On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote: May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
China couldn't stop the US from carpet bombing the north to oblivion and then conquering the ruins, they probably couldn't even maintain a special economic interest over the old north, such would be the international outrage. Assuming of course that they had at least some kind of warning the war was coming. South Korean economy would be devastated for a decade or so but the Korean economic energy combined with North Korean resources would see the rise of a new regional power in thirty years or so. But that's much less likely than an eventual collapse of North Korea in which China would essentially move in.
If moral authority is beside the point, and the only reason that NK should stop their program is because we'll kill them if they don't, then who really are the mad men? Who is the one making threats? Sounds like NK is exercising self defense to me.
Your analogy is flawed. NK has an OPEN CARRY nuke, not a concealed one. Very different.
America is not the world police. They might try to be, but they are not.
A more accurate analogue would be:
You are sitting at home with your gun on the table. Some wealthy neighbor starts yelling at you from outside to destroy your gun and that you have no right to have one - meanwhile he has a host of guns pointed at your house. Seems to me that putting your gun down is safer, but also giving up your sovereignty.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
On March 08 2013 08:18 herMan wrote: I'm sure you agree with me if I say the less nuclear powers the world has the better.
Like moths to a flame Is man never gonna change Time's seen untold aggression And infliction of pain If that's the only thing that's stopping war
Then thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Nuke ya, nuke ya
War is just another game Tailor made for the insane But make a threat of their annihilation And nobody wants to play If that's the only thing that keeps the peace
Then thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Nuke ya, nuke ya
Today was tomorrow yesterday It's funny how the time can slip away The face of the doomsday clock Has launched a thousand wars As we near the final hour Time is the only foe we have
When war is obsolete I'll thank God for the war's defeat But any talk about hell freezing over Is all said with tongue in cheek Until the day the war drums beat no more
I thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Thank God for the bomb Nuke ya, nuke ya
Is there something terribly wrong with the US pulling out of korea entirely?
Wouldn't that force the DPRK to come to terms with reality, and have a meaningful, adult conversation with the South? They would no longer have a boogeyman to scream about, right?
On March 08 2013 08:34 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Is there something terribly wrong with the US pulling out of korea entirely?
Wouldn't that force the DPRK to come to terms with reality, and have a meaningful, adult conversation with the South? They would no longer have a boogeyman to scream about, right?
Is there something I'm missing?
The US want to keep it's valuable pacific positions against China and South Korea is the closest to China. Also South and North Korea will most likely have a war if the US leaves. The South will most likely win the War but not without losing most of Seoul.
On March 08 2013 08:33 Wpgstevo wrote: If moral authority is beside the point, and the only reason that NK should stop their program is because we'll kill them if they don't, then who really are the mad men? Who is the one making threats? Sounds like NK is exercising self defense to me.
Your analogy is flawed. NK has an OPEN CARRY nuke, not a concealed one. Very different.
America is not the world police. They might try to be, but they are not.
A more accurate analogue would be:
You are sitting at home with your gun on the table. Some wealthy neighbor starts yelling at you from outside to destroy your gun and that you have no right to have one - meanwhile he has a host of guns pointed at your house. Seems to me that putting your gun down is safer, but also giving up your sovereignty.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
Why do you keep leaving out the fact that NK is antagonistic to all the nations around it(minus China) and to the U.S. You keep framing you argument as though NK has no motive for building a Nuke other than to have one.
The only thing one has to ask himself when wondering why U.S. deserves to have Nukes but not the NK is: Which one is more interested in stability?
Even if the NK were to use Nuclear force against the U.S. the U.S. would not answer with Nuclear force. Why do you think that is?
On March 08 2013 08:33 Wpgstevo wrote: If moral authority is beside the point, and the only reason that NK should stop their program is because we'll kill them if they don't, then who really are the mad men? Who is the one making threats? Sounds like NK is exercising self defense to me.
Your analogy is flawed. NK has an OPEN CARRY nuke, not a concealed one. Very different.
America is not the world police. They might try to be, but they are not.
A more accurate analogue would be:
You are sitting at home with your gun on the table. Some wealthy neighbor starts yelling at you from outside to destroy your gun and that you have no right to have one - meanwhile he has a host of guns pointed at your house. Seems to me that putting your gun down is safer, but also giving up your sovereignty.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin.
You're analogy works too. Someone with power wants to stop someone without it from doing something.
Is it right? No, not necessarily. It still happens all the time. Its about competition, not morals. Power, not rights.
I'm talking about what is going to happen in the real world. Like you said, America try's to be the worlds police. You think they're going to give that up?
On March 08 2013 08:15 Wpgstevo wrote: And who judges which countries can have nukes? Let me guess, the ones who already have them. Sorry, but I can't support your "might is right" mantra.
NK has very stable leadership - they change dictators infrequently. If by stable you mean "does what we tell them" then i guess not, but AFAIK they are a sovereign country. They don't have to do shit unless they want to.
As we always hear from news reports, NK threatens to attack and obliterate South Korea on a regular basis, just because they perform various military exercises. Even worse, threatening nuclear war as a response to sanctions...this is insane leadership. What does North Korea hope to achieve by making these statements? They are completely dwarfed by NATO, and would get destroyed as a result of their reckless actions. Their messages show that they have very, very mentally unstable leadership.
Its a simple thing to judge, at the very least, what countries should not have nukes. North Korea, for the reasons above, clearly fit the bill
On March 08 2013 08:34 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Is there something terribly wrong with the US pulling out of korea entirely?
Wouldn't that force the DPRK to come to terms with reality, and have a meaningful, adult conversation with the South? They would no longer have a boogeyman to scream about, right?
Is there something I'm missing?
The US want to keep it's valuable pacific positions against China and South Korea is the closest to China. Also South and North Korea will most likely have a war if the US leaves. The South will most likely win the War but not without losing most of Seoul.
So our paranoia is the reason we continue to antagonize a regime ran by crazy people, that starves their own people and develops nukes, who could potentially be disarmed by their neighbors if we took the chance and let them do it?
On March 08 2013 08:15 Wpgstevo wrote: And who judges which countries can have nukes? Let me guess, the ones who already have them. Sorry, but I can't support your "might is right" mantra.
NK has very stable leadership - they change dictators infrequently. If by stable you mean "does what we tell them" then i guess not, but AFAIK they are a sovereign country. They don't have to do shit unless they want to.
As we always hear from news reports, NK threatens to attack and obliterate South Korea on a regular basis, just because they perform various military exercises. Even worse, threatening nuclear war as a response to sanctions...this is insane leadership. What does North Korea hope to achieve by making these statements? They are completely dwarfed by NATO, and would get destroyed as a result of their reckless actions. Their messages show that they have very, very mentally unstable leadership.
Its a simple thing to judge, at the very least, what countries should not have nukes. North Korea, for the reasons above, clearly fit the bill
To expand on this,
not only the things they say or the threats they make but NK doesn't even operate logically. they pour all their resources into military/nuclear research while the rest of the country continues to starve and live in extreme poverty. That is not very stable or sane leadership in my opinion.
On March 08 2013 08:41 DonKey_ wrote: NK is antagonistic to all the nations around it(minus China) and to the U.S.
NK has shown a pretty antagonistic tone to China as well. All the tests and the "fiery" response to the sanctions are pretty much a direct message to Beijing that they don't accept the fact that they're vassals to China. Way to bite at the hand that feeds you...
not only the things they say or the threats they make but NK doesn't even operate logically. they pour all their resources into military/nuclear research while the rest of the country continues to starve and live in extreme poverty. That is not very stable or sane leadership in my opinion.
That sounds uncomfortably familiar! Where are those stats on US military spending compared to the rest of the world and growing economic inequality?
On March 08 2013 08:34 Ooshmagoosh wrote: Is there something terribly wrong with the US pulling out of korea entirely?
Wouldn't that force the DPRK to come to terms with reality, and have a meaningful, adult conversation with the South? They would no longer have a boogeyman to scream about, right?
Is there something I'm missing?
The US want to keep it's valuable pacific positions against China and South Korea is the closest to China. Also South and North Korea will most likely have a war if the US leaves. The South will most likely win the War but not without losing most of Seoul.
So our paranoia is the reason we continue to antagonize a regime ran by crazy people, that starves their own people and develops nukes, who could potentially be disarmed by their neighbors if we took the chance and let them do it?
It is not that simple as that. If we leave South Korea forever not only could Korea try to attack South Korea but also Japan and btw we have a treaty with Japan that we must defend it due to the fact that Japan barley has a army. Even If North Korea attacks South Korea sure they may be unified under South Korean rule but South Korea will most likely turn into a third world nation. Basically we loose way to much leaving the peninsula.
On March 08 2013 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote: This is completely false. Even fairly conservative estimates put the losses of life in the hundreds of thousands at minimum. There is no question that the North Korean army could completely overrun the South Korean and U.S. army on foot with their initial waves. Would we push back? Of course, but not until at least a few days later, minimum. In the meantime North Korea would blow South Korea to shit.
This reminds me so much of the 'predictions' that were made here in Germany when there was still an east and west side aiming armies at each other.
As I remember West Berlin would be overrun in 2 hours max. and then hundreds of thousands Russians would occupy half of the West before NATO could muster any kind of counter attack. And then the wall came down and the East army turned out to be ridiculously underarmed, dated and unmotivated.
Their military parades are just for show. The missiles they display on the launching platforms are either mock-ups or old Russian / Pakistani rockets from the 70s. Let me tell you, if they claim to have 700 long range howitzers than they have in fact 300, from which only 200 are combat-ready but enough munition is only provided for 100...
Also, expert say it takes at least 40 successful missile test before you have a reliable ICBM. Plus ten to twenty nuclear tests for the warhead. And then the integration into the missile is still complicated as shit, remember it's rocket science, and takes years (if you have the funds that is). Every credible expert says even if North Korea would invest billions now it would still take them eight to ten years to fire one off.
NK is certainly being antagonistic to the states around itself - and why not? They have been trying to effectively starve them out of their sovereignty for decades.
The Nuclear non-proliferation agreement is little more than the nations who have power agreeing to stop anyone else from being able to compete.
And dsousa is right, this is about competition. More specifically, a monopoly on force. Even the US recognizes that monopolies are dangerous as they are not accountable, and thus prime for corruption and abuse.
That is what we are seeing right now. The unaccountable international self-appointed police trying to control an ever harder to control group of "subjugates".
All I'm saying is that unless the US wants to rename itself Ozymandias, they might rethink their ever expanding empire.
I think NK would be crazy to attack anyone in any way, shape or form. But acquiring the only credible means of self defense seems like the most rational thing in the world. NK has been using this type of rhetoric for a long time - small dogs have to bark loudly lest they get trampled.
People need to stop assuming that NK is ruled by a bunch of crazies simply because they don't play by NATO's and UN's rules. They say stupid shit all the time, sure, and it's a despotic police state without a doubt - but the people in charge are not insane at all. They're actually pretty good at what they do (that being running a brutal police state, obviously). Also for reasons already stated in this thread, it makes perfect sense for them to be building nukes even if they aren't planning to actually attack anyone.
not only the things they say or the threats they make but NK doesn't even operate logically. they pour all their resources into military/nuclear research while the rest of the country continues to starve and live in extreme poverty. That is not very stable or sane leadership in my opinion.
That sounds uncomfortably familiar! Where are those stats on US military spending compared to the rest of the world and growing economic inequality?
The figures on US military spending are ridiculous as well compared to other things- but we have at least an economy which isn't in complete shambles and the country isn't starving.
EPT
