EPTNorth Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24674 Posts
| ||
|
Indrajit
35 Posts
| ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41242992 | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
| ||
|
JazVM
Germany1196 Posts
On September 06 2017 02:39 ImFromPortugal wrote: Well its a dire situation i was just commenting things as i see it, from analyzing the american behavior since the end of the cold war and how they manipulate situations to gain an advantage. My humble opinion is that North Korea will not be attacked and that they will continue to develop their systems eventually selling some to Iran and thus another red line will be crossed and another crisis will start. reading your posts I think you played the hearts of iron series py Paradox | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On September 13 2017 07:23 JazVM wrote: reading your posts I think you played the hearts of iron series py Paradox ahaha actually i did! but why do you say that ? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9621 Posts
Another launch of some kind... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15677 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:25 Mohdoo wrote: Japan continues to submit it's citizens to the whim of NK. A government unable to guarantee the safety of it's citizens. As opposed to all those countries that can guarantee the safety of their citizens? Japan can guarantee a successful retaliation against NK, which is the exact same that any other country can do against any other country. Japan isn't doing anything less than any other country would do. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15677 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:32 KwarK wrote: As opposed to all those countries that can guarantee the safety of their citizens? Japan can guarantee a successful retaliation against NK, which is the exact same that any other country can do against any other country. Japan isn't doing anything less than any other country would do. If a missile flew over Hawaii, the US wouldn't do anything? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24674 Posts
| ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:33 Mohdoo wrote: If a missile flew over Hawaii, the US wouldn't do anything? They would do the exact same thing Japan is doing, go to the UN, pressure allies to increase sanctions, and up their state of readiness for a retaliation. But if you're asking whether the US would randomly decide to carpet NK with nuclear missiles, the answer is no, they would not. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15677 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:35 micronesia wrote: That raises a fair question. If the USA and Japan geographically switch places tonight (unrealistic, but bear with it), and tomorrow, NK launches a missile over the US, into what is obviously the open ocean, how will the USA respond? Goodbye NK, goodbye Seoul. The US would lose an insane amount of influence if it showed as little spine as Japan. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24674 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote: Goodbye NK, goodbye Seoul. The US would lose an insane amount of influence if it showed as little spine as Japan. I have no inside info on this matter at all, but this sounds like a hasty conclusion to draw. To be clear, are you saying the USA would launch nuclear, or non-nuclear weapons at NK in that hypothetical situation? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42609 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote: Goodbye NK, goodbye Seoul. The US would lose an insane amount of influence if it showed as little spine as Japan. You're posting the way a fool would post. NK is firing missiles at the sea. The options are 1) Diplomatic response 2) Limited military response 3) Overwhelming military response 2 is escalation to the detriment of everyone. That runs the real risk of a nuclear warhead tipped missile being fired at Tokyo, Seoul being obliterated etc. There is absolutely no advantage to be won by a limited military response to NK. 3 is literal nuclear genocide, you attempt to first strike NK out of existence by killing millions of people and disabling any possible second strike. That has its own disadvantages. That leaves 1. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15677 Posts
On September 15 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote: You're posting the way a fool would post. NK is firing missiles at the sea. The options are 1) Diplomatic response 2) Limited military response 3) Overwhelming military response 2 is escalation to the detriment of everyone. That runs the real risk of a nuclear warhead tipped missile being fired at Tokyo, Seoul being obliterated etc. There is absolutely no advantage to be won by a limited military response to NK. 3 is literal nuclear genocide, you attempt to first strike NK out of existence by killing millions of people and disabling any possible second strike. That has its own disadvantages. That leaves 1. I think our difference in perspective comes from the fact that I think 1 is only delaying 3. I certainly understand that it always makes sense to at least try, but i don't see any realistic path to 1. I think NK is banking on obsession over 1 so that they can achieve greater destructive power. In my eyes, the enormous tragedy is already guaranteed. Just a matter of how strong NK is at the time of tragedy. | ||
| ||
