|
On December 01 2017 06:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:49 saocyn wrote:
i'm not into politics, warfare, or rocket science, but what would be the response if a test missile indeed hit US territory with little damage? (well, not little but, lives were lost etc)?
it just seems like no other nation really cares outside china and the US. i'm more or less surprised japan allowed 2 missiles to be fired over it's region as if that wasn't a threat for them at all. s
and why does it matter if anyone has authority on the subject matter if they have very little influence to persuade the whitehouse / trump administration? we're all more or less speculating the capability with very limited information. but with progressive advancements, it looks like an inevitability they will hit us. Background: The US is still at war with DPRK from the Korean War, this is just a period of reduced hostilities. However, the US and the PRC are currently at peace. The PRC has a mutual defence treaty with DPRK which stipulates that if DPRK is attacked then the PRC will defend them, but doesn't cover DPRK starting shit. Japan doesn't have a real army because it's not allowed to have one by the US because the last time it had one things got out of hand and now people (PRC, ROK, ROC, DPRK) will get anxious if it makes a new one. Japan relies on the US for defence, although it has the capacity to become a regional great power very quickly if it wants to. Japan doesn't have the ability to launch a unilateral strike on DPRK and disable it. It could develop it, but that'd make everyone super fucking nervous. So right now Japan does nothing because it relies on the US to do something and the US doesn't want to. Also the US tells Japan not to go nuts because that'd piss off everyone else. But if DPRK keeps provoking Japan then that may eventually change. The US does have the ability to fuck up DPRK's shit. However, DPRK has the ability to fuck up ROKs shit and PRC has the ability to fuck up everyone's shit. So the US isn't going to strike first because that'd be MAD. But the more DPRK fucks with everyone else the more uneasy PRC gets with being involved in this shit so it's entirely possible that the PRC may choose to non renew the mutual defence treaty next time around. DPRK knows that they rely upon the PRC nuclear aegis and that it can be withdrawn which means they actually need their own to be truly safe. If the US were to be meaningfully attacked by DPRK then there would probably be an immediate and unilateral obliteration in return, combined with an urgent call to China letting them know that they're not the target and the US feels this is a retaliatory strike, and therefore not covered by the mutual defence pact. At that point China would almost certainly decide that the world not ending is a good thing and we wouldn't go all out nuclear exchange between the two. The problem comes with if the US were to be non meaningfully attacked by DPRK. At that point you have to deal with proportionate responses, the DPRK threat to ROK, and whether PRC view the treaty as being voided. It's a tough one because you can't really escalate militarily against DPRK because of the whole nukes things. You either obliterate them or you leave them alone, fucking with them a little bit is a recipe for escalation when they counterfuck you back. That'd probably just be a continuation of the current policy of increasing sanctions.
hey thanks for catching me up! and great write up. I did know about PRC's mutual defense treaty with DRPK. I more or less came to the same conclusion that all out obliteration would be the response. and i guess i was more or less on the same page where everyone is speculating if china will view the treaty as void or take an immediate response against us in retaliation. It kinda sucks being on the end of "hey, let's wait until they inevitably have the technology to hit us, and only then are we allowed to retaliate to these threats", due to china's treaty. quite frankly the whole situation sucks for everyone even if we do destroy them. i wouldn't want innocent lives to be taken due to the brain washing of our current day hitler, nor the fact the US would probably be sucked into rebuilding north korea's infrastructure.
I guess my other question would be, due to the fact PRC is a member of the UN, doesn't that hold them accountable to respond in nature to DPRK? as in void their agreement and thus attack them. I was under the impression that being a UN member held you accountable to the fact if one country went to war, everyone would join in and be against the person who started it. I simply assumed their agreement to being a UN, was held at a higher priority than their treaty with DPRK. but i suppose this is why it's escalated to just being hey we'll just put heavier sanctions on them instead of actually take nuclear action which no sane country would want.
|
On December 01 2017 04:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I answered in good faith, but looking at it, it is clear that you was only interested in belligerent confrontation against me for whatever reason. I suggest you should go and look in the mirror.
Your answer amounted to nothing more than a "u mad bro" which is where I realized I was wasting my time
|
I'm sorry, but I don't visit the areas of the internet as you do so I don't understand your 4chan "memes". I don't find it funny.
|
On December 01 2017 06:21 saocyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:06 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 05:49 saocyn wrote:
i'm not into politics, warfare, or rocket science, but what would be the response if a test missile indeed hit US territory with little damage? (well, not little but, lives were lost etc)?
it just seems like no other nation really cares outside china and the US. i'm more or less surprised japan allowed 2 missiles to be fired over it's region as if that wasn't a threat for them at all. s
and why does it matter if anyone has authority on the subject matter if they have very little influence to persuade the whitehouse / trump administration? we're all more or less speculating the capability with very limited information. but with progressive advancements, it looks like an inevitability they will hit us. Background: The US is still at war with DPRK from the Korean War, this is just a period of reduced hostilities. However, the US and the PRC are currently at peace. The PRC has a mutual defence treaty with DPRK which stipulates that if DPRK is attacked then the PRC will defend them, but doesn't cover DPRK starting shit. Japan doesn't have a real army because it's not allowed to have one by the US because the last time it had one things got out of hand and now people (PRC, ROK, ROC, DPRK) will get anxious if it makes a new one. Japan relies on the US for defence, although it has the capacity to become a regional great power very quickly if it wants to. Japan doesn't have the ability to launch a unilateral strike on DPRK and disable it. It could develop it, but that'd make everyone super fucking nervous. So right now Japan does nothing because it relies on the US to do something and the US doesn't want to. Also the US tells Japan not to go nuts because that'd piss off everyone else. But if DPRK keeps provoking Japan then that may eventually change. The US does have the ability to fuck up DPRK's shit. However, DPRK has the ability to fuck up ROKs shit and PRC has the ability to fuck up everyone's shit. So the US isn't going to strike first because that'd be MAD. But the more DPRK fucks with everyone else the more uneasy PRC gets with being involved in this shit so it's entirely possible that the PRC may choose to non renew the mutual defence treaty next time around. DPRK knows that they rely upon the PRC nuclear aegis and that it can be withdrawn which means they actually need their own to be truly safe. If the US were to be meaningfully attacked by DPRK then there would probably be an immediate and unilateral obliteration in return, combined with an urgent call to China letting them know that they're not the target and the US feels this is a retaliatory strike, and therefore not covered by the mutual defence pact. At that point China would almost certainly decide that the world not ending is a good thing and we wouldn't go all out nuclear exchange between the two. The problem comes with if the US were to be non meaningfully attacked by DPRK. At that point you have to deal with proportionate responses, the DPRK threat to ROK, and whether PRC view the treaty as being voided. It's a tough one because you can't really escalate militarily against DPRK because of the whole nukes things. You either obliterate them or you leave them alone, fucking with them a little bit is a recipe for escalation when they counterfuck you back. That'd probably just be a continuation of the current policy of increasing sanctions. hey thanks for catching me up! and great write up. I did know about PRC's mutual defense treaty with DRPK. I more or less came to the same conclusion that all out obliteration would be the response. and i guess i was more or less on the same page where everyone is speculating if china will view the treaty as void or take an immediate response against us in retaliation. It kinda sucks being on the end of "hey, let's wait until they inevitably have the technology to hit us, and only then are we allowed to retaliate to these threats", due to china's treaty. quite frankly the whole situation sucks for everyone even if we do destroy them. i wouldn't want innocent lives to be taken due to the brain washing of our current day hitler, nor the fact the US would probably be sucked into rebuilding north korea's infrastructure. I guess my other question would be, due to the fact PRC is a member of the UN, doesn't that hold them accountable to respond in nature to DPRK? as in void their agreement and thus attack them. I was under the impression that being a UN member held you accountable to the fact if one country went to war, everyone would join in and be against the person who started it. I simply assumed their agreement to being a UN, was held at a higher priority than their treaty with DPRK. but i suppose this is why it's escalated to just being hey we'll just put heavier sanctions on them instead of actually take nuclear action which no sane country would want.
That is not how the UN works.
NATO works like that, because it is a mutual defense treaty. The UN is not NATO.
The UN is designed to be a forum for the great powers to solve stuff without blowing each other up. It allows them to talk to each other, let each other know what they want and what would piss them off, and to have resolutions on how to deal with stuff that might be a problem. However, since PRC is a permanent member of the security council, it can veto anything the UN wants to do. Thus, the UN doesn't really take sides in anything involving any of the great powers (Great basically meaning nuclear).
Its job is almost entirely to provide a possibility for those powers to avoid them blowing everything up. It doesn't have the power to force them to do anything, because if it had, the soviet union and the US would never both have stayed in it. It is useful in helping them figure out how to deal with local conflicts without having them escalate, and to provide them with the constant ability to talk to each other to prevent misunderstandings leading to nuclear war.
|
On December 01 2017 07:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:21 saocyn wrote:On December 01 2017 06:06 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 05:49 saocyn wrote:
i'm not into politics, warfare, or rocket science, but what would be the response if a test missile indeed hit US territory with little damage? (well, not little but, lives were lost etc)?
it just seems like no other nation really cares outside china and the US. i'm more or less surprised japan allowed 2 missiles to be fired over it's region as if that wasn't a threat for them at all. s
and why does it matter if anyone has authority on the subject matter if they have very little influence to persuade the whitehouse / trump administration? we're all more or less speculating the capability with very limited information. but with progressive advancements, it looks like an inevitability they will hit us. Background: The US is still at war with DPRK from the Korean War, this is just a period of reduced hostilities. However, the US and the PRC are currently at peace. The PRC has a mutual defence treaty with DPRK which stipulates that if DPRK is attacked then the PRC will defend them, but doesn't cover DPRK starting shit. Japan doesn't have a real army because it's not allowed to have one by the US because the last time it had one things got out of hand and now people (PRC, ROK, ROC, DPRK) will get anxious if it makes a new one. Japan relies on the US for defence, although it has the capacity to become a regional great power very quickly if it wants to. Japan doesn't have the ability to launch a unilateral strike on DPRK and disable it. It could develop it, but that'd make everyone super fucking nervous. So right now Japan does nothing because it relies on the US to do something and the US doesn't want to. Also the US tells Japan not to go nuts because that'd piss off everyone else. But if DPRK keeps provoking Japan then that may eventually change. The US does have the ability to fuck up DPRK's shit. However, DPRK has the ability to fuck up ROKs shit and PRC has the ability to fuck up everyone's shit. So the US isn't going to strike first because that'd be MAD. But the more DPRK fucks with everyone else the more uneasy PRC gets with being involved in this shit so it's entirely possible that the PRC may choose to non renew the mutual defence treaty next time around. DPRK knows that they rely upon the PRC nuclear aegis and that it can be withdrawn which means they actually need their own to be truly safe. If the US were to be meaningfully attacked by DPRK then there would probably be an immediate and unilateral obliteration in return, combined with an urgent call to China letting them know that they're not the target and the US feels this is a retaliatory strike, and therefore not covered by the mutual defence pact. At that point China would almost certainly decide that the world not ending is a good thing and we wouldn't go all out nuclear exchange between the two. The problem comes with if the US were to be non meaningfully attacked by DPRK. At that point you have to deal with proportionate responses, the DPRK threat to ROK, and whether PRC view the treaty as being voided. It's a tough one because you can't really escalate militarily against DPRK because of the whole nukes things. You either obliterate them or you leave them alone, fucking with them a little bit is a recipe for escalation when they counterfuck you back. That'd probably just be a continuation of the current policy of increasing sanctions. hey thanks for catching me up! and great write up. I did know about PRC's mutual defense treaty with DRPK. I more or less came to the same conclusion that all out obliteration would be the response. and i guess i was more or less on the same page where everyone is speculating if china will view the treaty as void or take an immediate response against us in retaliation. It kinda sucks being on the end of "hey, let's wait until they inevitably have the technology to hit us, and only then are we allowed to retaliate to these threats", due to china's treaty. quite frankly the whole situation sucks for everyone even if we do destroy them. i wouldn't want innocent lives to be taken due to the brain washing of our current day hitler, nor the fact the US would probably be sucked into rebuilding north korea's infrastructure. I guess my other question would be, due to the fact PRC is a member of the UN, doesn't that hold them accountable to respond in nature to DPRK? as in void their agreement and thus attack them. I was under the impression that being a UN member held you accountable to the fact if one country went to war, everyone would join in and be against the person who started it. I simply assumed their agreement to being a UN, was held at a higher priority than their treaty with DPRK. but i suppose this is why it's escalated to just being hey we'll just put heavier sanctions on them instead of actually take nuclear action which no sane country would want. That is not how the UN works. NATO works like that, because it is a mutual defense treaty. The UN is not NATO. The UN is designed to be a forum for the great powers to solve stuff without blowing each other up. It allows them to talk to each other, let each other know what they want and what would piss them off, and to have resolutions on how to deal with stuff that might be a problem. However, since PRC is a permanent member of the security council, it can veto anything the UN wants to do. Thus, the UN doesn't really take sides in anything involving any of the great powers (Great basically meaning nuclear). Its job is almost entirely to provide a possibility for those powers to avoid them blowing everything up. It doesn't have the power to force them to do anything, because if it had, the soviet union and the US would never both have stayed in it. It is useful in helping them figure out how to deal with local conflicts without having them escalate, and to provide them with the constant ability to talk to each other to prevent misunderstandings leading to nuclear war.
thanks for the clarification!
|
It will be nice if both Koreas unite like Germany did, but it's probably not going to happen soon. Lots of wasted time and lives with this warmongering stuff. I'm not a pacifist btw. I just don't think this situation helps anyone in this case. There's nothing to gain.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-korea-missile-defense/?utm_term=.8bb6fd912fe1
Washington Post just posted this on how we would deter if a missile was launched at US. I found it relatively well written and informative in contrast to every poster in here who ever laughed at NK or doubted them due to so and so. quite frankly i don't ever doubt a madman, how many instances have we seen in america where school shootings occur and mass shootings? it's almost monthly at this point. well in this case the madman is hell bent on a nuke. and from the experts who are working on the system to deter a nuke nuke from hitting us, the article is rather nerve racking on how reliable we are at stopping a nuclear warhead. What's mind boggling to me is how many posters here are confident we deter it and then lay waste to NK. it''s really not that simple.
What's even scarier is, it takes 30 minutes approximately for an ICBM to travel from north korea to the US. what's even more nerve racking is the fact, our defense system has basically failed us in the past with dummy missiles. and experts who have worked on it have claimed that it succeeded only in controlled environments and not uncontrolled environments. ICBMS become increasingly harder to deter due to boost phase once it reaches the atmosphere (within 5 minutes)
What are your thoughts on how reliable we are at deterring the missiles and our options?
|
2774 Posts
Keep in mind the US is capable of using several interceptors, and systems if need be, per ballistic missile so it wouldn't just be a 50/50 chance. Of course regardless there are never any guarantees in missile defense. Intercontinental ballistic missile defense is certainly tricky, no doubt about it. THAAD and Aegis are unfortunately only effective against short and mid range ballistic missiles, however there's an improbable chance of effective defense against ICBM's there as well.
It's MAD, so at the end of the day I wouldn't be too worried about DPRK pulling the trigger. It's a bargaining chip.
(It's pretty much the only really effective deterrent they have at this point, they don't have to rely on their slowly dwindling power with their indirect fire capabilities and shock capacity)
|
On December 01 2017 09:08 Nixer wrote:
Keep in mind the US is capable of using several interceptors, and systems if need be, per ballistic missile so it wouldn't just be a 50/50 chance. Of course regardless there are never any guarantees in missile defense. Intercontinental ballistic missile defense is certainly tricky, no doubt about it. THAAD and Aegis are unfortunately only effective against short and mid range ballistic missiles, however there's an improbable chance of effective defense against ICBM's there as well.
It's MAD, so at the end of the day I wouldn't be too worried about DPRK pulling the trigger. It's a bargaining chip.
(It's pretty much the only really effective deterrent they have at this point, they don't have to rely on their slowly dwindling power with their indirect fire capabilities and shock capacity)
No, i totally agree. the thing is WE understand MAD but does an insane leader understand MAD? or even care about the repercussions? because in this sense, yeah you have to be a leader that actually cares about the well being of your people / nation / whatever. I guess from everything i've watched about north korea, nothing makes me believe the guy is sane in any sense, and whatever empathy he used to have for people he threw out in order to get praised and to maintain his legacy. I'm guessing the death of his father changed him, radicalized him in an already extreme situation.
if he did care about what would be the consequences of his nation and the well being of the world, he would have taken UN sanctions very seriously. but that's quite the contrary. cutting off trade and business from other nations in today's day and age is quite frankly, suicide. I want to believe he's doing this for show, but his actions seem to be contrary to that. starving your people in order to siphon money for your military objectives already shows a man who has disregarded logical reasoning and empathy. the guy really seems like hey we'll strike US or we'll die trying, both results will uphold our honor.
i don't think kim can live with himself if his brainwashing has started dwindling, it's almost like he has to strike the US to uphold his integrity for why his country believes he's a god. empty threats don't save face sadly, and i don't think that's working too well for him.
I hope to god he never attempts it, i don't ever think we need another war, and hope to live out the rest of this life not having to witness it. but it's really hard to believe at this point he won't do it based on his previous actions. it would suck waking up and finding out that a state your family resides in is no longer in existence, or the fact well 30 mins from now you may not exist lmfao.
|
On December 01 2017 10:23 saocyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 09:08 Nixer wrote:
Keep in mind the US is capable of using several interceptors, and systems if need be, per ballistic missile so it wouldn't just be a 50/50 chance. Of course regardless there are never any guarantees in missile defense. Intercontinental ballistic missile defense is certainly tricky, no doubt about it. THAAD and Aegis are unfortunately only effective against short and mid range ballistic missiles, however there's an improbable chance of effective defense against ICBM's there as well.
It's MAD, so at the end of the day I wouldn't be too worried about DPRK pulling the trigger. It's a bargaining chip.
(It's pretty much the only really effective deterrent they have at this point, they don't have to rely on their slowly dwindling power with their indirect fire capabilities and shock capacity) No, i totally agree. the thing is WE understand MAD but does an insane leader understand MAD? or even care about the repercussions? because in this sense, yeah you have to be a leader that actually cares about the well being of your people / nation / whatever. I guess from everything i've watched about north korea, nothing makes me believe the guy is sane in any sense, and whatever empathy he used to have for people he threw out in order to get praised and to maintain his legacy. I'm guessing the death of his father changed him, radicalized him in an already extreme situation. if he did care about what would be the consequences of his nation and the well being of the world, he would have taken UN sanctions very seriously. but that's quite the contrary. cutting off trade and business from other nations in today's day and age is quite frankly, suicide. I want to believe he's doing this for show, but his actions seem to be contrary to that. starving your people in order to siphon money for your military objectives already shows a man who has disregarded logical reasoning and empathy. the guy really seems like hey we'll strike US or we'll die trying, both results will uphold our honor. i don't think kim can live with himself if his brainwashing has started dwindling, it's almost like he has to strike the US to uphold his integrity for why his country believes he's a god. empty threats don't save face sadly, and i don't think that's working too well for him. I hope to god he never attempts it, i don't ever think we need another war, and hope to live out the rest of this life not having to witness it. but it's really hard to believe at this point he won't do it based on his previous actions. it would suck waking up and finding out that a state your family resides in is no longer in existence, or the fact well 30 mins from now you may not exist lmfao.
Uhm... What makes you think, that NK's "mad leader" intents or wishes to attack the US out of the blue?
And North Korean propaganda does actually chooses its words rather carefully, always focusing on retaliation.
I know Trump loves to push the narrative, that the crazy one is sitting on the other side of the ocean, that you never know what he will and won't do. But that isn't really fitting reality. Currently I would consider NK the way more rational and predictable actor in this conflict than the Trump government.
And this is no evaluation on how "good" or "bad" they are. It is also no judgement about the underlying reasons for those "rational decisions".
|
Well, Soviets understood MAD very well and they actualy backed down several times during cold war when pushed. Some would say they were actualy more afraid of it than the West.
Mao however used to brag that he is not afraid of nuclear war. That they will have few hundred milion casulties but they will "win" and its "corrupted" west that should be scared not them. Also Mao was much more prone to answer with escalation when pushed (see Koran war or Taiwan for example).
Lets just hope NK works more like Soviets than Mao era PRC. I doubt that though.
|
A) There is no MAD with NK. There is "NK can blow up a bit of stuff, and get destroyed completely" That is still horrific, but not the same as MAD.
B) From what i can tell, Kim is acting mostly rational. You just need to understand that he is acting from rational Kim self-interest, not from rational North Korean interest. He is very willing to do stuff which is bad for NK as long as it is good for himself. Getting into a big war with the US, however, is both bad for him and for NK.
Do not get me wrong, he is still a monster. Just a rational one. Stuff like torture camps or starvation among the population can be very rational if you intend to stay in power in a dictatorship.
|
if kwark didnt talk like a 14 year old i would've kept reading his page. (not an insult)
User was warned for this post
|
On December 01 2017 08:03 sc-darkness wrote:
It will be nice if both Koreas unite like Germany did, but it's probably not going to happen soon. Lots of wasted time and lives with this warmongering stuff. I'm not a pacifist btw. I just don't think this situation helps anyone in this case. There's nothing to gain.
Absolutely agree with you, long time has to pass in order that to be achieved.
|
On December 01 2017 21:22 ilililililililiii wrote:
if kwark didnt talk like a 14 year old i would've kept reading his page. (not an insult)
Hahahahahaha dude you don't get to say something insulting and then back out of it by declaring that it isn't an insult
|
On December 01 2017 23:39 Indrajit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 21:22 ilililililililiii wrote:
if kwark didnt talk like a 14 year old i would've kept reading his page. (not an insult) Hahahahahaha dude you don't get to say something insulting and then back out of it by declaring that it isn't an insult
I have a feeling that was basically a metaphor if NK actually tried anything lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
Kim Jong Un is willing to give up nuclear weapons if the security of his regime is guaranteed, says South Korea, after he reportedly said it was the last wish of his father.
"The North made clear its willingness for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, and made clear that there is no reason to own nuclear (programmes) if military threats towards the North are cleared and the security of its regime is guaranteed," said national security adviser Chung Eui-yong.
Amazing news!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
