|
On March 27 2013 23:50 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 23:15 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart. well, UN has very strict sanctions against NK, so one can argue if this impose danger on their national security and sovereignty. No, one can't. A sanction is a collective agreement not to engage in voluntary trade with someone. It is in no way comparable to the physical imposition of force. To use a basic metaphor. Imagine there was a kid on the playground who was a violent asshole to everyone and all the other kids got together and agreed not to play with him anymore because he's a dick who hurts them. And then the asshole kid murders one of the other kids because he wouldn't play with him on the playground. In the above example NK's shelling/attacking of random SK stuff is being a violent asshole, sanctions are not playing with them and murdering another kid is the launch of a nuke against a civilian population. You do not have a right to demand other people engage in voluntary activities with you. The argument that NK's sovereignty is being imposed upon by sanctions fails, they should be asking themselves why nobody likes them, not threatening the people who refuse to talk to them. Your analogy would be correct if you add a little background, where some time before the kids have stopped playing with other assholes and some time after that they have bombed the house of the other assholes without the other assholes actually doing anything. Other assholes in this case are countries like Iraq, Serbia, Libya. From this point of view the sanctions are reasonable threat to the national security of NK.
Serbia isn't an asshole man 
e
dit: was going to write a long post but thought 'meh, no point'.
If 90% of the countries in the world put sanctions on the UK for sending troops into Northern Ireland it wouldn't be so black and white, its all fine and dandy until you are the country under sanctions for no other reason than wanting to protect yourself and then what happens? You get even more spiteful which in turn gets you more sanctions and the circle keeps going. The strong chose what is wrong and what is right and the difference between a war criminal and a war hero is very thin.
It took 60 years for North Korea to get to here, 60 years that could have been spent on helping each other instead of everyone being dicks. What I'm trying to say its much easier to continue being a dick if you are bigger than the other guy.
@mdb: yeah man I know you didn't mean anything wrong by your post 
|
On March 28 2013 00:05 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 23:50 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 23:15 mdb wrote:On March 27 2013 23:07 KwarK wrote:On March 27 2013 22:58 Zeo wrote:
So if Georgia claimed they had nuclear missiles back in 2008 and they started talking about defending themselves, it would have been ok for Russia to nuke Tbilisi?
Or if China nuked Tibet for the same reason, everything would be rainbows and sunshine and China would be called a hero country and that day would be called hero-China day from that day forth?
Nobody can use nukes, don't care who you are or why or whatever. Using a nuclear weapon against another country is the most serious crime a country can commit, using one gets the whole world on your ass and you get put down like the rabid dog that you are. No exceptions NK are threatening to launch an offensive strike without their national sovereignty being imposed upon. Your examples are in no way comparable to that. Furthermore your "nobody can use nukes" plan lacks any response to the current situation in which a rogue state says they will and you have no peaceful ways to prevent it. You don't actually have the red button, someone else does, you can say "no exceptions" but what you say doesn't actually stop them using one which then leads to the inevitable "is it justifiable to use one nuke to prevent two". This is the problem with moral absolutism, it only makes sense from your ivory tower, once you're in the real world it falls apart. well, UN has very strict sanctions against NK, so one can argue if this impose danger on their national security and sovereignty. No, one can't. A sanction is a collective agreement not to engage in voluntary trade with someone. It is in no way comparable to the physical imposition of force. To use a basic metaphor. Imagine there was a kid on the playground who was a violent asshole to everyone and all the other kids got together and agreed not to play with him anymore because he's a dick who hurts them. And then the asshole kid murders one of the other kids because he wouldn't play with him on the playground. In the above example NK's shelling/attacking of random SK stuff is being a violent asshole, sanctions are not playing with them and murdering another kid is the launch of a nuke against a civilian population. You do not have a right to demand other people engage in voluntary activities with you. The argument that NK's sovereignty is being imposed upon by sanctions fails, they should be asking themselves why nobody likes them, not threatening the people who refuse to talk to them. Your analogy would be correct if you add a little background, where some time before the kids have stopped playing with other assholes and some time after that they have bombed the house of the other assholes without the other assholes actually doing anything. Other assholes in this case are countries like Iraq, Serbia, Libya. From this point of view the sanctions are reasonable threat to the national security of NK. Serbia isn't an asshole man
I know buddy. I was just using the word to make the analogy. Sorry if you got offended. I love Serbia in fact. Kinda off topic, but NATO bombs falling in Sofia, instead of Belgrade is one of my most vivid memories from my youth and thats why I so much oppose any kind of military action against any country.
|
Maphack is not as frequent as you may think on lower levels.
|
On March 28 2013 00:10 ne0lith wrote:
Maphack is not as frequent as you may think on lower levels.
This just in, North Korea a confirmed maphacker.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On March 28 2013 00:31 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 00:10 ne0lith wrote:
Maphack is not as frequent as you may think on lower levels. This just in, North Korea a confirmed maphacker.
epic.
|
On March 27 2013 18:35 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2013 08:38 Yomi-no-Kuni wrote:
Eventhough it has turned into useless nuclear warfare discussion, i wanted to say that i got tons of usefull information out of this thread earlier on, and thanks to everyone who contributed so far for that.
Nuclear bombs are no solution, lets just not discuss them as none of us have influence on them. Not even as retaliation. Why should they not be a valid option in this scenario ? In my opinion a nuclear first strike by the US is a valid option because NK is threatening to use their nuclear arsenal so they already brought it to the table.
The US doesn't need to nuke North Korea to stop North Korea from nuking the US (which I'm fairly certain they can't yet anyway).. It's not a valid option because there are options on the table with far less fatalities. They don't need to use a nuke and as long as they don't need to, no one should argue otherwise.
|
United States44181 Posts
On March 28 2013 00:00 hypercube wrote:
Kwark, are you arguing that the US should nuke North Korea or only that they would be justified if they chose to do so?
I'm arguing that if the assessment of the US intelligence service is that there is a reasonable threat of a North Korean nuclear strike and that it could be prevented by a proportional pre-emptive attack then that attack would be justified. There are potential situations in which no good outcomes remain and all people can do is pick the least bad of them. I included the word proportional to make sure it was clear that a disproportionate response, such as wiping out civilian populations because NK attacked a ship, would not be justifiable. The proportional clause covers potential nuclear responses from the US as well as conventional ones.
|
On March 28 2013 01:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 00:00 hypercube wrote:
Kwark, are you arguing that the US should nuke North Korea or only that they would be justified if they chose to do so? I'm arguing that if the assessment of the US intelligence service is that there is a reasonable threat of a North Korean nuclear strike and that it could be prevented by a proportional pre-emptive attack then that attack would be justified. There are potential situations in which no good outcomes remain and all people can do is pick the least bad of them. I included the word proportional to make sure it was clear that a disproportionate response, such as wiping out civilian populations because NK attacked a ship, would not be justifiable. The proportional clause covers potential nuclear responses from the US as well as conventional ones.
Which is still nuts because the US does not need a pre-emptive nuclear strike to take away any threat of a North Korean nuclear strike.
Whether a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be effective in stopping a nuclear strike is extremely dubious to begin with, but that's all completely besides the point. They have other options readily available which would involve a lot less loss of life and while such options exist, a nuclear strike, pre-emptive or otherwise is not justified.
US intelligence was convinced there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well, I think we all know how that turned out. Should they have used weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No, even if WMDs did exist in Iraq, they never needed weapons of mass destruction of their own to take away the threat.
|
United States44181 Posts
On March 28 2013 02:11 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 01:58 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2013 00:00 hypercube wrote:
Kwark, are you arguing that the US should nuke North Korea or only that they would be justified if they chose to do so? I'm arguing that if the assessment of the US intelligence service is that there is a reasonable threat of a North Korean nuclear strike and that it could be prevented by a proportional pre-emptive attack then that attack would be justified. There are potential situations in which no good outcomes remain and all people can do is pick the least bad of them. I included the word proportional to make sure it was clear that a disproportionate response, such as wiping out civilian populations because NK attacked a ship, would not be justifiable. The proportional clause covers potential nuclear responses from the US as well as conventional ones. Which is still nuts because the US does not need a pre-emptive nuclear strike to take away any threat of a North Korean nuclear strike. Whether a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be effective in stopping a nuclear strike is extremely dubious to begin with, but that's all completely besides the point. They have other options readily available which would involve a lot less loss of life and while such options exist, a nuclear strike, pre-emptive or otherwise is not justified.
Please read where I didn't say a pre-emptive nuclear strike, just a strike, and then the bit where I specifically said that any strike would have to be proportional to the threat and that that rule would cover potential nuclear strikes. What you're arguing against is absolutely not what I wrote.
|
United States24780 Posts
We have so many experts in this thread.... experts who have poured through all the satellite imagery that is being used to analyze the offensive and defensive capabilities of North Korea. These same experts are also very knowledgeable of every type of nuclear weapon at our disposal, and all the ways they can be used. They also are aware of all the secret talks that have occurred between the USA, China, SK, and Japan, and have considered all of it. Based on these considerable credentials, of course they can state with certainty what type of weaponry will or will not possibly be necessary/helpful in a military conflict.
|
On March 28 2013 02:16 micronesia wrote:
We have so many experts in this thread.... experts who have poured through all the satellite imagery that is being used to analyze the offensive and defensive capabilities of North Korea. These same experts are also very knowledgeable of every type of nuclear weapon at our disposal, and all the ways they can be used. They also are aware of all the secret talks that have occurred between the USA, China, SK, and Japan, and have considered all of it. Based on these considerable credentials, of course they can state with certainty what type of weaponry will or will not possibly be necessary/helpful in a military conflict.
I'm honored to be on a forum with so many experts!
|
On March 28 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2013 02:11 Martijn wrote:On March 28 2013 01:58 KwarK wrote:On March 28 2013 00:00 hypercube wrote:
Kwark, are you arguing that the US should nuke North Korea or only that they would be justified if they chose to do so? I'm arguing that if the assessment of the US intelligence service is that there is a reasonable threat of a North Korean nuclear strike and that it could be prevented by a proportional pre-emptive attack then that attack would be justified. There are potential situations in which no good outcomes remain and all people can do is pick the least bad of them. I included the word proportional to make sure it was clear that a disproportionate response, such as wiping out civilian populations because NK attacked a ship, would not be justifiable. The proportional clause covers potential nuclear responses from the US as well as conventional ones. Which is still nuts because the US does not need a pre-emptive nuclear strike to take away any threat of a North Korean nuclear strike. Whether a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be effective in stopping a nuclear strike is extremely dubious to begin with, but that's all completely besides the point. They have other options readily available which would involve a lot less loss of life and while such options exist, a nuclear strike, pre-emptive or otherwise is not justified. Please read where I didn't say a pre-emptive nuclear strike, just a strike, and then the bit where I specifically said that any strike would have to be proportional to the threat and that that rule would cover potential nuclear strikes. What you're arguing against is absolutely not what I wrote.
Ah, quite, I mistook pre-emptive attack for pre-emptive strike, because..
On March 27 2013 00:11 KwarK wrote:
I believe a pre-emptive strike can be both morally justified and necessary. However it is still a tragedy when things get that far and people should not think of it as anything other than that. Sometimes genocide is necessary but it is still genocide.
Which is a complete strawman to begin with, based on some hypothetical which I think is extremely far fetched.
There is no realistic scenario in which the US would need a pre-emptive strike to deal with the threat within North Korea, therefor for all intents and purposes in this discussion, it is not justifiable. Arguing that if the US would have no other option than to use a nuke, using one is justifiable is pointless because that scenario is unlikely to ever happen. It's just muddying the discussion you were to keep clean.
|
United States44181 Posts
The genocide word in that quote was in response to a poster above me saying that it'd be genocide. When you write pre-emptive strike in your posts do you mean nuclear or any attack rationalised by necessary self defence?
|
The US intelligence always has exactly the evidence needed by the US government. After the fact apparently no one even cares that they simply lied to you, and you are again ready to jump if the great US intelligence finds evidence somewhere new. I don't understand how anyone would trust a single word those guys say after the whole Iraq thing. If the US government wants to go to war with NK for some reason, you can be sure that there will be evidence of NK having nuclear bombs and delivery systems which at least threaten Japan, but probably also the US itself.
And of course i only have third hand information here, but by the way the viewpoints of our american posters shifted from "NK joke state, no threat to mighty USA ever" to "we need to strike them before they nuke our cities" in the last few months, i'd guess that you got some major media campaigns already going to prepare you for the next offensive war. I guess you always need an enemy to justify all that military and "defense" industry.
|
United States24780 Posts
On March 28 2013 02:34 Simberto wrote:
The US intelligence always has exactly the evidence needed by the US government. After the fact apparently no one even cares that they simply lied to you, and you are again ready to jump if the great US intelligence finds evidence somewhere new. I don't understand how anyone would trust a single word those guys say after the whole Iraq thing. If the US government wants to go to war with NK for some reason, you can be sure that there will be evidence of NK having nuclear bombs and delivery systems which at least threaten Japan, but probably also the US itself.
And of course i only have third hand information here, but by the way the viewpoints of our american posters shifted from "NK joke state, no threat to mighty USA ever" to "we need to strike them before they nuke our cities" in the last few months, i'd guess that you got some major media campaigns already going to prepare you for the next offensive war. I guess you always need an enemy to justify all that military and "defense" industry.
Or it could just be that Americans are really strange in that they take threats of nuclear attack from nations that are very unstable and performing actual nuclear tests seriously. Obviously if this happened to your nation it would be some big joke!
Although, I can't speak for people who were 'making fun of' NK up until recently.
|
Even if NK has provoked the United States, the situation is similar to that of the Cold War. The US does not want to fight if they do not have to, especially when nuclear weapons are involved. So, instead of actually going to war, we just sit here in a cautious position. Now, I'm sure the president and all of the officials who have much more knowledge on the matter understand how much of a threat NK is, and are acting based off of the information they have, which is why we are doing what we're doing.
While none of us are even close to qualified to make any decision whatsoever, some of the points in the thread are completely valid. Judging by the fact that we are NOT at war yet, I do not believe we (USA) are in that much of a threat. What if someone made a threat like "We have a nuclear bomb set up in NYC and will blow it up if you don't do X", would you evacuate as many people as possible? I think investigating the situation further and then reacting accordingly would be the best course of action. And I'm sure the US have investigated quite well, and are reacting accordingly.
Have some faith in Obama and his military officials. That's about all you can do, anyway.
@Simberto
Honestly, if a country threatens to go to war with you, having a military helps.
|
United States44181 Posts
On March 28 2013 02:34 Simberto wrote:
The US intelligence always has exactly the evidence needed by the US government. After the fact apparently no one even cares that they simply lied to you, and you are again ready to jump if the great US intelligence finds evidence somewhere new. I don't understand how anyone would trust a single word those guys say after the whole Iraq thing. If the US government wants to go to war with NK for some reason, you can be sure that there will be evidence of NK having nuclear bombs and delivery systems which at least threaten Japan, but probably also the US itself.
And of course i only have third hand information here, but by the way the viewpoints of our american posters shifted from "NK joke state, no threat to mighty USA ever" to "we need to strike them before they nuke our cities" in the last few months, i'd guess that you got some major media campaigns already going to prepare you for the next offensive war. I guess you always need an enemy to justify all that military and "defense" industry.
NK has significantly stepped up their rhetoric from defensive to aggressive, if you wish to argue it's part of the American military industrial complex then you'll have to explain why NK is playing the part of the aggressor so perfectly.
|
that's part of the politics within NK. kim jong un vs old generals, party leaders or whatever they have there. he needs to prove himself.
wiki gossip:
"On March 14, 2013, reports surfaced from South Korean intelligence sources that Kim Jong-un had been the target of an assassination attempt.[101] The attempt was made by "disgruntled people inside the North" in response to the demotion of Reconnaissance General Bureau director Kim Yong-chol in November of 2012. According to the unnamed intelligence source the attempt was made in downtown Pyongyang and resulted in a firefight. The demotion was due to an internal power struggle between government factions.[102]"
|
United States44181 Posts
On March 28 2013 02:57 xM(Z wrote:
that's part of the politics within NK. kim jong un vs old generals, party leaders or whatever they have there. he needs to prove himself.
wiki gossip:
"On March 14, 2013, reports surfaced from South Korean intelligence sources that Kim Jong-un had been the target of an assassination attempt.[101] The attempt was made by "disgruntled people inside the North" in response to the demotion of Reconnaissance General Bureau director Kim Yong-chol in November of 2012. According to the unnamed intelligence source the attempt was made in downtown Pyongyang and resulted in a firefight. The demotion was due to an internal power struggle between government factions.[102]"
That doesn't change anything. The argument being made was that the US media is preparing the public for another potential conflict on the orders of their masters who wanted another war. The change in NK rhetoric towards an attack upon the US is a more probable cause for why the media is talking about a conflict with NK.
|
On March 28 2013 02:37 Blargh wrote:
Have some faith in Obama and his military officials.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
