Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 19:52:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.

Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.

However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.

The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 21:19:26


Post by: whembly


 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.

Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.

However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.

The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.

In know this is sorta off-topic, but I find this interesting.

IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...

Right?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 21:22:50


Post by: feeder


 whembly wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.

Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.

However, so far the Japanese have not forgotten than nationalist government is what led them into WW2, and how that turned out for them.

The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.

In know this is sorta off-topic, but I find this interesting.

IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...

Right?


Never underestimate nationalistic fervor during time of crisis. Murica's never been an island nation, and haven't been isolate in over century, but the nationalistic fervor went through the roof after some idiiots flew some planes into a few buildings.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 23:00:02


Post by: jhe90


Japan may be not one to engage in a offensive conflict.
But if Kim starts chucking his toys over Japan and its people.

They will probbly increase calls for Japan to stand firm and protect its people.
The Duty of there leadership is to ensure Japans safety, it might not be popular on all fronts but ensuring your home defense and that of your citizens is not one you can ignore.

If i was in charge of AA defense in any of those countries id be making sure mt Patriot batteries, and other defensive missiles and radar where armed and at full readiness.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/10 23:29:10


Post by: MinscS2


 whembly wrote:


IN this connected age, I'm not convinced that Japan would revert to that nationalistic-fevor in WW2. They're not that isolated island nation anymore...

Right?


I recommend watching http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1063669/
It's an unlikely scenario, but not impossible.

Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 02:01:39


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ketara wrote:
If I were in Trump's shoes, I'd make a simple announcement. 'What you do to us, we will do back precisely four times harder'. And then follow through.

So if they launch five missiles at the US base on Guam? Throw twenty cruise missiles into North Korea. Keep the rhetoric low, but adhere to precisely measured retaliation. If Kim wants to throw his toys out of the cot, let him. But let it be very apparent what the consequences are.

And I mean, if a few of those cruise missiles just happened to land on Kim's favourite house, hot dog stand, and airfield, so much the better....


Well, One, they're talking NUCLEAR missiles.




You may enjoy an increase in Radioactivity in England from vaporized bits of North Korea raining down.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 03:27:56


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Ketara wrote:


You may enjoy an increase in Radioactivity in England from vaporized bits of North Korea raining down.


You do know where NK is right?

the fall out from any nuclear strikes on NK or japan will head straight to the US. Just like when japans reactor blew up, the fallout headed through Alaska then down the west coast. I put in japan because that's a far easier target with a lot more US military in range of NK's missiles. Guam is a laughable target, smaller, and a greater distance than say Okinawa or Yokosuka. Plus I doubt most americans know guam is our territory so the emotional effect would be negligible. Kim probably just said guam to throw off trump who's busy trying to find guam on the map to try and defend it.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 04:27:37


Post by: sebster


 Grey Templar wrote:
While I agree he personally has zero actual plans, in this instance that is probably not a problem. Given that we are actually still at war with North Korea, I'm sure the Pentagon has lots of plans on standby if and when the war gets resumed. Plans which have been constantly refined and updated since 1953.

Unlike Iraq which was probably largely a scratch built plan, there is almost certainly an existing playbook on North Korea. So for once all Trump would have to do is say "Go get em!".


Yes, as I said in my post there will be existing military plans, but I then went on to say that there is a lot more to it than the particulars of the military operation.

"There are a lot plans for open war against NK among the general staff of the US military. But those are military plans only and they still need prepping in order to ensure all necessary elements are in region at the same time. Beyond that it is up to the administration to secure a lot of political elements, securing Japanese and SK airfields for operations, calming China about the operation (which would likely need strong NATO efforts), securing domestic support for the subsequent peacekeeping operation, those things need months of planning and work to make sure they're done well.

None of that has even been discussed, let alone started to be planned for."

Having a plan approved by the Joint Chiefs is good, but it's a first step. A well planned operation needs a whole lot more lined up, and there's no indication that any of that is even realised by Trump, let alone enacted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:
If I had to approach this I would seek out bright minds like Henry Kissinger or other well known diplomats and see what they would have to say. But for the sake of this discussion here is my fill:

Even if we do liberate these people, what's going to stop the populace from forming bands of civilian militias?


The stories of true belief are wildly misunderstood. There's a cult of personality, yes, but its far from absolute nor is it unwavering. And note how much of the belief in dear leader is about him being strong, and keeping the people safe and secure. NK leadership being wiped in hours would show that as being mostly bs.

Another thing that worries me is a land invasion into South Korea and the possibility of them mobilizing into Seoul. I have a lot of Korean friends at my university that have family there and are preparing to go back for their mandatory military service.
As horrific as the situation is, I would rather have us deal with it now while we still have the chance. If we just sit and watch them turn into a true nuclear power what if the unthinkable actually does happen because of our negligence?


It isn't negligent to give peace a chance. The Soviet Union was a murderous totalitarian state. South Africa was a racist apartheid state, and now its been so long that people have completely forgotten they had nukes. Both countries came through with peaceful conclusions. Both have had plenty of struggles since ending their awful regimes, but they show there is history for abhorrent regimes with nukes ending without carnage.

On the other hand, there is no history for pre-emptively attacking a nuclear power just to stop them getting more nukes. Doing that without an absolute, immediate need would be the negligent course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Japanese already are very well armed, and they are happy to use their Self Defence Forces to defend themselves. What the majority of the people object to is the reintroduction of aggressive warfare.

Nationalists have been pushing this and other nationalistic ideas, such as the compulsory singing of the national anthem, for decades.


Just to clarify, the constitutional reform is opposed because they don't want aggressive warfare, but at the same time it is a mistake to assume Abe and his allies are pushing for reform in order to undertake aggressive warfare. They recognise that modern military operations, undertaken for domestic and international stability, often involve deploying forces to places when you haven't been personally attacked. Such operations are constitutionally problematic in Japan right now.

The main reasons why these nationalistic ideas gradually ain ground are that the Japanese are broadly speaking a conformist, conservative people who have to be pushed very hard to revolt against an unpopular government, and secondly, because the voting districts are organised to favour rural (and therefore more conservative) constituencies. This gives the traditional right-wing nationalist party a built-in advantage.


David Matsumoto's New Japan does a really good job of breaking apart the myth of Japan's as a deeply conformist society. He points to a range of studies that show people in the US being far more willing to follow the herd than in Japan in many areas.

I'm not saying Japan is less confomist, just that the issue is complicated, in part because of massive generational shifts in Japan, and because the very idea of conformity is extremely subjective. In Japan, very loosely speaking, it is more common to have an opinion but keep it yourself, while in the US it is more common to commit to saying what's on your mind, but look for cues as to what you should think.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 05:38:36


Post by: Gordon Shumway


So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?

Or we could just bombard them with their own media:


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 08:18:08


Post by: Herzlos


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


Easy. But how do you stop them opening fire and wiping Seoul off the face of the planet?

A show of strength isn't the problem, stopping the MAD attack is.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 08:26:43


Post by: sebster


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 10:13:24


Post by: Rosebuddy


 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.


Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 11:23:49


Post by: jhe90


Rosebuddy wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.


Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.


Yeah but kims capacity to strike US and other nations is growing. Every day goes by he advances his missile and Nuclear programs.
His threats are slowly starting to be able to be carried out.

People are taking him more seriously now in that regard.
Before he had to hope to hit US. Now he can reach Alaska.

The next model he launch's might reach further. And further.

Every day they slowly creep to being more able to deploy a laong range nuclear strike.

Hmm..
China has said. Interesting articles.

If NK launches at Gaum, Us or SK first they will remain neutral.
There not protecting Kim from stupidity.

Theey will defend if attacked , ie not retaliation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 11:33:58


Post by: Vraptor98


How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 11:36:17


Post by: Ketara


The more times change, the more they stay the same.



 BaronIveagh wrote:

Well, One, they're talking NUCLEAR missiles.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but when NK specified firing missiles around Guam, the word 'nuclear' wasn't mentioned in any way by the NK command? Every report I've seen has just has the word 'missiles', with no nuclear prefix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vraptor98 wrote:
How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.


...............I'm not touching that with a ten foot barge pole. I'd recommend no-one else does either.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 11:43:17


Post by: Rosebuddy


 jhe90 wrote:

Yeah but kims capacity to strike US and other nations is growing. Every day goes by he advances his missile and Nuclear programs.
His threats are slowly starting to be able to be carried out.


North Korea is developing nuclear weaponry as a rational response to threats and pressure from the US. "We must invade this country because it keeps arming itself to defend against our plans for invasion" is really fething dumb.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 11:57:25


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I have to admit that I find Trump's megaphone diplomacy to be fascinating in a sort of watching a car crash in slow motion, kinda way.

What annoys me the most is that Guam was a possible tourist/retirement destination of mine. If it's an irradiated wasteland, then my retirement plans are up in smoke! Damn those North Koreans !


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea of a long guerilla war in NK is probably unrealistic. Yes, the population lives in an echo chamber of propaganda, but it's all tied into a cult of personality, with weirdly specific chatacteristsics, that most of them also realize is bunk on some level. If the leader fails to maintain power, the cause is broken, nobody is going to pick that flag up, espcially with SK there that would be providing massive assistance and investment.

Criminal gangs of hungry and desperate soldiers, former military officers turning to organized crimes, etc (fall of the Warsaw Pact style) is what I would be worried about far more than some sort of organized Juche guerilla movement in the vein of Al Qaeda or ISIS or even the Viet Cong. The conditions are far different.


Yeah, good point. Totalitarian regimes tend to die very quickly when they collapse. I've witnessed a few go down the pan in my time: USSR, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia etc etc


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.


The North Koreans are about to discover a universal truth: nuclear weapons are the most useless thing mankind ever invented.

If North Korea strikes first, it gets wiped out. If they keep them for defence, then nobody was going to invade them anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 12:45:24


Post by: Frazzled


Rosebuddy wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?


North Korea knows they face overwhelming military power, and the rest of the world is unified against them. That's not the issue. The issue is how we handle NK being really pissed about that situation, in way that doesn't push them in to doing something really stupid.


Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 13:13:40


Post by: KTG17


 Frazzled wrote:
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.


Actually, it was Japan we bombed with atomic weapons, not NK.

But aside from that, NK has done a lot more and I agree with the rest of what you said.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 13:33:09


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


I belive Frazzled meant "the last time another country did that..."

Some people in here have a real hard-on for trolling Americans. Curious if that violates Rule #1.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 13:46:12


Post by: KTG17


Yeah I have seen some of Rosebuddy's posts, and was going to rip his logic into two, but I have zero faith the mods will see he's the one antagonizing and not give me the warning.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 13:51:54


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Frazzled wrote:
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.


None of those things happened outside of the context of the Korean war and US intervention in the region.


Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 13:53:28


Post by: godardc


 whembly wrote:



Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.



So according to you, good patriots who love the country they live in, nationalists, are the same as neo nazis ? Nazis who killed millions ?
I don't remember having killed anyone, maybe who can remind me how I'm a nazi extremist ?
Pacifists have always been the ones unintentionally promoting wars, as tyrants are eager to expand, invade and to kill if they know that noone is coming to stop them.

 Vraptor98 wrote:
How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.


I have to agree. Every country under american domination / influence is doing better than before.
Look at your allies: South Korea and Japan.
Your ennemies: North Korea and communist china.
Two beautiful modern countries for the former, and two backwards countries with dictatorship for the later.
Some may disagree, and I know everything isn't fair or nice in our world, but where the USA and the free world stand, it is better.

There are lots of Neville Chamberlain here.
Haven't you read how WW2 started ? Because european were afraid of war, and so let the Reich develop its armies.
It is all the same here.
We tried diplomatics solutions for decades, and now they are more powerful than ever. It was the good thing to do, to wait until they eventually change, until a new leader arise and decide that Nk has to stop being crazy. But it failed. The new, leader is as crazy as the others before him.
What are you waiting for, that they nuke the whole world ?
War is never good, however, sometimes it is necessary, because some people can only be dealt with war.
So let fix NK once and for all.
Tens of millions already suffered from this dictatorship, do not let tens of millions more suffer, year after year.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:02:10


Post by: Rosebuddy


Japan is collapsing under its demographic shift because all the young people are too miserable to have children and China is set to rival and overtake the US as world economic power.

"Fixing" North Korea, IE turning it into a Western slave state, would mean a massive land invasion killing who knows how many North Koreans as well as risking the deaths of millions of South Koreans. China likely wouldn't be very happy about the massive influx of refugees and neither China nor Russia would be able to distinguish where exactly nukes are landing if that where to happen so have fun guessing what would happen.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:04:38


Post by: KTG17


Rosebuddy wrote:

Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.


No, the use of atomic weapons was to bring the war to a quicker end and spare the lives in the US forces. Displaying that power to the USSR was a side benefit.

But while you are at it, bring up the bombing of Tokyo, which without the use of atomic weapons, killed far more people and cause far greater devastation. Oh, I see that doesn't fit into your argument.

Its easy to play hindsight 20-20 but given the tenacity the Japanese fought as the US drove closer to their homelands, their conduct all over Asia during the war, and the preparations they were making with their civilian population, if I was presented with the choice of using those weapons, or telling American mothers and fathers that I could have spared their sons lives from an invasion of the Japanese islands AND DIDN'T, I would choose the atomic weapons every time.

Its amazing how quick we are to slam Truman's decision (I am 100% sure Roosevelt would have done the same), when the US (1) didn't start the war and (2) bullets and bombs killed far more civilians yet that rarely seems to be brought up.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:12:47


Post by: Rosebuddy


Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:20:48


Post by: Crazyterran


Had offered to surrender conditionally, which wouldn't have done what the USA wanted in showing them that they were crushed, defeated, etc. No one was taking conditional surrenders after the failure of the treaty of Versailles.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:27:46


Post by: Vaktathi


KTG17 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:

Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR. Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.


No, the use of atomic weapons was to bring the war to a quicker end and spare the lives in the US forces. Displaying that power to the USSR was a side benefit.
Hrm, Japan was already willing to talk and ready to end the war by that point, and was incapable of meaningful resistance on a nationally organized level (for example, the entirety of Japanese fuel reserves by the end was less than a single US carrier battle group's monthly usage). The use of Nuclear weapons was there to end the war in exactly the way the US administration wanted it ended (including sending a message to the USSR), which is not necessarily the same thing as wanting to bring an end to the war quicker and to spare lives, though the totality of events of august 1945 could be argued to certainly have done so.

What probably had a far more real practical effect on ending the war than any bombing was the fact that the USSR was Japan's hoped-for intermediary for US peace talks (that Japan had been attempting to work with for months while the USSR strung them along until they could shift forces from Europe) and they declared war in between the two bombs and obliterated the one major good military force Japan had left (the Kwangtung army in Manchuria) in an embarrassingly short time period. This cut off their one hope of a negotiated peace, destroyed their last military reserves in a manner that showed they were incapable of fighting modern mechanized war, and destroyed the bulk of the remained of their colonial empire and resource base, which resulted in making immediate surrender to the US the most positive outcome.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:45:58


Post by: KTG17


Rosebuddy wrote:
Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.


No, the idea that they wouldn't have is a myth.

Have you read any books on WWII? Are you familiar at all with what Japan did in China, the Philippines, Burma, and so on? How they treated POWs and civilians across all parts of Asia? And you want to talk about what happened to their people? Give me a break. Japan got what it asked for. The condition for surrendering was the same as it was for Germany: unconditional. It wanted to debate. Wasn't going to happen.

Obviously Germany was starving for resources when the Soviet Union and Western Allies lined up on its boarders. That didn't stop the amount of destruction that followed. More people died in the Battle of Berlin than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Would you have preferred to see the US do the same to Tokyo? To fit your argument, you actually think that would be the better option, which its not. The deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima spared lives in the the rest of Japan, because had they not happened, a lot more death would have followed.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 14:57:12


Post by: Easy E


 sebster wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
Can someone explain to me why M.A.D. doesn't work in this case like it did with the USSR, India, Pakistan, etc,?


MAD only works when leaders have some leeway to back down, to de-escalate. If a US president backs down, or even a Russian or Pakistani president, they don't get killed. They'll lose face, lose political power, and get booted from office. Then they retire to the quiet life. They may not like being away from the center of power but it's preferable to starting a nuclear war that will end up get themselves killed, along with their loved ones and hundreds of millions of other people.

That isn't true for Kim. If he loses his appearance of strength, they don't just boot him from office, they kill him. And they'll kill or imprison his family, including his infant daughter. It is 'win or die' for Kim. So he simply cannot back down, show weakness.

It is interesting to look back at Kruschev, his back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis led pretty directly to his removal from power. But it wasn't a lethal or even an overtly military process. Breznhev took pains to ensure there was no appearance of a coup, and Kruschev himself offered little resistance. He was allowed to give a pretend retirement speach, then given a pension and his old house. Quite civil really (although USSR being what it was he was moved in to a smaller home and given a reduced pension in latter years). What's interesting is that it had been barely more than a decade since Stalin had passed, when, like North Korea today, where falling out of favour with power was a death sentence - a backdown like Kruschev's would have been much more difficult.

MAD only became genuine once Russia transitioned to a fairly normal kind of authoritarian state, is what I'm saying. Even then it requires leaders who are willing to face the political costs of de-escalation, rather than hope the politicians on the other side blink first.


Interesting you talk about Kruschev. I was wondering why NK was so different from the USSR, but then you backed it up with a well-reasoned argument. Kudos.

How about this question for the group if MAD is not in effect fully.

"Why has Containment suddenly stopped being a viable strategy towards NK?"


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:19:30


Post by: Rosebuddy


KTG17 wrote:
The deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima spared lives in the the rest of Japan, because had they not happened, a lot more death would have followed.


No, it wouldn't, because Japan had already offered to surrender on the condition that it got to keep the emperor.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:20:10


Post by: Grey Templar


Rosebuddy wrote:
Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.


No. Japan had not offered surrender. They offered a cease fire, and terms which would have let them keep much of the land they had conquered. Which would have given them a few decades to rearm and start WW3 afterwards.

Not all of them would have fought to the death, but a huge portion of them would have.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:25:33


Post by: Easy E


WWII is not relevant here.

Perhaps Trump was right about something on the campaign trail. We need to start handing nukes to more allies. Since NK nukes are mostly Russian and Chinese tech, perhaps we should simply let those countries know that a Nuclear armed NK means we will provide Nukes to Japan and SK?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:43:44


Post by: Witzkatz


 Easy E wrote:
WWII is not relevant here.

Perhaps Trump was right about something on the campaign trail. We need to start handing nukes to more allies. Since NK nukes are mostly Russian and Chinese tech, perhaps we should simply let those countries know that a Nuclear armed NK means we will provide Nukes to Japan and SK?


While I guess there's a chance this might have some semi-positive effect, the world has been trying almost since the creation of nukes to limit the amount of countries having them on the planet and anti-proliferation plans and meetings are still trying to reduce the number of bombs and warheads. Throwing all of that overboard to deal with a rogue state seems not really like a good idea in the long-term planning, for nobody.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:47:13


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Easy E wrote:
WWII is not relevant here.

Perhaps Trump was right about something on the campaign trail. We need to start handing nukes to more allies. Since NK nukes are mostly Russian and Chinese tech, perhaps we should simply let those countries know that a Nuclear armed NK means we will provide Nukes to Japan and SK?
Why would Japan and South Korea accept them? Japan's population certainly does not appear to support Japan having nuclear weapons as they have previously held large protests against members of their government merely suggesting that Japan should seek nuclear weapons.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:51:12


Post by: Vaktathi


Edit: nvm off topic


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 15:58:42


Post by: KTG17


The world has learned a lot from Saddam, Gaddafi, Ukraine, and especially India/Pakistan in 2001-2002. And even more so, the US and USSR, whom I have no doubt would have gone in direct war at some point if it hadn't been for MAD. What Kim in NK is trying to do is basically say "If you try and topple me, I am going to make it hurt a great deal in the process." I don't think Kim wants to start any kind of war at the moment, but looking how he has treated his own family, its a safe assumption that if he shows them that regard, he's going to show non-family members even less.

Up til now, I don't think anyone has really taken the US serious in doing something on its own until now, and I think its because Trump hit Syria out of the blue. Its made him look a little like a wild card himself, which is why you see the Chinese and Russians scrambling with the North Koreans to back off. Do I think Trump will start anything? Not at the moment, but this is a lot like Trump is standing on his porch with a baseball bat telling others to keep off his lawn. If you respect that he will come down off the porch, then you'll probably stick to the sidewalk. If you don't you'll probably dance on the lawn. Which is what NK has been doing the last 60 or so years.

And what NK has gotten away with is quite incredible. From the kidnapping, infiltration, sabotage, artillery fire, and even blowing up a South Koran airliner has pretty much gone unchecked. Its gone unchecked because everyone has been too much of a pussy to do anything about it. Even the South Koreans themselves do way too much appeasing (aka Sunshine Policy and so on).

You can't look at whats going on now in isolation. Its another chapter in a decades-old drama.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 16:00:44


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 godardc wrote:
 whembly wrote:



Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.



So according to you, good patriots who love the country they live in, nationalists, are the same as neo nazis ? Nazis who killed millions ?
I don't remember having killed anyone, maybe who can remind me how I'm a nazi extremist ?


"Let them drown in the Aegean".


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 16:02:36


Post by: Grey Templar


Given how much trouble insurgents cause us today, you are clearly wrong. Japan would have been a million times worse than Iraq or Afghanistan had we not used Nukes.

And again, its a myth that Japan was trying to surrender and we didn't listen. They were only trying to achieve a peace treaty which would allow them to keep as much territory as possible. With the inevitable result that the militaristic Japanese government remained in power and caused WW3 sometime at a later date.

The total surrender that the nukes achieved is what gave us a stable modern ally in the region today.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 16:03:01


Post by: KTG17


 Vaktathi wrote:
Japan had no resources with which to fight back with, a lot of the fears about a Japanese invasion were not supported by any real capability.

In an invasion, the US would have not just air superiority, but total air supremacy. On the seas, there was no fuel to put ships to sea or even run electric power through them in many cases. On the ground, they were out of resources to make proper ammunition and weapons, the Japanese transportation infrastructure was mostly destroyed making movement of forces and their supply difficult if not impossible, Japan had no armored units to speak of (especially that could reasonably match even a Sherman), their artillery was practically nonexistent, the population was beginning to starve, etc ad nauseum.

The idea that a broken and unsupplied Japanese army and spear wielding civilians would have stood and fought fanatically in the face of a mechanized US invasion, much less inflicted severe casualties of seven digits sometimes projected, is largely a fantasy.

Likewise, the Japanese were actively attempting to end the war with a negotiated peace through the USSR, the war could have ended without a direct invasion through a number of other means.

The atom bombs could be said to have helped end the war in the exactly the way the US wanted it ended in the greater global geopolitical scheme of things, but they were not necessary to end the war quickly or avoid a direct invasion. These often get conflated as being the same thing, but are not necessarily.


Its pretty amazing, you've managed to describe almost to a 'T' exactly what was happening in Europe prior to the allies crossing the border into Germany. And yet, somehow, the Germans fought to the bitter end.

I cannot understand how some of you seem to dismiss the Japanese code of honor and how it conducted itself in fighting AWAY from its shores, and think for a second that it wouldn't have fought harder on it own home islands. Read up on Okinawa. Everything you described about the hopelessness of the Japanese situation DID NOT DISCOURAGE THE JAPANESE SOLDIERS FROM FIGHTING TO THE BITTER END, NOR MASSES OF CIVILIANS BLOWING THEMSELVES UP OR JUMPING OFF OF CLIFFS.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 16:05:55


Post by: Vaktathi


KTG17 wrote:


And what NK has gotten away with is quite incredible. From the kidnapping, infiltration, sabotage, artillery fire, and even blowing up a South Koran airliner has pretty much gone unchecked. Its gone unchecked because everyone has been too much of a pussy to do anything about it.
When the South Korean capital, its population/economic/financial/governmental center, is within artillery range of the DMZ and 5 digits worth of big guns, that tends to give people pause.

EDIT: lets take the WW2 discussion to another thread or PM's, also easy on the capslock there.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 17:11:51


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I also for slightly sorry for James Mattis as well.

Here he is on a shuttle diplomacy run, probably in contact with China, Russia, and a few others, maybe being close to getting a verbal agreement on a deal that might suit everybody...

And then Trump comes crashing into the room like a drunk uncle at Christmas, trips over onto the floor, falls asleep, and we recoil in horror as urine slowly seeps from him...

On a serious note, how can anybody strike a deal with the USA on anything these days?

You've got people on the ground working hard and putting in the legwork, only to be undermined by Trump blasting off tweets on an hourly basis. Lest we forget Trump has the nuclear codes and one of the most powerful militaries the world has ever seen at his disposal as Commander in Chief...

I wonder what FDR and Winston Churchill would think of it?





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 17:38:27


Post by: KTG17


Don't worry, we've had bad Presidents before. Some completely inept, and we got through them. Our system of checks and balances and devotion to the constitution will prevent any major disaster. And unless the democrats nominate a donkey to run for President, Trump will most likely lose re-election.

My GF is from Iran, which is pretty much a democratic president who reports to a dictator. When Trump laid down the first Visa ban (which affected her) she went into a panic and was planning on moving to Canada. I said, "Chill out and let the courts handle it." She didn't realize the back and forth that would happen before a middle ground was sort of ironed out.

I know we seem rather chaotic, but we're used to it to be honest. I don't think most Americans realize how our system looks to the outside world. But it does work!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 17:49:14


Post by: Spetulhu


KTG17 wrote:
Its pretty amazing, you've managed to describe almost to a 'T' exactly what was happening in Europe prior to the allies crossing the border into Germany. And yet, somehow, the Germans fought to the bitter end.

I cannot understand how some of you seem to dismiss the Japanese code of honor and how it conducted itself in fighting AWAY from its shores, and think for a second that it wouldn't have fought harder on it own home islands. Read up on Okinawa. Everything you described about the hopelessness of the Japanese situation DID NOT DISCOURAGE THE JAPANESE SOLDIERS FROM FIGHTING TO THE BITTER END, NOR MASSES OF CIVILIANS BLOWING THEMSELVES UP OR JUMPING OFF OF CLIFFS.


Germany fought on because the Fuhrer didn't negotiate, at all. Once Hitler died his successor Admiral von Dönitz arranged surrender in a matter of days. The people were indoctrinated to follow orders, not be suicidal just because (though some did kill themself rather than be conquered).

Japan was a different beast. They did try to negotiate, and as I recall there was also a translation error when their counteroffer to US demamnds for surrender was delivered to the White House so their "we could talk" became "we spit on your offer". It could maybe have been negotiated, but complete surrender was wanted and they seemed unreasonable. And some were unreasonable - even after the atomic bombs part of the officer corps thought about trying to dethrone the Emperor (who agreed to surrender) and continue fighting.

I'm not sure what sort North Korea would be, but defeating it militarily isn't the problem. The damage to South Korea would be a problem, and making something useful out of the North after Kim is deposed. If he dies no one knows what sort of nutjob takes command, if he lives and surrenders things might go peacefully. But one can't make the same mistake as in Iraq, firing Saddam's army and then just not thinking about what some jobless guys with only military skills will do for a living after that. The North Korean soldiers won't found a new religious terrorist organization but marauding bands of guerillas robbing people of food and equipment wouldn't be out of the question. And the rest of the people will need jobs too. Who's going to foot the bill for all that?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 18:18:14


Post by: Frazzled


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
North Korea invaded South Korea. It has kidnapped SK citizens, and fired artillery into SK. They are now threatening to attack a US base. The last time that happened we buried them with nuclear fire. read a damn book before you post kid.


None of those things happened outside of the context of the Korean war and US intervention in the region.


Again read a book, or just Google it (The daughter used google to open a lock yesterday. I think she has some super secret google that old farts like me don't have).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_South_Koreans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_Korea

Additionally, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was an atrocity done mainly to frighten the USSR.


Revisionist bs by people from countries who didn't lift a finger in WWII.
Bringing up that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians doesn't do a lot to argue that it's justified in doing so again.

Indeed so don't ever ever ever feth with us and attack us. Why doesn't NK understand that?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 18:26:41


Post by: Ketara


Spetulhu wrote:

Once Hitler died his successor Admiral von Dönitz arranged surrender in a matter of days.


Poor Donitz.




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 18:40:45


Post by: Spetulhu


 Ketara wrote:

Poor Donitz.


"They were hardly going to give me the job if everything was going really well, were they?" ;-)

Aye, bad for him. But at least the allies thought he had conducted the war honorably (for the most part) and only slapped him with 10 years in prison. That's pretty good for someone in the Nazi High Command.

And more seriously probably the sort of stuff we should offer the NK generals, colonels etc so they're happy to eventually retire instead of starting trouble without Kim.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 18:42:16


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 19:30:15


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


You know, on reflection, this whole thing probably doesn't add up to a hill of horsegak.

We've been here before. We'll give the North Koreans some food aid and oil in return for a vague promise on limiting missle tests, it'll calm down for say, maybe a year, and we'll be back here again next year when the North Koreans have ran out of food and oil again.

Nothing is going to happen. And if I'm wrong, we'll all burn in nuclear fire anyway, and there will be nobody on dakka to say I was wrong


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 19:45:44


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You know, on reflection, this whole thing probably doesn't add up to a hill of horsegak.

We've been here before. We'll give the North Koreans some food aid and oil in return for a vague promise on limiting missle tests, it'll calm down for say, maybe a year, and we'll be back here again next year when the North Koreans have ran out of food and oil again.

Nothing is going to happen. And if I'm wrong, we'll all burn in nuclear fire anyway, and there will be nobody on dakka to say I was wrong


Or next time this year when the US and South Korea prepare to conduct joint military excercises on the border again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 20:09:15


Post by: Kilkrazy


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?


Trump's blowhard rhetoric of course is intended to appeal to his core supporters. It's lies and bs but his trufans don't believe that and ignore all the evidence that contradicts their view of things.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 20:25:57


Post by: djones520


I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 20:26:51


Post by: Kilkrazy


 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. ... ....


They didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the BBC:

At a time when nuclear war with North Korea seems a possible - if distant - threat, you'd think everyone would want the US administration to be on the same page.

But in recent weeks, statements from President Trump and his top officials appear to directly contradict each other.

President Trump's latest outburst - that the US military was "locked and loaded" ready to deal with North Korea - came just hours after his Defence Secretary Jim Mattis attempted to cool tensions by saying that diplomatic efforts were succeeding.

Here are some of the other mixed messages we've heard since North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test on 28 July.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40903061


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 20:36:09


Post by: KTG17


Spetulhu wrote:
Japan was a different beast. They did try to negotiate


June 22 - Japanese Emperor states his desire that surrender be considered and possibilities investigated (unknown to allies).
July 21 - Togo repeats to Japanese ambassador in Moscow that unconditional surrender was unacceptable.
July 26 - Potsdam Declaration: ""We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." Japan publically rejects its terms.
August 6 - Hiroshima is bombed.
August 9 - Soviets invade Manchuria, Nagasaki is bombed.
August 10 - Japan surrenders unconditionally (especially believing the US had more bombs).

The US knew the Russians were coming, they agreed to their involvement. So this notion of the use of the bomb was just to send a message in revisionist nonsense. The atomic bombs took years to develop, and were used during an already extensive bombing campaign. The Japanese were also told the conditions, and rejected them.

In the last seven months of the campaign alone, firebombing resulted in massive destruction in 67 Japanese cities, as many as 500,000 Japanese deaths and some 5 million more made homeless. Had the atomic bombs not been dropped, more of that would have continued. Everyone should read up on Operation Meetinghouse, the most destructive bombing raid in history, and it wasn't with an atom bomb.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:15:55


Post by: jhe90


 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


Yeah, Kim made very clear threats and stated to fire missiles just off a key US military base in region.

Saying that any attack will be met by aggressive and decisive counter attack is not war mongering. It's fact.

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:17:20


Post by: Rosebuddy


 jhe90 wrote:

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Yeah we already saw that in Iraq.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:21:13


Post by: Kilkrazy


 jhe90 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


Yeah, Kim made very clear threats and stated to fire missiles just off a key US military base in region.

Saying that any attack will be met by aggressive and decisive counter attack is not war mongering. It's fact.

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Missiles aren't nuclear weapons. The sea 20 miles from Guam is not a key military base.

To be clear, what NK is talking about is totally reprehensible, but it isn't a nuclear attack on the USA and doesn't merit the toddler response that Trump is giving.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:22:16


Post by: Spetulhu


KTG17 wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
Japan was a different beast. They did try to negotiate


So this notion of the use of the bomb was just to send a message in revisionist nonsense. The atomic bombs took years to develop, and were used during an already extensive bombing campaign. The Japanese were also told the conditions, and rejected them.


Hey, I didn't call it a message. I only pointed out that they were trying to find some way to end hostilities before that. Their conditions just weren't acceptable to the US High Command who had already determined that unconditional surrender was the only goal. Still, seeing what conventional bombs and incendiary bombs did in earlier raids (where the crippled Japanese Air Force could do nothing) the nukes might not have been strictly necessary. Someone also wanted to see what they actually DID. The notion that the Soviets would be the next enemy within only a few years was already there, and knowing what one could hit them with was important as the USSR was simply so large that one can't get bombers everywhere in force.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:27:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


To be frank (and my wife is Japanese) I don't fault the Allies for firebombing and nuking Japan in WW2.

In my view Japan (and Germany) started the war and we finished it.

Either of them could have surrendered a lot earlier than they actually did. They got what they were asking for.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 21:32:36


Post by: jhe90


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


Yeah, Kim made very clear threats and stated to fire missiles just off a key US military base in region.

Saying that any attack will be met by aggressive and decisive counter attack is not war mongering. It's fact.

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Missiles aren't nuclear weapons. The sea 20 miles from Guam is not a key military base.

To be clear, what NK is talking about is totally reprehensible, but it isn't a nuclear attack on the USA and doesn't merit the toddler response that Trump is giving.


Its not. But its also a direct threat. Also any warning? Boats and aircraft use that area too. This is not like any of the previous threats.

Civilians need protecting too. SAM battery live fire time. Down that thing the momment it crosses the sea of Japan on trajectory arc.

Agies equipped cruisers I'm sure are up to the task.

Lastly he planning to fire over Japan.
His junk ass bits of scrap metal and plumbing parts I'm sure they gonna love those fly over.

Also a gross breach of national territory.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/11 22:33:27


Post by: whembly


 godardc wrote:
 whembly wrote:



Then consider the increase in nationalists, extremists and neo-nazis in Europe and North America.
Sadly, even in this connected age, a lot of people are quick to forget (or disregard) their history and the many lessons we should've learned by now.



So according to you, good patriots who love the country they live in, nationalists, are the same as neo nazis ? Nazis who killed millions ?
I don't remember having killed anyone, maybe who can remind me how I'm a nazi extremist ?
Pacifists have always been the ones unintentionally promoting wars, as tyrants are eager to expand, invade and to kill if they know that noone is coming to stop them.

Hey... I didn't write that!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Japan is collapsing under its demographic shift because all the young people are too miserable to have children and China is set to rival and overtake the US as world economic power.

"Fixing" North Korea, IE turning it into a Western slave state, would mean a massive land invasion killing who knows how many North Koreans as well as risking the deaths of millions of South Koreans. China likely wouldn't be very happy about the massive influx of refugees and neither China nor Russia would be able to distinguish where exactly nukes are landing if that where to happen so have fun guessing what would happen.

IF war with NK resumes... it better be a total destruction of the NK leadership infrastructure.

Then, more importantly, there better be a Marshall Plan 2.0 for NK, with an eventual plan to reunify the Koreas (ala, post ww2 Germany).

... athough, I'd rather the US just simply offer a billion dollars for each nuke. That way, no horribad wars and NK get's badly needed currency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Japan was starved for resources with the blockade and with nearly all its major cities being 50-90% burned to the ground. The atomic bombs were used after Imperial Japan had already offered to surrender. The idea that every last of them would fight to the death is a myth.

Japan did NOT offer to unconditionally surrender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
The deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima spared lives in the the rest of Japan, because had they not happened, a lot more death would have followed.


No, it wouldn't, because Japan had already offered to surrender on the condition that it got to keep the emperor.

I'm going to politely ask you to brush up some history on this...

1) Unconditional surrender was never offered by Japan until AFTER the nukes were dropped.
2) The Emperor secretly recorded the surrender after the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombs, knowing that the military officers would resist.
3) When these officers got wind of this, they sought to quarantine the Emperor from the public... but, by then it was too late as the recording made it out, and were publically broadcasted.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
WWII is not relevant here.

Perhaps Trump was right about something on the campaign trail. We need to start handing nukes to more allies. Since NK nukes are mostly Russian and Chinese tech, perhaps we should simply let those countries know that a Nuclear armed NK means we will provide Nukes to Japan and SK?

THey already have the technical "know how" to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?

Probably... maybe unintentionally.

I can't imagine the trio of Gen. Mattis, Gen. McMaster, and Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly would be convinced to start a war in order to "wag the dog" like Pres. Bill Clinton done in Kosovo (which imo, is an unfair characterization to Pres Clinton).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


Yeah, Kim made very clear threats and stated to fire missiles just off a key US military base in region.

Saying that any attack will be met by aggressive and decisive counter attack is not war mongering. It's fact.

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Missiles aren't nuclear weapons. The sea 20 miles from Guam is not a key military base.

To be clear, what NK is talking about is totally reprehensible, but it isn't a nuclear attack on the USA and doesn't merit the toddler response that Trump is giving.

Um... Guam is an extremely key military base. If I remember right, most of the refueling tankers come out of that location.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 00:23:19


Post by: Sarouan


 whembly wrote:

Um... Guam is an extremely key military base. If I remember right, most of the refueling tankers come out of that location.


Still no justification for what Trump keeps answering by pouring more oil on the fire, really.

I'm still wondering what would be tougher than "fire and fury". And all that whining about China "not doing enough" while himself is litterally doing nothing is really laughable.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 00:27:48


Post by: BaronIveagh



sirlynchmob wrote:
You do know where NK is right?


Yes, and I know that radiation from Castle Bravo reached as far as Norway and France. We're talking a full nuclear exchange here.

Ketara wrote:
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but when NK specified firing missiles around Guam, the word 'nuclear' wasn't mentioned in any way by the NK command? Every report I've seen has just has the word 'missiles', with no nuclear prefix.


They showed pictures of midrange ICBMs. They're not much threat to the average city block, let alone an Island, when tipped with a conventional explosive.




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 00:28:23


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So how hard would it be to just line up one battleship from every country in the UN (they can be smaller battleships) and just say ok, now what?

Or we could just bombard them with their own media:


That is simultaneously adorable...and projectile vomit inducing.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 00:31:28


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Kilkrazy wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?


Trump's blowhard rhetoric of course is intended to appeal to his core supporters. It's lies and bs but his trufans don't believe that and ignore all the evidence that contradicts their view of things.


So is this now a politics thread?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 00:35:10


Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?


Trump's blowhard rhetoric of course is intended to appeal to his core supporters. It's lies and bs but his trufans don't believe that and ignore all the evidence that contradicts their view of things.


So is this now a politics thread?


A Mod should know better...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 01:04:41


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Not to insert even more US Politics into this, but are we seeing a "Wag the Dog" situation here?

President low in the polls, starting or considering starting a War for ratings?


Trump's blowhard rhetoric of course is intended to appeal to his core supporters. It's lies and bs but his trufans don't believe that and ignore all the evidence that contradicts their view of things.


So is this now a politics thread?


This thread has been about international politics pertaining to the current situation with North Korea since the first post.

So yes. Yes it is.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 01:13:35


Post by: Alpharius


GENERAL NOTE:

If you see a post that you think is against the rules of the site, just report them.

Complaining about (X) isn't exactly against keeping with RULE #2...

Thanks!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 03:08:31


Post by: Bromsy


Rosebuddy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Yeah we already saw that in Iraq.


The political nonsense that followed left aside, the US invasion of Iraq is arguably among the most flawlessly executed military campaigns of all time. I don't understand your point. Unless your point is that the US can stomp flat with laughably few casualties basically any modern military, but then will 'waste' a lot of money later building that nation back up and then ultimately fail to do something that is entirely outside the scope of the military (turn a SW asian totalitarian dictatorship into a democratic utopia in a decade or so for example).


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 03:12:47


Post by: Grey Templar


 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.


Plus you know, technically this war has been going on for 60+ years. He definitely didn't start it.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 04:14:16


Post by: Frazzled


 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.
exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:

Any direct attack on US and then you will see what amount of destruction a full modern military can unleash in short time.


Yeah we already saw that in Iraq.
no.you didn't. That was restraint.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 09:21:26


Post by: Jorim


 Frazzled wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.
exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.



So you propose the death of millions of people and total destruction of at least two countries, one of them beeing your ally, as reaction to a threat? Not to mention the ensuing fallout trat would hit half the world including the US...
That really sounds like a solid and totaly appropriat plan... (sarcasm of)


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 09:40:10


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Frazzled wrote:
no.you didn't. That was restraint.


Oh wow, the US didn't do every single thing it could to kill every last Iraqi. How gracious. Repeating how vicious the US can be is doing nothing to convince anyone that the US isn't a greater danger to the world than North Korea is.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 11:06:20


Post by: Sarouan


 Frazzled wrote:

exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.


Sure. And China will totally allow US to send a warfleet with nuclear missiles so close to their borders. There is a reason they keep supporting NK for all these years.

Get real, it's not that simple.


]no.you didn't. That was restraint.


Of course it was restraint. You really think you can nuke another country like this nowadays?

The problem has never been the target. It's the neighbors...and the rest of the world seeing exactly what is happening here, and wondering "If he can do this and get away with all those blatant lies, why wouldn't he do it again for another? Maybe we're next on the list ?".

Now China has asked Trump not to use words that would exacerbate the situation even more. That's quite the thing, IMHO: another country telling a US president he should be more careful about what he's saying. The trouble is that Trump is unable to hear criticism about what he does - and he proved he can decide really stupid things when he becomes even more stubborn. He's such a wild card than the other countries know they can't trust him at all.

To be honest, I don't think Trump really wants a war here. He looks more like he's caught in the situation and its own bravado. And that's exactly why that's so dangerous and can become a war : incompetent leaders living out of reality and thinking too much of themselves enough to do the unthinkable.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 13:08:19


Post by: Frazzled


Jorim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.
exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.



So you propose the death of millions of people and total destruction of at least two countries, one of them beeing your ally, as reaction to a threat? Not to mention the ensuing fallout trat would hit half the world including the US...
That really sounds like a solid and totaly appropriat plan... (sarcasm of)
hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 13:23:35


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Is it already that time of the week when we advocate war crimes to avoid appearing soft?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 14:07:10


Post by: sebster


Rosebuddy wrote:
Well, the US could for starters stop threatening them with destruction. The US could stop invading countries that don't obey it. That sort of thing.


That's a good point - a lot of this is driven by Bush's decision to invade Iraq - that undid the presumption of sovreign borders.

However, that decision is done now. The question is what we do that can restore the assumption of sovreignty, while also stopping NK getting out of hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vraptor98 wrote:
How about a healthy dose of colonisation? I'm just saying they'd be better off under foreign rule anyway.


Because no-one at all has regretted anything about Iraq or Afghanistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The North Koreans are about to discover a universal truth: nuclear weapons are the most useless thing mankind ever invented.

If North Korea strikes first, it gets wiped out. If they keep them for defence, then nobody was going to invade them anyway.


Truman got a bit of use out of a couple of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 godardc wrote:
So according to you, good patriots who love the country they live in, nationalists, are the same as neo nazis ? Nazis who killed millions ?
I don't remember having killed anyone, maybe who can remind me how I'm a nazi extremist ?


I know ENglish isn't your first language, but there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of your country, and willingness to die to defend it. Nationalism is a belief that your country is best, and that it needs to or has right to dominate other countries around it.

Pacifists have always been the ones unintentionally promoting wars, as tyrants are eager to expand, invade and to kill if they know that noone is coming to stop them.


That's hopelessly simplistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Japan is collapsing under its demographic shift because all the young people are too miserable to have children and China is set to rival and overtake the US as world economic power.


Collapsing is an absurd word to use to describe Japan. Just ridiculous. They have serious demographic issues, no doubt, but any suggestion they're going to collapse due to it is goofball nonsense.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 14:29:32


Post by: Kilkrazy


China has a serious demographic problem thanks to the one child policy. There is a big surplus of young men compared to women, and there is going to be a big surplus of pensioners in the future.

I think Japan will cope well with their population decline. It's a crowded country anyway and they will boost productivity to compensate for the lack of workers. In the worst case they can open the borders to more immigration. If they are going to do that they should do it sooner rather than later, and let in smaller numbers of immigrants over a longer period, to allow them to be absorbed into the local culture.

I don't think anyone knows the ideal population for a country. It isn't infinity, so population growth has to stop at some point. We are not in the realms of Malthus by any means, but the south-east of England seems rather overburdened in some areas, causing transport congestion and a lack of housing. However, it can be argued that the solution is to build up other regions of the UK rather than keep trying to cram more and more people into London and the Home Counties. (And Oxfordshire.)


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 14:52:58


Post by: Grey Templar


Japan and China both have population issues. But Japan at least has a balanced ratio of men to women and a democratic government.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 15:01:19


Post by: Ratius


Is it already that time of the week when we advocate war crimes to avoid appearing soft?


24/7/365


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 15:10:20


Post by: jhe90


 Kilkrazy wrote:
China has a serious demographic problem thanks to the one child policy. There is a big surplus of young men compared to women, and there is going to be a big surplus of pensioners in the future.

I think Japan will cope well with their population decline. It's a crowded country anyway and they will boost productivity to compensate for the lack of workers. In the worst case they can open the borders to more immigration. If they are going to do that they should do it sooner rather than later, and let in smaller numbers of immigrants over a longer period, to allow them to be absorbed into the local culture.

I don't think anyone knows the ideal population for a country. It isn't infinity, so population growth has to stop at some point. We are not in the realms of Malthus by any means, but the south-east of England seems rather overburdened in some areas, causing transport congestion and a lack of housing. However, it can be argued that the solution is to build up other regions of the UK rather than keep trying to cram more and more people into London and the Home Counties. (And Oxfordshire.)


Japan has already been planning ahead.
There working on things like automation, and assisted lift systems for elderly, powered assisted walking systems.

Though a small part, they reduce the sheer manpower requirements for old age care etc.

Other industries can do same to counter there reduced working population such as exoskeleton lifting for various industry applications.

Japan is more prepared for this shift than the likes of China.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 15:30:33


Post by: Spinner


 Frazzled wrote:
Jorim wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
I'm not a fan of Trump, that's been made pretty clear, but I'm tired of this "he's trying to start a war" crap.

A foreign nation threatened to strike us with nuclear weapons. Our response has been stern words.

And he's trying to start a war? Seriously, there is plenty of bad gak to point out. A nations leader speaking in defense of his nation is not one of them.
exactly. A proper response to a threat against sovereign US territory is to to turn every sub and carrier we have around and park them on NK's coast and send them a detailed list of each nuke we have now targeted on Dear Leader. If they even blink wrong, nuke every god damn square foot of NK.



So you propose the death of millions of people and total destruction of at least two countries, one of them beeing your ally, as reaction to a threat? Not to mention the ensuing fallout trat would hit half the world including the US...
That really sounds like a solid and totaly appropriat plan... (sarcasm of)
hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.


This is brilliant and absolutely not insanely murderous in the slightest. Heck, let's scale it down! Commit a crime and we throw your whole family in prison, that'll act as a deterrent! Get the death penalty? Sorry, Junior, hope you're not scared of needles! It's okay because we used to kill the Native Americans all the time.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 19:26:25


Post by: TheCustomLime


How about we just don't immediately resort to mass genocide? If the North Koreans nuke a U.S. city, then, sure let's turn Dear Leader and his goons into ash but until then I think we can think of better ideas then fething encouraging them to fire the damned nuke in the first place.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 20:35:22


Post by: jhe90


 TheCustomLime wrote:
How about we just don't immediately resort to mass genocide? If the North Koreans nuke a U.S. city, then, sure let's turn Dear Leader and his goons into ash but until then I think we can think of better ideas then fething encouraging them to fire the damned nuke in the first place.


For a missile with a conventional warhead and a conventional war nuclear weapons are overkill. If they fire nukes, the all bets are off.

Regular carrier and bomber air groups. They are easily ernough to deliver a pretty brutal counter attack.

Once US gears up it can lay down a lot of heavy duty firepower onto targets.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 23:52:40


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Frazzled wrote:
hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.


Good. But only if this also applies to when Americans attack America. I'll bring popcorn!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 23:54:57


Post by: Frazzled


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
hell yes. Let that be policy.attack the US and we will exterminate your entire people. That was policy when we dealt with the native American tribes and I like them way more than NK. Besides that's existing MAD strategy right now.


Good. But only if this also applies to when Americans attack America. I'll bring popcorn!
Except New Mexico. They are so hard core , they nuked themselves!



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/12 23:55:36


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Spinner wrote:
It's okay because we used to kill the Native Americans all the time.


'Used to'???? You still fething do and don't give enough of a gak for it to get news coverage. They found that you were 57% more likely to be shot by police for 'walking while Native' than 'driving while black'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Except New Mexico. They are so hard core , they nuked themselves!



And Nevada?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/13 00:03:34


Post by: Frazzled


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
It's okay because we used to kill the Native Americans all the time.


'Used to'???? You still fething do and don't give enough of a gak for it to get news coverage. They found that you were 57% more likely to be shot by police for 'walking while Native' than 'driving while black'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
Except New Mexico. They are so hard core , they nuked themselves!



And Nevada?


Hey what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/13 02:54:52


Post by: Spinner


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
It's okay because we used to kill the Native Americans all the time.


'Used to'???? You still fething do and don't give enough of a gak for it to get news coverage. They found that you were 57% more likely to be shot by police for 'walking while Native' than 'driving while black'.



I wish it got more coverage. My reply was intended as a comment on what I quoted rather than any actual position I hold. Sorry, maybe I should have doubled down on the sarcasm.

And it says something that I'd have to do that.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/13 10:46:59


Post by: jhe90


http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/922334/north-korean-missile-crisis-north-korean-japan-relations-donald-trumps

https://www.worldnewspolitics.com/2017/08/10/japan-sends-surprise-us-fleet-massive-show-support-president-trump/

Japan are now reacting.
as expected there bringing there Missile defense systems to readiness.

There taking KIm seriously on his words/

There deploying Patriot batteries, and got Agies destroyers ready and armed to intercept anything headed there way guarding the Sea of Japan.




What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/13 10:58:12


Post by: Elemental


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I also for slightly sorry for James Mattis as well.

Here he is on a shuttle diplomacy run, probably in contact with China, Russia, and a few others, maybe being close to getting a verbal agreement on a deal that might suit everybody...

And then Trump comes crashing into the room like a drunk uncle at Christmas, trips over onto the floor, falls asleep, and we recoil in horror as urine slowly seeps from him...


In Feburary 2021, this will probably all be comedy gold. Until then, it feels like watching Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight, very funny until suddenly it's not.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 08:46:13


Post by: sebster


 Kilkrazy wrote:
China has a serious demographic problem thanks to the one child policy.


One child was only ever enforced in the cities. The situation has been largely offset by drawing in much of the rural population in to the cities, which was likely the plan all along.

I think Japan will cope well with their population decline. It's a crowded country anyway and they will boost productivity to compensate for the lack of workers. In the worst case they can open the borders to more immigration. If they are going to do that they should do it sooner rather than later, and let in smaller numbers of immigrants over a longer period, to allow them to be absorbed into the local culture.


Abe is doing a lot to make Japan more accepting of immigration, and also to improve and encourage the female workforce. He has a lot of cultural barriers and vested interests to overcome, though.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 10:05:00


Post by: jhe90


 sebster wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
China has a serious demographic problem thanks to the one child policy.


One child was only ever enforced in the cities. The situation has been largely offset by drawing in much of the rural population in to the cities, which was likely the plan all along.

I think Japan will cope well with their population decline. It's a crowded country anyway and they will boost productivity to compensate for the lack of workers. In the worst case they can open the borders to more immigration. If they are going to do that they should do it sooner rather than later, and let in smaller numbers of immigrants over a longer period, to allow them to be absorbed into the local culture.


Abe is doing a lot to make Japan more accepting of immigration, and also to improve and encourage the female workforce. He has a lot of cultural barriers and vested interests to overcome, though.


The cultural gap to bridge is a large one to have to cross.
Japan has a very different culture to many nations, different ideals and social norms.

Any immigration would have to be slowly done and plenty of time, and some help and support even to get people to be able to integrate into what can be a fairly alien culture.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 10:47:32


Post by: Rosebuddy


 jhe90 wrote:
.
Japan has a very different culture to many nations, different ideals and social norms.


This is true for every country on the planet.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 12:03:41


Post by: jhe90


Rosebuddy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
.
Japan has a very different culture to many nations, different ideals and social norms.


This is true for every country on the planet.


More different, it's a culture torn between ancient traditions and ultramodern robotics and systems.

Its very based on face, respect and has a unique nowadays culture of working for a company for decades often.

These are big shifts to maybe adapt too.
And some support to help people fit in and feel full and respected citizens would not be a bad thing.

Help bridge the gap and make people able to properly fit in and participate in the nations culture.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 16:14:26


Post by: Grey Templar


Rosebuddy wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
.
Japan has a very different culture to many nations, different ideals and social norms.


This is true for every country on the planet.


Not really. Japanese is the only language that I know of that has a word for "worked yourself to death". Plus suicide as a socially acceptable, or even expected, response to failure.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 17:22:15


Post by: skyth


Whereas in the U.S. it is just expected for us to work ourselves to death without a special word in the language for it


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 17:55:03


Post by: Grey Templar


I haven't heard of people working themselves to death in the US being any sort of commonplace occurrence. To have a special word for something says that it happens a lot.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 18:01:11


Post by: skyth


If you're poor and not doing that, you are considered lazy and a bad person to people...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 18:02:52


Post by: Kilkrazy


Every national culture is unique, and there are unique variations between regional sub-cultures within every nation. However, neighbouring countries usually have similarities due to historical connections.

Japanese culture is much more different to French than French is to British or Italian, but Korean culture is a lot closer to Japanese than French, etc.

The wrong idea that people get is that it's impossible for an outsider to understand or assimilate into a different culture. Japan has a nationalised Finnish member of the Diet. You can't get much more assimilated than that.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 18:04:21


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 skyth wrote:
Whereas in the U.S. it is just expected for us to work ourselves to death without a special word in the language for it


I believe the word for it is "career"


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/14 22:42:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 A Town Called Malus wrote:


I believe the word for it is "career"


'FML'

No, a career implies that upward motion is possible. This place I'm in now has a special catch 22 for that, as you cannot get a GS 6 position, but you have to have 1 year time in grade as a GS 6 to even apply for a GS 7.

Ain't that nifty?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 03:23:59


Post by: whembly


Well according to:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-backs-off-guam-missile-attack-threat-1502751054

NK is backing off it's missile tests near Guam.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 04:09:14


Post by: JimOnMars


 whembly wrote:
Well according to:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-backs-off-guam-missile-attack-threat-1502751054

NK is backing off it's missile tests near Guam.



Yep. They blinked.

Soooo....back to square 1.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 09:21:10


Post by: Ketara


Aye. They backed down. Or at least, Kim isn't willing to push things any further it would seem.

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump. His actions in Syria gave him just enough a of a wild card reputation that China was willing to do that little bit more, and Kim wasn't willing to push it beyond rhetoric.

I suspect the attitude in both Asian countries right now is 'wait until he's voted out in a few years and we get someone more predictable to play with'.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 09:50:28


Post by: Sarouan


 Ketara wrote:

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump..


If anything, I'd say it's a victory more for China, South Korea, Japan or just anyone other than Trump. Trump has done nothing in that matter, except not talking about it anymore - but seeing what happened during the week-end, I don't believe it's really his will. He just had his attention taken by something else, that's all.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 09:58:34


Post by: jhe90


 Ketara wrote:
Aye. They backed down. Or at least, Kim isn't willing to push things any further it would seem.

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump. His actions in Syria gave him just enough a of a wild card reputation that China was willing to do that little bit more, and Kim wasn't willing to push it beyond rhetoric.

I suspect the attitude in both Asian countries right now is 'wait until he's voted out in a few years and we get someone more predictable to play with'.


He managed to prove enough wild card to make Kim blink so I'd say he won that round of the battle of ego Lords.

Also a very solid defence secretory who been solidifying relationships with SK, Japan etc recently and working up regional allies.

So trump might be a loud mouth but he backed by some very capable people.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 09:59:41


Post by: Ketara


 Sarouan wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump..


If anything, I'd say it's a victory more for China, South Korea, Japan or just anyone other than Trump. Trump has done nothing in that matter, except not talking about it anymore - but seeing what happened during the week-end, I don't believe it's really his will. He just had his attention taken by something else, that's all.


Trump has made them reconsider because they think he's unpredictable. So China's applied a few more screws than it otherwise would have done to show willing in the hope that he'll get distracted by something else if Kim shuts up. Which he probably will.

I accept that it hasn't 'solved' the problem, but realistically, nothing any President can do short of declaring war will do that. The fact remains though that in this specific scenario, his volatile unpredictability has actually achieved additional sanctions that China did not enact under the much more softly spoken Obama. They still haven't done half as much as they could do in terms of economic sanctions, and they'll revoke it the second he leaves office. But hey ho.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 10:06:48


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:
 Sarouan wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump..


If anything, I'd say it's a victory more for China, South Korea, Japan or just anyone other than Trump. Trump has done nothing in that matter, except not talking about it anymore - but seeing what happened during the week-end, I don't believe it's really his will. He just had his attention taken by something else, that's all.


Trump has made them reconsider because they think he's unpredictable. So China's applied a few more screws than it otherwise would have done to show willing in the hope that he'll get distracted by something else if Kim shuts up. Which he probably will.

I accept that it hasn't 'solved' the problem, but realistically, nothing any President can do short of declaring war will do that. The fact remains though that in this specific scenario, his volatile unpredictability has actually achieved additional sanctions that China did not enact under the much more softly spoken Obama. They still haven't done half as much as they could do in terms of economic sanctions, and they'll revoke it the second he leaves office. But hey ho.



Alternatively they've reconsidered because they have no confidence in their missiles reliability to hit their test area. It is less of an embarrassment to stand down now than to go ahead and fail.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 10:52:20


Post by: jhe90


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 Sarouan wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I'd actually mark this one down as a victory for Trump..


If anything, I'd say it's a victory more for China, South Korea, Japan or just anyone other than Trump. Trump has done nothing in that matter, except not talking about it anymore - but seeing what happened during the week-end, I don't believe it's really his will. He just had his attention taken by something else, that's all.


Trump has made them reconsider because they think he's unpredictable. So China's applied a few more screws than it otherwise would have done to show willing in the hope that he'll get distracted by something else if Kim shuts up. Which he probably will.

I accept that it hasn't 'solved' the problem, but realistically, nothing any President can do short of declaring war will do that. The fact remains though that in this specific scenario, his volatile unpredictability has actually achieved additional sanctions that China did not enact under the much more softly spoken Obama. They still haven't done half as much as they could do in terms of economic sanctions, and they'll revoke it the second he leaves office. But hey ho.



Alternatively they've reconsidered because they have no confidence in their missiles reliability to hit their test area. It is less of an embarrassment to stand down now than to go ahead and fail.


Trump might be well, a tad crazy Trumps crazy streak has helped this time.
He did throw off Kim by the sheer difference in presidents, and his willingness to match him toe for toe.

Good and bad.
Was even this... Wild card a genuine stratagy?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 11:28:48


Post by: Ketara


 jhe90 wrote:

Was even this... Wild card a genuine stratagy?


Nah, the man's an imbecile.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 11:59:39


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


And yet... He's a billionaire and has gotten elected president. I don't think he should be so easily discounted.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 12:06:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
And yet... He's a billionaire and has gotten elected president. I don't think he should be so easily discounted.


He's a billionaire who inherited a billionaires property portfolio and has actually done very little to grow the value of that portfolio compared to how it would have grown if he just left it as is.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 12:21:10


Post by: Ketara


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
And yet... He's a billionaire and has gotten elected president. I don't think he should be so easily discounted.

All that proves is that an imbecile can inherit money and win votes by making mildly offensive speeches.

Seriously, I went through a period too, where I thought it might all be an act, and he might be a lot smarter than he appears. That all of his wall building and tweeting and all the rest was some sort of clever political ploy.

Then I actually looked into it and discovered that he's a shallow and vain 70 year old reality tv show sensationalist with an exceedingly fragile ego who doesn't know himself what he's doing from one minute to the next.

Ironically, that's what's gotten him this far in the Korean thing, none of the other major players can quite predict what he'll do, and don't want to chance their arms too far.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 13:52:12


Post by: Kilkrazy


I agree with Ketara.

We don't know why Kim-Il Un is pulling back. Perhaps he never intended to fire the missiles anyway, and he isn't pulling back at all.

We just don't know.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/15 15:23:50


Post by: Vaktathi


This is also pretty typical for NK, rattle the sabre, drive up tensions, and back down. Not a new thing on their part by any means.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/27 02:46:58


Post by: NenkotaMoon


He did make China get off their ass.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/27 03:06:16


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 NenkotaMoon wrote:
He did make China get off their ass.

And do what? Tell both us and NK to knock it off? That's what they do anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/27 10:28:30


Post by: Mr. Burning


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 NenkotaMoon wrote:
He did make China get off their ass.

And do what? Tell both us and NK to knock it off? That's what they do anyway.


Its also a no brainer for china to be seen to do something either. They don't really need NK imports of coal and ore at the moment.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/28 22:46:23


Post by: MrDwhitey


Well North Korea launched a missile that flew over Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41078187


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/28 23:01:56


Post by: whembly


That's freak'n provocative...

Pretty much casus belli for military retaliation... of course NK does this to Japan whose military can't be used....


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/28 23:17:30


Post by: Ginsu33


 whembly wrote:
That's freak'n provocative...

Pretty much casus belli for military retaliation... of course NK does this to Japan whose military can't be used....


Nah mate, JSDF is ready to roll now, their restrictions on offensive operations, overseas deployments etc all gone, they don't even need approval to engage anymore.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/28 23:21:39


Post by: jhe90


 Ginsu33 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
That's freak'n provocative...

Pretty much casus belli for military retaliation... of course NK does this to Japan whose military can't be used....


Nah mate, JSDF is ready to roll now, their restrictions on offensive operations, overseas deployments etc all gone, they don't even need approval to engage anymore.


JDF need to get there alert up and be prepared.
If the gak storm comes. It will come and they need to be ready.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/28 23:46:02


Post by: Ginsu33


 jhe90 wrote:
 Ginsu33 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
That's freak'n provocative...

Pretty much casus belli for military retaliation... of course NK does this to Japan whose military can't be used....


Nah mate, JSDF is ready to roll now, their restrictions on offensive operations, overseas deployments etc all gone, they don't even need approval to engage anymore.


JDF need to get there alert up and be prepared.
If the gak storm comes. It will come and they need to be ready.


I'm not sure what you mean, at the moment their focus is on both the Senkaku and Ryukyu islands with their rapid reaction force that their building up.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 03:14:30


Post by: Ouze


 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well North Korea launched a missile that flew over Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41078187


Just as we were about to start considering Trump to be a strategic genius, too.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 03:46:22


Post by: whembly


 Ouze wrote:
 MrDwhitey wrote:
Well North Korea launched a missile that flew over Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41078187


Just as we were about to start considering Trump to be a strategic genius, too.

whut?

If anything it's Mattis + Tillerson.

Just not sure what we can do when you have a criminal cartel essentially extorting the rest of the world.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 07:09:50


Post by: reds8n


C'mon, be fair.

You guys aren't that bad !






No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile


is it really even that feasible to do this ?



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 08:20:06


Post by: Ouze


 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile


is it really even that feasible to do this ?



Spoiler:


Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 09:59:08


Post by: Fenrir Kitsune


I say these nukes'll probably wake Godzilla up, and then North Korea is in a whole heap of gak.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 14:18:21


Post by: Easy E


This same NK scenraio would be happening no matter who got elected US president. The NK will always test the new president to see how they will respond.

Personally, I think the US should simply respond by shrugging their shoulders and yawning in a bored way.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 14:19:43


Post by: jhe90


 Ouze wrote:
 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile


is it really even that feasible to do this ?



Spoiler:


Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.



......

JHE Post.
Yeah, i man there hiding what it can do until needed.
Keeps kim in the dark on what thee AA defenses can take down.

No point revealing THAAD until you got to.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 15:41:06


Post by: Co'tor Shas


"Pay attention to us!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
This same NK scenraio would be happening no matter who got elected US president. The NK will always test the new president to see how they will respond.

Personally, I think the US should simply respond by shrugging their shoulders and yawning in a bored way.

Well, I don't think the same scenario would be happening because we wouldn't otherwise have an immature man-child responding to them


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 15:49:20


Post by: Frazzled


Well looks like Japan needs to send out its newest protective assets



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 16:03:23


Post by: avantgarde


Missile was fired past Japan through a low populous area between Hokkaido and Honshu, a large portion of JDSF armor (7th Division) is stationed on Hokkaido. Aegis is deployed to intercept expected missiles headed to populous areas aka cities, they probably could not have intercepted since they weren't in the flight path.

There is no THAAD in Japan but they do have AN/TPY2 slaved to a PAC-3 system. They're not going to get a THAAD since they picked Aegis Ashore over it.

The ones in SK are in Seongju, and the missile flew on a northern route intended to avoid it. THAAD kills on missile descent, if your missile apogees outside the kill zone (like the Sea of Japan), THAAD aint hittin nuttin.

If they did attempt a shoot down, the chance of success was probably low and why bother when you know the trajectory. Anyways, nothing to see here. It's just a game.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 16:12:13


Post by: Frazzled


That's an act of war actually. If no did this over Hawaii then there's a really good chance we would be emptying our inventory of remaining bombs and missiles into NK within 24 hours.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 16:25:35


Post by: avantgarde


What is an isn't an act of war depends on the circumstances. An act of war is only that when a nation has nerve to start a war over the act.

The most important thing is letting the South Koreans have some control of the situation. Their domestic view of geopolitics is heavily tied to the perception of either being a partner to the US or a lapdog. Unilateral escalation on the US and Japan's part reinforces the latter and weakens the alliance.

Moon has been in power for what, 4 months? He was elected on an anti-US aggression platform, give him time to reverse position. Let Northern aggression turn him around like Park Guen-hye.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 16:29:38


Post by: Frazzled


Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 16:47:11


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 17:07:44


Post by: Frazzled


One of the cartels was flinging drugs over the wall via a trebuchet. Does that count


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 17:08:42


Post by: Grey Templar


By one definition of missile, yes.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 17:34:26


Post by: Frazzled


Mr. President, we cannot allow a Trebuchet Gap!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:01:32


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:03:19


Post by: Frazzled


If it landed in Florida, a gator would intercept it and eat it...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:04:51


Post by: Grey Templar


 Frazzled wrote:
If it landed in Florida, a gator would intercept it and eat it...


Reminds me of that time in ww2 when a Japanese battalion took a shortcut through some swamps in China. Only a few made it out because the rest got eaten by gators.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:05:17


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 avantgarde wrote:
Missile was fired past Japan through a low populous area between Hokkaido and Honshu, a large portion of JDSF armor (7th Division) is stationed on Hokkaido. Aegis is deployed to intercept expected missiles headed to populous areas aka cities, they probably could not have intercepted since they weren't in the flight path.

There is no THAAD in Japan but they do have AN/TPY2 slaved to a PAC-3 system. They're not going to get a THAAD since they picked Aegis Ashore over it.

The ones in SK are in Seongju, and the missile flew on a northern route intended to avoid it. THAAD kills on missile descent, if your missile apogees outside the kill zone (like the Sea of Japan), THAAD aint hittin nuttin.

If they did attempt a shoot down, the chance of success was probably low and why bother when you know the trajectory. Anyways, nothing to see here. It's just a game.


On the subject of the JDF, how effective would they be in a combat situation? It's been a long time since they had any combat experience. I don't doubt they'd be well trained and motivated, but nothing beats experience.

Of course, on the flip side, the NKs wouldn't have much either, despite the fact that most of their generals seem to have 40+ medals each!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
If it landed in Florida, a gator would intercept it and eat it...


Frazz, we're talking about something made in Britain by the Q department. It would probably have Bat repellant gator spray built into it.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:31:15


Post by: Frazzled


Touche. Your haggis launchers are far more deadly though.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 20:47:50


Post by: Easy E


 Frazzled wrote:
Well looks like Japan needs to send out its newest protective assets



Agreed! We need more Reflex Cannon in the region. Now that is MAD!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 21:56:25


Post by: Desubot


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 22:01:43


Post by: jhe90


 Desubot wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 22:03:57


Post by: feeder


 Desubot wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



Not cool. You don't shoot a guy in the dick.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 22:11:06


Post by: Desubot


 jhe90 wrote:


Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.


I dont like my state ether



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 22:26:11


Post by: WrentheFaceless


 jhe90 wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.


That may be true, but California is no where in the category of being compared to Florida.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 22:33:22


Post by: jhe90


 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



Maybe we should of made it calafornia. Some people Don, t like that state.


That may be true, but California is no where in the category of being compared to Florida.


Well whichever one. Your the state equivalent of maybe Birmingham or Milton Keynes lol.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/29 23:27:19


Post by: trexmeyer


We are all aware that the biggest issue in regards to war with NK is that Seoul is within range of NK artillery and any action short of a flawless first strike will probably leave several hundred thousand civilians dead, right?

25+ million people live in the Seoul metro area. That's roughly half the entire country and it's not like RoK is some backwards nation. It's one of the more powerful economies in the world and that could be completely gutted if North Korea attacks Seoul. Aside from the massive loss of a life, that would be a huge disruption to their economy and all of Asia. You'd have to go back to WW2 to be able to compare it to anything...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 00:43:54


Post by: Frazzled


 feeder wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Shooting a missile into the US would demand an immediate an overwhelming response. That's policy back to Truman.


Has anyone shot a missile at the US since the Japanese fire balloons of WW2?


Yeah, some months back, one of Britain's trident submarines accidentally fired a nuclear warhead towards Florida during a training exercise. Luckily, it was only a dummy missle.

Can't believe the USA bought the training exercise mistake. We'll get those 13 colonies back one day


Florida?

meh.



Not cool. You don't shoot a guy in the dick.

Um...my daughter would (she's trained properly on Texas style negotiation techniques- no means no!)


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 06:36:37


Post by: tneva82


 Ouze wrote:
 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile


is it really even that feasible to do this ?



Spoiler:


Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.


Has the Japan even changed their constitution? If not they cannot shoot that down unless it's being aimed at the Japan. Even if it was primed and armed nuke heading for US they couldn't shoot down without violating their consitution(provided it's not already been changed). Albeit they might in that case not care about that. Who's going to prosecute them? NK only...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 07:33:01


Post by: Ouze


 trexmeyer wrote:
We are all aware that the biggest issue in regards to war with NK is that Seoul is within range of NK artillery and any action short of a flawless first strike will probably leave several hundred thousand civilians dead, right?


Yeah, that was like the second page of this thread.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 09:12:35


Post by: sebster


For all the folks who were calling Trump a tactical genius after his early comments, note that this time around he's been much more measured, and hasn't strayed from lines being supplied to him. Whether he realised it himself after those stupid 'fire and fury' comments, or whether Mattis and Tillerson sat Trump down and lectured him for as long as it took, it seems Trump has realised that international brinkmanship is not the kind of thing you can make up as you go along. So now he's following the script and making sure US action is aligned with SK and Japan.


tneva82 wrote:
Has the Japan even changed their constitution? If not they cannot shoot that down unless it's being aimed at the Japan. Even if it was primed and armed nuke heading for US they couldn't shoot down without violating their consitution(provided it's not already been changed). Albeit they might in that case not care about that. Who's going to prosecute them? NK only...


Any action to declare mobilisation illegal would happen within Japan itself. Even the risk of such action would make the country wary, you don't want to enter a war while going through a constitutional crisis.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:00:46


Post by: Future War Cultist


Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:02:57


Post by: whembly


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:07:53


Post by: Future War Cultist


 whembly wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


Good point. China too I suppose.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:14:54


Post by: whembly


 Future War Cultist wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


Good point. China too I suppose.

Meh... China would bear the aftermath, not the retaliation. Frankly, I have no sympathy for China in this regard as it's their Paper Tigerâ„¢.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:30:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think people are asking a lot of China to stand down. NK is literally in their backyard. Seeing a US-influenced united Korea with a US-style military using US-style hardware is something they want less than this crazy upstart they have now.

It's like if we were in the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, all sitting around and murmuring "The US really must back down." *steeples fingers*


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:43:14


Post by: avantgarde


Pyongyang is trying recreate the Seoul situation on a larger scale. Which is to hold a Japanese city or better yet an American city hostage with the threat of nuclear destruction if the regime falls. Works on a small scale for decades why wouldn't it work on a large scale?

I don't think Pyongyang is interested in disarmament whatsoever, not for food, not for money, not for development. All of those mean nothing if the regime does not survive. I think the South Koreans are operating under the delusion that Pyongyang will stop if the right incentive is presented. SK will suffer the most besides NK if conflict breaks out so their policy is focused toward the prevention of conflict not the prevention of long range nuclear capability. Combine this with the US's perennial cycle back toward inward focus, lack of internal cohesion and lack of stomach for military adventure. Consider also South Korea's own domestic troubles and recent election.

Sanctions are going to do nothing, the more the conventional military capabilities of the DPRK are degraded the more they will need to rely on non-conventional deterrence. In fact the longer this stalemate continues all the better for NK, the more time they have to work in peace.

I believe the North Koreans will get a nuclear ICBM.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:43:41


Post by: Future War Cultist


Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:47:36


Post by: feeder


I think you nailed it with the first two words. Just becasue the PRC is less crazy evil than the DPRK doesn't make them not-crazy evil.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 16:49:16


Post by: Vaktathi


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.
The Koreans, North and South, wouldnt stand for that, and China doesnt really have anything to gain except a backwards province of ethnically and culturally distinct people that will just be another trouble spot for them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:03:00


Post by: Frazzled


 whembly wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:03:42


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.

Tru dat.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:15:09


Post by: Grey Templar


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.


China does not want that. They'd have to deal with a massive influx of millions of starving civilians who would be of no practical use to society beyond manual labor and who would have very little ability to integrate into their society. China's economy would tank.

Same thing with South Korea, but even worse. You'd have people who are practically living in the stone age having sudden culture shock into a highly advanced society. And that advanced society suddenly having to deal with these uneducated people being nothing but a burden.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:26:55


Post by: Vaktathi


 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?

Honestly, that's not our call. SK and Japan has to make that call as they'll bear the brunt of NK's retaliation.


UNLESS the US is attacked, then their considerations are secondary.
That would probably depend on the circumstances and scale of the attack I would imagine. We are ostensibly there to protect South Korea.

If we're willing to trade potentially six figures worth of SK civilian casualties and the destruction of their Capitol city and gobs of important world economic capital over a few hundred military dead, well, that may be...well, rather self defeating, in a number of different ways.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:34:20


Post by: Frazzled


You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 18:43:58


Post by: Vaktathi


 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.
That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:19:56


Post by: Frazzled


Pearl harbor was just a territory too.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:26:09


Post by: jhe90


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.
That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.


If they Nuke a a US Base even with a small one, and destroy a small US Base. That's still war.

Pearl harbour was ernough to be considered war. Their strike for a rather powerful counter attack.

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Even they won, t back him unless its regime change.

If they use tactical nukes. Then he a danger to entire region.
There is no Lee way. It is war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:35:05


Post by: Witzkatz


They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.


Whoa wait what? Who deployed a tactical nuke? They sent a missile over Japan, but AFAIK there was no warhead attached at all and the missile just broke into pieces on descent/landing in the ocean. No explosives. No warhead. Exacted a strike? What was struck? International waters?

This is a provocation, yes, but more than that? Mnah.

Edit: Or were you speaking about a theoretical attack on places like Guam the whole time? In that case I missed that, sorry.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:46:22


Post by: Whirlwind


tneva82 wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
 reds8n wrote:

No effort was made by Japan to shoot down the missile


is it really even that feasible to do this ?



Spoiler:


Probably not, but if THAAD (or a similar system) could, I don't think we'd disclose it for fear of triggering a new arms race.




The system has already been tested publicly this year.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/us-thaad-missile-defense-test/index.html

However the race to beat such defence systems has already arrived.

https://www.rt.com/news/341172-hypersonic-missile-test-china/
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/could-uss-new-hypersonic-missile-spark-world-war-3-1555182
https://www.rt.com/news/335993-russia-tests-hypersonic-missiles/





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:51:32


Post by: jhe90


 Witzkatz wrote:
They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.


Whoa wait what? Who deployed a tactical nuke? They sent a missile over Japan, but AFAIK there was no warhead attached at all and the missile just broke into pieces on descent/landing in the ocean. No explosives. No warhead. Exacted a strike? What was struck? International waters?

This is a provocation, yes, but more than that? Mnah.

Edit: Or were you speaking about a theoretical attack on places like Guam the whole time? In that case I missed that, sorry.


I was. Even if the theoroical strike was small. It is a huge phase shift from threats to real danger.

There is no going back from that even if ignored. Anything he then says will now be held as very very real.

So a threat to declare war.... Well he might end up starting one.

Right now we treat him as a abit of a clown. He fires a lives missile at someone. Things are definitely not funny any more and they become very very serious


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:53:47


Post by: Co'tor Shas


tneva82 wrote:
Has the Japan even changed their constitution? If not they cannot shoot that down unless it's being aimed at the Japan. Even if it was primed and armed nuke heading for US they couldn't shoot down without violating their consitution(provided it's not already been changed). Albeit they might in that case not care about that. Who's going to prosecute them? NK only...

Not quite, it's interpretation has been changed so that they can intervene in defense of an ally (in this case the US). And this has yet to be overturned. They still can take no offensive actions, however.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 20:54:22


Post by: Vaktathi


 Frazzled wrote:
Pearl harbor was just a territory too.
Right, but the Japanese didnt have a major world economic capital of a primary US ally held hostage under 5 digits worth of big guns that could kill tens of thousands and destroy critical economic targets that impact the daily lives of hundreds of millions across the planet at the literal drop of a hat. That's what has kept NK safe thus far, even after egregious acts of barbarity or outright hostile attack in the past from NK.

Unless that capabaility is neutralized or the blow particularly egregious, that is NK's MAD deterrent, and has proven successful in the past despite NK attacks on US warships, attacks on SK territory and artillery exchanges, kidnapping operations, the slaying of US troops engaged in tree trimming in the DMZ, etc.

Any reprisal against NK will have to weigh those costs, and the South Koreans have a voice in that, as they could choose to prevent the US from using its territory or assets in such an operation if they felt it was not in their interests, and depending on what form US reprisal took, that may matter quite a bit.




 jhe90 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
You didn't read my post. I said unless the US is attacked. That's instant full scale war.
That depends on what is meant by the "US". If they nuke a US city with a big bomb and kill tens or hundreds of thousands, ok. If they hit Guam with a sub kiloton warhead or a conventional weapon of some sort, or a failed attack that does nothing to to continental US, that may be harder to push in the same way with South Korea if they arent on the same page.


If they Nuke a a US Base even with a small one, and destroy a small US Base. That's still war.

Pearl harbour was ernough to be considered war. Their strike for a rather powerful counter attack.

They deployed and used a tactical nuclear warhead. He gone from being words to being a genuine and real danger to the world. Exacted a strike against a foreign military power and even China has said that any war he starts. He on his own.

Even they won, t back him unless its regime change.

If they use tactical nukes. Then he a danger to entire region.
There is no Lee way. It is war.
It might be, but the concerns of the South Koreans would not simply be "secondary". If they felt that the US response was likely to get a lot of them killed for no appreciable gain, they could make any US response dramatically more difficult.

Not that such would necessarily be the case, but to go back to the original point, the concerns of the South Koreans would not simply be secondary in any and all NK attack scenarios.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:09:48


Post by: Future War Cultist


It was too out there to suggest that China could just annex the place. But I do hope that they're now at point where they'll finally cut fatboy loose.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:11:39


Post by: d-usa


Realistically, the only things we can really do to calm the situation is to sit down and realize that North Korea is around for the long haul and actually work with them.

North Korea plays to their internal base by claiming that the US is the big bad guy and wants to attack and annihilate North Korea. And honestly, they don't have to try very hard to actually make that claim seem realistic. Our leadership are comfortable enough to threaten North Korea with annihilation on a pretty regular basis, and while POTUS has stepped back just a bit this is something that comes from all levels of our civilian leadership on the executive and legislative side. We have a large military presence that is a constant threat to them, and we are holding regular war games simulating how we are going to fight them. It's not a crazy claim for them to make when we are constantly surrounding them and practicing for executing that claim. Just look at how ape people get yelling "if one of their missiles gets close to our territory it's all out fething war", while we park our military and nuclear assets next door and practice destroying them on a regular basis.

They are not a signatory to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation, so there is no legal requirement for them not to possess nuclear weapons, and the entire justification for them not having nuclear weapons is based on other countries publicly declaring "we don't want them to have them". Yeah, once they start throwing them at people it's an issue but other than "we don't like a nuclear North Korea" there really isn't a valid reason to prevent them from having them.

So we have tried intimidating them with our military for decades. and they just use that intimidation to show that we are constantly threatening them and are using that so justify their military ambitions. We openly talk about wanting to overthrow North Korea and they are using that to show that we are constantly threatening their way of life.

Our way of dealing with North Korea has been a policy of "fething come at me bro" with a sprinkling of "we'll take the food away from your people" because any sanctions just get passed down to the peasants anyway.

It goes against our "we don't negotiate with bad guys" mindset, but maybe we need to sit down and give the "let North Korea have their weapons and their leadership and actually engage with them" approach a try.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:16:05


Post by: Future War Cultist


Although those are good points, I feel like engaging with him at that level would simply embolden him. He would think that threats of violence work, and will therefore keep at it.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:19:52


Post by: Vaktathi


Unfortunately, given the power dynamics at play within North Korea, the regime needs to perpetually be, or appear to be, a hairs breadth away from war. They have to milk at least the appearance that they are under constant and insidious threat of attack. That is how they maintain their grip on power, having an all powerful hostile foreign entity looking to destroy you is an irresistible boogeyman for such governments. If they did not exist, they will create such foes somehow for the sake of their power.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:23:46


Post by: d-usa


Well, we really only have three options.

1) Do the same thing we have been doing, it hasn't worked in decades but maybe it will at some point.

2) Execute a military option that will doom the entire peninsula to death and destruction, level the capital of South Korea, and create a humanitarian crisis that will make the middle east seem like a cakewalk.

3) Engage with them directly and let them have their toys.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:25:25


Post by: Talizvar


Thanks for all the posts.
It is a strong consideration that South Korea is pretty much a hostage for any USA (or anyone for that matter) attack scenario of North Korea.

I had thought that "surgical strikes" would be the way to go with no nuclear use.
I cant help feeling that neutralizing their leadership as a first step would be more than sufficient to stall a retaliation since everyone would be TERRIFIED to do anything without permission.

After getting a missile shot over their country, I am reasonably certain Japan has some rather nasty plans ready of their own, limited military or not.
Culturally, I have found them to not be the type to let things happen to them without a fight.
Being on the receiving end of two nuclear bombs historically... I think it would be a rather emphatic "never again!".

I understand NK wants to be taken seriously, but the message of "back off" vs "you want a piece of this?!?" cultivates their own special responses by other countries.
Yeah, confirmed homicidal crazy gives an overwhelming need for the sane to take their toys away.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:29:13


Post by: d-usa


 Talizvar wrote:

I understand NK wants to be taken seriously, but the message of "back off" vs "you want a piece of this?!?" cultivates their own special responses by other countries.


But to be fair, that has been the foreign policy of the US for decades as well.

North Korea and the US are two frat boys yelling "you want a piece of this, come at me bro, please make my day and punch me, better hold me back guys or it will get ugly, that's right, you are lucky my buddy is here to stop me from stomping your ass" while their respective frat brothers are making a token show of holding them back from the fight (with China somehow managing to join both fraternities at the same time).


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:34:48


Post by: Easy E


 d-usa wrote:
Well, we really only have three options.

1) Do the same thing we have been doing, it hasn't worked in decades but maybe it will at some point.

2) Execute a military option that will doom the entire peninsula to death and destruction, level the capital of South Korea, and create a humanitarian crisis that will make the middle east seem like a cakewalk.

3) Engage with them directly and let them have their toys.



Clearly, containment is the way forward.... as it has always been.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:38:32


Post by: jhe90


Here's the thing.

If in this bad future. Guam is hit. Gain is not only target.
NK missile strikes would be aimed at taking out all key bases in range. Okinowa, JDF. US pacific fleet, the SK forces.

They are gonna try and destroy the allied bases to prevent counter attack.

Kim will have one element of surprise. Not waste it on a single target. He hit everyone, move south fast as can, try to knock them out war before the west can react.

Its risky... Super risky.
Chances are he loses. Millions still die or wounded at worst.

Any events that happen will be part of a far larger game.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 21:39:58


Post by: Vaktathi


There is no good solution unfortunately. That's the simple reality. There is no clear, safe, effective option. If there was, it would have been acted on long ago.

The choice has, for decades been, do we take the risk and destroy the crazy regime now and risk hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions, on both sides of the border and incur trillions of dollars in damages, or do we let it sit and either wait for the NK regime to fizzle out and fall (as pretty much all such regimes seem to do eventually) or potentially become an even greater threat as it slides down the rabbit hole of insanity?

It also doesnt help that the examples of Gaddafi and Hussein have shown what happens to crazy dictatorial regimes that honk off the West without a suitable retaliatory option to defend themselves with, which only reinforces the crazy, thiugh not that Gaddafi and Hussein didnt get exactly what they deserved either.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/30 23:02:06


Post by: trexmeyer


Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?

Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 00:06:25


Post by: Ginsu33


 trexmeyer wrote:
Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?


North Korea would have a few miniutes to react before the missiles hit, it's not a good idea.
No idea what the political repercussions would be... we're still protected under MAD doctrine so I guess it would sail..


 trexmeyer wrote:
Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.


No chance in hell lol. US is the security provider in the region, Japan and South Korea won't do anything, they will ask the US first, and if Japan did get hit, who responds? US does.
The only instance Japan is responding to anything are Chinese invasions of their islands.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 00:10:45


Post by: Vaktathi


 trexmeyer wrote:
Theoretically speaking.

Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible? If so, what would the repercussions be?
They have spent tons of effort over many decades hiding lots of stuff that almost certainly will evade detection if every conflict in the last 50 years is indication. More to the point, given that almost *everything* in NK has a military presence of some sort, and that the entire border is one long military encampment, and you'd have to nuke the entire country end to end, and neither China nor South Korea, nor Japan nor Russia are going to be thrilled at dealing with fallout.


Also, not theoretically...I think there is a good chance Japan or South Korea will act before the US, possibly together.
neither will make a major move without the US, but its possible they may prod for action before the US does.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 00:10:52


Post by: Peregrine


 trexmeyer wrote:
Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible?


Sure. We have plenty of nukes, we can cover all of North Korea just fine.

If so, what would the repercussions be?


Horrifying civilian casualties, plus whatever retaliation the rest of the world hits the US with for the massacre. At best you're talking about massive diplomatic and economic consequences where everyone agrees that the US needs to be stopped and throws the US into full isolation with catastrophic consequences. At worst you're talking about full-scale nuclear war to eliminate the butcher before they can do it again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 09:08:24


Post by: sebster


 Future War Cultist wrote:
Are we in consensus that no matter what happens, enough is enough and that this regime has got to go?


No, because 'start a war with NK before NK starts a war' makes no sense at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Future War Cultist wrote:
Evil idea; what if we allowed china to take North Korea? Let them annex and absorb it, write it off and South Korea can simply become 'Korea'.


Offer that to China if you want. After a long, confused stare they will reply, "thankyou but I think we'd rather not'.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 09:19:49


Post by: Future War Cultist


Just a couple of thoughts.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 10:02:15


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Peregrine wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
Would a systemic strategic nuclear strike by the US of all known North Korean military assets capable of rendering uncouth damage to Seoul be possible?


Sure. We have plenty of nukes, we can cover all of North Korea just fine.

If so, what would the repercussions be?


Horrifying civilian casualties, plus whatever retaliation the rest of the world hits the US with for the massacre. At best you're talking about massive diplomatic and economic consequences where everyone agrees that the US needs to be stopped and throws the US into full isolation with catastrophic consequences. At worst you're talking about full-scale nuclear war to eliminate the butcher before they can do it again.


And that's assuming that China goes "oh look, missiles heading this way, ho hum" instead of "!!!!!" as soon as they spot multiple incoming SLBMs or IRBMs (I'm assuming ICBMs are out of the question, launching those is a good way to kill everyone).


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 12:54:16


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Not to mention, when you launch those nukes, China will detect them and it will not be clear until they land whether they are targeting North Korea or China. Are they going to wait and see before they launch their retaliatory strike?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 13:49:42


Post by: Frazzled


We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 15:16:19


Post by: Vaktathi


Well, the issue is that China doesnt have the great hand behind NK that some think it does, and isnt stationing its weapons or troops in NK the way the USSR was in Cuba. In Cuba, those were Soviet weapons manned by Soviet troops under Soviet command. Such is not the case with North Korea, and the chinese have been on board with many big recent actions against NK and NK has bitten them publicly for it. China would be just as happy with NK gone if they knew it woulf mean US forces would leave SK, they no longer have any particular love for NK and basically see them as an unfortunately necessary buffer between them and direct contact with US military forces.

The biggest offender for NK's advancement in missiles and nukes is, most probably, Pakistan (who did receive assistance from China on their program). It should also be kept in mind that these technologies are rather mature, dating back 50 years or more, and NK devotes an obscene amount of its resources to developing these programs at great cost to aost everything else in the nation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 17:42:30


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.


Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 17:48:19


Post by: Grey Templar


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.


Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.


I do think it's best not to say we'd attack China. I think it would be best to mock them for losing control over their lapdog AND say that China needs to cut all ties with North Korea and end all aid or we'll start pinching their economy.

See, we actually have a good bit of power over China now. They NEED us to keep buying their products or their economy would suffer total collapse, which would like lead to political revolution. Even if we simply slapped some massive tariffs on anything produced in China it would hurt them big time.

Thats why North Korea is now a problem for China instead of an asset. They just need to realize it.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 17:58:16


Post by: Vaktathi


The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:05:16


Post by: Frazzled


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.


Or it turns into a thermonuclear war between China and the US. Remember that China does not respond well to threats, and are much less concerned about the lives of their people than say, Russia.

The best way to approach this is to make it out that Chinese politicians are losing face over this.


You're assuming this won't happen in the future anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:45:47


Post by: Grey Templar


 Vaktathi wrote:
The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.


Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:53:05


Post by: Frazzled


This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:57:18


Post by: d-usa


 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.


You can't solve every problem by invading a country during their post Tex Mex food coma.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:58:18


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.


NK already has enough toxic gas.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 18:59:48


Post by: Frazzled


 d-usa wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
This could all be solved if we just air dropped Tex Mex into NK. No one is angry when they are busy eating carne asada.


You can't solve every problem by invading a country during their post Tex Mex food coma.


No no TexMex is the food of peace. Drop TexMex and soon they'll be too fat to invade anyone. Plus they'd all just keel over from heart attacks.

When all you have is Tex Mex, every problem looks like a bowl of queso.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 19:01:01


Post by: Grey Templar


To be fair, given the level of malnutrition the average North Korean has, dropping Tex Mex would probably have an appreciable fatality rate.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 19:02:49


Post by: Frazzled


 Grey Templar wrote:
To be fair, given the level of malnutrition the average North Korean has, dropping Tex Mex would probably have an appreciable fatality rate.


Now thats the way to go!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 19:50:34


Post by: Spetulhu


The sad fact is that North Korea is the losing card in any game. It can't win, but whoever defeats them with a high hand gets the black losing card added to his deck.

Wiping out their stuff would be ridiculously easy for the US, China or even South Korea - but someone has to pony up for making it a working country again, a country with nice well-adjusted citizens who can function in the modern world. This will cost money. A lot of money. No one wants to pay that money.

If the US does it alone and leaves the consequences for others to deal with, goodbye to any US international reputation and goodwill. NATO falls along with it. Putin laughs and annexes Europe.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 19:59:59


Post by: Iron_Captain


Spetulhu wrote:
The sad fact is that North Korea is the losing card in any game. It can't win, but whoever defeats them with a high hand gets the black losing card added to his deck.

Wiping out their stuff would be ridiculously easy for the US, China or even South Korea - but someone has to pony up for making it a working country again, a country with nice well-adjusted citizens who can function in the modern world. This will cost money. A lot of money. No one wants to pay that money.

If the US does it alone and leaves the consequences for others to deal with, goodbye to any US international reputation and goodwill. NATO falls along with it. Putin laughs and annexes Europe.

Not to mention that while North Korea is no match for the likes of the US or South Korea, it is still far from harmless. A war against North Korea would not only cost a lot in economic terms, it would also claim a high cost in human lifes.

Also, China is ultimately not going to be giving up on North Korea. It may have become a liability to China, but the fall of the North Korean regime is likely to mean Korean reunification under South Korean leadership. And everything is better than having a bunch of US lackeys on your doorstep. Just ask Russia.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the North Korean regime would be to stop threatening them and instead engage with them in economic relationships and aid and try to improve the average North Korean's standard of living as much as possible. More economic prosperity means the North Korean people will have the luxury of thinking about politics instead of simply trying to survive. A less politically apathic population + more foreign contacts = Kim-Jong-Un's biggest nightmare.
Ultimately, we can't deal with the North Korean regime without massive damage to ourselves. We need to make sure the North Koreans themselves deal with their regime.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 20:29:23


Post by: Vaktathi


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.


Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.
Hrm, I would not assume it would hurt the US less than China. China could much more easily find alternate routes and customers to deliver goods than many US companies could find alternate suppliers that could meet volume demands, and nobody is going to tolerate the newest iPhone model being late or 40% more expensive, while the Chinese government is a whole lot less responsive to such pressure





 Iron_Captain wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
The sad fact is that North Korea is the losing card in any game. It can't win, but whoever defeats them with a high hand gets the black losing card added to his deck.

Wiping out their stuff would be ridiculously easy for the US, China or even South Korea - but someone has to pony up for making it a working country again, a country with nice well-adjusted citizens who can function in the modern world. This will cost money. A lot of money. No one wants to pay that money.

If the US does it alone and leaves the consequences for others to deal with, goodbye to any US international reputation and goodwill. NATO falls along with it. Putin laughs and annexes Europe.

Not to mention that while North Korea is no match for the likes of the US or South Korea, it is still far from harmless. A war against North Korea would not only cost a lot in economic terms, it would also claim a high cost in human lifes.

Also, China is ultimately not going to be giving up on North Korea. It may have become a liability to China, but the fall of the North Korean regime is likely to mean Korean reunification under South Korean leadership. And everything is better than having a bunch of US lackeys on your doorstep. Just ask Russia.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with the North Korean regime would be to stop threatening them and instead engage with them in economic relationships and aid and try to improve the average North Korean's standard of living as much as possible. More economic prosperity means the North Korean people will have the luxury of thinking about politics instead of simply trying to survive. A less politically apathic population + more foreign contacts = Kim-Jong-Un's biggest nightmare.
Ultimately, we can't deal with the North Korean regime without massive damage to ourselves. We need to make sure the North Koreans themselves deal with their regime.
The issue is that the North Korean government, as it currently exists, needs that outside enemy as the everpresent threat in order to maintain power. They have to drive the narrative that theyre the underdog bravely fending off hostile imperialist powers ready to invade and kill everyone at a moments notice. If such is not present, they have and will create such a threat for domestic consumption. Unless there are major internal changes to NK's government in the way that the USSR and China experienced after the shadows of Stalin and Mao finally passed, that will not change. It may happen someday, in fact almost certainly will, and that would be the point at which engagement could work, but not yet.

The NK government has spent many years rebranding the old communist internationalism they started with into a uniquely Kim family centered diving right monarchy political philosophy built around an imminently threatened ethnic identity and putting the military above all things. If the US disappeared tomorrow from the face of the planet, NK wouldn't change much, the big enemy would just change faces, it's the only way to keep those in power where they are, and they would capture pretty much all gains made from outside engagements at the cost of their people, as NK has demonstrated in the past.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/08/31 23:10:04


Post by: Spetulhu


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ultimately, we can't deal with the North Korean regime without massive damage to ourselves. We need to make sure the North Koreans themselves deal with their regime.


Aye, absolutely. Now we just need to come up with some way of making sure they do that, which isn't easy if they don't even have unlimited electricity so they could listen to South Korean propaganda.

Paying off Kim (as already proposed in this thread) for peaceful retirement might well be the best and safest for all of us, even if we make him richer than the Saudi King in the process. Damn, I would like a retirement plan like that...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/01 01:46:46


Post by: sebster


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Not to mention, when you launch those nukes, China will detect them and it will not be clear until they land whether they are targeting North Korea or China. Are they going to wait and see before they launch their retaliatory strike?


One presumes that while the retaliatory strike is being prepped and launched, the US will have a lot of communications with China to tell them the missiles are only going to hit North Korea, because that's the only country that just attacked the US.

One also presumes China aren't staggering idiots who'll commit to destroying the planet because their missile tracking can't tell if the US is only attacking the country that just attacked them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
We could always employ the Cuba policy we did with the USSR: any attack from NK will be viewed as a direct attack from China itself.


The missiles in Cuba were Russian built, Russian operated, and to be fired on the orders of Moscow. As such, yeah any attack from Cuba would be seen as an attack by the Soviet Union, because it was.

Running the same line of argument here makes no sense, it NK's own program, operated by its own soldiers, and will fire under the order of NK command. China has no input and no say.

What you're arguing is like claiming the US should be held responsible for anything SK does.

China will quit playing games (NK did not develop all that that fast without China help) and realize thus is now serious gak. China is using NK as a negotiation tool.


Not really. China wants rid of the NK mess as well. They just don't want the 'solution' to involve a massive humanitarian crisis that will drive millions of people pouring over its borders.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/02 16:12:02


Post by: Grey Templar


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.


Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.
Hrm, I would not assume it would hurt the US less than China. China could much more easily find alternate routes and customers to deliver goods than many US companies could find alternate suppliers that could meet volume demands, and nobody is going to tolerate the newest iPhone model being late or 40% more expensive, while the Chinese government is a whole lot less responsive to such pressure


I guarantee that China would never find replacement markets for what the US buys. Not even close. They'd have to dump it all for fractions of pennies on the dollar just to get stuff moved, and that still would have the net effect of ruining their economy because they didn't cover costs. You can't find new markets overnight, especially when they don't exist.

Europe? China already sells to Europe. They're not going to more than double their Chinese imports.

Africa or South America? Even worse than trying to get Europe to absorb the former US imports, except now they don't have anywhere near the amount of money.

As for "mah iPhone is too expensive!!!". The damn things are already too expensive. People gotta finance their freaking phones nowdays. The latest is going to be over $1000.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 00:27:06


Post by: Just Tony


Spetulhu wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ultimately, we can't deal with the North Korean regime without massive damage to ourselves. We need to make sure the North Koreans themselves deal with their regime.


Aye, absolutely. Now we just need to come up with some way of making sure they do that, which isn't easy if they don't even have unlimited electricity so they could listen to South Korean propaganda.

Paying off Kim (as already proposed in this thread) for peaceful retirement might well be the best and safest for all of us, even if we make him richer than the Saudi King in the process. Damn, I would like a retirement plan like that...


I have a calendar set aside every year for the express purpose of marking down the day that "other people's money" stops being the default solution to any problem.





As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 00:59:25


Post by: Vaktathi


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The US would not come off any better in such a trade war, we both buy too much stuff from each other, stuff that the other cannot readily replace or replace with the same cost effectiveness. Slapping massive tarriffs on Chinese goods would be economic suicide, and cut the biggest incentive China has to cooperate. There's a reason that hasnt been done yet, and why tariffs are seen as 19th century mechanisms.The world economy is far too interconnected for something like that to not horrifically backfire.


Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.
Hrm, I would not assume it would hurt the US less than China. China could much more easily find alternate routes and customers to deliver goods than many US companies could find alternate suppliers that could meet volume demands, and nobody is going to tolerate the newest iPhone model being late or 40% more expensive, while the Chinese government is a whole lot less responsive to such pressure


I guarantee that China would never find replacement markets for what the US buys. Not even close. They'd have to dump it all for fractions of pennies on the dollar just to get stuff moved, and that still would have the net effect of ruining their economy because they didn't cover costs. You can't find new markets overnight, especially when they don't exist.
Hrm, when US firms are no longer able to supply because production capability is not available, then other options open up. There's India, Europe, Russia, etc. and they'll buy other stuff China can make. Doesn't have to be the newest iPhone or laptop...or it can once the US manufacturer can't import from there affordably and the IP and production capacity remain .


Europe? China already sells to Europe. They're not going to more than double their Chinese imports.
When thousands of firms are suddenly cut off from their production supply and European competitors can buy up that production time and spread into market share?


Africa or South America? Even worse than trying to get Europe to absorb the former US imports, except now they don't have anywhere near the amount of money.
They're both sideshows currently, agreed.


As for "mah iPhone is too expensive!!!". The damn things are already too expensive. People gotta finance their freaking phones nowdays. The latest is going to be over $1000.
It was a bit hyperbolic, but the point is they'd be dramatically more expensive to produce here domestically. There's a reason they're produced in China.

Ultimately, it would do no good for anybody and there's no evidence that it would hurt the US less than it would hurt China, at least not in any meaningful way. It would be economic suicide for both nations, whoever came out "better" would be academic.



 Just Tony wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ultimately, we can't deal with the North Korean regime without massive damage to ourselves. We need to make sure the North Koreans themselves deal with their regime.


Aye, absolutely. Now we just need to come up with some way of making sure they do that, which isn't easy if they don't even have unlimited electricity so they could listen to South Korean propaganda.

Paying off Kim (as already proposed in this thread) for peaceful retirement might well be the best and safest for all of us, even if we make him richer than the Saudi King in the process. Damn, I would like a retirement plan like that...


I have a calendar set aside every year for the express purpose of marking down the day that "other people's money" stops being the default solution to any problem.
To be fair, this approach as been used to great success many times in the past by many empires. It's often cheaper to buy out the troublesome barbarian tribe or irritating insurgents than to fight them, which costs a whole lot people a whole lot more. Worked in Iraq quite well in some instances actually, where lots of insurgents and groups were literally just bought off and went home or started working for security forces instead.


Don't think it'll work here however, the problem is that Kim, much like many dictators of such station, know they're dead the second they're out of power even if those in power work to protect them. You don't get to give up being a Stalin or Hitler, the game ends when you die, not before.





As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.
This kind of james bond stuff works...poorly in real life, and usually doesn't come off anywhere near as smooth as one expects, and is usually caught on to in some form or fashion, and also usually doesn't lead to a more stable democratic direction, at least in those that agencies like the CIA have been involved in in the past.





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 08:06:36


Post by: pismakron


North Korea just tested another nuke. Around 25 kt this time. I think it is time to accept the reality of a North Korea with nuclear armed ICBMs. At this point the cure will be worse than the disease


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 08:17:34


Post by: Iron_Captain


Yes. Seems like they've done it. North Korea has an H-bomb now. Apparently the test caused a massive earthquake.
https://www.rt.com/news/401859-north-korea-earthquake-nuclear/

They also say it is small enough to be mounted on an ICBM, which at this point I have no trouble believing. I guess this means that any military solution is definitely off the table.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 12:48:48


Post by: Mr. Burning


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes. Seems like they've done it. North Korea has an H-bomb now. Apparently the test caused a massive earthquake.
https://www.rt.com/news/401859-north-korea-earthquake-nuclear/

They also say it is small enough to be mounted on an ICBM, which at this point I have no trouble believing. I guess this means that any military solution is definitely off the table.


Atmospheric testing still needs to be done to sample radionucleotides released by the test.

Should NK attempt an atmospheric tor live fire test then Ill be a bit more worried they have capability.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 12:56:28


Post by: Frazzled


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes. Seems like they've done it. North Korea has an H-bomb now. Apparently the test caused a massive earthquake.
https://www.rt.com/news/401859-north-korea-earthquake-nuclear/

They also say it is small enough to be mounted on an ICBM, which at this point I have no trouble believing. I guess this means that any military solution is definitely off the table.


No. It actually makes it more important to have an all out first strike on any potential targets.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 13:17:27


Post by: jhe90


 Frazzled wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes. Seems like they've done it. North Korea has an H-bomb now. Apparently the test caused a massive earthquake.
https://www.rt.com/news/401859-north-korea-earthquake-nuclear/

They also say it is small enough to be mounted on an ICBM, which at this point I have no trouble believing. I guess this means that any military solution is definitely off the table.


No. It actually makes it more important to have an all out first strike on any potential targets.


Also means though, now people know he has that kinda capability. He also might have to be more careful as if they test a missile there now maybe thinking of they facing a nuclear strike.

Theres only one response to a nuclear strike.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 13:29:06


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Yes, it's a bit of a precarious situation - to boast of striking places like Guam, and then declare you have a H-bomb ready to go into an ICBM, and then to go on firing ICBMs over Japanese mainland without any warning as to your intent.

It's for the benefit of everyone that they start communicating properly. Randomly firing off missiles in the direction of other countries when you have nuclear capability invites retaliation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:10:19


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes, it's a bit of a precarious situation - to boast of striking places like Guam, and then declare you have a H-bomb ready to go into an ICBM, and then to go on firing ICBMs over Japanese mainland without any warning as to your intent.

It's for the benefit of everyone that they start communicating properly. Randomly firing off missiles in the direction of other countries when you have nuclear capability invites retaliation.


You may accuse me of being blase on this, but as I said earlier, what are the North going to do?

Any attack on the USA = wipeout, NATO article 5 getting activated etc etc Even China and Russia would be reluctant to take on the USA and the rest of NATO + Japan.

If South Korea or Japan is attacked with nukes, again, the North is wiped from the face of the map.

So the North are reduced to jumping up and down, with a malnourished army, and a nuclear weapon they can't use.

I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over this.





What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:21:55


Post by: whembly


I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:24:45


Post by: Mr Morden


As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.


Has that ever worked anywhere?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:29:45


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


True.

The North Koreans are a lot of things, but they're not so silly as to sign their own death warrant with a pre-emptive strike.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:32:06


Post by: Spetulhu


 Mr Morden wrote:
As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things.


Has that ever worked anywhere?


Against democracies the big boys want to replace with a nice pliable dictatorship, yes. How long said dictator remains under control is another question.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:33:20


Post by: jhe90


 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes, it's a bit of a precarious situation - to boast of striking places like Guam, and then declare you have a H-bomb ready to go into an ICBM, and then to go on firing ICBMs over Japanese mainland without any warning as to your intent.

It's for the benefit of everyone that they start communicating properly. Randomly firing off missiles in the direction of other countries when you have nuclear capability invites retaliation.


Yeah, if you make yourself too much of a mad dog, someone will put oyu down when youe wild card nature out weighs the cost.
If your throwing potential nukes about. people aint gonna have much tolerance to the concept.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:35:28


Post by: Mr. Burning


 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


This has been a 'fear' since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Its highly unlikely that NK nuclear tech or material will get into the hands of non ideologically sound actors. They may export missile tech though



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 15:46:52


Post by: Mr Morden


Spetulhu wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things.


Has that ever worked anywhere?


Against democracies the big boys want to replace with a nice pliable dictatorship, yes. How long said dictator remains under control is another question.


Yeah thats easier, replacing a dictatorship with a democacy - now thats very very hard and usually results in civil war unless you have massive investment by one of the powers.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 16:22:20


Post by: jhe90


 Mr. Burning wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


This has been a 'fear' since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Its highly unlikely that NK nuclear tech or material will get into the hands of non ideologically sound actors. They may export missile tech though



They also know im sure the rule.
You give a nuke. there gonna hold the source to account. AKA NK.

So, you got CHina who if NK where proved guilty of nuclear terror supply. well. they aint gonna bail out his ass when the world rounds on him and tells him to stand down or die.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 18:59:53


Post by: Mr. Burning


 jhe90 wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


This has been a 'fear' since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Its highly unlikely that NK nuclear tech or material will get into the hands of non ideologically sound actors. They may export missile tech though



They also know im sure the rule.
You give a nuke. there gonna hold the source to account. AKA NK.

So, you got CHina who if NK where proved guilty of nuclear terror supply. well. they aint gonna bail out his ass when the world rounds on him and tells him to stand down or die.



Its a non issue really.

The real issue is understanding NK.

funnily enough the only stable thing about tensions on this penninsula is NK and its leadership. The current thinking is that once NK knows the west knows it has a viable nuclear weapon It will back down and continue on its previous path.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 21:39:04


Post by: Just Tony


Mr Morden wrote:
As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.


Has that ever worked anywhere?


Has giving dictators other people's money worked anywhere? Maybe short term tops? I can't think of a situation right off hand where rewarding someone for incredibly gakky behavior and bad ethical and human rights actions resulted in that person suddenly developing better behavior. Come to think of it, I can't offhand think of a situation where other people's money has solved ANY issues in the long term.

Mr. Burning wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


This has been a 'fear' since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Its highly unlikely that NK nuclear tech or material will get into the hands of non ideologically sound actors. They may export missile tech though



They also know im sure the rule.
You give a nuke. there gonna hold the source to account. AKA NK.

So, you got CHina who if NK where proved guilty of nuclear terror supply. well. they aint gonna bail out his ass when the world rounds on him and tells him to stand down or die.



Its a non issue really.

The real issue is understanding NK.

funnily enough the only stable thing about tensions on this penninsula is NK and its leadership. The current thinking is that once NK knows the west knows it has a viable nuclear weapon It will back down and continue on its previous path.


That is a rather high gamble to take, given the absolute flying rodent gak insane things that guy has said and done. Hand a megalomaniac a gun, they don't tend to suddenly relax and read the Sunday Funnies.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 22:29:21


Post by: jhe90


 Just Tony wrote:
Mr Morden wrote:
As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.


Has that ever worked anywhere?


Has giving dictators other people's money worked anywhere? Maybe short term tops? I can't think of a situation right off hand where rewarding someone for incredibly gakky behavior and bad ethical and human rights actions resulted in that person suddenly developing better behavior. Come to think of it, I can't offhand think of a situation where other people's money has solved ANY issues in the long term.

Mr. Burning wrote:
 jhe90 wrote:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...

The silver lining of all that... is that, every nuke device has it's own regional "finger-print" that's easy to ascertain. So, in the event of a nuke being used, we'd know where it came from.


This has been a 'fear' since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Its highly unlikely that NK nuclear tech or material will get into the hands of non ideologically sound actors. They may export missile tech though



They also know im sure the rule.
You give a nuke. there gonna hold the source to account. AKA NK.

So, you got CHina who if NK where proved guilty of nuclear terror supply. well. they aint gonna bail out his ass when the world rounds on him and tells him to stand down or die.



Its a non issue really.

The real issue is understanding NK.

funnily enough the only stable thing about tensions on this penninsula is NK and its leadership. The current thinking is that once NK knows the west knows it has a viable nuclear weapon It will back down and continue on its previous path.


That is a rather high gamble to take, given the absolute flying rodent gak insane things that guy has said and done. Hand a megalomaniac a gun, they don't tend to suddenly relax and read the Sunday Funnies.


He ain't gonna back down now. He just ask for more and more.
And then throw more his sympathy fits. Now with nukes if he not get his way.

"the appeaser feeds a crocodile hoping it eats them last"
Roughly sum of a Churchill quote. The truth has not changed.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/03 23:37:21


Post by: d-usa


What has NK actually done other than going "come at me bro"?

Having a bigger nuke doesn't really change much for them, they've been able to kill hundreds of thousands of people at a moments notice for a very long time now. Throwing a nuke around isn't going to threaten anymore people than they are already threatening, and they haven't been dumb enough to go crazy and launch actual rockets at anybody so far and that's not going to change. NK knows they need a scary enemy to survive, they also know they don't need an actual retaliation.

All this talk about how to get rid of NK? That's what he wants, that's success, that's the point of the nuke rather than actually using them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 00:17:46


Post by: Just Tony


One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 01:25:20


Post by: Sarouan


Nuclear weapons were always a weapon of dissuasion. They are never meant to be used.

Just ask Colin Powell



What North Korea does is the usual stuff. NK's leader is still taunting Trump, that doesn't change. That's how he keeps himself at the head of his regime ; showing he can stand against America's tyranny. The way Trump is acting is basically helping him.

Military option isn't the solution, here. It never was.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 01:29:42


Post by: Spinner


 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


Dude, there's a ban on US politics...

Seriously, though. I'm pretty sure he's aware that he'd be flattened if he just started nuking other countries willy-nilly. I know it's easy to talk about bombing them first or dumping 007 in the country or whatever, but I don't think this is a problem that gets solved by spending other people's lives.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 01:35:14


Post by: Sheperd


Dunno. I'm not the brightest.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 01:41:33


Post by: Sarouan


Both sides flex their muscles to appear threatening, but I'm pretty sure neither of them want to actually go to war. They know it will cost them a lot. Yeah, even the USA.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 02:14:49


Post by: d-usa


 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


What has NK actually done though?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 03:05:57


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Frazzled wrote:

No. It actually makes it more important to have an all out first strike on any potential targets.


At the moment, your 'potential targets' amount to the entire Korean Peninsula north of the DMZ. Despite Kim's BS, America would be an international pariah to launch a nuclear attack on that scale. Not the least of which would be for killing their ally, South Korea in the process. Never mind China nuking the US, or Russia also nuking the US, the backlash at home would be staggering once the pictures of half melted children got smeared across the news.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 03:54:40


Post by: sebster


 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, it would hurt us too. But less than it hurts them. And the point of such a threat is to not have to go through with it(but be willing to go through with it if China doesn't cooperate) because China backs down.


You don't understand the scale of harm to the US from ending trade with China. It'd cost you about 4.5% of your GDP. For reference, the GFC cost 0.98%. Four and a half times bigger than the GFC, as a threat to bully China in to nobody is quite sure what.

It's dumb beyond belief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Just Tony wrote:
I have a calendar set aside every year for the express purpose of marking down the day that "other people's money" stops being the default solution to any problem.

As far as how to handle it: infiltrate the country with western operatives that blend in, and when the coup is enacted, then they can guide things into a little more stable democratic direction. It isn't a fast solution, but it's the one that has the least amount of casualties without uselessly dumping tons of money we don't have on someone who will more than likely not even honor any deal made with said money.


My favourite part about this is how your moralistic opposition to using 'other people's money' to buy off the problem suddenly stops when you start talking about covert operatives... who presumably are being with hugs and goodwill.

I mean, we could probably spend some time talking about the endless problems with your plan, where 'completely unknown strategy' is sidestepped by claiming it's long term or something, but really that's just not very interesting. What is interesting, though, is how quickly concerns about spending money disappears when it comes to splashing out money for forceful options. It says a lot about why so many foreign policy debates are so screwed up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the blood money option, that also sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You may accuse me of being blase on this, but as I said earlier, what are the North going to do?


People in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, far more stable, sane actors than Kim, have spoken afterwards about how close they came to direct nuclear conflict. Pressing the button was an action that both sides considered necessary if things continued to deteriorate. This is because brinkmanship has a habit of taking both parties to places that neither ever wanted to go to in the first place. When both parties have too much to lose from stepping back, then each party in turns keeps that next small step towards conflict.

It is not hard at all to see a scenario where famine or some other hardship requires NK to use nuclear blackmail to get necessary food and supplies, and the US, SK and Japan are unwilling to backdown in the face of blackmail, leading each party to ratchet up the tension, until eventually NK is in a position where stepping down will collapse the regime or at least lead to Kim's overthrow.

This is fething serious dude. There is no good solution, and gak could get wild at any moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
I don't think the danger is "The North will nuke yo ass!"...

It's the "The North will secretly give this & that nuke to ISIS, or some other bad actors"...


What? Why would NK do that?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 05:50:08


Post by: Just Tony


The military personnel are already ON the fething payroll. It's not like we'd have some large Asian American draft or something, it'd be using the assets we have. Yes, it's a complex solution, and one that's no longer viable since Fat Man just moved into Pyongyang, but it would have been far better than dropping millions or billions of this endless flow of revenue that half the US and most of Europe seems to believe the US has.

And there's no double standard there. If they wanted to ramp up recruitment for this sort of thing, I'd call that wasteful spending at the very least.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 06:25:49


Post by: Grey Templar


 d-usa wrote:

What has NK actually done though?


Genocide of their own civilians. Holding another country of 51 million people hostage by, quite literally, pointing a lot of very big guns in their direction. And they're about to hold anything in range of their 3rd world ICBMs hostage too.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 07:06:37


Post by: d-usa


So nothing that different from many other countries we ignore. We have never given a damn about a country killing their own people, ever. To pretend this is about some moral high ground is silly, if anybody but North Korea was doing the killing we wouldn't care. Heck, look at Syria for a prime example.

And the US is constantly threatening NK, so it's hard to fault them for playing a "the US wants to wipe us out, so we need insurance" game when we are actually constantly threatening NK. They go "we need this, because the US could destroy us without it" and we already have POTUS and SecDef going "we can destroy NK and will do it if we must".

NK isn't going to nuke anyone, their lack of any actual real hostility with conventional weapons demonstrates that.







What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 08:26:30


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


@sebster

There will be no war with North Korea this year, and you can quote me on that.

I base that on years of reading history books, politics, and my own life experience.

It will be the usual war of words, stalemate, and we'll resolve the situation by throwing them some food aid or something. And we'll be back here next year having this thread again.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 18:58:44


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes, it's a bit of a precarious situation - to boast of striking places like Guam, and then declare you have a H-bomb ready to go into an ICBM, and then to go on firing ICBMs over Japanese mainland without any warning as to your intent.

It's for the benefit of everyone that they start communicating properly. Randomly firing off missiles in the direction of other countries when you have nuclear capability invites retaliation.


You may accuse me of being blase on this, but as I said earlier, what are the North going to do?

Any attack on the USA = wipeout, NATO article 5 getting activated etc etc Even China and Russia would be reluctant to take on the USA and the rest of NATO + Japan. If South Korea or Japan is attacked with nukes, again, the North is wiped from the face of the map.

So the North are reduced to jumping up and down, with a malnourished army, and a nuclear weapon they can't use.

I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over this.

China has succesfully taken on the US and NATO before. In the 1950's. China is now a whole lot stronger than it was in the 1950's. It won't hesitate to take on the US and NATO if needed. Not to mention they aren't going to be facing all of the US and NATO. They will only have to face whatever America can send across the Pacific and the token support that other NATO members are willing to provide (if they will provide any support at all that is). China is incredibly unhappy with North Korea at the present, but they'd be even more unhappy with US troops on their border. Do not make the mistake of the last Korea War and underestimate China, especially not in its own backyard.
The North has no intention of getting wiped out, but neither has the South or Japan. With an H-bomb, North Korea can inflict such massive damage that it now effectively holds South Korea and Japan hostage. Any hostile actions against North Korea? Bye bye Seoul, sayonara Tokyo. Nobody wants to pay such a price for taking out North Korea, so North Korea is safe. If I had to guess, the North Koreans are following the ancient Roman saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@sebster

There will be no war with North Korea this year, and you can quote me on that.

I base that on years of reading history books, politics, and my own life experience.

It will be the usual war of words, stalemate, and we'll resolve the situation by throwing them some food aid or something. And we'll be back here next year having this thread again.

This seems very likely yes

Although with an unstable lunatic at its head, the US in its current state really worries me. Under Trump the US has become more belligerent than ever and now also very unpredictable. A very dangerous situation if you ask me. Let's hope the people around him have some more sense and can keep him in check.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 19:04:26


Post by: Vaktathi


About the only good "out" I could see is agreeing to withdraw US forces entirely in a timely manner from the Korean peninsula in the event of a Korean re-unification, and that would allow China to take action, direct or otherwise, against Pyongyang.

China doesn't really want to keep NK around, they're sick of NK's gak and currently are the greatest enforcer of sanctions against NK and NK has bitten back in rhetoric. What China wants is a buffer between them and US forces. If the need for that buffer goes away, then so does NK's Chinese backing.

Whether the US is willing to commit to that or not is debatable, and under the current administration, is probably impossible.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 21:52:42


Post by: Just Tony


So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 22:07:23


Post by: d-usa


We can stay to be ready to attack and fight expansion, but then we shouldn't complain when NK wants to up their missiles because we are right at their border ready to attack.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 22:26:02


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 23:03:18


Post by: Sarouan


 Iron_Captain wrote:

China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...


I agree with that. China has some bad history with invasions involving islands. They would rather be concerned by securing their borders and all. Besides, I don't believe Korea in itself has that many ressources they are interested in, anyway.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 23:05:24


Post by: jhe90


The problem comes if he tries to start using Nuclear blackmail to try and get wheat he wants. If he has a working Nuke and working missile he can then try and leverage etc.

But once he got proven capable. Well threats to Nuke someone Anita gonna be a joke like before.
They are gonna be very serious. And that's the danger because if someone unsure and the risk is potentially surprise nuclear attack.

Umm... Even China will want to reign him in or have a nuclear wasteland on border.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 23:13:33


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Iron_Captain wrote:

As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea)


Mind you, China's 'Historical Claims' cover almost the entirety of the eastern and part of the western hemisphere. By the same logic that they would rule the South China Sea, they should also rule South America, Russia and the United States. In fact, I seem to recall the same map gives 'proof' for all of them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/04 23:37:38


Post by: d-usa


 jhe90 wrote:
The problem comes if he tries to start using Nuclear blackmail to try and get wheat he wants. If he has a working Nuke and working missile he can then try and leverage etc.

But once he got proven capable. Well threats to Nuke someone Anita gonna be a joke like before.
They are gonna be very serious. And that's the danger because if someone unsure and the risk is potentially surprise nuclear attack.

Umm... Even China will want to reign him in or have a nuclear wasteland on border.


Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 00:08:45


Post by: Sarouan


 d-usa wrote:

Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?


Food and lift of sanctions upon them ?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 00:11:24


Post by: d-usa


 Sarouan wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

Other than "stop threatening NK and leave us alone", what has NK ever really demanded?


Food and lift of sanctions upon them ?


Which would fall under "leave us alone".



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 00:31:25


Post by: Grey Templar


Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 01:10:40


Post by: Vaktathi


 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?
Im not saying anyone should ket China expand into Korea, the Koreans would certainly react...violently to that Im sure, north or south. Same way the Vietnamese did.

But making the entire peninsula a DMZ of sorts to the great powers would do wonders for the region. Besides, its not like Japan, a relatively short hop away, is going anywhere...

And, either way, whats worse, playing the game of empire and losing a pawn, or potential nuclear war?

The point was that China is ready for the NK regime to go, their concern is US forces. If that is removed, they have no further use for Kim and his regime.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 01:50:10


Post by: Disciple of Fate


All the saber rattling certainly isn't helpful. North Korea was on this path for decades and not much was done about it in terms of direct intervention, it seems a little late to start doing that now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea. China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...

Yet for most of Korean history in the last millennium it has been a tributary state of Chinese dynasties. Not saying they will invade of course, but China historically has kept Korea in a subservient position.

Look at Tibet, Xinjiang or Manchuria. None of these areas are traditionally Chinese or part of China, they were subjugated by the Qing, in itself not a Chinese dynasty like the Ming. Yet after Mao won the civil war he didn't waste any time in re-annexing what he considered China. Historical claims are whatever China wants them to be, China is whatever the government wants it to be. Most of academia agrees that the 'historical' claims of China in the South China Sea are completely ridiculous. They have no basis in international law, which China wilfully chooses to ignore while simultaneously insisting on others to follow those same laws it ignores. People have already died over China asserting their 'historical' claims in the South China Sea. Yet once you see 'proof', its manufactured historical and archaeological evidence provided by organizations very closely linked to the Chinese government. China's claims are no more historic than its neighbours, yet China does not care. The 'funny' thing is that their 'historical' claims seem to overlap with strategic thinking and Hawaii has already been touched upon as being in Chinese hands in a possible (distant) future.

Of course that all depends if China can sufficiently develop the superpower mindset and possibly transition in a more hegemonic role like the US or the former Soviet Union. Which would make it more active in the affairs of its neighbours. What Chinese academics have been thinking about as a new international system under Chinese management sounds awfully like a new Chinese dynasty, complete with the benevolent leading country and putting aside individuality for the common good.

TL;DR don't believe in historical claims by China, they are as valid as historical claims to the British Empire by the UK or the French Empire by France.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 05:44:47


Post by: sebster


 Just Tony wrote:
The military personnel are already ON the fething payroll. It's not like we'd have some large Asian American draft or something, it'd be using the assets we have. Yes, it's a complex solution, and one that's no longer viable since Fat Man just moved into Pyongyang, but it would have been far better than dropping millions or billions of this endless flow of revenue that half the US and most of Europe seems to believe the US has.

And there's no double standard there. If they wanted to ramp up recruitment for this sort of thing, I'd call that wasteful spending at the very least.


Hang on, you want to run a long term infiltration of NK using existing US government assets? What just parachute them in to the country and have them start applying for government jobs?

I wrongly assumed you were talking about turning existing NK officials, offering up favours, connections and hard cash, like past operations. Turns out I gave your idea too much credit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
So nothing that different from many other countries we ignore. We have never given a damn about a country killing their own people, ever. To pretend this is about some moral high ground is silly, if anybody but North Korea was doing the killing we wouldn't care. Heck, look at Syria for a prime example.


What NK did in the 90s was pretty unique. At the height of the famine the international community put together an aid package that would give millions of NK citizens badly needed food. But the international community knew just handing the stuff over would see much of it sold on the black market, making government officials wealthy but seeing none of the food reach the desperate. NK would not agree to this, they wanted to control the aid, precisely so they could pilfer most of it and make money out of the famine suffered by their people. The issue stalemated, NK was happy to leave its citizens starving and eventually the international community gave in. NK pilfered much of the aid, and the famine was lessened but nowhere near as much as it should have been.

There are plenty of horrible things in the world, but holding your own population to ransom to score a payday is right up there. It really defines NK as not really a government at all, but a mafia operation that happens to control a country.

NK isn't going to nuke anyone, their lack of any actual real hostility with conventional weapons demonstrates that.


NK sunk a SK warship, fired a torpedo out of the blue, killed hundreds of SK sailors. Shortly afterwards they fired artillery on to an island, killed SK soldiers stationed there. They have shown a willingness to take brinkmanship up to the point of actually killing people. From there open conflict is only one step away. And from there nuclear weapons are just one more step along.

And NK has a record of using threats of violence to extort resources, some to keep their broken economy going, and some just to make the leadership rich. There's every indication this will happen again, but this time it will happen with nukes.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 06:30:54


Post by: MarsNZ


 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.


Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 09:20:33


Post by: tneva82


 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 10:37:23


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


tneva82 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.


He's not going to stay in power long if he keeps blasting missiles over Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...


China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?

No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MarsNZ wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.


Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?



On the plus side, their economy would be booming for years with growth due to all that new stuff needing built in the north.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 11:24:13


Post by: tneva82


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
One rabid squirrel is easy to handle. And just as easy to ignore. And just as easy to get bitten by because you chose to ignore it. Once more, just google pretty much ANYTHING that crackpot has said, and tell me you trust this guy to think logically or long term about ANYTHING, let alone the tiny wang overcompensation high he will feel when turning Japan into the next Fist Of The North Star film location.


Now you google up and tell me what he has actually DONE. Saying is one thing. Doing is one thing.

It's not that hard to even see why they feel need to have nukes when they have this big convenient foreign enemy(US) that has history of invading other countries without nukes but never one with one. And who has even history of invading country led by former friends.

Kim wants to stay in power. Not end up dead.


He's not going to stay in power long if he keeps blasting missiles over Japan.


Doubt NK's people are throwing him off for that. Or rather generals replacing him.

US isn't going to invade since that would result in destruction of 2 countries(NK and SK) and quite a damage to 3rd(Tokyo). And that's without assuming nukes in use which could result even more damage to Japan and even to US.

MAD has basically worked there for a long time. It isn't going to change. NK is satisfied by having hostile enemy that doesn't invade, US&co aren't willing to sacrifice NK civilians, SK and plenty of Japan to get rid of Kim. Status quo maintained.

edit: Ironically most effective way for getting rid of Kim might actually stop being enemy for them. Lack of external foreign enemy and NK leadership would struggle to maintain their position. Albeit that makes it hard to stop being enemy when NK is hell bent on ensuring they have enemy.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 14:50:28


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
So basically back out of the region and let China expand into the countries? With the expanding they've been doing in the South China Sea, I could easily see them subjugating the Korean peninsula, and we'd see the Asian continent equivalent of the USSR. That would be the only good "out"?

I don't think China has ever expressed any indication of desire to invade and subjugate Korea. Only time China ever tried that was more than 2000 years ago in 100 BC, and even then their colonies only occupied a part of Korea.
China doesn't really have need for territorial expansion. As long as it is not an area they have historical claims to (like with the South China Sea) I don't think we will have to be fearing Chinese invasions. And even then, a China-controlled North Korea would probably be an improvement over the current situation...


China doesn't have any need for territorial expansion?

No disrespect Iron captain, but have you ever heard of Tibet?

Annexed by the Qing, far removed from the Maoists that currently rule China. It has been a Chinese territory ever since, apart from a short interlude in the early 20th century when the Qing collapsed and China entered a period of anarchy and war that lasted until the Maoists defeated all rival factions and established control over most of the Qing dynasty's former territory including Tibet, giving rise to the modern-day Chinese state.

Saying China might invade Korea because they once invaded Tibet is like saying England might try to invade and annex France because some English king once upon a time annexed Scotland.
Just because a previous government centuries ago engaged in territorial expansion does not mean the current, modern-day government wants more territorial expansion. Every modern country has engaged in conquest and annexation in the past. By your logic, because of those past territorial expansions, now all countries in the world would want to invade Korea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 MarsNZ wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.


Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?


West Germany was willing to absorb East Germany, even though the latter was much poorer (and remains so to this day).
I don't know much about Korea and whether South Koreans would be willing to pay up for reunification, but it is not without precedent.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 15:38:11


Post by: Frazzled


What if we...do nothing at all?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 16:48:12


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
What if we...do nothing at all?

You mean, don't give in to NK's demands?

Look for hostilities to restart...



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 16:59:12


Post by: Frazzled


 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
What if we...do nothing at all?

You mean, don't give in to NK's demands?

Look for hostilities to restart...



I mean, restate "US policy is massive retaliation for any attack launched by NK or its allies," and then ignore them unless attacked. Don't respond with restrictions, words etc, other than to calmly restate policy. If they attack, nuke them from stem to stern. If they don't attack, treat them like every other nation.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 17:07:29


Post by: d-usa


The US says "we can't back down as long as they have nuclear ICBMs that are pointed at us, nobody would do that."

And then complaints that NK won't back down, while pointing nuclear ICBMs at them, flying nuclear delivery bombers around them, parking nuclear armed submarines near them, practicing attacking them twice a year, all while parking US military forces next door.

NK has the same justification for not backing down that the US has.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 17:14:30


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


It's called " FU you're not me."


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 17:15:27


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 d-usa wrote:
The US says "we can't back down as long as they have nuclear ICBMs that are pointed at us, nobody would do that."

And then complaints that NK won't back down, while pointing nuclear ICBMs at them, flying nuclear delivery bombers around them, parking nuclear armed submarines near them, practicing attacking them twice a year, all while parking US military forces next door.

NK has the same justification for not backing down that the US has.


The USA has military bases in the UK, but I've never worried about US marines hitting British beaches.

The Soviet Union had nuclear warheads pointing at Britain for years, and we found out that one of the places where I used to live, was earmarked as part of the Red Army invasion plans.

And of course the WARSAW pact, and NATO had massive exercises every year. And obviously plans to attack each other, but things ran relatively smoothly.

Even if the USA withdrew all their military assets back to the Rockies, the North Koreans would still need an external enemy to rail against.

It is essential for the regime to survive that such an enemy exists.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:01:09


Post by: Grey Templar


 MarsNZ wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Well we could always agree with China that if they agree to a dismantling of North Korea and having them rejoin the South that we give them a big fat DMZ. Like say the northern half of what is now North Korea. Neither South Korea nor the US could station any troops in that area. Along with a general scaling back of US presence in Korea.


Does this fantasy solution include any consultation with the Korean people themselves? Take a look at the estimated price tag for the reintegration of the impoverished North (hint: It's in the trillions) and ask yourself who's going to foot the bill for it? You think South Korea would be amicable to a trillion dollar bill after they've just been forcefully disarmed in 25% of their own territory by their so-called ally?



Well duh, of course South Korea would be consulted in this. And you know, they would likely accept a reunification. A depression(though one likely offset by the major task of modernizing the North and international aid) is leagues better than having thousands of very big guns and nuclear missiles getting aimed at you all the time.

And given that South Korea only controls, you know, the southern half of the Korean peninsula, it's actually 50% increase in territory they can have troops in(and 100% total increase).

Yeah, they'd have major humanitarian crisis and it would cost them a lot. But ultimately in the long run it would be better for everyone involved.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:07:24


Post by: Spinner


So in this hypothetical scenario, what does the North Korean regime about to get stood down do? I mean, how long do they think they'd last in a reunified Korea, whether or not they get paid to go away or given cushy out-of-the-way jobs or whatever? Do we have Dennis Rodman sneak James Bond into the country to take them out, or do we just hope they don't go "well, screw you guys, then" and start hitting as many buttons as possible?


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:18:01


Post by: Grey Templar


 Spinner wrote:
So in this hypothetical scenario, what does the North Korean regime about to get stood down do? I mean, how long do they think they'd last in a reunified Korea, whether or not they get paid to go away or given cushy out-of-the-way jobs or whatever? Do we have Dennis Rodman sneak James Bond into the country to take them out, or do we just hope they don't go "well, screw you guys, then" and start hitting as many buttons as possible?


Well, we could probably arrange something with the Chinese. China might be inclined to offer some asylum for the leaders of North Korea if they stood down peacefully.

If China truly put their foot down and locked down the border with North Korea, the regime would fold fairly fast due to internal problems. Most of the army would be starving at this point and would start looting their leader's storehouses where they'd be hoarding the little food that's left. Internal strife would a little hard to play off as "dem dirt capitalists ar attacking!"

Basically we'd have to wait for them to totally succumb to starvation and surrender, and if they did nuke anything(which hopefully wouldn't happen) we'd have to respond in kind. With North Korea, we can't avoid having to hope a little that they don't go nuclear on us, but this would be the best scenario for minimizing this risk and solving the whole problem instead of just dragging it out in perpetuity.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:21:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
So in this hypothetical scenario, what does the North Korean regime about to get stood down do? I mean, how long do they think they'd last in a reunified Korea, whether or not they get paid to go away or given cushy out-of-the-way jobs or whatever? Do we have Dennis Rodman sneak James Bond into the country to take them out, or do we just hope they don't go "well, screw you guys, then" and start hitting as many buttons as possible?


Well, we could probably arrange something with the Chinese. China might be inclined to offer some asylum for the leaders of North Korea if they stood down peacefully.

If China truly put their foot down and locked down the border with North Korea, the regime would fold fairly fast due to internal problems. Most of the army would be starving at this point and would start looting their leader's storehouses where they'd be hoarding the little food that's left. Internal strife would a little hard to play off as "dem dirt capitalists ar attacking!"

Basically we'd have to wait for them to totally succumb to starvation and surrender, and if they did nuke anything(which hopefully wouldn't happen) we'd have to respond in kind. With North Korea, we can't avoid having to hope a little that they don't go nuclear on us, but this would be the best scenario for minimizing this risk and solving the whole problem instead of just dragging it out in perpetuity.


The problem with this is: You're provoking them to war. The regime knows it is going to go down - why not go down swinging?

Other problem: You can point to capitalists closing the country off and say "Look! the capitalists are strangling us! Endure the hardship and we will prove we are strong!" which could just set them even more against the rest of the world, making it easier to legitimize the war that will inevitably occur when the regime realizes it is going to lose power.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:25:34


Post by: Grey Templar


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
So in this hypothetical scenario, what does the North Korean regime about to get stood down do? I mean, how long do they think they'd last in a reunified Korea, whether or not they get paid to go away or given cushy out-of-the-way jobs or whatever? Do we have Dennis Rodman sneak James Bond into the country to take them out, or do we just hope they don't go "well, screw you guys, then" and start hitting as many buttons as possible?


Well, we could probably arrange something with the Chinese. China might be inclined to offer some asylum for the leaders of North Korea if they stood down peacefully.

If China truly put their foot down and locked down the border with North Korea, the regime would fold fairly fast due to internal problems. Most of the army would be starving at this point and would start looting their leader's storehouses where they'd be hoarding the little food that's left. Internal strife would a little hard to play off as "dem dirt capitalists ar attacking!"

Basically we'd have to wait for them to totally succumb to starvation and surrender, and if they did nuke anything(which hopefully wouldn't happen) we'd have to respond in kind. With North Korea, we can't avoid having to hope a little that they don't go nuclear on us, but this would be the best scenario for minimizing this risk and solving the whole problem instead of just dragging it out in perpetuity.


The problem with this is: You're provoking them to war. The regime knows it is going to go down - why not go down swinging?

Other problem: You can point to capitalists closing the country off and say "Look! the capitalists are strangling us! Endure the hardship and we will prove we are strong!" which could just set them even more against the rest of the world, making it easier to legitimize the war that will inevitably occur when the regime realizes it is going to lose power.


Sure. They'll say that is what is happening. But their people aren't going to listen to them when they're starving. And we're not talking everybody in the country isn't getting enough food. We're talking nobody in the country will have any food at all except in whatever bunker Kim hides in. Kim will effectively no longer have control over the country. The people will no longer listen to their leader, they'll start frantically looking for food. This includes most of the people in the military, and they'll start by looking in the nicer areas of the country. Kim might want to go down swinging, but he'll find he doesn't have anybody listening to him in quite short order.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:27:39


Post by: feeder


Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:28:42


Post by: Grey Templar


 feeder wrote:
Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime. They're the ones refusing to stop the suffering for their pride and power.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:32:22


Post by: feeder


 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime.


Can NK support it's population 100% domestically? I do not know. I understand the North is not great agricultural land.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:32:31


Post by: d-usa


 Grey Templar wrote:
 d-usa wrote:

What has NK actually done though?


Genocide of their own civilians. Holding another country of 51 million people hostage by, quite literally, pointing a lot of very big guns in their direction. And they're about to hold anything in range of their 3rd world ICBMs hostage too.


 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime.


And this is called trying to have it both ways.



What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:34:08


Post by: Grey Templar


 feeder wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime.


Can NK support it's population 100% domestically? I do not know. I understand the North is not great agricultural land.


No, but that is largely due to a combination of the North destroying their land both through mismanagement and deliberately isolating themselves with their political system.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:41:26


Post by: feeder


 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Also consider we are starving tens of millions of people to death because we are tired of hearing the same empty bluster we have been hearing for 70+ years from this government.


We're not starving anybody. It's the North Korean regime which is doing that. We are not responsible for this even if we blockade the country, that is 100% on the Kim regime.


Can NK support it's population 100% domestically? I do not know. I understand the North is not great agricultural land.


No, but that is largely due to a combination of the North destroying their land both through mismanagement and deliberately isolating themselves with their political system.


So we would be starving tens of millions of people.

They are dependent on foreign aid and black market. Foreign aid is withheld and black market is shutdown.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:45:06


Post by: Grey Templar


Foreign aid is not some sort of thing we are required to do, either morally or otherwise.

If anything, giving aid to North Korea is immoral because most of it gets siphoned off by their government to line their pockets.

If it's immoral to give to charities which skim a % off their donations then it's definitely immoral to send aid to North Korea.

North Korea created their situation, they are responsible for their citizens needing shipments of imported food to survive. Especially when North Korea could turn all their efforts to domestically make nukes into something productive that they could sell to buy food.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:47:51


Post by: feeder


 Grey Templar wrote:
Foreign aid is not some sort of thing we are required to do, either morally or otherwise.

If anything, giving aid to North Korea is immoral because most of it gets siphoned off by their government to line their pockets.

If it's immoral to give to charities which skim a % off their donations then it's definitely immoral to send aid to North Korea.

North Korea created their situation, they are responsible for their citizens needing shipments of imported food to survive. Especially when North Korea could turn all their efforts to domestically make nukes into something productive that they could sell to buy food.


All of this is true.

We are still creating a massive humanitarian crisis because, after 70 years of empty threats *this* time Kim might do something.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:49:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The other issue with totally isolating them is:

From whom? For how long? Till what happens?

Because I can tell you they do a lot of business with Iran, Pakistan, and friends. Food is not a high-tech item. Food is something those countries can provide.

We're not "cutting him off till they starve and revolt" we're "driving him to want to trade functioning nuclear weapons and material for food."


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:51:37


Post by: Grey Templar


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The other issue with totally isolating them is:

From whom? For how long? Till what happens?

Because I can tell you they do a lot of business with Iran, Pakistan, and friends. Food is not a high-tech item. Food is something those countries can provide.

We're not "cutting him off till they starve and revolt" we're "driving him to want to trade functioning nuclear weapons and material for food."


Are you assuming we'd just let ships continue to go to North Korea? No, we'd be blockading them.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 18:55:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The other issue with totally isolating them is:

From whom? For how long? Till what happens?

Because I can tell you they do a lot of business with Iran, Pakistan, and friends. Food is not a high-tech item. Food is something those countries can provide.

We're not "cutting him off till they starve and revolt" we're "driving him to want to trade functioning nuclear weapons and material for food."


Are you assuming we'd just let ships continue to go to North Korea? No, we'd be blockading them.


Oh yes because that's not an act of war, with either the ships going to or leaving from North Korea.

(Blockades are an act of war per international law FYI. We'd actually be the aggressor there. We'd literally come off worse than North Korea.)


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:09:54


Post by: Grey Templar


Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:19:30


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


We were, actually, and it was a very dangerous situation that got damn close to outright WWIII. It's often considered either an excellent example of statesmanship or sheer blind miraculous luck that we didn't explode into full-scale war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:22:56


Post by: pismakron


 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


NK has a border with both China and Russia, and neither would be willing enforcers of the embargo.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:24:54


Post by: Grey Templar


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


We were, actually, and it was a very dangerous situation that got damn close to outright WWIII. It's often considered either an excellent example of statesmanship or sheer blind miraculous luck that we didn't explode into full-scale war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!


I can't seem to find anywhere that War was actually declared during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was armed conflict during the Bay of Pigs, but it wasn't actually an official war.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:25:39


Post by: pismakron


 Frazzled wrote:
What if we...do nothing at all?


This is the policy we will end up with. Because any alternative to status quo is extremely risky, we will end up doing nothing. The North Korean regime has played their cards very well, you have got to hand them that.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:28:19


Post by: Iron_Captain


Starving North Korea might be a lot harder than you think. North Korea has farms you know... And rivers and seas full of fish, forests full of edible berries and plants etc. etc.
Given a good harvest, they produce more than enough food to feed their population. Its only when their harvests fail that they run into food security problems and require foreign aid.

Unless we do something horrible to make North Korea's harvests continually fail, they won't starve to death (at least not enough to matter). Famines have been a standard feature of human life even in the West up until the 20th century, and in many parts of the world (including North Korea) it is still a standard part of life. It will take more than a bit of famine to take down a country.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:32:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Grey Templar wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


We were, actually, and it was a very dangerous situation that got damn close to outright WWIII. It's often considered either an excellent example of statesmanship or sheer blind miraculous luck that we didn't explode into full-scale war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!


I can't seem to find anywhere that War was actually declared during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was armed conflict during the Bay of Pigs, but it wasn't actually an official war.


The US didn't declare war in the Vietnam War either.

I suppose it's just a Vietnam Police Action then.


What to do with North Korea... @ 2017/09/05 19:36:49


Post by: d-usa


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh? Were we at war with Cuba and the Soviet Union when we blockaded Cuba?

Nope. So we can do the same thing here.


We were, actually, and it was a very dangerous situation that got damn close to outright WWIII. It's often considered either an excellent example of statesmanship or sheer blind miraculous luck that we didn't explode into full-scale war over the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I wouldn't want a repeat of the CMC. JFK was a considerably more level-headed person than Trump; imagine the reaction if one of our ships was rammed by a Chinese warship!


I can't seem to find anywhere that War was actually declared during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was armed conflict during the Bay of Pigs, but it wasn't actually an official war.


The US didn't declare war in the Vietnam War either.

I suppose it's just a Vietnam Police Action then.


Never forget our POPAs/MIAs.