| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:07 a_flayer wrote: Some of you people are crazy radicalized warmongers with your views on the NK "problem". The type of thinking you are portraying operates under the assumption that tragic, horrible things could never actually happen. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:05 m4ini wrote: How do they defend against nukes without MAD? Out of interest. I don't see Japan being destroyed though. How many nukes would actually hit the islands when you take into account SK, Japan, and US fleets? We'd have missiles in the air at the first sign of aggression (actual, not posturing). We have subs out there, somewhere, ready to launch a couple missiles out there. We have 2800 active nukes and over 6k total. I'm sure there are probably a couple of those somewhere in Japan that can be sent immediately if NK gets feisty. MAD only works if it's US vs Russia, really. Any other country would just be a memory. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:09 Mohdoo wrote: The type of thinking you are portraying operates under the assumption that tragic, horrible things could never actually happen. Tragic horrible things are almost guaranteed to happen when you start invading countries as a form of "defense". | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:11 a_flayer wrote: Tragic horrible things are almost guaranteed to happen when you start invading countries as a form of "defense". What about pearl harbor? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:09 Gorsameth wrote: 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. We had that same mindset when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Turned out quite nicely for us, wouldn't you say. Note I said if we wanted to wipe them out. If NK is aggressive in starting a conflict and we send in our military along with Seoul, China isn't going to intervene. They would lose too much economically. It's in their best interests to get NK to step down. If they did go to war, China would be best served severing all ties and help SK as a new avenue for economic potential. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I don't see Japan being destroyed though. How many nukes would actually hit the islands when you take into account SK, Japan, and US fleets? We'd have missiles in the air at the first sign of aggression (actual, not posturing). We have subs out there, somewhere, ready to launch a couple missiles out there. We have 2800 active nukes and over 6k total. I'm sure there are probably a couple of those somewhere in Japan that can be sent immediately if NK gets feisty. MAD only works if it's US vs Russia, really. Any other country would just be a memory. Japan, SK and US fleets don't have the capabilities to intercept ICBMs (only short/medium ranged ballistics). No country has. That's why you have fixed installations in SK, with questionable success apparently (can't argue for or against those systems). Of course, NK would be leveled, that wasn't the argument. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22508 Posts
what about it? When NK attacks you strike back and no one will blame you for it. But a pre-emptive first strike against an unstable nuclear power who can also wipe out your big ally's capital in the region with conventional artillery is insane. This discussion is a bunch of keyboard warriors talking about how several million dead are acceptable because NK might possible at some point in time potentially get rowdy. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:14 m4ini wrote: Japan, SK and US fleets don't have the capabilities to intercept ICBMs (only short/medium ranged ballistics). No country has. That's why you have fixed installations in SK, with questionable success apparently (can't argue for or against those systems). Of course, NK would be leveled, that wasn't the argument. They have them in Japan as well. Okinawa is the largest pacific staging ground for US troops. And recently, they've been testing lasers on naval ships, so there's that fun bit. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
an unstable nuclear power While you might be okay with that, others certainly are not. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22508 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:18 m4ini wrote: While you might be okay with that, others certainly are not. I would love for NK to not have nukes. But they have em and that changes the entire situation and how you deal with it. I'm not willing to sacrifice millions on the possibility that they might do something bad. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 09 2017 06:55 m4ini wrote: 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? This is so off base from what I've been stating these last few pages I don't even known how to respond. Now I know how xDaunt feels. Suffice to say picking unneccesay fights with nuclear powers is really bad and should be avoided at all costs. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote: I would love for NK to not have nukes. But they have em and that changes the entire situation and how you deal with it. I'm not willing to sacrifice millions on the possibility that they might do something bad. The sacrificing millions might also happen because you don't do anything. I do agree that there is no good course of action here, but just letting NK do as they please will not lead to "nothing". I just don't understand how people (you too btw) constantly argue how dangerous it is that Trump has "the button", but somehow NK is not really scary, they're just posing, they just want to be left alone (ignoring that they're already in a conflict), they would never, they don't intend to, etc. Maybe i'm missing a link here somewhere, care to explain? This is so off base from what I've been stating these last few pages I don't even known how to respond. Know I know how xDaunt feels. Suffice to say picking unneccesay fights with nuclear powers is really bad and should be avoided at all costs. Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless. I'm curious. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote: I would love for NK to not have nukes. But they have em and that changes the entire situation and how you deal with it. I'm not willing to sacrifice millions on the possibility that they might do something bad. I'm 100% sure no one in here is willing to sacrifice millions on a possibility. But at the first sign of aggression (actual and not posturing) you have to strike. There's nothing nice or clean about war. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12491 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote: The sacrificing millions might also happen because you don't do anything. I do agree that there is no good course of action here, but just letting NK do as they please will not lead to "nothing". I just don't understand how people (you too btw) constantly argue how dangerous it is that Trump has "the button", but somehow NK is not really scary, they're just posing, they just want to be left alone (ignoring that they're already in a conflict), they would never, they don't intend to, etc. Maybe i'm missing a link here somewhere, care to explain? He's not arguing that they aren't scary. He's arguing that he doesn't want to kill millions of people as a preemptive strike based on stuff like "stability". I'm not entirely sure what's so hard to understand about his position. This is an old debate, you had the same rhetoric with the USSR when Krushchev got in power and he was such a dangerous extremist that you needed to preemptive strike them. This isn't even about "being right" or "reading the situation correctly" or something like that. If NK does use a nuke and kills a bunch of people, it doesn't make the anti-nuke position wrong. The anti-nuke position is simply that nukes are a defensive tool not an offensive one. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm 100% sure no one in here is willing to sacrifice millions on a possibility. But at the first sign of aggression (actual and not posturing) you have to strike. There's nothing nice or clean about war. As Plansix said, when do you decide that something is not posturing anymore? ICBMs made it rather close to japans coast (relatively), the next "rocket test" that flies towards japan, when do you decide to intercept it, especially considering that there's only a small window for THAADs and AEGISs to work? He's not arguing that they aren't scary. He's arguing that he doesn't want to kill millions of people as a preemptive strike based on stuff like "stability". I'm not entirely sure what's so hard to understand about his position. This is an old debate, you had the same rhetoric with the USSR when Krushchev got in power and he was such a dangerous extremist that you needed to preemptive strike them. So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22508 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:24 m4ini wrote: The sacrificing millions might also happen because you don't do anything. I do agree that there is no good course of action here, but just letting NK do as they please will not lead to "nothing". I just don't understand how people (you too btw) constantly argue how dangerous it is that Trump has "the button", but somehow NK is not really scary, they're just posing, they just want to be left alone (ignoring that they're already in a conflict), they would never, they don't intend to, etc. Maybe i'm missing a link here somewhere, care to explain? Right. Except that's quite literally what you implied. NK wants nukes to be left alone, now what does Japan do that constantly get threatened by ICBMs falling into their waters? Just answer that. Without saying "well NK wouldn't nuke them" since it's bullshit, nobody would've nuked NK either, so nukes as MAD were pointless. I'm curious. Because I believe NK is well aware of their position and what happens if they step to far, tho what is 'to far' is grey area (see shooting at SK islands). Trump on the other hand might be stupid enough to think he could throw a nuke and get away with it. See his comments during his first security briefings asking 'why don't we use nukes if we have them'. And NK doesn't want nukes to protect themselves from getting nuked. They want them to deter a convention war. (see Ukraine) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12491 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote: As Plansix said, when do you decide that something is not posturing anymore? ICBMs made it rather close to japans coast (relatively), the next "rocket test" that flies towards japan, when do you decide to intercept it, especially considering that there's only a small window for THAADs and AEGISs to work? So he's arguing a strawman then. Because as far as i can tell, barely anyone (if actually anyone) argues for a nuclear first strike. Many actually said that it shouldn't be an option in the first place. Glad I'm wrong then. I suspect nuclear first strike is not extremely low in the list of possibilities for Trump tbh. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:15 Gorsameth wrote: what about it? When NK attacks you strike back and no one will blame you for it. But a pre-emptive first strike against an unstable nuclear power who can also wipe out your big ally's capital in the region with conventional artillery is insane. This discussion is a bunch of keyboard warriors talking about how several million dead are acceptable because NK might possible at some point in time potentially get rowdy. How many do you think would die if nk nuked LA? | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9063 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:29 m4ini wrote: As Plansix said, when do you decide that something is not posturing anymore? ICBMs made it rather close to japans coast (relatively), the next "rocket test" that flies towards japan, when do you decide to intercept it, especially considering that there's only a small window for THAADs and AEGISs to work? When you see more than one missile silo opening through satellite feeds. When you see more than one missile launcher being moved into position. When you have 90% accurate sources saying that NK is gearing up for an attack. I don't believe for one second that these countries didn't know beforehand that NK was about to launch a missile test. They knew the capabilities and this recent test confirmed that they are within striking range of Japan. I'd suspect the next couple to be shot down or a huge show of force at NK's doorstep if they do attempt another launch. A couple carriers and destroyers, matched with fighter jets flying over SK or in the general area would do a lot to convince them that escalating further is against their best interests. I trust Mattis to make the correct calls when it comes down to it. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On August 09 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: Because I believe NK is well aware of their position and what happens if they step to far, tho what is 'to far' is grey area (see shooting at SK islands). Trump on the other hand might be stupid enough to think he could throw a nuke and get away with it. See his comments during his first security briefings asking 'why don't we use nukes if we have them'. And NK doesn't want nukes to protect themselves from getting nuked. They want them to deter a convention war. (see Ukraine) Erm, deter a conventional war that they're constantly fueling? But i'll bite. What makes you think that NK/Kim is well aware of his position and not actually insane? I do understand and agree that Trump is a moron of monumental proportions, but to argue that Kim somehow is smarter, seems like a stretch and certainly would need some form of "evidence" (not like medical records, but points where he seemed reasonable). When you see more than one missile silo opening through satellite feeds. Wat. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
