|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 09 2017 06:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:23 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter who NK is allied with. If we know that they are actually about to use a nuke, we would act the same regardless. If NK strikes first China doesn't have to do shit about an American counter strike. Even if NK triggers it by sinking a boat or something. But if the US strikes first then the PRC has agreed to use its own nuclear deterrent to defend NK. And China can do a lot more damage than NK. Ideally you get China to secretly betray NK before you act. Failing that, it's a choice between tanking one nuke to get China out the picture or tanking all China's nukes.
After reading this I instantly thought about setting up a false flag operation, but I guess it would be nearly impossible to trick China like that (unless you could get them to look the other way somehow)
|
On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR.
What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. The USER wanted to rule the world. NK just wants their cake and to be left alone. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem.
|
They did renew the treaty in 1981 and 2001 though.
Of course they resigned it. Why would they not re-sign it, even if they didn't intend to enforce it? The only thing not resigning it does is hurt relations with NK.
|
On August 09 2017 06:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:10 Nyxisto wrote:
If the US is willing to throw Seoul onto the pyre long term trust in Asia will be gone. Everyone will immediately now that the US will ignore their safety concerts and that'll probably lead to even more war. I don't think the US would consider this acceptable honestly. What would be the alternative? NK would get seoul if we backed down and we'd have no trust anywhere if we allowed our allies to be carted off to reeducation camps if we didn't defend them when they were attacked. If anything allowing seoul to be leveled would boost our position in asia as it would show how we are willing to defend another nation when it gets bullied by a more militerized nation ie china.
If NK is the aggressor and the US comes to defend, or you can make it sound that way à la Bush, or if it's a direct request from SK? Yeah I'd agree.
If Trump walks in there out of nowhere because "I'm done talking with them" while SK is not on the same page? I doubt it.
|
On August 09 2017 06:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem.
This conflicts with reports that NK actually is crazy and that this is not 4D chess.
|
On August 09 2017 06:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. The USER wanted to rule the world. NK just wants their cake and to be left alone. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem.
So Iran having nukes shouldn't be a problem, nor pretty much any other middle eastern state, no?
This point is special because a factually insane dictator has the capabilities to start world war 3 in a hissy fit. edit: talking about kim, not trump, feels like i have to make that clear oO
This also leads to the possibilities of japan getting nukes, and more importantly, is entirely ignoring south korea.
|
On August 09 2017 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:47 On_Slaught wrote:On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem. This conflicts with reports that NK actually is crazy and that this is not 4D chess.
Haven't we been hearing the same shit for literally half a century? Nuclear deterrence is not 4D chess, it's more like checkers. If I have a big stick people won't fuck with me. It's so basic and instinctual animals take advantage of it.
|
On August 09 2017 06:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:10 Nyxisto wrote:
If the US is willing to throw Seoul onto the pyre long term trust in Asia will be gone. Everyone will immediately now that the US will ignore their safety concerts and that'll probably lead to even more war. I don't think the US would consider this acceptable honestly. What would be the alternative? NK would get seoul if we backed down and we'd have no trust anywhere if we allowed our allies to be carted off to reeducation camps if we didn't defend them when they were attacked. If anything allowing seoul to be leveled would boost our position in asia as it would show how we are willing to defend another nation when it gets bullied by a more militerized nation ie china.
The alternative would be to renegotiate the relations with NK. And no, if South Korea is leveled during this all American allies will understand that they are expendable and will arm themselves. This might even lead to nuclear proliferation in Japan and other smaller Asian nations.
It's only a defense if the place you're trying to defend still exists after you're done.
|
On August 09 2017 06:47 mozoku wrote:Of course they resigned it. Why would they not re-sign it, even if they didn't intend to enforce it? The only thing not resigning it does is hurt relations with NK.
Did you miss or intentionally ignore my question in regards to Iceland?
|
On August 09 2017 06:51 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:47 On_Slaught wrote:On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. The USER wanted to rule the world. NK just wants their cake and to be left alone. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem. So Iran having nukes shouldn't be a problem, nor pretty much any other middle eastern state, no? This point is special because a factually insane dictator has the capabilities to start world war 3 in a hissy fit.
I never said you shouldn't try and stop them. Hell, I wouldn't even be against invading an enemy to stop them from getting nukes. But that window has passed. Once you fail to stop them the rules change.
|
On August 09 2017 06:52 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:51 m4ini wrote:On August 09 2017 06:47 On_Slaught wrote:On August 09 2017 06:43 m4ini wrote:If he gets us into a war all those deaths are on him for not de-escalating like every past administration. If he is stupid enough to preemptively use nukes, then god help us all. Hopefully McMasters or Mattis shoots him if he trys to do that.
I think very few (if anyone) here is advertising preemptive nukes. But "de-escalation" is what brought you to this point, not to mention, this really isn't comparable to the cuban crisis. Not just because you have an ape in office now, rather than an actual man, but also because NK is considerably less predictable than the USSR. What is so special about "this point?" There is still no reason to believe NK will use their nukes if we ignore them and ease a few sanctions. They built them for leverage, not to commit suicide. The USER wanted to rule the world. NK just wants their cake and to be left alone. It's blowing a problem way out of proportion and in the process creating a new, much more dangerous, problem. So Iran having nukes shouldn't be a problem, nor pretty much any other middle eastern state, no? This point is special because a factually insane dictator has the capabilities to start world war 3 in a hissy fit. I never said you shouldn't try and stop them. Hell, I wouldn't even be against invading an enemy to stop them from getting nukes. But that window has passed. Once you fail to stop them the rules change.
If allegations are true, that is.
And no, the rules really don't change, because you ignoring such a big picture to get your argument through, it's kinda weird.
Do you think NK and SK will be best buddies now that NK has nukes? What about japan, give them nukes too? What do you think china will do if you give japan nukes, which by your argumentation, you kinda have to for MAD, since japan certainly could/would be a target for NK nukes?
There's so much interconnected there, the only thing you got right is that this situation could've been prevented by slapping your (or chinas) dick around harder earlier.
edit: in fact, why not give everybody nukes? Literally every country, because i personally wouldn't know any country worse to have nukes than north korea (no, iran wouldn't be worse, maybe palestine but alas), it couldn't get more dangerous? Do you think that's a solution?
|
On August 09 2017 06:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +China signed that agreement in 1961. It says nothing about their intent in 2017. The difference between Mao and the current CCP government is astronomical.
That's factually wrong.
Which part?
|
The entire statement?
edit: you don't get to ask questions unless you answer them though, so don't bother
|
On August 09 2017 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:38 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2017 06:10 Nyxisto wrote:
If the US is willing to throw Seoul onto the pyre long term trust in Asia will be gone. Everyone will immediately now that the US will ignore their safety concerts and that'll probably lead to even more war. I don't think the US would consider this acceptable honestly. What would be the alternative? NK would get seoul if we backed down and we'd have no trust anywhere if we allowed our allies to be carted off to reeducation camps if we didn't defend them when they were attacked. If anything allowing seoul to be leveled would boost our position in asia as it would show how we are willing to defend another nation when it gets bullied by a more militerized nation ie china. The alternative would be to renegotiate the relations with NK. And no, if South Korea is leveled during this all American allies will understand that they are expendable and will arm themselves. This might even lead to nuclear proliferation in Japan and other smaller Asian nations. It's only a defense if the place you're trying to defend still exists after you're done.
So your idea is that Seoul would be leveled and somehow the US wouldn't be going to war to defend at the very least the military bases that are in Seoul/all the US military personnel that was killed in the leveling of Seoul? What relations could we renegotiate with NK? That they're a closed society that doesn't allow open trade or outside information into its country?
|
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US.
|
On August 09 2017 07:01 m4ini wrote:
The entire statement?
edit: you don't get to ask questions unless you answer them though, so don't bother
?
I'd love to see you educate me on how the current CCP government is similar in philosophy now as it was when Mao was around. This will be amusing.
And I already addressed the second part
I didn't see the Iceland part until I looked up and saw you were referring to me. Now that I have looked at it, I don't buy it. If China nuked island, the US would likely nuke China. If China invaded Iceland conventionally, I'm not sure the US would nuke China. It would certainly make attempts to defend Iceland though.
The other problem is that NK is not Iceland. At all. Iceland isn't threatening China with nuclear weapons, while NK is doing that to the US. The "aggressor" here is a little bit murky.
Furthermore, China doesn't even have good relations with NK. They're just "more acceptable" than a US-friendly democracy with US troops on its border. Iceland, on the other hand, is a friendly member of NATO and has good relations with the US. It's conceivable that the NK situation could end with the US and China jointly overthrowing Kim Jong Un and putting a CCP-friendly government in his place.
|
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it.
How do they defend against nukes without MAD?
Out of interest.
I'd love to see you educate me on how the current CCP government is similar in philosophy now as it was when Mao was around. This will be amusing.
Dude, it was re-signed in 2001. If you'd know what you're talking about, you'd realise that for example the USSR/Russia changed the agreement, China did not. All you did was to speculate if "they mean it", it doesn't change the fact that they signed it without changing it. Something that certainly is possible, as russia shows.
|
On August 09 2017 07:02 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:On August 09 2017 06:38 Sermokala wrote:On August 09 2017 06:10 Nyxisto wrote:
If the US is willing to throw Seoul onto the pyre long term trust in Asia will be gone. Everyone will immediately now that the US will ignore their safety concerts and that'll probably lead to even more war. I don't think the US would consider this acceptable honestly. What would be the alternative? NK would get seoul if we backed down and we'd have no trust anywhere if we allowed our allies to be carted off to reeducation camps if we didn't defend them when they were attacked. If anything allowing seoul to be leveled would boost our position in asia as it would show how we are willing to defend another nation when it gets bullied by a more militerized nation ie china. The alternative would be to renegotiate the relations with NK. And no, if South Korea is leveled during this all American allies will understand that they are expendable and will arm themselves. This might even lead to nuclear proliferation in Japan and other smaller Asian nations. It's only a defense if the place you're trying to defend still exists after you're done. So your idea is that Seoul would be leveled and somehow the US wouldn't be going to war to defend at the very least the military bases that are in Seoul/all the US military personnel that was killed in the leveling of Seoul? What relations could we renegotiate with NK? That they're a closed society that doesn't allow open trade or outside information into its country?
If the US is not going to war NK isn't going to war either. Because if they do they'll go down, and that's not what the regime wants. The military discussion here centers arround what happens if the US decide to preemptively intervene.
|
Some of you people are crazy radicalized warmongers with your views on the NK "problem".
|
On August 09 2017 07:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
While I'm worried about Japan, we've got them covered. I would think they have their own way of dealing with NK if it comes down to it. I'm more worried that SK would get bypassed as an effort to appease China if it goes any further. We have a large contingent in Japan already and more in SK. I think we could probably walk through NK within a year if we were determined to wipe the country out. China would bitch and moan, send some weapons in to "defend" but at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be on the same side of NK.
Arming the world with nukes is obviously not the way to go. Iran doesn't have them (if our inspectors are to be believed) and I doubt they want more sanctions hurting them. The ayatollah is the biggest problem in Iran, since he has so much power. If the government was the one and the ayatollah was simply a figurehead like the emperor of japan or the queen, then we could have a more civilized discussion with them.
NK is a threat because they are unpredictable.
tl;dr China won't move if we invade. It's against their economic interests to back NK if they go off the rails against SK, Japan, or the US.
Seoul is leveled by artillery and missiles fly wherever they can get them, possibly with nuclear warheads.
How the hell is invading NK an option?
Yes, the US military can beat NK, no shit.
Imo the best bet is still basic MAD principle. The moment NK actually strikes they are removed from the map so its in their best interest to not do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
