|
On April 04 2013 10:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:
Do people still care about/take NK seriously? The threats are for domestic political purposes lol, this has been well-known for years and years. This: Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 08:47 hypercube wrote:
It's really curious, normally the US wouldn't be able to attack NK, because of China. But North Korean threats are reaching the level where the US could strike and claim self-defense. I mean, the North Korean leadership is actually taking significant risk by doing this. They are eroding China's capacity to intervene on their behalf. The only thing keeping SK and the US from bombing the crap out of NK is the backing they would receive from China and Russia. As of now, they're being so belligerent and provocative that China and Russia couldn't justify providing defense or military equipment. The only thing they would do is provide humanitarian aid.
That, and the fact that Seoul would be leveled by conventional artillery.
|
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come
|
I think people forget Japan will have a huge involvement in this mess as well.
|
What would happen if Japan were to get involved? How much of a burden would be put on them since Japan and China aren't exactly chummy.
|
Don't come into the thread and ask...
"Do people still care about North Korea?"
That's been said many of times before and it does not provide anything to the discussion. If you want to make a post, at least make it worthwhile. Add some reasoning behind why you think that is the case. zzzz
And I'm pretty sure there are tons of reasons why they wouldn't bomb the crap out of North Korea. China's affiliation with NK may have heavy influence on it, but currently, China is promoting peace more than anything else. Just because we can bomb people who make insane threats at us doesn't mean we should. War isn't always necessary to resolve things. As for SK, starting a huge conflict (bombing them..?) with NK goes pretty far against what SK wants. So, I think that's a bit out of question.
|
On April 04 2013 10:46 docvoc wrote:
What would happen if Japan were to get involved? How much of a burden would be put on them since Japan and China aren't exactly chummy.
I don't know how much input would happen if the war started; but they do have quite a bit a voice talks in regards to how to handle NK.
|
On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come Well you read some garbage because that will 100% never happen. A preemptive nuclear strike? lol. The consequences of something reckless like that would be terrible, far-reaching, and would turn a new page in reality from responsibility and reason to utter chaos. Downsides massively outweigh any upside. Kim is bluffing and it's becoming more and more clear.
|
On April 04 2013 08:48 iMAniaC wrote:
If they can keep the threats going for another month, the joint drill with US and SK will be over and the Kim regime can victoriously claim that the enemies backed down in fear of the overwhelming power of NK's nukes. Toward the end of the month, they could even give a deadline (say the day after the drill ends) for the enemy to back down and that way, they wouldn't have to come up with new ways to get ever readier for war until the drills are over and instead, they could just remind the world that one less day remains before their alloted time is up, making it seem like a new threat every day. And then, when the enemy finally backs down it's been proven that the might of NK is so great that they don't even need Yongbyon Nuclear Refinement Center to be operative anymore, then the gloriously victorious and compassionate Kim could graciosuly allow the beaten enemy to offer him and all of the glorious nation of NK lots and lots of food.
Hey, it could work, unless someone does something incredibly stupid.
That is a method that I never even considered, very interesting.
Would seem like a good way to get tensions down.
|
On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come
I dont think nukes are the answer to nukes.... if war starts in the peninsula the most logical step is precision bombing NK nuclear "hotspots" just like it happened in the 2nd gulf war over Baghdad... a night air raid with b2 bombers... followed by a SK ground attack while the US ensures air dominance. But the thing gets tricky a that point... since china is just at the doorstep and that its why war hasn't started (my thoughts)....
|
On April 04 2013 11:01 Maleta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come I dont think nukes are the answer to nukes.... if war starts in the peninsula the most logical step is precision bombing NK nuclear "hotspots" just like it happened in the 2nd gulf war over Baghdad... a night air raid with b2 bombers... followed by a SK ground attack while the US ensures air dominance. But the thing gets tricky a that point... since china is just at the doorstep and that its why war hasn't started (my thoughts)....
To be honest thats what I was thinking. They're scared to go into NK Because of china.
Which America wasnt as dependent and vice versa on China in 1950/51 as it is now, so its hard to say if they'll even invade this time if they go over the DMZ
|
On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come
Let's put it this way; even proxy wars of Korean War and Vietnam war; we didn't result in using nukes, even though they were a readily available action. I seriously doubt we'll use it this time, even if proxy war breaks out.
|
On April 04 2013 10:42 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 10:30 aksfjh wrote:On April 04 2013 09:49 Doodsmack wrote:
Do people still care about/take NK seriously? The threats are for domestic political purposes lol, this has been well-known for years and years. This: On April 04 2013 08:47 hypercube wrote:
It's really curious, normally the US wouldn't be able to attack NK, because of China. But North Korean threats are reaching the level where the US could strike and claim self-defense. I mean, the North Korean leadership is actually taking significant risk by doing this. They are eroding China's capacity to intervene on their behalf. The only thing keeping SK and the US from bombing the crap out of NK is the backing they would receive from China and Russia. As of now, they're being so belligerent and provocative that China and Russia couldn't justify providing defense or military equipment. The only thing they would do is provide humanitarian aid. That, and the fact that Seoul would be leveled by conventional artillery.
That's hyperbole, although civilian casualties will be in the thousands.
On April 04 2013 11:21 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 11:01 Maleta wrote:On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come I dont think nukes are the answer to nukes.... if war starts in the peninsula the most logical step is precision bombing NK nuclear "hotspots" just like it happened in the 2nd gulf war over Baghdad... a night air raid with b2 bombers... followed by a SK ground attack while the US ensures air dominance. But the thing gets tricky a that point... since china is just at the doorstep and that its why war hasn't started (my thoughts).... To be honest thats what I was thinking. They're scared to go into NK Because of china. Which America wasnt as dependent and vice versa on China in 1950/51 as it is now, so its hard to say if they'll even invade this time if they go over the DMZ
Of course they will. Contrary to popular belief it's actually China that needs America more than the opposite.
|
The reason we should intervene is not because of the weak ass threats of lil kim. We should intervene because North Korea is one big concentration camp for all its citizens. Was all that bullshit about remembering WWII crimes for nothing?
|
On April 04 2013 11:36 saltymango wrote:
The reason we should intervene is not because of the weak ass threats of lil kim. We should intervene because North Korea is one big concentration camp for all its citizens. Was all that bullshit about remembering WWII crimes for nothing?
Eh, North Koreans may not be in the best of shape, but providing NK with actual support (resources?) would probably be way more beneficial than "intervening" to rescue everyone there from "concentration camps". But, that won't happen either, so yeah...
|
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff?
|
On April 04 2013 11:52 zpikduM wrote:
Why would Russia or China want to get involved with NK right now? China makes a lot of its wealth from selling goods to the U.S. and its allies. Meanwhile, Russia has spent the last twenty years trying to bridge the gap between it and the US since the fall of the USSR.
What do either of these nations have to gain by supporting NK right now? To use a fair analogy, NK is low on chips at the poker table, and the only way its gonna get back into the game is to play high risk, to bluff, to be aggressive with the chips it has left. But what happens when someone calls their bluff?
They get a lucky river?
|
On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come
Some people will believe anything they read. What are "low level nukes"?
|
On April 04 2013 12:02 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 10:44 Scruff wrote:
I have read somewhere that US might strike NK first with low level nukes.
Well something has to be done soon because I doubt the stance of NK will change and they may very well have advanced missile system capable of reaching the whole world and way more nukes in the years to come Some people will believe anything they read. What are "low level nukes"?
Perhaps some of these:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
wtf, there was a nuke with a yield of 10kg of TNT? weighing 30kg? what is the point of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg/568px-US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg.png)
