|
It doesn't matter whether or not China wants to be in charge of NK. In the event of a collapse backing the strongest warlord may be China's only option. The alternative may well be to shoot several million starving refugees swarming the border.
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Yes, if you manage to convince yourself that The Enemy is an irrational brute that will squander any opportunity to advance their interests in favor of short term advantage then there will never be any incentive on our part to extend an olive branch ever again, that's right. Well done, you've doomed the world to perpetual war. The end of your post belies the crux of your misunderstanding. NK is not hostile to US interests. NK doesn't give a poo poo about how the USA runs itself. The regime wants to survive, it has no ambitions beyond that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Does the US and SK have a plan for Nork collapse? Please tell me the Pentagon or state department has some kind of a plan on file.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
NK will collapse eventually, and I can see China and SK holding thier borders against refugees with lethal force while the country depopulates itself. I dunno just seems depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
That guy should have been given 40 lashes Singapore style then released.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I don't think you really get the idea of a gulag system. No poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I think it may depend on how spread out the population is. I could picture North Korea slowly contracting, with the population concentrated in the most livable areas and the rest of the country going back to nature.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Ewan posted:Expert trolls So wait, they are going to open a new road or building for the celebration instead of a missile test? And the USA just spend how many millions to divert the fleet to the area? Amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:war on the peninsula is going to hurt a hell of a lot more people than the status quo From a strictly utilitarian view, the moral thing to do is immediate war and regime change. The longer N.Korea maintains the status quo, the greater number of people that suffer in aggregate. Suppose N.Korea would last another 80 years with the status quo. Generations of people yet unborn are destined for a horrible fate. Looking at an 60-80 year timespan, less people would be killed total and less suffering inflicted if we waged war on N.Korea in 2017, even if the North suffered millions of deaths. Another way of looking at it. If you had a time machine that could take you back 25 years, and knowing what you know now, would it be right to go back and try to convince Bill Clinton to try regime change?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
If a North Korean ICBM hit the north side of Chicago, people on the southside would not be killed by the blast. There is a world of difference between a 5-10 kt nuke and a 20mt nuke that the big boys play with. In order to have a nuclear war with the US, North Korea needs to develop fusion weapons in the megaton range, improve their guidance systems to the point they can actually hit something (not even the Russians have perfected this like the US has, only the US can reliably hit actual targets as opposed to just launching enough firepower to destroy the whole area). And finally, the North Koreans would need several hundred nukes pointed at the US...... just like the Russians and Chinese can do already. Even if by some miracle, NK manages to achieve tech parity with the US, its economy cannot support the maintance of hundreds of Nukes. Look at a map of the US, at the hundreds of mid to large cites and the hundreds of military and industrial areas, and realise that North Korea might be able to partially destroy ONE of them. You are in no danger. North Korea cannot wage war against the US, it cannot use nuclear blackmail against the US. Both would invite destruction. The entire point of this missile program is to send a message of "don't gently caress with us". North Korea is afraid. Unfortuantly, due to the fear mongering, the US if probably about to start loving with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fishmech posted:China absolutely does not want to be responsible for 25 million North Koreans. China does, however, want a buffer between itself and the US military base / unsinkable aircraft carrier known as the country of South Korea. I think that if a US invasion actually happened, China would invade from the north and try to carve out as large of a buffer zone as possible. North Korea as an obediant puppet seems like the best solution. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They can't make a buffer zone that way, doy. They either just make more China which is still right next to Korea, or they make nothing at all. You can't make a meaningful "buffer" out of the small parts SK/US would have quickly parachuted into, and SK certainly isn't going to give up Pyongyang. I have to disagree here. Even if NK were no longer a threat the US would like to maintain bases in South Korea. Look at the map of US bases. We litteraly have China surrounded. Our presence in SK limits Chinese influence. I would go so far as to say that NK is unimportant except as a pawn in the great power game between the US and China. As for buffer zones, I think that if the US marched too far North into NK, China would send their troops south like they did the first time in the Korean war.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This isn't the fifties anymore. There's no way China does anything that risks putting it into a shooting war with the US, even an accidental one. You're right, it isn't the fifties anymore, China has nukes too this time around, which would hopefully keep any confrontation from getting out of hand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Lote posted:The idea that North Korea will invade and win in South Korea because North Korea has juche/heart/courage over South Korea's population, logistics, and military advantage is equivalent to saying that Afghanistan with a nuclear weapon could invade and conquer Iran, by itself with no suport, NBD. I believe the correct analogy is confederates vs union in the civil war. I know the union has all the factories and railroads while ours is an agricultural economy, but by god we have the gumption over thise prissy yanks.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wow the "artillery from all over the DMZ can hit Seoul" line sure is a new level of stupidity. I'm just casually browsing dnd but I saw this and was embarrassed for you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Tias posted:Right on. If you haven't asked about this before, sorry for my rough tone. It's just something that gets assumed a lot both in this thread and elsewhere, and it's not really as true as it has been. I doubt there ever was total isolation in North Korea. You just did what you wish I would not do. You dipshit. I was going to talk something about NK for content, but there is no more content. There is nothing left to say, its all been said. Its just endless rehashing until Trump pulls the trigger and changes the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted: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? "Rogue state" being defined as not obligated to give a poo poo what the US thinks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
I mean no disrespect to people who served in Iraq and Afganistan, or the millions of civilians displaced there, but the Idea is that the world and the modern global economy will not tolerate another "real war" like what we saw in WW2 or the first Korean war. In the event of an invasion, if Kim can manage to nuke one US base and one South Korean or Japanese city, the whole world will be screaming at the US to stop before things get any worse, and the US media will be talking about our military failure. Winning a war in the US means the enemy takes 99% of the casualtys and we don't lose anything of real importance like a base.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The North isn't going to launch over an air-strike or two, But that is the problem isn't it? Once an attack happens North Korea has no way of knowing whether or not its a bloody nose strike or the beginning of an invasion. Trump has specifically sold himself as being unpredictable, and the North doesn't have the intel resources to see what we are really doing. The most logical thing for Un to do would be to nuke a small millitary target to show he means business and then tell everyone to back the gently caress off before he escalates further.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 05:07
|
|