|
On September 19 2017 22:35 LegalLord wrote:
Doesn't it? You mention that they won't be able to stop a US invasion even with nukes because if the US is TRULY committed they could still do it.
Yes.
On September 19 2017 22:35 LegalLord wrote:
So why not cut out the middleman and allow the US to do the nuking?
What???
Seriously, I don't get what you're trying to say. And just to be clear, my position is (from the last page):
On September 19 2017 21:16 Sbrubbles wrote:
in terms of military solutions, doing nothing is the only path that doesn't involve tens of millions of South Koreans dying, even if this does mean accepting MAD with NK. No people should have the right to make that decision except for the SK people themselves.
|
If the fallout from being nuked isn't bad enough, then why not deal with the fallout of widespread political condemnation instead? Because no matter how strong NK is it wouldn't survive being nuked so your entire argument turns into one of splitting hairs. It's trivially true that it wouldn't survive a war against a sufficiently powerful nation willing to die for it, because that's true for literally any other country, so your argument is pointless.
|
On September 19 2017 23:15 LegalLord wrote:
If the fallout from being nuked isn't bad enough, then why not deal with the fallout of widespread political condemnation instead? Because no matter how strong NK is it wouldn't survive being nuked so your entire argument turns into one of splitting hairs. It's trivially true that it wouldn't survive a war against a sufficiently powerful nation willing to die for it, because that's true for literally any other country, so your argument is pointless.
Did you not see the argument I was responding to?
|
On September 19 2017 23:15 LegalLord wrote:
If the fallout from being nuked isn't bad enough, then why not deal with the fallout of widespread political condemnation instead? Because no matter how strong NK is it wouldn't survive being nuked so your entire argument turns into one of splitting hairs. It's trivially true that it wouldn't survive a war against a sufficiently powerful nation willing to die for it, because that's true for literally any other country, so your argument is pointless.
I get Sbrubbles point clearly without any problems. Everything he says is reasonable.
On the other hand you are still shitposting in community section.
|
On September 19 2017 23:27 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 23:15 LegalLord wrote:
If the fallout from being nuked isn't bad enough, then why not deal with the fallout of widespread political condemnation instead? Because no matter how strong NK is it wouldn't survive being nuked so your entire argument turns into one of splitting hairs. It's trivially true that it wouldn't survive a war against a sufficiently powerful nation willing to die for it, because that's true for literally any other country, so your argument is pointless. Did you not see the argument I was responding to?
On September 19 2017 21:56 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 21:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2017 21:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 19 2017 19:48 micronesia wrote:On September 19 2017 12:50 AxiomBlurr wrote:
I hate the way the North treats its people (they are starving and barely have fuel for Winters). I believe sanctions/ military drills are not the way forward. There is a crazy 3rd road not discussed much when it comes to the North and that is to let them be, sure be ready for a potential attack as we must against even our allies, yet lift the sanctions, stop the military drills and change the focus to the health and wellbeing of the population of the nation that is North Korea.
I totally understand why you are making this recommendation given your personal situation and an attempt to let cooler heads prevail when discussing the situation on the Korean peninsula. There is also the fact that NK is being punished, in large part, by countries who are essentially saying "we are going to punish you for doing what we already do." On the other hand, NK has been in a (very reduced) state of war with its enemies since the 1950s. Your suggestion is essentially saying to allow the enemy to strengthen themselves. No only will they be able to decimate SK, but they will potentially gain the fighting force necessary to take on other regional rivals and repel invasion from the USA or others should NK become the aggressor again and invade SK or others. This is surely seen as unacceptable given the current leadership of NK. Countries that repeatedly claim that other countries are 'evil' and that they will eventually be destroyed (a couple of examples come to mind) don't have much a leg to stand on, before you even consider how they treat their own people, in my opinion. It's utterly absurd to suggest that given enough time NK will be able to take on other regional rivals or repel invasion from the US. The don't have the population or industrial capacity for such a thing. They do have the ICBMs for it though. I don't follow. ICBMs will not allow NK to take on other regional rivals, nor will they help in repelling an invasion from the US, should the US commit to one.
and
On September 19 2017 22:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 21:59 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2017 21:56 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 19 2017 21:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2017 21:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 19 2017 19:48 micronesia wrote:On September 19 2017 12:50 AxiomBlurr wrote:
I hate the way the North treats its people (they are starving and barely have fuel for Winters). I believe sanctions/ military drills are not the way forward. There is a crazy 3rd road not discussed much when it comes to the North and that is to let them be, sure be ready for a potential attack as we must against even our allies, yet lift the sanctions, stop the military drills and change the focus to the health and wellbeing of the population of the nation that is North Korea.
I totally understand why you are making this recommendation given your personal situation and an attempt to let cooler heads prevail when discussing the situation on the Korean peninsula. There is also the fact that NK is being punished, in large part, by countries who are essentially saying "we are going to punish you for doing what we already do." On the other hand, NK has been in a (very reduced) state of war with its enemies since the 1950s. Your suggestion is essentially saying to allow the enemy to strengthen themselves. No only will they be able to decimate SK, but they will potentially gain the fighting force necessary to take on other regional rivals and repel invasion from the USA or others should NK become the aggressor again and invade SK or others. This is surely seen as unacceptable given the current leadership of NK. Countries that repeatedly claim that other countries are 'evil' and that they will eventually be destroyed (a couple of examples come to mind) don't have much a leg to stand on, before you even consider how they treat their own people, in my opinion. It's utterly absurd to suggest that given enough time NK will be able to take on other regional rivals or repel invasion from the US. The don't have the population or industrial capacity for such a thing. They do have the ICBMs for it though. I don't follow. ICBMs will not allow NK to take on other regional rivals, nor will they help in repelling an invasion from the US, should the US commit to one. Deterrence. If the US wishes to attack they will now do so knowing that there will be a nuclear counterattack, both on their invasion force and on their homeland. That's sufficiently powerful enough to be able to say that they can repel an invasion. Also, two of the four regional rivals of NK are great power nations. Not being on equal footing with them is understandable. There's a difference between being able to repel an US invasion and making the US invasion too expensive to be attempted in the first place.
Feel free to clarify your point. "Too expensive" being different from "impossible" is a trivial point because the US has nukes too. The same reason that the US can't repel a nuclear attack NK cannot as well. So where is that comparison insufficient?
Edit: so to summarize:
Sb: NK won't be able to fight the US or regional opponents.
LL: ICBMs make a difference.
Sb: But that won't stop the US from being able to invade, just make it harder and more expensive.
LL: But given that a first strike from the US is already a possibility, that is trivially true.
Is that flow somehow incorrect?
|
2774 Posts
On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help.
They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology.
I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have.
|
On September 19 2017 23:59 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help. They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology. I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have.
Building ICBM technology is definitely no laughing matter and represents some significant ability on the part of NK's technological infrastructure. It also represents a lasting form of deterrence against a military threat; looking at the specs on their rocket I really don't think that the missile defense farce will be anything useful to counter them. So now that they established a baseline stability, they can move on to rebuilding a more stable, lasting economy. No, it won't somehow lift them out of poverty, but it's time to come to terms with the fact that NK is smarter and more effective than we all gave them credit for in the past.
|
On September 19 2017 23:59 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help. They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology. I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have.
I mean the outdated 20th century technology mixed with Chinese alliance is keeping them from being attacked right now, if they didn't have all the artillery on the border they would probably have been invaded already.
|
United States43971 Posts
On September 20 2017 01:25 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 23:59 Nixer wrote:On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help. They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology. I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have. I mean the outdated 20th century technology mixed with Chinese alliance is keeping them from being attacked right now, if they didn't have all the artillery on the border they would probably have been invaded already.
For what purpose? Who stands to gain from there no longer being a NK?
|
On September 20 2017 01:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 01:25 Zaros wrote:On September 19 2017 23:59 Nixer wrote:On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help. They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology. I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have. I mean the outdated 20th century technology mixed with Chinese alliance is keeping them from being attacked right now, if they didn't have all the artillery on the border they would probably have been invaded already. For what purpose? Who stands to gain from there no longer being a NK?
Maybe not no longer being a north korea but certainly to stop the nuclear development, but even a bombing run on the nuclear testing facility is not possible at the moment.
|
United States24771 Posts
On September 19 2017 21:16 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 19:48 micronesia wrote:On September 19 2017 12:50 AxiomBlurr wrote:
I hate the way the North treats its people (they are starving and barely have fuel for Winters). I believe sanctions/ military drills are not the way forward. There is a crazy 3rd road not discussed much when it comes to the North and that is to let them be, sure be ready for a potential attack as we must against even our allies, yet lift the sanctions, stop the military drills and change the focus to the health and wellbeing of the population of the nation that is North Korea.
I totally understand why you are making this recommendation given your personal situation and an attempt to let cooler heads prevail when discussing the situation on the Korean peninsula. There is also the fact that NK is being punished, in large part, by countries who are essentially saying "we are going to punish you for doing what we already do." On the other hand, NK has been in a (very reduced) state of war with its enemies since the 1950s. Your suggestion is essentially saying to allow the enemy to strengthen themselves. No only will they be able to decimate SK, but they will potentially gain the fighting force necessary to take on other regional rivals and repel invasion from the USA or others should NK become the aggressor again and invade SK or others. This is surely seen as unacceptable given the current leadership of NK. Countries that repeatedly claim that other countries are 'evil' and that they will eventually be destroyed (a couple of examples come to mind) don't have much a leg to stand on, before you even consider how they treat their own people, in my opinion. It's utterly absurd to suggest that given enough time NK will be able to take on other regional rivals or repel invasion from the US. The don't have the population or industrial capacity for such a thing.
They don't need to become stronger than everyone else. They just need to become stronger than they are now, which is what their adversaries want to avoid. Also, they can overcome much of the limitations associated with their population and industrial capacity through trade and other exchanges with China and/or Russia.
Appeasing their current actions isn't going to result in them suddenly changing focus to improve the quality of life for the North Korean people... NK will pump most of the economic benefits of lifted sanctions into beefing up their military, both in the nuclear-tipped missile category and otherwise. It's a Catch 22.
|
2774 Posts
On September 20 2017 00:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 23:59 Nixer wrote:On September 19 2017 22:07 LegalLord wrote:
As far as I've heard the North Korean economy has actually been doing fairly stable in recent times. They're having a sustained YoY 4% GDP growth. They're adapting to the reality of a long-term sanctions regime and making it work.
You don't develop nuclear weaponry and ICBM technology out of nothing. Even with help. They've pretty much put all the eggs in one basket though. Now these eggs just happen to be nukes of course so at the end of the day the end result is even better for them I suppose in terms of deterrence. Militarily speaking nuclear warheads and the missiles carrying them are really the only things they've got going for them. The rest is pretty much outdated mid-20th century technology. I might've misunderstood the latest posts in this thread though so forgive me if I have. Building ICBM technology is definitely no laughing matter and represents some significant ability on the part of NK's technological infrastructure. It also represents a lasting form of deterrence against a military threat; looking at the specs on their rocket I really don't think that the missile defense farce will be anything useful to counter them. So now that they established a baseline stability, they can move on to rebuilding a more stable, lasting economy. No, it won't somehow lift them out of poverty, but it's time to come to terms with the fact that NK is smarter and more effective than we all gave them credit for in the past.
My point was that their nuclear program is the only really proper threat they have at this point as everything else they have is showing its age. Their air-to-air capabilities and resources are a joke, their failure rates with their indirect fire is at mid-19th century levels and so on. Of course a thousand howitzers in range of Seoul would still lead to casualties in the tens of thousands, not to mention all the other damage, so perhaps it's unfair to be nitpicky as an armed conflict would still be unacceptable. (Keep in mind not all DPRK artillery is in range of Seoul by the way)
You don't just convert said infrastructure, it's not that simple. However there's obviously no rush.
|
|
|
Yes, at a meeting for an institution that was created to ensure that would never be another world war, Trump is essentially shaking his fist and threatening another world war.
He also called Kim Jong Un "Rocket man" which is kinda a cool nickname.
This sucks.
|
|
|
On September 20 2017 23:32 Aveng3r wrote:Yes, at a meeting for an institution that was created to ensure that would never be another world war, Trump is essentially shaking his fist and threatening another world war. He also called Kim Jong Un "Rocket man" which is kinda a cool nickname. This sucks.
Apparently there's a theory that he used that specific nickname because it translates directly into Mandarin... A theory, though most of the slander that Trump spews forth is most likely (hopefully) not premeditated.
Bottom line is if they can send 1 nuke into LA would the US really wan't to invade them?
And as the only country to have ever nuked anyone are you really going to do it again? There are 25 million people, I would understand the assassin or covert option or whatever but that is genocide. It would weaken America's position in pretty much everything for decades, pulling out of the Climate Agreement and electing this bufoon has already done that but nuking a country out of fear would be irreparable imo.
|
On September 21 2017 18:59 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 23:32 Aveng3r wrote:Yes, at a meeting for an institution that was created to ensure that would never be another world war, Trump is essentially shaking his fist and threatening another world war. He also called Kim Jong Un "Rocket man" which is kinda a cool nickname. This sucks. Apparently there's a theory that he used that specific nickname because it translates directly into Mandarin... A theory, though most of the slander that Trump spews forth is most likely (hopefully) not premeditated. Bottom line is if they can send 1 nuke into LA would the US really wan't to invade them? And as the only country to have ever nuked anyone are you really going to do it again? There are 25 million people, I would understand the assassin or covert option or whatever but that is genocide. It would weaken America's position in pretty much everything for decades, pulling out of the Climate Agreement and electing this bufoon has already done that but nuking a country out of fear would be irreparable imo.
I dont think the US is going to nuke anybody
|
You people are ridiculously fixated on insignificance.
You miss the big picture.
Right now the Euro-NAmeri-Sunni-SPacific bloc is waging proxy wars with the Russo-Sino-SAmerafrican-Shiite bloc. The main conflict line goes like an obvious diagonal from the baltic through Ukraine and Georgia down through Turkey, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, but actually all the conflict lines are a contiguous great circle if you draw them on Pangea, dividing the world in two.
In this accurate context, the N. Korean missile "crisis" is just a geopolitical showdown between US and China over military dominance in the NW Pacific ocean.
People are idiots if they think that N.Korea would ever attack using its nucelar warheads -- those are its big stick with which it alternatively bullies both blocs to give it money and stuff in exchange for a round of threats followed by 1) more threats or 2) a cooldown period depending on which bloc offers more stuff and wins the round.
People are equally stupid if they think the US or China will actually do anything about it. In the grand scheme of things, nobody gives a ________ about N.Korea and N.Korea doesn't give a ________ about anybody else either -- which is EXACTLY why the blocs are facing off diplomatically using N.Korea like a "diplomatic DMZ".
Yes, there always is that 0.0001% possibility that S.L. Kim goes insane and forgets that it's not going to benefit him any to fire the nukes. But guess what? Only idiots make that kind of decision, not leaders.
True leaders are psychopaths - every action is weighed on how much the cost/benefit ratio to themselves is.
There is 100x the risk of some idiot environmentalist messing around in the ruins of Fukushima and causing a meltdown than there is of N.Korea launching a nuclear missile.
That aside, N.Korea may eventually decide to take non-nuclear action. It's probably going to be invited soon to join the war in Syria, just like S.Korean troops were invited to join the Iraq war.
|
It's been addressed in the past what is going on between China and the US. Most of the post are about assessing/addressing concern of how ill Kim has actually become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
