posted:

If it comes down to that, yes. Every new nuclear power added increases the chance of global armageddon.

Are you seriously willing to bet possibly billions of lives that the Korean peninsula is going to remain peaceful for the entire next century? We are literally saying that a reclusive hereditary dictator should have the ability to end civilization as we know it.

If Bill Gates tomorrow decided tomorrow that he needs his own atomic stockpile, should we stop him? Bill Gates has a much bigger stake in global peace and stability than Kim Jong Un does.

So if Canada decides to start building nukes, do we invade them as well? It fits the definition of increased nuclear proliferation. Or should we ignore it when it's our allies doing it. Would it be good for Saudi Arabia to build the bomb? They are an ally after all.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

FourLeaf posted:

For real though. Israel has the exact same "if we're going down we're nuking the rest of the world with us" policy

The quote of a crazy author is not official government policy for the millionth time.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:

China is a rouge state that trades extensively with the rest of the world.

China is not a rouge state. They are not a rogue state either. You really think the #2 economy in the world is a rogue state?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

mlmp08 posted:

-A thing no one said.

A thing a LOT of white people say and feel actually...

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Willo567 posted:

I doubt a military parade would be enough for the U.S. to strike North Korea

It would be a great place for an decapitation strike though. Kim sitting on the podium would be a perfect target for a JDAM. Not to mention it would probably take out a large part of his senior military leadership too.

Of course the nukes would probably still fly after that. Im sure there's a policy in North Korea to launch everything if Kim is taken out.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

FourLeaf posted:

The latest controversy seems to be the cheerleaders.

https://twitter.com/GadiNBC/status/962306928763432961
https://twitter.com/mwb524/status/962446607903010818

I wonder what they're saying.

Who is that mask supposed to represent? A young Kim Il Sung?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

OhFunny posted:

China and Russia actually vetoed the resolution approving use of force to enforce the sanctions on North Korea and China is not happy with this latest move by the US.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/967446544298532865

Lol what cooperation?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

nelson posted:

My guess is it’s all a big bluff to enhance negotiating position. No way S. Korea agrees to invasion.

This is a big hurdle that I think doesn't get talked about enough. Like ok, we all know Trump would be crazy enough to attempt a preemptive strike without consent from SK. But who knows what would happen if he did. Would SK let them use airbases? Would SK let them continue to their ports for supplies? I would imagine SK would have to sign off on any US attack on NK for it to go smoothly. But with potentially 100s of thousands of it's own citizens lives on the line I think the bar for justifiable military action is a whole hell of a lot higher for SK than for Trump. And Trump might not have that kind of patience.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Willo567 posted:

Didn't Russia say that they would retaliate against a nuclear attack on any of their allies?

I thought North Korea was one of them, unless they're just bluffing

Youre thinking of China. China said if we started a war with NK, they would retaliate against us. However they also said if NK started a war, they would wouldn't intervene.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

mobby_6kl posted:

Have you seen Trump? He's incapable of maintaining good relations with Canada, Australia or the EU, how can this possibly not end in disaster.

He gets along really well with dictators. He's very envious of them.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
I feel like no matter where the Trump - Kim meeting happens is going to be a huge point of contention. I think maybe the only place that would make sense would be on the North/South Korea border?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

R. Guyovich posted:

it's whoever the workers' party elects. there isn't some big mystery to it

That's like saying the British parliament elects the next king. I mean yeah, on paper the workers party elects the the leader of NK but everyone knows its basically a monarchy. If Kim Jong Un has a son that he chooses to be it's next leader, then that's who the party will vote for when the time comes. Barring any unforeseen circumstances that is. That's the way it's always worked in NK, so any other scenario well no one knows how the leader would be chosen.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

R. Guyovich posted:

oh well if EVERYONE knows then it must be true.


you. congratulations

I'm not claiming to be an expert on NK politics. But if it works any other way than I described than please correct me.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Fojar38 posted:

Personally I would give Trump a nobel in exchange for permanent peace on the Korean peninsula

Yeah for all his many, many faults if Trump actually blunders his way into achieving legit peace on the Korean peninsula then I hate to say it but he would totally deserve a Nobel.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Burt Buckle posted:

I don’t know how Nobel prizes work, but wouldn’t the South Korean and Chinese leaders deserve more credit than Trump as it currently stands? Are Nobel prizes like super bowl rings where even the waterboy gets a ring?

I think Obama got a Nobel for just getting elected

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
I have to say, it must be really weird to have the dictator of an enemy country that speaks your language. I'm talking about the South Koreans when they get to hear Kim Jong Un speak. As an American, most of the leaders of our enemy countries have spoken different languages and so the threats they make we usually only hear through translators. Which takes some of the bite out it to be honest.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Vladimir Putin posted:

Honestly trashing Pence was probably a bit over the top. It’s like they were trying to find out how far they could push it came out out as being a bit unreasonable even for them.

They weren't wrong. Pence threatening regime change ala the "Libya model" if NK didn't make a deal with them was dumb as gently caress.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Vladimir Putin posted:

Go back to why we are in this situation in the first place and why there are two countries. NK and SK are one country artificially separated by the peculiarities of the Cold War, like east/west Germany. And the Cold War has been over for decades. The only thing really stopping the reunification of NK/SK is the desire for the Kim family to remain in power using brutal methods. There’s many ways to a ‘one Korea’ and all of the outcomes DO NOT involve Kim. The government of a reunited Korea cannot involve Kim, nor his family, nor anything related to the current system of government in NK in any meaningful way.

By formalizing the end of the Korean War without a clear pathway to reunification you’re formalizing what is really an artificial separation of one country. Kim gets to remains in power indefinitely (he’s only 34) and so you’ve basically thrown away any hope of resolving the situation for a generation with the risk of it being a permanent situation.

That’s not something that is positive in a Korean history book.

You know you're advocating for war on the Korean peninsula right?

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

Uh oh, they might resume the thing they never stopped doing.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
There's definitely been foreign assistance to NKs nuke and missile program throughout the years, both voluntary and involuntary. The Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan is believed to have offered nuclear weapons assistance to North Korea. And recently some North Korean agents were arrested in Ukraine for stealing rocket plans.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009

LeoMarr posted:

Uh my problem is that a foreign dictator literally brought good looking women in to a very high level meeting solely for subterfuge? What does Pompeos wife think when he cant keep his eyes off either of them and its documented? Kind of eye opening isnt it?

Lol wtf. One of those "bitches" is Kim's sister, who is about the closest thing to a vice president in North Korea. She's there for every official event including the Olympics and the Singapore summit. The other lady I'm pretty sure is Kim's translator. You know, something you might need when conversing with people that speak a different language. They weren't brought in to be eye candy. Fuckin dope.

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
So now that the second Trump/Kim summit broke down the logical conclusion is NK is going to go back to testing nukes and missiles right? I mean that's how they got Trump to the bargaining table to begin with.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Charliegrs
Aug 10, 2009
If any of you liked the show "The Americans" you might really like the Korean movie "Red Family". It's about a group of North Korean agents that live covertly in the South posing as a South Korean family. It's a good movie with lots of plot twists and it's very dark and sad at times.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply