|
INteresting point about the sanctions not doing anything, but what else can be done?
Military invasion - thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands dying, and the potential for NK to actually use one of them nukes they like to wave about.
Military strikes - targeting military installations and removing their capabilities. Except....we don't really know which ones are military and which ones are civilian. And the nuke tech all seems to be underground, so we don't achieve anything other than further eroding their already ancient military apparatus. Oh, and every strike will be accompanied with pictures of civilian 'atrocities' which we can't confirm but will turn international opinion against us.
Sanctions - we turn this into a medieval siege, and just like medieval times the peasants are the ones to suffer while the lords sit in castles and eat swan and plot the next stage in the grand game of thrones they have going on. At least we can semi-control what they now have access to, sending in only meds and food while stopping things that might be usable as weapons.
Stopping the sanctions - NK has 'won' a great coup against the evil enemy of the US, further confirming to their already pretty brainwashed citizenry that theirs was the correct course all along. Now you have a well-fed and prepared enemy state squatting to the north of SK.
It's not a simple situation, and sadly the sanctions are probably the best way to go. It's the poor that suffer the most, but as long as they do they realise that those in charge aren't really....well, in charge, you can still have some fleeing to the south or into China, there's still a chance for a coup or an uprising. Sadly, that would seem to be the best case scenario for the region.
|
NK is an ongoing experiment on human beings. it has value.
|
Not to mention that the biggest stumbling block is China. They do not want a powerful, united Korea on their border because they think it will be a closer ally to the US than it will be to China. China also fears a stream of refugees on its border if the current NK government would collapse. The only reason they might change their mind is because NK is getting really embarrassing for them.
NK is poor because their government spends all their money on their military first policy. The provocations are mostly a means of getting China, US, Korea and Japan to feed their people.
|
On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable.
EDIT: About North Korea > NK is threatening retaliation for any attacks on it's sovereignty, which is fair, they have a right to protect themselves (don't get me wrong, I don't like the NK government but some of the reporting about this has been atrocious). I just hope that one day the two Korea's will be united (under the South of course). But it will take many many years of hard work to do it, the North has been under intense propaganda for the last 60 years, it will take generations to undo that.
Really? I was unaware that protecting one's sovereignty involved threatening nuclear strikes on a nation that would probably never invade them without being given significant reason (US). Or putting one's military forces on high alert and making preparations to attack at a moment's notice against a neighboring country which has shown no indication of invading (South Korea). Sounds more like trying to threaten others countries into doing what it wants.
|
Hah, Kwark and/or Micro on a massacre here.
Anyway... Why are people discussing silly nuke scenarios? ~_~
Assuming it became necessary for the US to finally engage in ANY military action against NK, I highly doubt they (The US) would use nuclear weapons. And before any war actually does occur, heavy negotiations would be made (with someone). There's no way NK would go directly to war with the US without contacting China. Both China and SK influence the actions of everyone involved, so North Korea's actions will likely depend on the decisions of US, SK, and China.
Despite NK being so enthusiastic about going to war with someone, I don't think any real action will ever occur. Obviously we should be prepared for anything since there are threats, but I think it's more likely to be a false "bomb threat". It may best for US to abandon anything military in SK, simply because of the tension it seems to cause. Then again, I don't think any of us here actually know how much involvement US currently has. According to American media sources (however reliable that may actually be...) NK believes the US is preparing for war against them.
The sanctions against NK seemed okay, but only ever increase tension. Obviously North Korea is heavily at fault for their current poverty situation and I do not think the sanctions affect anything but military-specific stuffs (I do not actually know how far the sanctions actually go). Hell, they were probably just symbolic and don't change anything, in which they were a terrible idea solely because it was only bound to provoke NK. It seems everything does, though.
|
On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable.
EDIT: About North Korea > NK is threatening retaliation for any attacks on it's sovereignty, which is fair, they have a right to protect themselves (don't get me wrong, I don't like the NK government but some of the reporting about this has been atrocious). I just hope that one day the two Korea's will be united (under the South of course). But it will take many many years of hard work to do it, the North has been under intense propaganda for the last 60 years, it will take generations to undo that.
Heinous crime........really....okay. So please, tell me what the US should've done instead of dropping the bombs on Japan. Please, since im sure you know better than our military leaders at the time. What was a better course of action? Why exactly do you think it was we dropped those bombs?
|
let's please not bring up another hiroshima argument
|
United States24583 Posts
On March 27 2013 03:58 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
let's please not bring up another hiroshima argument
Yes I agree. Please take such a discussion to PM or somewhere else.
|
On March 27 2013 03:18 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable.
EDIT: About North Korea > NK is threatening retaliation for any attacks on it's sovereignty, which is fair, they have a right to protect themselves (don't get me wrong, I don't like the NK government but some of the reporting about this has been atrocious). I just hope that one day the two Korea's will be united (under the South of course). But it will take many many years of hard work to do it, the North has been under intense propaganda for the last 60 years, it will take generations to undo that. Really? I was unaware that protecting one's sovereignty involved threatening nuclear strikes on a nation that would probably never invade them without being given significant reason (US). Or putting one's military forces on high alert and making preparations to attack at a moment's notice against a neighboring country which has shown no indication of invading (South Korea). Sounds more like trying to threaten others countries into doing what it wants.
Hummm, considering the ammount of places the US has invaded and/or taken military action during the last 50+ years, who can say what "being given significant reason" means for the US? After the middle-east conflicts, it seems having some natural resource could be enough reason for the US to invade. Any country should be wary of the US, (although nuclear warfare menaces may probably the worst way to do so).
|
On March 27 2013 04:05 Rash wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 03:18 ConGee wrote:On March 27 2013 02:14 Zeo wrote:
Using nuclear weapons under any circumstance in unacceptable, 'he started it' is a stupid elementary school excuse. What if Japan just went and nuked San Francisco? Or fire-bombed Seattle? Because according to some people in this thread they have a right to. No, they do not have the right, nobody has the right. What the US did to Japan (killing 250,000 civilians in 3 separate attacks) was one of the most heinous crimes in human history, it also showed us that nuclear weapons should just stay that, history. To be never used again
Mass killing of citizens of any country in unacceptable.
EDIT: About North Korea > NK is threatening retaliation for any attacks on it's sovereignty, which is fair, they have a right to protect themselves (don't get me wrong, I don't like the NK government but some of the reporting about this has been atrocious). I just hope that one day the two Korea's will be united (under the South of course). But it will take many many years of hard work to do it, the North has been under intense propaganda for the last 60 years, it will take generations to undo that. Really? I was unaware that protecting one's sovereignty involved threatening nuclear strikes on a nation that would probably never invade them without being given significant reason (US). Or putting one's military forces on high alert and making preparations to attack at a moment's notice against a neighboring country which has shown no indication of invading (South Korea). Sounds more like trying to threaten others countries into doing what it wants. Hummm, considering the ammount of places the US has invaded and/or taken military action during the last 50+ years, who can say what "being given significant reason" means for the US? After the middle-east conflicts, it seems having some natural resource could be enough reason for the US to invade. Any country should be wary of the US, (although nuclear warfare menaces may probably the worst way to do so).
Yes, because terrorist factions which had managed to launch a successful large scale attack on your soil and which continued to threaten and promise the death of your nation is not a significant reason to take military action.
The US wouldn't give a damn or pay any sort of attention to North Korea if it didn't throw random threats or mobilize its armies to attack its allies. All North Korea is doing is giving the US reasons to act against it.
|
I can't belive some people are trying to argue for nuking of any sort.
|
On March 27 2013 06:26 TOCHMY wrote:
I can't belive some people are trying to argue for nuking of any sort.
people are retarded what do you expect. Not everyone has the capacity to use a little critical thinking.
off topic:
This thread is just starting to become a "beat a dead horse" with everyone reiterating with hypothetical scenarios, lets bomb NK, lets not bomb NK, why we can't bomb NK etc...
This thread has been lacking. How about we discuss something else like prison camps and the prisoners there or solutions to free them etc...
|
On March 27 2013 02:53 xM(Z wrote:
NK is an ongoing experiment on human beings. it has value.
The experiment should be stopped if possible. But you're right, the eventual data is interesting and, hopefully, useful.
|
On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
All of you saying how nuking isn't intelligent are kinda missing the point: I didn't see anyone else saying (in recent pages) that nuking NK is the best option. I was just saying it could be justified in the eyes of the international community. I don't think a nuke would or should be used unless the situations specifically warranted it, which I doubt it does.
There is no way the international community is going to consider the use of nuclear weapons justified, no matter who launches one first. The US wouldn't need a nuke to effectively dismantle North Korea, therefor a nuking North Korea is always going to be a needlessly strong measure.
The only way the international community would even consider it justified is if it were a last resort, and no one in their right mind will think that applies to a US<>NK conflict.
Meanwhile, shame on the mods moderating a discussion they're actively involved in.
User was warned for complaining about moderation outside of website feedback.
|
United States24583 Posts
On March 27 2013 06:26 TOCHMY wrote:
I can't belive some people are trying to argue for nuking of any sort.
That is not what I or others I have read have argued for.
On March 27 2013 06:35 heroyi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 06:26 TOCHMY wrote:
I can't belive some people are trying to argue for nuking of any sort. people are retarded what do you expect. Not everyone has the capacity to use a little critical thinking. Ironic coming from someone who missed the point.
On March 27 2013 06:49 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2013 23:31 micronesia wrote:
All of you saying how nuking isn't intelligent are kinda missing the point: I didn't see anyone else saying (in recent pages) that nuking NK is the best option. I was just saying it could be justified in the eyes of the international community. I don't think a nuke would or should be used unless the situations specifically warranted it, which I doubt it does. There is no way the international community is going to consider the use of nuclear weapons justified, no matter who launches one first. If in some crazy situation NK launched a nuke at say, the USA, what exactly do you propose? All I hear is what countries should not do and not what they should do in such an instance. This whole topic of course would be a non-issue if there wasn't a country threatening to use nuclear weapons preemptively.
The US wouldn't need a nuke to effectively dismantle North Korea, therefor a nuking North Korea is always going to be a needlessly strong measure. It depends when you consider the amount of weaponry aimed at SK, the geography with surrounding oceans/countries, what the exact goals of a strike was, and other factors. Absolute statements from people that don't understand the military capabilities of each involved party very well are not helpful.
The only way the international community would even consider it justified is if it were a last resort, and no one in their right mind will think that applies to a US<>NK conflict. I know this is beating a dead horse has someone mentioned before, but countries should not threaten to pre-emptively use nukes against other nations. I also will beat the dead horse again by mentioning that all of the people in this thread from this international community (Europe, etc) are not lifting a finger to help prevent such a situation... they are just saying it probably won't happen.
|
@micronesia
I do not get what you are trying to say here? Honestly.
So, NK threatening to use a nuke (they don't have) in words, is not acceptable in your view.
The US having nukes and therefore threatening in actuality, is acceptable.
People in this thread saying the US should not think about nuking NK pre-emptively are clueless in your eyes.
But then again you state that countries should not threaten to pre-emptively use nukes against other nations.
It is all so contradictorily to me...
PS:
On March 27 2013 07:08 micronesia wrote:
If in some crazy situation NK launched a nuke at say, the USA, what exactly do you propose?
Here is a thought. How about to not retaliate?
You know, turn the other cheek, like this Jesus fella in the book the US likes so much.
Just a thought...
|
its been three years since the sinking of cheonan and nothing has been done. i feel very sad and unfortunate about this :/
|
On March 27 2013 07:51 lord_nibbler wrote:@micronesia I do not get what you are trying to say here? Honestly. So, NK threatening to use a nuke (they don't have) in words, is not acceptable in your view. The US having nukes and therefore threatening in actuality, is acceptable. People in this thread saying the US should not think about nuking NK pre-emptively are clueless in your eyes. But then again you state that countries should not threaten to pre-emptively use nukes against other nations. It is all so contradictorily to me... PS: Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 07:08 micronesia wrote:
If in some crazy situation NK launched a nuke at say, the USA, what exactly do you propose? Here is a thought. How about to not retaliate? You know, turn the other cheek, like this Jesus fella in the book the US likes so much. Just a thought...
Not sure what your trying to get at, but history also tells us that if you let people poke you and poke others and get away with it. They tend to poke more. So a show of force needs to happen. Should nukes be used if NK used them first? Donno. Either way it will cause a war.
Edit:
On March 27 2013 07:58 jinorazi wrote:
its been three years since the sinking of cheonan and nothing has been done. i feel very sad and unfortunate about this :/
Maybe this is something your looking for lord_nibbler, turning of the check.
|
On March 27 2013 07:51 lord_nibbler wrote:@micronesia I do not get what you are trying to say here? Honestly. So, NK threatening to use a nuke (they don't have) in words, is not acceptable in your view. The US having nukes and therefore threatening in actuality, is acceptable. People in this thread saying the US should not think about nuking NK pre-emptively are clueless in your eyes. But then again you state that countries should not threaten to pre-emptively use nukes against other nations. It is all so contradictorily to me... PS: Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 07:08 micronesia wrote:
If in some crazy situation NK launched a nuke at say, the USA, what exactly do you propose? Here is a thought. How about to not retaliate? You know, turn the other cheek, like this Jesus fella in the book the US likes so much. Just a thought...
I don't think there is currently any country in the world that would not retaliate after having a nuke launched at them, That is absurd and there is no way any country's citizens, much less the American public, would be okay with their government deciding to sit there and let them be target practice for another countries nukes.
|
United States24583 Posts
On March 27 2013 07:51 lord_nibbler wrote:
@micronesia
I do not get what you are trying to say here? Honestly.
So, NK threatening to use a nuke (they don't have) in words, is not acceptable in your view. We don't know what they do or do not have. Maybe our intelligence agencies know for sure, but we certainly don't. Odds are good you are right of course.
The US having nukes and therefore threatening in actuality, is acceptable. No, they should not 'threaten.' I've been saying the whole time nobody should 'threaten' to use nuclear weapons.
People in this thread saying the US should not think about nuking NK pre-emptively are clueless in your eyes. If people are saying it's a bad idea, they are not clueless. If they start making absolute statements then they might be clueless.
But then again you state that countries should not threaten to pre-emptively use nukes against other nations.
It is all so contradictorily to me... Nobody should threaten to preemptively nuke someone else. That is the logical basis of the things I have been saying. Once a country has been threatened that they will be nuked preemptively there is no way to reign them in other than their own self-control like what the USA is rightly exercising (although again we don't know exactly what the intelligence agencies have access to).
PS: Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 07:08 micronesia wrote:
If in some crazy situation NK launched a nuke at say, the USA, what exactly do you propose? Here is a thought. How about to not retaliate? You know, turn the other cheek, like this Jesus fella in the book the US likes so much. Just a thought...
So your saying if your country was just nuked by another country for a stupid reason, you would turn the other cheek? That is your solution? And you plan to maintain some semblance of credibility in this discussion?
I'm not saying a pacifist approach to problems should be condemned, just that it is not a realistic expectation. You just killed millions of Americans but an eye for an eye makes everyone blind, so I'm just gonna file a formal complaint with your office of foreign affairs. Please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
