http://news.yahoo.com/furious-over-sanc ... 13643.html (http://news.yahoo.com/furious-over-sanctions-nkorea-vows-nuke-us-092213643.html)
Rodman sure knows how to pick em.
This should be interesting.
QuoteNorth Korea demanded the U.N. Security Council immediately dismantle the American-led U.N. Command that's based in Seoul and move to end the state of war that exists on the Korean Peninsula, which continues six decades after fighting stopped because an armistice, not a peace treaty, ended the war.
In anticipation of the resolution's [new sanctions] adoption, North Korea earlier in the week threatened to cancel the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War.
All I'm saying is let's give peace a chance.
Also, we'll nuke you. #-o
(//http://i47.tinypic.com/33u8uie.jpg)
Quote from: "Jason78"[ Image (//http://i47.tinypic.com/33u8uie.jpg) ]
Thats a weird thing to put on the success kid background.
Yet another example of North Korea trying to threaten us into giving them more aid.
Playing the "we got nukes n' so there!" whine card.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jason78"[ Image (//http://i47.tinypic.com/33u8uie.jpg) ]
Thats a weird thing to put on the success kid background.
Korea + Nukes = Starcraft
Well... In my mind anyway.
Based on the results of their recent missile tests, I don't think anyone is really breaking a sweat on this. Somebody needs to bitch slap that little shit and explain the facts of life to him.
Quote from: "stromboli"Based on the results of their recent missile tests, I don't think anyone is really breaking a sweat on this. Somebody needs to bitch slap that little shit and explain the facts of life to him.
They know this as well. It's posturing.
The general populace may not, but their military analysts and leaders know full well that fighting alone, their military is not a match for a western one, let alone NATO.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jason78"[ Image (//http://i47.tinypic.com/33u8uie.jpg) ]
Thats a weird thing to put on the success kid background.
It's only a success if you kill the ghost before the nuke goes off.
Quote from: "stromboli"Somebody needs to bitch slap that little shit and explain the facts of life to him.
And who'd risk their own execution? Does anyone in NK even know the realities of the world outside of propaganda? Even the propagandists themselves probably aren't terribly knowledgeable of the outside world.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "stromboli"Based on the results of their recent missile tests, I don't think anyone is really breaking a sweat on this. Somebody needs to bitch slap that little shit and explain the facts of life to him.
They know this as well. It's posturing.
The general populace may not, but their military analysts and leaders know full well that fighting alone, their military is not a match for a western one, let alone NATO.
Yep, this. They don't even have their traditional allies backing them on this one. China helped write the sanctions they're bitching about FFS.
A few things.. SK now has their first ever woman PM (or is it pres?) so NK wants to test her resolve. Women get little if any respect in NK if I'm not mistaken.
This is still the boy crying wolf. NK leadership can't rule over a big, uninhabited, radioactive rock for long. Eventually the rock will rebel so they need people there..
I imagine right now the only reason no one has glassed that country is because they don't wanna deal with millions of unskilled, unintelligent refugees.
I'm scared. somebody hold me! :lol:
The North Korean govt, is making it's people suffer from self-inflicted sanctions.
If they did launch a nuclear strike. China and Russia may cut their and support completely.
The US has enough resources to stop such an attack.
If NK launched a nuclear strike, it would be a suicidal action by NK and its leadership. The regime would be finished and KJU would be dead.
I agree with another poster that KJU is bluffing to test the mettle of the new SK president.
Quote from: "dawiw"If they did launch a nuclear strike. China and Russia may cut their and support completely.
Russia may or may not, but China almost certainly would. We are their largest market, absorbing 17% of their exports, and Europe is close behind at 16%. I think we'd be able to carry Europe with us in a demand that China stop their support. With 33% of their trade as leverage, I'm sure we could get down to brass tacks with them.
I call bullshit. But what if they're suicidal, and get of a few nukes before we [presumably] retaliate? :O *debbie-downer*
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "dawiw"If they did launch a nuclear strike. China and Russia may cut their and support completely.
Russia may or may not, but China almost certainly would. We are their largest market, absorbing 17% of their exports, and Europe is close behind at 16%.
Looks like the american market for Chinese fallout shelters is about to boom.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"A few things.. SK now has their first ever woman PM (or is it pres?) so NK wants to test her resolve. Women get little if any respect in NK if I'm not mistaken.
This is still the boy crying wolf. NK leadership can't rule over a big, uninhabited, radioactive rock for long. Eventually the rock will rebel so they need people there..
Nobody gets any respect in NK unless you're family of the dear leader...but even then you might wake up dead if you looked at him the wrong way (They do have female generals in NK...but they're family of the ruling party).
(//http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a502/scott_myers3/602109_268123873320487_129815260_n_zps6d76700d.jpg)
I'm sorry, but you all seem to be forgetting that
best Korea has declared the 53' peace agreement null and void. Serious shit is going down.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement
QuoteIn March 2013, North Korea again announced that it was scrapping all non-aggression pacts with South Korea, along with other escalations such as closing the border and closing the direct phone line between the two Koreas. North Korea also stated that it had the right to make a preemptive nuclear attack.
This "war" would be over in a matter of hours. As soon as S.K. and the U.S. see an artillery muzzle flash in the direction of S.K., N.K. would cease to exist. It would be unfortunate, as some shells would most definitely land on Seoul, but it would be suicide on N.K.'s part. The analysts who say that there would be a million casualties in the first 24 hours fail to mention that 99% of those would be in the north.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"They don't even have their traditional allies backing them on this one. China helped write the sanctions they're bitching about FFS.
That is exactly why you should be very scared. Kim is backed into a corner on all fronts. No China, Russia, Iran, or Venezuela to back him up or play with him. Lets also consider that Kim has only been in power for a short time and that his control over his military leaders and advisers may not be as solid as his fathers was (remember when you don't have a legitimate legal process for the transfer of power from one leader to the next, you have to rely completely on loyalty and or fear) Add to that the fact that kim jong un is still young and most likely inexperienced and may be prone to rash decisions. Lets top it all off with the fact that the sanctions here are going straight towards hurting the ruling elite of NK. If those people feel that their status and wealth is threatened because of the sanctions, they will either A: stop supporting Un outright further weakening his position or B: get so mad and frustrated that they pressure Un to do whatever it takes to get their way of living back.
The day North Korea uses a nuclear weapon for anything other than a test is the day North Korea ceases to exist. Not even Russia is going to want an unstable nuclear power that close to it.
I tend to be a bit of a peacenik, but I regard NK to be one of very few countries that might be better off if its capital city was turned to glass.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"I tend to be a bit of a peacenik, but I regard NK to be one of very few countries that might be better off if its capital city was turned to glass.
I can tell you that if there were a way to assassinate every member of the DPRK without killing anyone else I would support it.
And just so we never forget what we are dealing with: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-ko ... 012-6?op=1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-gulag-concentration-camp-pictures-2012-6?op=1)
Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
Quote from: "Atheon"If NK launched a nuclear strike, it would be a suicidal action by NK and its leadership. The regime would be finished and KJU would be dead.
I agree with another poster that KJU is bluffing to test the mettle of the new SK president.
Agreed
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.
If they did that, the result would be the same. They would be bombed back to the stone age, using conventional weapons. Pyongyang would cease to exist.
Quote from: "Davka"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
So the better option is to wait for Maine to nuke Canada (which in this alternate world is a protectorate of China)?.
If they did that, the result would be the same. They would be bombed back to the stone age, using conventional weapons. Pyongyang would cease to exist.
Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
There's no point in carrying out a nuclear strike, which is pretty much the crudest weapon of all time.
Conventional weapons would work far better as you have a degree of precision with them and could actually engage military targets. The USA alone has more than enough conventional weapons to obliterate NK's entire population, let alone just their military to win a war.
Nuking the country would kill vast numbers of innocent civillians, and the fallout would likely cause deaths and extreme health problems for generations in both NK and surrounding, allied countries that we'd be trying to protect from attack by NK in the first place.
Just because a nuclear strike is the biggest, baddest weapon we've got absolutely does not mean it is the most useful.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.
All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.
As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory)
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.
They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
There's no point in carrying out a nuclear strike, which is pretty much the crudest weapon of all time.
Conventional weapons would work far better as you have a degree of precision with them and could actually engage military targets. The USA alone has more than enough conventional weapons to obliterate NK's entire population, let alone just their military to win a war.
Nuking the country would kill vast numbers of innocent civillians, and the fallout would likely cause deaths and extreme health problems for generations in both NK and surrounding, allied countries that we'd be trying to protect from attack by NK in the first place.
Just because a nuclear strike is the biggest, baddest weapon we've got absolutely does not mean it is the most useful.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Won't matter how we take them out. No matter what, they will launch the rest of their nukes in a spite move before they go down. Once North Korea actually got nuclear weapons it was too late to do anything effective to them with conventional weapons.
I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.
All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.
As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory)
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.
They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.
I agree. A nuclear strike against NK would kill hundreds of innocent civilians. Not to mention animals. There are just better ways to deal with them.
Washington huh? I never thought I'd ever actually say this, but I'm glad I live in Texas!
Hundreds is probably an underestimate...
It's sabre rattling and little else. NK leadership isn't suicidal. They've tried the same tactic for years with relaxed restrictions and they're counting on similar results. Next will be 'We're really, really, really gonna hold our breath till we die and you'll feel guilty...'
Quote from: "SilentFutility"I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.
All of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.
As for their actual military, they'd be absolutely destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Peo ... _Inventory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory)
According to wikipedia, most of their aircraft probably aren't even fully operational, and even if they were, they're mostly old soviet MiGs which are obsolete in modern warfare as they lack radar, targeting systems, advanced warheads etc. etc. They have a few newer Mig-29s which are closer to being on par with modern fighters but even so aren't the best and they are limited in number. This is all assuming they're properly maintain as well. Most of their other military aircraft are converted civillian ones. The main problem is their dense AA-network but even so a lot of it is dated and it would cause air-casualties, not sway the course of a conflict.
They might have a huge military but it would be stranded and ineffective at anything other than charging full-speed ahead at Seoul.
Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.
Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.
The Pentagon's response
http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... lo.twitter (http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/08/pentagon_yawns_at_north_korea_s_nuclear_threat#.UToVpLPYylo.twitter)
QuoteBut what about when Kim Jong-Un threatens the world with outright nuclear war? That's a new one, peninsula watchers are warning. According to current and former DOD officials, however, the answer is not as exciting as one might think.
"We are always ready to go to war on the Korean Peninsula within a matter of hours," said one former Defense Department official, who spoke to the E-Ring anonymously to discuss sensitive information.
It turns out, that's the boring truth.
"No change -- routinely have AEGIS ships throughout the [area of responsibility] -- have not altered threat level and repositioned ships," said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, in an email.
That's pretty much the stock answer from most military commands following any North Korean bluster, including the purposeful mention of AEGIS ships. Those are cruisers and destroyers equipped with the AEGIS Combat System, aka missile defense. The ships are the mobile, sea-based leg of the U.S.'s defense against ballistic missiles, which is how North Korea likely would be delivering a nuclear warhead outside of its borders to nearby targets.
Inside the Pentagon, the former DOD official said typically following a North Korean threat there is a lot of "intelligence churn" to see if any movements on the ground match the rhetoric. But the U.S. military does not have to move big weapons, ships, aircraft, nor change alert levels.
"There's a difference between somebody saying we're going to nuke you, and somebody saying we're going to nuke you, and then our satellites noticing missiles on the move," said the official said.
"The thing to keep in mind with the North Korea situation is ... we are always postured as if the balloon could go up within a matter of minutes. If we actually needed to be moving big heavy things around, that would actually indicate we had some serious problems with being postured correctly."
What the military does depends on what the intelligence community actually sees.
"It depends on what has actually happened. We don't just jump up and down because somebody says something," the official said. Intelligence eyes are watching to determine "how the rhetoric is actually feeding activity, or whether the rhetoric is intended for domestic political consumption."
Case closed.
I'm no fan of North Korea; but their saber rattling plays into the hands of our saber rattlers and I ain't buying it.
They're constantly keeping the tensions up one place or another to justify the reliance on the military and the continued use of secrecy. If they really want to solve these problems they will allow many more views to be presented which is the way democracy is supposed to work. If we started by setting a better example without constantly threatening people that get out of line it might work better.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"I highly doubt that they are capable of launching nuclear weapons. They've only just developed the technology to launch long-range missiles, and definitely not of the guided kind which could actually hit something they were aiming at, and they haven't developed the technology to miniaturise nuclear weapons into warheads for missiles yet, analysts don't think.
Even so, there's the distinct possibility that NK would set off a nuke in a military confrontation.
QuoteAll of their military sites, let alone airbases and bases capable of launching ICBMs, are probably mapped out using satellite imagery, and anything remotely capable of launching anything or carrying anything by air at a range further than a peasant throwing a stone is likely to be struck immediately.
Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles. And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets. And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul. In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.
Quote from: "stromboli"The Pentagon's response
http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... lo.twitter (http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/03/08/pentagon_yawns_at_north_korea_s_nuclear_threat#.UToVpLPYylo.twitter)
Yep. It's posturing and nothing has actually changed on the ground. But the tense standoff remains, with either side capable of breaking that standoff at a moment's notice.
North Korea is that one skinny kid on the playground who keeps on saying he has a black belt in karate and can like, totally kick your ass.
Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
A non-nuclear response would be political suicide for any Administration in power.
While I agree with your logic that the Chinese would feel very threatened by any war on that peninsula, I'm not so sure they would involve themselves to the point of war with us -- again, that would be an economic disaster for them, as they'd see one-third of their exports die off immediately (again, assuming we could carry NATO in arguing for sanctions). Additionally, any war between us and them would almost certainly result in our scrapping loan repayments, which could have deep consequences on their economy as well.
I do know that it would be a set of circumstances hard to suss out.
The point about fallout is a good one as well. The prevailing winds there would carry the fallout over the Sea of Japan and perhaps as far as Japan itself -- and
that would be a political shitstorm, especially after the anti-nuke feelings aroused by the tsunami-related disasters.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Davka"Glassing NK is a very, very bad idea. Imagine if Northern Maine was a separate country, and was threatening to nuke China. How do you think the USA would feel about Chins glassing Maine? Do you really imagine that fallout stays in the country that's nuked?
A nuclear attack on NK would be seen as an attack on China. Even if those nutbars toss a nuke at the USA, we will most likely retaliate with conventional weapons. Lots and lots of really fucking nasty conventional weapons.
A non-nuclear response would be political suicide for any Administration in power.
While I agree with your logic that the Chinese would feel very threatened by any war on that peninsula, I'm not so sure they would involve themselves to the point of war with us -- again, that would be an economic disaster for them, as they'd see one-third of their exports die off immediately (again, assuming we could carry NATO in arguing for sanctions). Additionally, any war between us and them would almost certainly result in our scrapping loan repayments, which could have deep consequences on their economy as well.
I do know that it would be a set of circumstances hard to suss out.
The point about fallout is a good one as well. The prevailing winds there would carry the fallout over the Sea of Japan and perhaps as far as Japan itself -- and that would be a political shitstorm, especially after the anti-nuke feelings aroused by the tsunami-related disasters.
I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea. They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.
In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack. I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke. Fallout being the big reason for that. Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border. That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.
I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.
Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.
I don't advocate a pre-emptive strike, I'm saying that if this developed into a full-scale conflict NK would be utterly destroyed, civillian casualties would be huge though, obviously.
The second point wasn't about missile interception, although I suppose it could have been worded better. I was saying that they don't have the capability to miniaturise nuclear wepaons into warheads, and their ability to even accurately use an ICBM is doubtful. I'm saying that the USA probably has absolutely vast amounts of intelligence and surveillance data on NK and that if a conflict broke out any kind of missile base or airbase would be taken out of action almost immediately.
North Korea simply aren't capable of launching a nuclear warhead at the US at the moment. Their only option for nuking somewhere is to drop a bomb from a plane, which would only be possible just outside their own airspace, which although devastating, would also be suicidal. Just about the only place they're capable of dropping a nuclear bomb is on the border with S.Korea, which would be in their own front yard. Perhaps their dear leader is crazy enough to do something that stupid, but in any case they're absolutely not a threat to the US.
Quote from: "Navynukeman"I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...
They physically can't. They have no way of getting their huge army anywhere near the US and nothing to hit the US with from where they're sitting unless their claims about being able to hit the sea around Alaska are true, which they probably aren't.
All they can attack are US interests abroad and US servicemen and women in bases in the region.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles. And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets. And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul. In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.
This is true.
A full-scale modern war in which two countries completely fight it out until another is destroyed hasn't really happened before though, and it is difficult to imagine that it ever could without huge numbers of civillian casualties.
I do think that conflict with N.Korea should absolutely be avoided for this reason, but them starting one would be completely suicidal.
I wonder how this discussion changes when held sometime in the future when North Korea has fully functional ICBM's.
Quote from: "commonsense822"I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea. They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.
In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack. I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke. Fallout being the big reason for that. Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border. That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.
It's been the case for a couple of years now, and I think it's because of the economic argument. China stands to lose
much more by standing by NK than they do by abandoning them to the consequences of their actions. The Chinese are outstanding practitioners of
Realpolitik, and separating out emotions from policies.
I agree that a conventional attack is to be preferred. My point was just that American public opinion,
especially on the radical right, would blow it up into a scandal that would politically cripple the government, I think. Having been in the former SAC -- the arm of the Air Force with the ICBMs and BUFFs -- I think that a few visits from the 2nd, 7th, and 509th Bomb Wings could have the matter done in perhaps a month or so. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but this is one case where that doesn't seem in our power to control.
Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy. Not to mention nukes have kept us out of WWIII for 60 years.
Then there are the missile boats... Trident subs each carry 24 ICBMs, and each missile can carry up to 12 MIRVs. So a single Ohio class sub can target up to 288 distinct targets with ~400Kt warheads. The SSGN version houses 7 Tomahawk cruise missiles in each of the 24 vertical launch tubes, which can bring the party to 154 different targets with no warning at all. Thats just ONE sub...
So when I hear NK is gonna start a nuclear war, I want to laugh my fucking ass off. They aren't gonna do shit except posture. And if they do, fat boy Un can look forward to a life of luxury in an underground bunker beneath a crater-riddled (conventionally created, or otherwise) North Korean wasteland. Great success!
Don't let anything but fear and common sense stop you, NK
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "commonsense822"I'll have to see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that China is kind of backing away from the craziness of North Korea. They are still allies, but I'm pretty sure they have made it clear that if NK starts going ape shit they aren't gonna be helping out.
In my opinion, I don't think we would need to use a nuclear attack. I would much rather have the precision of non-nuclear military attacks, and simply up the payload of those attacks to do damage similar to that of the nuke. Fallout being the big reason for that. Pyongyang is a little south of the center of NK, while Seoul is almost at the NK/SK border. That would be a bit of a risky maneuver.
It's been the case for a couple of years now, and I think it's because of the economic argument. China stands to lose much more by standing by NK than they do by abandoning them to the consequences of their actions. The Chinese are outstanding practitioners of Realpolitik, and separating out emotions from policies.
I agree that a conventional attack is to be preferred. My point was just that American public opinion, especially on the radical right, would blow it up into a scandal that would politically cripple the government, I think. Having been in the former SAC -- the arm of the Air Force with the ICBMs and BUFFs -- I think that a few visits from the 2nd, 7th, and 509th Bomb Wings could have the matter done in perhaps a month or so. Of course I hope it doesn't come to that, but this is one case where that doesn't seem in our power to control.
Gotcha, right there with ya then. By the way, never hear of Realpolitik before and just gave it a quick Wikipedia read. Definitely some good stuff there.
Quote from: "zacherystaylor"I'm no fan of North Korea; but their saber rattling plays into the hands of our saber rattlers and I ain't buying it.
They're constantly keeping the tensions up one place or another to justify the reliance on the military and the continued use of secrecy. If they really want to solve these problems they will allow many more views to be presented which is the way democracy is supposed to work. If we started by setting a better example without constantly threatening people that get out of line it might work better.
Yeah. The whole justification for armed forces, other than dealing with terrorists or actual attacks, is becoming weaker all the time. The whole thing is silly, just like us having 6 times the armed forces of the next most powerful country.
Quote from: "Seabear"Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.
Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback. It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4. There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Seabear"Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.
Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback. It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4. There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.
But that's the point. Who decides how much force is "necessary", and how do they justify it? This isn't a slippery slope; it's a greased precipice. Once you grant that we can limit ourselves to what is absolutely needed, there's no telling where our military leadership - in the shitstorm that would follow an attack - would place such a limit.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"But that's the point. Who decides how much force is "necessary", and how do they justify it?
Typically, military people and typically with weapons designed specifically to take out the target you're taking out. I dunno, seems pretty straight forward to me.
Is this really an issue that merits serious discussion? Or more than one position? :-s
I think a more likely extreme scenario is North Korea stepping up its co-operation with other rogue states (Iran) and attempting to supply terrorist groups with fissile material. If they gave Jihadists enough material for a dirty bomb and it went off somewhere would we be able to prove North Korea gave them it? Would there still be room for plausible deniability? The latest nuclear test was believed to be Uranium device, the same type of nuclear material that Iran is busy enriching. If the Ayatollah's wanted to buy a couple of Uranium nukes how could we prove that they didn't develop the weapons themselves?
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Seabear"Who wrote nukes are bad weapons!? Nukes are extremely useful, accurate, and come in all sizes (yields). A modern tactical nuclear tipped cruise missile can be launched from any ship or sub, flies under the radar, and has nearly pinpoint accuracy.
Yeah, but that whole collateral damage thing is a big drawback. It's a bit like destroying a hornet's nest with a backpack's worth of C-4. There's something to be said for using enough force and only that much.
Exactly. I think we're all too quick to deal out death and judgement on people,but we must remember that when push comes to shove, I'm willing to bet that millions of North Koreans would simply want to flee their leader and get as far away as possible from him/them.
Even with decades of indoctrained and propaganda for the Kim cult of personality, eating grass and being forced to work down a mine thanks to the expansion of a nearby political prisoner camp to include your village will probably make you inwardly hate the powers that be.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"By the way, you do realise that there are 25 million innocent people living under dictatorship in that country, right?
I think that's the point that is continually lost on this thread, unless people wish to see them as collateral. Its not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.
So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.
QuoteIts not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.
No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US
Fucking. Double. Standard.
PS. The US could respond with a limited nuclear response using tactical yield warheads on cruise missiles to take out strategic military and government targets with very little civilian collateral damage. Conventional bombing has its share of collateral damage too, you know. Especially in places where regimes use it's own people for shields.
Quote from: "Seabear"So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.
Was this directed at me? If so, this sarcastic flippant remark is something I do not, nor would I ever, agree with (citations please if one disagrees though I assume this wasn't for me).
Quote from: "Seabear"QuoteIts not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.
No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US
Fucking. Double. Standard.
PS. The US could respond with a limited nuclear response using tactical yield warheads on cruise missiles to take out strategic military and government targets with very little civilian collateral damage. Conventional bombing has its share of collateral damage too, you know. Especially in places where regimes use it's own people for shields.
[/quote]
This entire thread is operating on the (false and rather blizzare) pretense that NK is capable of firing a nuke to someone (SK specifically). There's no evidence of that (currently). Their pre-ICBM technology appears, at best, to be shoddy, their military, whilst numerous, is extremely poorly armed and I would argue poorly trained except for perhaps a cohort of elite fanatics close to the Kim's.
It's like 'nuke them before they nuke us' is the default position before anything else has even been considered. Sanctions are, after all, the reason why they are gesturing in the first place, and is also why the Chinese have decided to distance themselves from them. Now of course, one might rightly argue that these sanctions are only harming the populace as the elite have surrounded themselves with riches that sanctions have little effect on, but I think the effect of disenchanting china (the creator of NK) from supporting them is a massive step forward in the discourse front and will do much more for Indo-Chinese and western/ Sinic relations than any nuclear strike ever will or could.
And I'm no military strategist, but I think comparing the collateral from a nuclear strike and, say, conventional missile/air strikes is kind of ludicrous, don't you? I'm not an idiot. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war, and despite being undesirable, it's a reality that all military planners factor into their equations (I assume). I'm an not operating under that false and invented pretense. But really, "lets nuke 'em becuase that'll show them how a real nuclear power does it" just seems, you know, pretty silly, and not thought out, probably becuase its silly, and not thought out. It reeks of emotional reactionism as opposed to a thoroughly researched and thought out, longitudinal strategy.
For a far more concise and eloquent appraisal, please see:
[spoil:2k7dq3hg]
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Other countries we consider allies are well within their striking range. Any military action we take against them is taken with the resolution to sacrifice those allies. If you don't think NK will huke SK if the US attacks them then you simply don't know enough about NK.
Also I am not exactly sure what makes you think that missile interception technology is perfect, because it certainly is not. One mistake and a city gets nuked.
I don't advocate a pre-emptive strike, I'm saying that if this developed into a full-scale conflict NK would be utterly destroyed, civillian casualties would be huge though, obviously.
The second point wasn't about missile interception, although I suppose it could have been worded better. I was saying that they don't have the capability to miniaturise nuclear wepaons into warheads, and their ability to even accurately use an ICBM is doubtful. I'm saying that the USA probably has absolutely vast amounts of intelligence and surveillance data on NK and that if a conflict broke out any kind of missile base or airbase would be taken out of action almost immediately.
North Korea simply aren't capable of launching a nuclear warhead at the US at the moment. Their only option for nuking somewhere is to drop a bomb from a plane, which would only be possible just outside their own airspace, which although devastating, would also be suicidal. Just about the only place they're capable of dropping a nuclear bomb is on the border with S.Korea, which would be in their own front yard. Perhaps their dear leader is crazy enough to do something that stupid, but in any case they're absolutely not a threat to the US.
Quote from: "Navynukeman"I don't think it is possible for N. Korea to be stupid enough to attack us... We can blow them off the map with 1 Boomer and they wouldn't even know where it came from...
They physically can't. They have no way of getting their huge army anywhere near the US and nothing to hit the US with from where they're sitting unless their claims about being able to hit the sea around Alaska are true, which they probably aren't.
All they can attack are US interests abroad and US servicemen and women in bases in the region.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Although NK missile sites would undoubtedly be struck quickly, some sites are still going to have an opportunity to launch their missiles. And although some of them would fail or be shot down, there's the distinct possibility that some of them would hit their targets. And there is also plenty of artillery trained on Seoul. In a military confrontation with NK, South Korea would definitely have civilian casualties, unfortunately.
This is true.
A full-scale modern war in which two countries completely fight it out until another is destroyed hasn't really happened before though, and it is difficult to imagine that it ever could without huge numbers of civillian casualties.
I do think that conflict with N.Korea should absolutely be avoided for this reason, but them starting one would be completely suicidal.
[/spoil:2k7dq3hg]
I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?
Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."
In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.
Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?
Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."
In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.
Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?
Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?
Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."
In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.
Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?
Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.
Are you suggesting that this is a lie, and that North Korea cant ever develop these capabilities?
China may have a surprise for NK to let them know this shit won't fly on their border aside from sanctions. If NK were stupid enough to launch an attack at their largest trading partner the people in Beijing will be unhappy to say the least.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Wow. It's really sad to see an obvious political bad move -a lame repeat at that- turning into "We would blow them up in a second! Nukes are awesome! We would use these ones, no wait, those ones are better. We have them all. We are the most powerful one!" I am adding "God Bless America!" here. Seems like it is missing.
You know, looking through this thread, almost no one here seriously advocates nukes and plenty, including myself, have come out against such a move. I'm not even sure the guy who brought up "glassing Pyongyang" meant it seriously. There's this stereotype of Americans as nuke-happy warmongers, and while it's a somewhat accurate depiction of our more hawkish citizenry, it's definitely not the case in this thread.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?
Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."
In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.
Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?
Sounds alot like the rhetoric that I heard before the Iraq invasion.
Are you suggesting that this is a lie, and that North Korea cant ever develop these capabilities?
I'm suggesting that if we attacked everyone who doesn't like us on the premise that they may be able to hurt us in the future, we would be very busy, and more despised in the international community than we already are.
*offtopic, but google maps is surprisingly detailed on NK despite its notorious secrecy. They've even got the 'non-existent' gulags labeled...chilling stuff (I read nonsensei's early link).
Quote from: "Jmpty"I'm suggesting that if we attacked everyone who doesn't like us on the premise that they may be able to hurt us in the future, we would be very busy, and more despised in the international community than we already are.
You seem to be more worried about our image than our safety. What North Korea feels toward us goes well beyond mere dislike. They have threatened us repeatedly. People seem to take that as something of a joke because they don't yet have the power to carry out their threat. I find it disturbing that people like that frequently seem incapable of considering or unwilling to consider the possibility that that will not always be the case.
I also resent the idea that advocating dealing with North Korea sooner rather than later somehow equates to us attacking everyone who could ever be a threat. And if the internation community gets their panties in a twist over a government like one running North Korea ceasing to exist then what the fuck good are they?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Those people may be bad at making politics, but they have every reason to see US as a threat or 'hate' it.
Hrrm. Maybe. But aside from US interference in a war that was over almost 60 years ago (a war that NK initiated) and ongoing sanctions involving basically the entire world, there's little the US in particular has done to gripe about. The NK government was and is their real threat.
Quote-United States has already used nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
As an alternative to an even costlier occupation and a quick end to a world war. And since then has refrained from their use, built up a huge arsenal during the Cold War, voluntarily dismantled much of it, and strongly discouraged other nations from acquiring them (with mixed success), lest a nuclear war happen.
Quote-United States has attacked various places on the planet and killed hundreds of thousands of people, STILL is killing civilians.
As part of an interventionist foreign policy, typically targeting brutal dictatorships. And often as a result of militarily weaker nations up shit creek and calling for aid (South Korea, Kuwait, Kosovo, etc). And with an increasing effort put into minimizing civilian casualties.
Obviously, there have been plenty of downright terrible moves there (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and Iraq II, among others), but yanno, omitting the stated intent and skipping right to the civilian deaths paints a grossly misleading picture.
Quote-Unites States produces nuclear weapons, but DICTATES only a club it approves has the right to do the same, under the conditions only it approves.
Lest they fall into the hands of countries that would actually use them. Limiting nuclear proliferation has actually been one of the US's more admirable efforts, imho.
Quote-United States basically has used/ and still uses every kind of offensive policy in every level against any country which refuses to obey its own benefit.
I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean so I'll leave it alone.
Get ready to read some adjectives son.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"*offtopic, but google maps is surprisingly detailed on NK despite its notorious secrecy. They've even got the 'non-existent' gulags labeled...chilling stuff (I read nonsensei's early link).
There's not a lot North Korea can really do about a satellite taking pictures of it, and a lot of people are really interested in looking at North Korea.
I'm sure US military intelligence has absolutely vast amounts of satellite imagery of the country. A lot of knowledge of their armed forces comes from satellite imaging.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I want my question answered. How does this discussion change if NK has the ability to put warheads on ICBM's?
Military analysts believe they will be able to "develop/deploy mobile ICBMs, which can survive a US first strike, within 7–10 years."
In the same time it is entirely possible they will figure out how to put a high yield warhead on those same ICBM's.
Why is it OK to wait for this to happen?
I'm not sure really.
On one hand, a North Korea with weaponry that could kill tens of thousands of innocent civillians is not a nice thought at all, on the other, is it really okay to just attack them?
What would you suggest as a strategy for dealing with them? If you don't have an alternative and are just throwing ideas out there that's fine, just wondering if you did have an alternative in mind.
Quote from: "Seabear"So basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.
QuoteIts not their fault they were born under a megalomaniacal despot, after all.
No more than it's "their fault" that people were born in the US
Fucking. Double. Standard.
Why is saying that when attacking a country whose peasant population is brutally oppressed by a tyrannical dictator with a personality cult who runs a police state where if you don't eat your grass and sing his praises like the rest of them you get sent to be worked to death or just tortured and killed, care should be taken to kill as few of them as possible a bad thing?
If they need to be dealt with because they're threatening to kill civillians, it is not an appropriate response to simply kill millions of civillians in their country just because they're not American civillians. That doesn't make them less human, nor does it make their lives worth any less.
But, they really only feel sorry for us.
http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report- ... e-homeless (http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report-on-us-poverty-says-most-people-are-homeless)
Quote from: "Jmpty"But, they really only feel sorry for us.
http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report- ... e-homeless (http://now.msn.com/north-korean-report-on-us-poverty-says-most-people-are-homeless)
Laughed all the way through that, even though in reality NK is anything but funny.
Someone, somewhere knows that they are just making up the biggest load of bullshit ever though.
QuoteI'm not sure really.
On one hand, a North Korea with weaponry that could kill tens of thousands of innocent civillians is not a nice thought at all, on the other, is it really okay to just attack them?
What would you suggest as a strategy for dealing with them? If you don't have an alternative and are just throwing ideas out there that's fine, just wondering if you did have an alternative in mind.
Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.
What would biting the bullet involve exactly though? I understand what you're saying, but what would you suggest precisely? For example, if you struck all of their military sites, took out most of their AA and prevented any aeroplanes from getting off the ground you could then have air superiority and keep close watch on any nuclear sites and try to prevent a nuclear weapon from being used while moving in with ground forces.
I'm not saying this is what I'd want to do, I'm just asking what exactly you think should be done.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.
What would biting the bullet involve exactly though? I understand what you're saying, but what would you suggest precisely? For example, if you struck all of their military sites, took out most of their AA and prevented any aeroplanes from getting off the ground you could then have air superiority and keep close watch on any nuclear sites and try to prevent a nuclear weapon from being used while moving in with ground forces.
I'm not saying this is what I'd want to do, I'm just asking what exactly you think should be done.
That plan sounds as good as any, though rather than watch the nuclear sites I would prefer to destroy them. I also feel like the government needs to be eliminated somehow. Troops on the ground will be necessary. I know, its Iraq all over again but you have to weigh that against the (in my opinion unacceptably high) possibility that someday they will nuke us or our allies. And unlike Iraq we have proof they have nukes and we have proof they are developing ICBM's.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.
What would biting the bullet involve exactly though? I understand what you're saying, but what would you suggest precisely? For example, if you struck all of their military sites, took out most of their AA and prevented any aeroplanes from getting off the ground you could then have air superiority and keep close watch on any nuclear sites and try to prevent a nuclear weapon from being used while moving in with ground forces.
I'm not saying this is what I'd want to do, I'm just asking what exactly you think should be done.
That plan sounds as good as any, though rather than watch the nuclear sites I would prefer to destroy them. I also feel like the government needs to be eliminated somehow. Troops on the ground will be necessary. I know, its Iraq all over again but you have to weigh that against the (in my opinion unacceptably high) possibility that someday they will nuke us or our allies. And unlike Iraq we have proof they have nukes and we have proof they are developing ICBM's.
By nuclear sites I mean the nuclear plant/reactors themselves. I'd destroy any sites capable of launching any missles and I'd destroy all of the support and defense structures for the nuclear reactors and sites, possibly even airlifting in ground forces and tanks to secure them after doing this. I'd avoid directly bombing nuclear facilities in case they went into meltdown and leaked radiation everywhere, but anything that keeps them running, allows the army access to them, allows them to transport nuclear material etc etc. would be destroyed. That would allow control over nuclear sites until they can be properly decommissioned/destroyed.
I'm not so sure an all-out attack and invasion can be justified though.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"By nuclear sites I mean the nuclear plant/reactors themselves. I'd destroy any sites capable of launching any missles and I'd destroy all of the support and defense structures for the nuclear reactors and sites, possibly even airlifting in ground forces and tanks to secure them after doing this. I'd avoid directly bombing nuclear facilities in case they went into meltdown and leaked radiation everywhere, but anything that keeps them running, allows the army access to them, allows them to transport nuclear material etc etc. would be destroyed. That would allow control over nuclear sites until they can be properly decommissioned/destroyed.
I'm not so sure an all-out attack and invasion can be justified though.
Doesn't really need to be justified. Both sides are still technically still at war, and I'm pretty sure the international community is getting tired of NK's shit as well.
At best it could be a "humanitarian" occupation, liberating the concentration camps they have and such. At worst it's going to be seen as an just an invasion, but no one can say that we haven't been provoked over the years.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Get ready to read some adjectives son.
Yeah...I owe you 20 internet dollars.
And
Drunkenshoe, I don't really feel like hashing this out anymore. I read what you wrote, and the parts that didn't make me shake my head were just baffling. I'm honestly not even sure you read my post. Either of them. I think you're trying to debate someone else, not me, because I'm not half the US cheerleader you think I am and I'm pretty eager to condemn US foreign policy mistakes and boy oh boy, there have been a lot of 'em. But I'm not going to debate a histrionic wall o' text about Team America: World Dictatorship.
It is taking every last bit of my willpower not to rather uncivilly explain what I mean by "brutal dictatorship" and how I don't actually define that as any regime that the US government considers an enemy. And then there's your assertion that "There hasn't been a clan, tribe, nation, culture or a country in the history that has done anything for the good of the people of another one." I mean, FFS... #-o
/sigh
Now, I've tried to play my part and stake out what I consider a moderate position between rather extreme rhetoric on both sides of the aisle to hash this out civilly and sanely. I have failed in that task.
If anyone wants to talk some sense into Drunk about this stuff, be my guest. Maybe - probably - you'll do a better job of it than me. But I'm done.
Quote from: "robandrob1"I think a more likely extreme scenario is North Korea stepping up its co-operation with other rogue states (Iran) and attempting to supply terrorist groups with fissile material. If they gave Jihadists enough material for a dirty bomb and it went off somewhere would we be able to prove North Korea gave them it? Would there still be room for plausible deniability? The latest nuclear test was believed to be Uranium device, the same type of nuclear material that Iran is busy enriching. If the Ayatollah's wanted to buy a couple of Uranium nukes how could we prove that they didn't develop the weapons themselves?
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_10/CVRForensics (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_10/CVRForensics)
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Doesn't really need to be justified. Both sides are still technically still at war, and I'm pretty sure the international community is getting tired of NK's shit as well.
At best it could be a "humanitarian" occupation, liberating the concentration camps they have and such. At worst it's going to be seen as an just an invasion, but no one can say that we haven't been provoked over the years.
Well I doubt the international community would do anything to the US for doing so other than "condemn it", I meant 'justify' more in terms of is it the right thing to do rather than could you get away with it.
QuoteSo basically, killing innocents should be a deterrent, but only when it comes to the US. NK could preemptively nuke millions of innocent Americans, but the US should not respond in like kind because it would kill millions of innocent North Koreans.
If you want to be considered "the good guys", then yes, that's how it works. There's a reason NK is reviled by most of the world. Saying "what works for them, we'll do as well" isn't the best idea, probably.
So not really a double standard. NK could pre-emptively nuke (maybe, some day), but the US will inherit their reputation if their response to a "maybe someday kinda" threat is to kill 25 million innocent people. You can't have it both ways. Be the good guy and accept the risks that being good brings, or be the bad guy (and probably plunge the world into its final world war) to protect yourself from a potential threat.
Here's a nifty little app for seeing the impact of nuclear weapons: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/)
Compare and contrast North Korea's nukes with the rest of the world's then laugh like hell.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Its too late for a clean takedown. No scenario of war with NK does not result in nuclear bombs exploding somewhere. We can either bite the bullet now or pay worse later. A government that regularly threatens war and nuclear strikes is something the world can do without.
I'm not so sure that this is the case. It's certainly a risk. And I agree that the regime would be much better in the scrapheap of history, not only for our own purposes, but for the millions of Koreans who are doomed to desperately barren lives ... that's a real goddamned tragedy, right there.
But the Federation of American Scientists (//http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html), quoting
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, cites North Korea as not having any nuclear weapons at operational readiness.
(//http://oi49.tinypic.com/2akh2px.jpg)
I'm skeptical of the need for war, myself.
I think their assertion is bizarre since NK has conducted nuclear tests which have been seismically recorded.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think their assertion is bizarre since NK has conducted nuclear tests which have been seismically recorded.
There's a difference between setting off one bomb every eighteen months, and having operational readiness for one weapon. Military operational conditions involve much more than just possession. That doesn't simply apply to nuclear weapons, either.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I think their assertion is bizarre since NK has conducted nuclear tests which have been seismically recorded.
Well having nuclear weapons and being able to use them at a moments notice are two different things. If you're not able to deliver the weapon effectively then you're essential a non-threat, at least in nuclear terms. Of course the worrying thing is that North Korea is successfully developing the technology to do exactly that...but go on with the sanctions, I'm sure that will work.
A foretaste of what might happen if it turns to war......
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northko ... 00315.HTML (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2013/03/12/0401000000AEN20130312002600315.HTML)
QuoteSEOUL, March 12 (Yonhap) -- Despite repeated war threats from Pyongyang, an increasing number of North Korean soldiers have gone AWOL from their front-line combat units in recent months, sources in Seoul said Tuesday, in a possible sign of rising discontent in the rank and file suffering from grueling winter training and food shortages.
"A recent analysis revealed the number of deserters in front-line military units has increased by seven to eight times compared to the same period of the previous year," a source said, asking for anonymity as he is not allowed to talk about military information. "Military and government officials are closely looking into the cause of the rise in desertions."
first thing that occurred to me is that rank and file North Koreans would likely desert as soon as fight. I don't think they are as delusional as their spoiled teddy bear of a leader.
Read a description of their missiles. Best described as "wildly inaccurate."
The obvious solution to the NK problem is educating their population. We need to carpet-bomb the country with "care packages" containing food, satellite radios, shoes, and pamphlets telling the people that there's plenty more where that came from.
Quote from: "Davka"The obvious solution to the NK problem is educating their population. We need to carpet-bomb the country with "care packages" containing food, satellite radios, shoes, and pamphlets telling the people that there's plenty more where that came from.
Pamphlets and food packages and all that stuff has been sent over before by way of thousands of balloons. The government simply shoots anyone who touches them.
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Quote from: "Davka"The obvious solution to the NK problem is educating their population. We need to carpet-bomb the country with "care packages" containing food, satellite radios, shoes, and pamphlets telling the people that there's plenty more where that came from.
Pamphlets and food packages and all that stuff has been sent over before by way of thousands of balloons. The government simply shoots anyone who touches them.
Thousands of balloons are nowhere near enough. What's needed are tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions, of parachutes dropped by planes. Saturate the place so heavily that the government cannot possibly keep up with the volume. This has the added effect of demonstrating that there really is more where that came from, since we can afford to give away such massive quantities of stuff.
And even at these levels of giving, it would still be way cheaper than war.
To paraphrase Bill Hicks, you could get harder shit off the streets of New York than you could from the North Korean military.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I don't understand your reaction at all. I tried to tell you how the other side(s) see the picture and that I didn't find the way you are looking at it this realistic at all. I tried to address the problem the way I see. You are looking at a picture, seeing something different, other people are looking at the same picture and seeing something completely different.
I know that and trust me, I understand and to some extent sympathize with these criticisms far better than you give me credit for (writing me off as a naive believer in "USA is the defender of freedom and democracy" was a seriously bad idea on your part, along with aforementioned "dictatorship" mistake) and I'm more than willing to hear those criticisms out. But your ...rant, for lack of a better term, is not exactly fertile ground for a serious discussion at all.
I mean, seriously, "Every country has a right to defend and protect itself against their appointed enemy, to produce the weaponry their enemy already has." In this thread? This thread?! The thread about NK well on its way to developing nuclear weapons
and threatening to use them. Seriously? Seriously???! Sweet Jesus tap-dancing zombie Christ, that's bonkers!
And there's the rest of that part is not better:
Quote-Nobody has to accept and follow American policy.
-Nobody has to accept American culture.
-Nobody has to call bad what Americans call 'bad' or call good what Americans call 'good'.
-Nobody has to accept American 'freedom' and life style.
-No culture has to be approved by Americans and their culture to exist."
(//http://i.imgur.com/jMpt3.gif)
I mean, FFS, who is claiming they have to?
I just don't get it. I don't get why you'd think that was a serious argument. Or that I'd have to take something like that seriously. Utterly baffling.
QuoteWhat did I exactly do here this uncivil and insane that you suddenly decided to drop the conversation and invite people to knock sense in to me?
I've quoted them specifically. Rhetoric that goes way beyond the pale. I can debate someone has a criticism of a specific policy or is critical of the interventionist approach. I can't debate someone who refuses to acknowledge even the simplest kindness from one country to another. (Ever heard the term humanitarian aid? #-o)
I see your post and I don't see an opposing point of view. I see you talking absolute nonsense (//http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness) and expecting me to seriously debate you on it.
And I just can't do that. Can't. Sorry. :Hangman:
I need a drink. And a shower.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You are exaggerating and taking this way too personal.
1) I wish I was exaggerating. Quoted you word for word.
2) I am indeed taking it too personal. And far too seriously. I should've just ignored it like everyone else did. But I tried to correct grossly inaccurate statements and have some sort of dialogue about this, which was obviously misguided.
QuoteAbout the NK, I have never took the threat news -which is so obviously a posture as stated here- seriously, so I have never thought it was offensive to write that in this thread.
Apparently you didn't.
Goodbye.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You are exaggerating and taking this way too personal.
1) I wish I was exaggerating. Quoted you word for word.
2) I am indeed taking it too personal. And far too seriously. I should've just ignored it like everyone else did. But I tried to correct grossly inaccurate statements and have some sort of dialogue about this, which was obviously misguided.
QuoteAbout the NK, I have never took the threat news -which is so obviously a posture as stated here- seriously, so I have never thought it was offensive to write that in this thread.
Apparently you didn't.
Goodbye.
The North Korean leadership seem to be rather petulant and they seem rather serious about starting a war and destroying South Korea, they genuinely believe they have the resources to defeat the rest of the world and I wouldn't underestimate their stupidity. They would likely be crushed in days, but they don't seem to think that that is possible.