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.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Launching an ICBM might cost what? A few hundred million? Seems cheap to me.

30-40 billion when considering basic replacement value. Far more when considering the fact that we no longer maintain the production facilities for such weapons.

More importantly, that ICBM (or, more likely, multiple ICBMs) will not eliminate everything in North Korea. We would not be able to guarantee that their ability to bombard the South would be eliminated. We would not be able to gurantee that their nuclear arsenal would be eliminated. We would create a massive refugee problem that would seriously irk the Chinese, and a significant fallout zone which would anger the Japanese and the South Koreans (assuming they were above ground after the bombardment).

All of these things cost money and lives, and fail to improve the US position in any noticeable way. There is literally no incentive for us to strike the North until they take significant military action.

And even then our overlord, who postures more than a puppet on a string, will try to blame Bush for NKorea becoming what it did and striking us with significant military action.

Yeah, best not to piss off the Chinese. It's not wise to piss off a country who could bankrupt us tomorrow with little we could do about it.

Fateweaver wrote:
And even then our overlord, who postures more than a puppet on a string, will try to blame Bush for NKorea becoming what it did and striking us with significant military action.

All politicians posture, its pretty much the core of their job. You don't think that "Mission Accomplished" stuff was substantive, do you?

Fateweaver wrote:
Yeah, best not to piss off the Chinese. It's not wise to piss off a country who could bankrupt us tomorrow with little we could do about it.

Doing so would crush their economy. We have a nice little detente at the moment.

Yeah, we are great buddies with China. We scratch their backs, they stab us in ours. I wish I had real life friends like that.

Sorry but BO is all talk and no substance. Threaten BP and then spends most of the time playing golf. Threatens Nkorea but will most likely play more golf and talk down to any military general who wants to do something about it.

I think BO has used his 9 iron more than he has his ballpoint pen.

The US State should write Kim Y(J)ong a cheque for the entire amount.

And use Switzerlands Bank account details....

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah, we are great buddies with China. We scratch their backs, they stab us in ours. I wish I had real life friends like that.

Detente has nothing to do with friendship, its about the relaxation of hostility.

And where is this backstabbing going on? In what way has China betrayed the US?

Fateweaver wrote:
Sorry but BO is all talk and no substance. Threaten BP and then spends most of the time playing golf.

Wait, did you not hear about the 20 billion dollar fund BP created through negotiations with the White House?

I mean, I understand and agree with the critique regarding a poorly coordinated disaster response, but to say that the Obama Administration hasn't done anything to BP is bonkers.

Fateweaver wrote:
Threatens Nkorea but will most likely play more golf...

He renewed US economic sanctions against North Korea, and is actively working to develop a comprehensive package of similar measures through the United Nations. He even got Russia to agree to the latter, and managed to keep China from voicing any opposition; though they did not offer explicit support.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and talk down to any military general who wants to do something about it.

He would be right to do so; invading North Korea, or even striking them militarily, would be exceptionally stupid. Its the sort of thing that functions as litmus test for competence in international affairs.

Fateweaver wrote:
I think BO has used his 9 iron more than he has his ballpoint pen.

That seems unlikely, President's sign quite a few things on a daily basis.

Yea really, the North Koreans wouldnt be worth bombing with firecrackers, let alone expensive military equipment. To put it in perspective, that would be like the average person, taking out a $100k bank loan, to get rid of the ants that invade their house in the summer. Do you do anything about those ants? Sure maybe squish some, or lay a few poison traps, but then you just ignore them after that.
Thats how it is with North Korea. Anything short of ignoring them is over kill

I live in Honolulu. Supposedly they have a few nukes that can reach us or Japan. I vote Japan. I like living, and hate anime. And we already know Japan can recover from WMDs. Why trust another country without Japan's knowledge base. Come on North Korea, whats the wisest choice?

Didn't Obama say he was willing to nuke Iran and N. Korea recently?

One question though, why would we nuke the entire country if we just needed to get rid of just one guy?

Fateweaver wrote:Humanitarians and libertarians and anyone else who is all touchy feely, huggy huggy with the rest of the world.

Yeah! If only those damn humanitarians were happy to kill millions of people to help some clown on the internet stroke his war penis.

I agree, the humanitarians should be willing to help stroke someone's war penis. Although, I wonder what that is.

Anywho, war against NK would almost be a joke now. You just need to watch out for fanatacism in the local popualtion and possible intervention by China. Seeing as though we have little in the way of allies in the "orient" that would be incredibly difficult.

As to the NK people, they are starved and dejected. Killing Kim and putting a puppet in place almost seems like the better choice.

halonachos wrote:Didn't Obama say he was willing to nuke Iran and N. Korea recently?

Sort of. When Obama set out the conditions in which the US would use nuclear weapons he named Iran and North Korea, among others, as exceptions to rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
As to the NK people, they are starved and dejected. Killing Kim and putting a puppet in place almost seems like the better choice.

You're basically talking about a regime change, which would involve a full scale invasion. Imagine a much more intransigent version of Iraq, and you'll get the idea.

Maybe a velvet revolution? Bay of Pigs scenario maybe?

If we can kill Kim Jong Il then I could hope that instead of going into a rage, the NK will see that he truly wasn't a god and they would revolt. Of course, the oppossite can be true.

If we simply killed him its very likely that he would simply be replaced by the current regime. There would be a struggle for power, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything for the US.

I doubt something like the Velvet Revolution will transpire, as the degree of information control exercise by the state will not readily allow for the formation of that type of broad counter culture movement.

The Bay of Pigs invasion is hardly something to emulate.

Yeah, and its nearly impossible to guarantee that the guy we want in charge will be placed in charge. After that we don't know if he's going to stay nice or turn evil.

It really is unfortunate that there is no 100% sure method of removing him.

Fateweaver wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its only fair. If we had let them conquer South Korea everything would be like paradise.

What exactly is keep us from just pushing the red button on these guys again? We are at war after all.

Humanitarians and libertarians and anyone else who is all touchy feely, huggy huggy with the rest of the world.

So you finally recognise that GW Bush was under control of the left wing cabal.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:And we already know Japan can recover from WMDs.

Clearly, their previous experience grants them the Feel No Pain special rule.

halonachos wrote:I agree, the humanitarians should be willing to help stroke someone's war penis. Although, I wonder what that is.

Anywho, war against NK would almost be a joke now. You just need to watch out for fanatacism in the local popualtion and possible intervention by China. Seeing as though we have little in the way of allies in the "orient" that would be incredibly difficult.

The capabilities of North Korea's army and negligible. Their troops are poorly fed and supplied with gear that is decades old and in a terrible state of repair.

The issue would be the ability of North Korea to fire rockets and artillery into Seoul, and the subsequent refugee crisis among the North Koreans. Despite some of the nonsense posted in this thread, it is the refugee crisis that China is primarily worried about, and it is something anyone considering invasion would have to worry about. There's around 25 million North Koreans and with their state planned system it's collapse would see almost all of them needing aid immediately.

As to the NK people, they are starved and dejected. Killing Kim and putting a puppet in place almost seems like the better choice.

If we could be confident that killing Kim would allow for a quick replacement who'd be able to exert authority from day one, and be a more stable negotiating partner. Problem is that's extremely unlikely.

Outside of Tom Clancy novels overt military action rarely makes things more stable. The ugly truth is that best solution available is to contain, ignore the crazy stuff like the demand for 75 trillion, and wait and hope things get better, remaining ready for military action if it becomes necessary. It isn't as gratifying as the Waaargh! option the internet loves, but the real world just isn't that gratifying.

olympia wrote:North Korea makes the best counterfeit $20 in the world. I'm told by a high level bureaucrat in the Treasury Department that the DPKR's 20s are so good the U.S. should actually outsource printing to them. If they want the $75 trillion they can just print it.

You would waste the entire rainforest to get the paper needed, which is several trillion bills alone

Samus_aran115 wrote:You would waste the entire rainforest to get the paper needed, which is several trillion bills alone

US cash is printed on cotton, funnily enough. But yeah, there’s a point where cash just stops making sense.

Yeah, americans would love to be able to ignore North Korea. However, being an Alaskan, I live within range of an ICBM that can carry a nuclear payload if launched from N.Korea. They have not only the technology to produce nuclear weapons, but the crazy desire to use them as a threat to procure media and attention. Tanzania doesn't want to use nukes as a means to negotiate. There's a little bit of a difference there.

We do admittedly tend to ignore countries that are not nuclear-capable. Those countries are a little more peaceful in their negotiations.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:Yeah, americans would love to be able to ignore North Korea. However, being an Alaskan, I live within range of an ICBM that can carry a nuclear payload if launched from N.Korea.

It’s not really a factor. If N Korea decided to commit suicide and launch a nuke (which given the quality of their rockets and guidance systems is unlikely to land on target) then Japan should be very worried. The odds of getting an accurate missile launched at Alaska, let alone the odds of N Korea bothering to do so, is really remote.

But no-one should be as worried as the people of Seoul, and that’s got nothing to do with nukes.

They have not only the technology to produce nuclear weapons, but the crazy desire to use them as a threat to procure media and attention. Tanzania doesn't want to use nukes as a means to negotiate. There's a little bit of a difference there.

N Korea needs foreign aid to remain a functioning country. There’s a practical limit to the amount of aid that will be provided through private charity, at some point you need government to step in, particularly when it isn’t just food that’s needed but large scale projects like power generation. So N Korea plays this silly game to try and generate more aid. The ego boost of world attention is also part of it, but by and large it’s a case of keeping their dysfunctional system going by holding Seoul and their own people to ransom.

We do admittedly tend to ignore countries that are not nuclear-capable. Those countries are a little more peaceful in their negotiations.

The big thing to remember is that negotiations between countries really have very little to do with avoiding war or nuclear strikes or any of that. It has everything to do with trade and the benefits to trade of being a significant world power. In this case, you have a crackpot nation surrounded by three of your biggest trading partners – Japan, China and South Korea.

It’s in your best interests to take an active role in keeping the problem in check.

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
We do admittedly tend to ignore countries that are not nuclear-capable. Those countries are a little more peaceful in their negotiations.

Really?

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
We do admittedly tend to ignore countries that are not nuclear-capable. Those countries are a little more peaceful in their negotiations.

That's not really true. Just look at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya, and Sudan.

I say we pay them about $1.50. After all, N. Korea owes us all money for doctor bills for laughing so hard at their country.

Just about breaks even, I think.

Japan would be screwed. Especially because Japan is standing room only.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:As to the NK people, they are starved and dejected. Killing Kim and putting a puppet in place almost seems like the better choice.

If we could be confident that killing Kim would allow for a quick replacement who'd be able to exert authority from day one, and be a more stable negotiating partner. Problem is that's extremely unlikely.

Didn't I already say that?

halonachos wrote:Didn't I already say that?

So you did, I must have missed that earlier. Apologies.

But if you recognised how impractical assassination was, why did you make suggestion in the first place?

darn lag

stupid lag

I thought it would be cool and then dogma watered and pruned my tree of doubt about the idea.

Jeeze, why can't stuff be as simple as the movies sometimes.