Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Falconlance wrote:
This has been attempted and failed, which is only slightly worse than attempted and succeeded, because its a temporary solution anyway. Additionally, NK has stated that any further attempts at this will provoke their hostility.

In case you haven't noticed all solutions to human problems are temporary for the simple fact that, at the end of the day, humans are still around to make more mistakes. Permanence is an illusion perpetuated by the limitations of memory.

More to the point, containment is pretty much the only sensible option in this case. Even a preemptive strike would end in much the same way as a defensive action: millions of civilian casualties, and a potential nuclear strike on Japan. All for absolutely no strategic gain.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

dogma wrote:More to the point, containment is pretty much the only sensible option in this case. Even a preemptive strike would end in much the same way as a defensive action: millions of civilian casualties, and a potential nuclear strike on Japan. All for absolutely no strategic gain.

I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

If it happened, it'd happen to Japan most likely. The nukes are there to threaten Japan, as they've held Seoul to ransom for decades with conventional weapons.

Funnily enough, the South Koreans have been the most apathetic about the North Korean nuclear weapons, because North Korea has had the capability to cause immense damage to South Korea with conventional weapons. It's Japan that has been the most concerned about a nuclear armed North Korea.

sebster wrote:
I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.

The guy said he was willing to kill 23 million people in order to save a family member, so I'm pretty sure rationality is low on the priority scale.

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
I've explained that three or four times. They don't want to get it.

The guy said he was willing to kill 23 million people in order to save a family member, so I'm pretty sure rationality is low on the priority scale.

That is logic unhindered by morality. Good and evil, right and wrong, are relative.

Falconlance wrote:

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

So now all CIA have to do, is do 1 Korean terrorist bombing on US soil , and we are good to go as a nation to nuke korean to oblivion?
ere we go again! Option is always nice to have :3

sebster wrote:Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

lolitrolu

Falconlance wrote:
They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

Yeah, they killed less than 5,000 people in aggregate.

Falconlance wrote:
North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

Allow me to list the reasons why such an event is beyond implausible.

1) Nuclear weapons are not small. We have the technology to fit them into backpacks, but North Korea does not.

2) Nuclear weapons are easy to detect in the course of normal transit inspections; something about emitting far more than normal levels of radiation.

3) This is the most important one. No nation, on Earth, would ever give nuclear weapons to a non-state actor. The potential for unintended consequences is simply mind boggling. Kim-Jong Il is not a rational man, but the rest of the North Korean government is certainly composed of rational men. His word may be law, but even the law has its limitations.

I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

Falconlance wrote:
That is logic unhindered by morality. Good and evil, right and wrong, are relative.

No, logic which is unhindered by morality would suppose that if one of 'your people' were killed you would not respond. The attachment to family members is a moral one, and your insistence on acting on that attachment is an insistence driven by a moral code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

No one ever said you did.

What does religion have to do with any of this?

dogma wrote:

Falconlance wrote:
They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

Yeah, they killed less than 5,000 people in aggregate.

Falconlance wrote:
North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

Allow me to list the reasons why such an event is beyond implausible.

1) Nuclear weapons are not small. We have the technology to fit them into backpacks, but North Korea does not.

2) Nuclear weapons are easy to detect in the course of normal transit inspections; something about emitting far more than normal levels of radiation.

3) This is the most important one. No nation, on Earth, would ever give nuclear weapons to a non-state actor. The potential for unintended consequences is simply mind boggling. Kim-Jong Il is not a rational man, but the rest of the North Korean government is certainly composed of rational men. His word may be law, but even the law has its limitations.

I owe you respect but I will not take your word without a grain of salt, because I doubt that you are an expert in the security field, and i also doubt you (or anyone) can accurately judge what Kim-Jong Il will and will not do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Falconlance wrote:I have never once advocated the use of nuclear weaponry. That kind of bs is the end of everyone and an evanglical's wet dream. And i couldnt stand giving the church what they want.

No one ever said you did.

What does religion have to do with any of this?

that was in response to this

LunaHound wrote:So now all CIA have to do, is do 1 Korean terrorist bombing on US soil , and we are good to go as a nation to nuke korean to oblivion?
ere we go again! Option is always nice to have :3

I understand, what you are saying. I don't think north korea will launch nekes anywhere. The have no way of harming the united states. I doubt they would aim at Japan and leave the forces in the south un harmed. All of this is foolishness inmy mind. I only say if North Korea foolishly warms up a war that never ended, the damage would be moderate, (as they fant fire all bomes at once, and a troop build up will be detected before hand and quickly countered.) I honestly belive if the worst would happen, and I think it's all just sabre rattling, it would be a quick brutal war with less and 500,000 civilions dead, and even less Allied soldiers, as they would be bombed by bombers they can't hope to target, and ships they cant hope to damage. I have no hope, want or need for war.

I can tell everyone is getting tired; spelling has turned to gak.

Falconlance wrote:

sebster wrote:
They can't get an accurate launch at Japan. How do you think they're going to hit the US? I mean honestly, what is going on here? Why are you all so insistant on believing something that no authority on the subject is even considering at all?

They are more than one up on al qaida. al qaida didnt even have missle delivery systems, let alone nukes. But they managed to bomb new york, even before they flew the planes into it.

North Korea cannot reach us with a missle. that doesnt mean north korea cant, out of spite, desire for attention, w/e, give a nuclear weapon to someone who can bring it in and detonate it.

They are all arguments that were used to justify the imminent need to invade Iraq. Post invasion, it turns out all the fantastical what-ifs were nothing more than fantastical what-ifs. In the end, a million people were dead and I'd hope people could at least draw a lesson from that balls-up; pre-emptive strikes are pretty dubious at the best of times, so you're intel better be rock solid about their capabilities and the intent to use it.

And no, 'we don't know what technology they might have so they totally might have a suitcase bomb and be about to send it over here' doesn't qualify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:lolitrolu

lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

Seriously, that's it. There's no rebuttal and no retraction, just internet acronym nonsense?

LunaHound wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright you guys, my opinion on the matter is this: if North Korea attacks us, we should launch hundreds of nukes at them. It seems pretty clear that it's only a matter of weeks before North Korea launches nukes at our major cities, so I think the best usage of this thread is talking about just how many North Koreans America will kill in the ensuing war.

I think maybe six or seven million people from the nuclear blasts and fall out. Probably more from starvation and disease.

Your opinion is completely misinformed. There will not be a strike at the US, it is not within the capabilities of North Korea.

I agree , they'll either:

aim at Japan , or S.Korea . they have no reason to aim at US.

But don't you know? America is the center of the world. Also they have incredible reason to aim at the U.S., we are their central opposition and the author of the naval blockades against them. They simply lack the ability. Anyway, I'm exiting this thread. It's awful.

sexiest_hero wrote:I understand, what you are saying. I don't think north korea will launch nekes anywhere. The have no way of harming the united states. I doubt they would aim at Japan and leave the forces in the south un harmed. All of this is foolishness inmy mind. I only say if North Korea foolishly warms up a war that never ended, the damage would be moderate, (as they fant fire all bomes at once, and a troop build up will be detected before hand and quickly countered.) I honestly belive if the worst would happen, and I think it's all just sabre rattling, it would be a quick brutal war with less and 500,000 civilions dead, and even less Allied soldiers, as they would be bombed by bombers they can't hope to target, and ships they cant hope to damage. I have no hope, want or need for war.

This is true. Assuming North Korea decidely to act in a completely self-destructive way the war would be very one-sided. As that is happening, the best we can do is try to contain the threat and continue hoping for a peaceful resolution. This is because the alternative is to go to war, which would only guarantee the worst case scenario from the current course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Falconlance wrote:I can tell everyone is getting tired; spelling has turned to gak.

My spelling is grate.

Sorry if the following problems have been addressed, I didn't finish reading the thread.

Cheese Elemental wrote:And what happens to the 23 million+ innocent civilians?

Worrying about civilian deaths is what causes many, many more deaths from the military. If you are in a war, the objective is to get the current government to step down.

General William T. Sherman wrote:War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Remember the last time America used atomics on civilian targets? It was a pointless attack in the first place, since Japan had been pushed back, but no, the retards in American top brass had to go and annihilate two cities packed full of civilians.

Deaths from the combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 240,000 people. source
Estimated deaths from a mainland invasion of Japan: 1,000,000 servicemen. source

Pointless attack? I beg to differ. The easiest way to force a country to concede is to attack it's civilians. I suggest you get your facts straight before you go rambling.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:lolitrolu

lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

"LOL. I have trolled you."

Orkeosaurus wrote:lots of laughs i trained russians over lopsided university?

"LOL. I have trolled you."

Too true. I pretty much just threw together everything you were railing on others about at the time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But don't you know? America is the center of the world. Also they have incredible reason to aim at the U.S., we are their central opposition and the author of the naval blockades against them. They simply lack the ability. Anyway, I'm exiting this thread. It's awful.

Okok i'll rephrase it . They have no tactical / military power to attack USA , just Japan and S.Korea ( if there is a country to be attacked )

Falconlance wrote:
I owe you respect but I will not take your word without a grain of salt, because I doubt that you are an expert in the security field,

This is the internet, so the salt is understandable. That said, I've studied international security for 6 years now. My technical knowledge isn't perfect, but I know enough to know that you don't just pop a nuke in the trunk of your car and go for a Sunday drive with a side of mass destruction. They are big, they are heavy, and they are radioactive to varying degrees. This renders the prospect of bringing one into the continental United States quite daunting, especially given our level of border security.

And before someone brings up the drug trade, or illegal immigration: smuggling small packages of narcotics, or simply a human body, is in no way comparable to carrying a nuclear weapon.

Falconlance wrote:
and i also doubt you (or anyone) can accurately judge what Kim-Jong Il will and will not do.

Which should generally leave us in a state of mind which is not inclined towards war.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:
Worrying about civilian deaths is what causes many, many more deaths from the military. If you are in a war, the objective is to get the current government to step down.

That's the objective of total war. Most wars in history would be classified as limited wars because they were not conflicts of annihilation, or even political change.

Cheese Elemental wrote:
Pointless attack? I beg to differ. The easiest way to force a country to concede is to attack it's civilians. I suggest you get your facts straight before you go rambling.

Attacking civilians can also galvanize resolve, as seen during the Battle of Britain. Striking civilian targets can be an effective coup de grace when dealing with an intractable foe (as with Japan), but is generally not the wisest decision when faced with a foe who is capable of maintaining the fight.

And on that note I am locking this thread for numerous complaints.