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.

 jhe90 wrote:

NK know exactly where Trumps line is, the concquences and the results.

Yeah he's a madman threatening destruction. Fuelling Kims narrative for self defense.

So we've got Fat Man vs. Little Boy...


The question is, who is who?

Herzlos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

NK know exactly where Trumps line is, the concquences and the results.

Yeah he's a madman threatening destruction. Fuelling Kims narrative for self defense.

Your statement is typical. He's threatening massive retaliation if the US or it's allies is attacked. That's the same policy as NATO genius.

 Frazzled wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

NK know exactly where Trumps line is, the concquences and the results.

Yeah he's a madman threatening destruction. Fuelling Kims narrative for self defense.

Your statement is typical. He's threatening massive retaliation if the US or it's allies is attacked. That's the same policy as NATO genius.

They keyword is "threatened" here IMO.

It's not "just" if we are attacked, and nobody would have a problem with retaliating against an attack.

The problem is that if we decide that we "feel threatened" enough, we will simply launch a preemptive strike and go to war against them, even though they haven't attacked us. Basically Iraq all over again.

So now NK needs nuclear weapons to ensure that we don't conduct a first strike against them. NK has a valid justification for having a nuclear deterrent against a country that is on record before the entire UN threatening them with total destruction just because we "feel" threatened, and not just as a means of retaliation. And NK doesn't even have to fabricate news to show their population about how the US is threatening them with destruction, they can just play the UN speech.

Edit:

Anyway, NK knows they will be wiped off the face of the earth if they throw a nuke around. They want the nuke for the same reason we have the nuke, to make sure nobody throws nukes at us.

D... that only works if NK is a rational actor. That's the concern...

Yes... and Lil Kim has never struck me as reasonable.

 sebster wrote:

 RancidHate wrote:
This is no fantasy, all outcomes are nightmarish.

Of course its a fantasy. You said that it would take 1,000 Americans dying on American soil before the US could stomp NK without Chinese and Russian resistance. This means you think that if NK launched attacks that killed 500 Americans, then the world would resist US retaliation, just because they hate America just so much. It's a silly fantasy.

Not at all. You see, we really do not like America. Maybe when Rocket Man sits in the White House, maybe then we will stop protecting him

Just kidding of course. An attack on the US would be a pretty solid reason for the US to strike back. I don't think Russia or even China would object to that.
Not that NK is ever going to attack the US. Unlike the guys over at ISIS, the North Koreans are not suicidal. They just want the nuke to protect them from a certain nation that has always been incredibly hostile to them, has tried to destroy them in the past and that has an incredibly bad track record regarding international laws, invading other countries, human rights etc.
It is very reasonable for Rocket Man to push for becoming a nuclear power, and being under the constant existential threat they are, NK has every right to do so.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 RancidHate wrote:
This is no fantasy, all outcomes are nightmarish.

Of course its a fantasy. You said that it would take 1,000 Americans dying on American soil before the US could stomp NK without Chinese and Russian resistance. This means you think that if NK launched attacks that killed 500 Americans, then the world would resist US retaliation, just because they hate America just so much. It's a silly fantasy.

Not at all. You see, we really do not like America. Maybe when Rocket Man sits in the White House, maybe then we will stop protecting him

Just kidding of course. An attack on the US would be a pretty solid reason for the US to strike back. I don't think Russia or even China would object to that.
Not that NK is ever going to attack the US. Unlike the guys over at ISIS, the North Koreans are not suicidal. They just want the nuke to protect them from a certain nation that has always been incredibly hostile to them, has tried to destroy them in the past and that has an incredibly bad track record regarding international laws, invading other countries, human rights etc.
It is very reasonable for Rocket Man to push for becoming a nuclear power, and being under the constant existential threat they are, NK has every right to do so.

Then why are they shooting missiles over Japan, and the nonsense about attacking Guam?

 whembly wrote:
D... that only works if NK is a rational actor. That's the concern...

When has NK attacked the US with conventional weapons? And what evidence is there that NK would make a first strike with a nuclear weapon when they haven't attacked us with conventional weapons?

What has NK done to the US, that the US hasn't done to NK? We have our army stationed next to their border, our navy surrounding them, our air force practicing bombing them and flying nuclear bombers right next to them, and we have nuclear armed weapons constantly aimed at them, all while our POTUS is standing in the world stage going "come at me bro, we will end you".

NK has every right to have a nuclear program, NK has every right to defend itself, and NK is threatened just as much and just as often by the US as they are threatening us.

NK will never negotiate a treaty with us that has them giving up their nuclear weapons, even less so with an administration that has shown zero evidence that it intends to honor any treaty the US negotiates. Any escalation with North Korea will be one where the US strikes first, which should be condemned by the rest of the world.

You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.

Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.

 Frazzled wrote:
You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents.

South Korea's domestic border issues are a valid reason for the US to engage in full scale war?

Also the Pueblo Incident.

It's the cost of spying, no different than the U2 plane the Russians shot down. And maybe we shouldn't start a full scale military conflict because North Korea got one of our spy ships and killed someone in the process 49 years ago.

Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.

And we are debating attacking North Korea. So again, what's the difference?

 Frazzled wrote:
You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.

Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.

Foreign assassinations...

Torture of "visiting" foreigners...

Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)

The list goes on and on...

Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.

How many countries would we be invading if those are the criteria for us to declare war?

 d-usa wrote:
How many countries would we be invading if those are the criteria for us to declare war?

Classic strawman.

We're talking about NK.

You seem okay with them having nukes. That's fine.

Not everyone shares that perspective.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents.

South Korea's domestic border issues are a valid reason for the US to engage in full scale war?

We have a treaty with them to defend them, so yes it very much is, same as with Japan and NATO. Now if you want to abrogate those treaties than welcome brother, but warning everyone else is going to make fun of you like they do me.

Also the Pueblo Incident.

It's the cost of spying, no different than the U2 plane the Russians shot down. And maybe we shouldn't start a full scale military conflict because North Korea got one of our spy ships and killed someone in the process 49 years ago.

Just noting that there have been ongoing events. Actually this is one of the mellower periods of relations.

Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.

And we are debating attacking North Korea. So again, what's the difference?

Only in response to an attack. They are the ones doing the launching.

Again, I am fine with doing nothing unless they attack. I am even more fine with getting the feth out of there. However the left freaking out about Trump is typical in ignoring what NK has been doing for the last decade.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
How many countries would we be invading if those are the criteria for us to declare war?

Classic strawman.

We're talking about NK..

Strawman: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

It's not a strawman to argue that if X is a good enough justification to attack, then it's a good enough justification to attack anyone.

These things either justify a military attack and regime change, or they don't. It doesn't matter what the country is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, I am fine with doing nothing unless they attack. I am even more fine with getting the feth out of there.

Which:

 d-usa wrote:

They keyword is "threatened" here IMO.

It's not "just" if we are attacked, and nobody would have a problem with retaliating against an attack.

The problem is that if we decide that we "feel threatened" enough, we will simply launch a preemptive strike and go to war against them, even though they haven't attacked us. Basically Iraq all over again.

So.

What would you recommend the world do to entice NK from launching missiles over their neighbor's head?

To me, that's more than just a "threat".... as it's a distinctive bellicose action.

If they throw a missile to attack us, then respond.

Simple stuff.

If they do anything other than attacking the US, stop the "come at me bro, I will feth you up, hold me back UN, I'll punch the fether" routine and actually engage with the other countries. Practice our fancy "shoot rockets down" technology we are supposed to be working on.

Do what we've been doing for the past 50 years which has resulted in zero attacks against the United States.

As long as we threaten North Korea, they have every right to threaten us back and have zero reason to back down.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You should google attacks by NK on SK, kidnapping of citizens, and border incidents. Also the Pueblo Incident.

Additionally they stated they were debating attacking Guam.

Foreign assassinations...

Torture of "visiting" foreigners...

Real Handmaiden Tales... (NK sells women to China and others to be raped, carry baby and leave baby behind)

The list goes on and on...

Again, I'm not sure these are characteristics of a rational government... such that the idea of wanting nukes to main MAAD principles seems dubious... if that.

I mean...with all the stuff the US has been involved in over the existence of NK as a nation, lets be real, it's more like NK is the little kid playing amateur hour in the major leagues rather than being engaged in behavior others arent. Thats not to excuse any of the horrific things NK is engaged in, but if we're comparing sins...

From the perspective of a totalitarian leader ruling what is effectively an impoverished and technically/technologically limited divine right monarchy, maintaining power through cult of personality, fear, and the threat (real or perceived) of imminent foreign invasion, against the backdrop of Gaddafi and Saddam (who had their nuclear capabilites destroyed and then "voluntarily" relinquished them and ended up dead for it) the actions on NK arent inconceivable.

The Kim regime needs things to be on a knife edge to maintain power. Thats where they want to be. The closer to the apocalypse they are, the stronger their grip on domestic power, and the more they have to bargain with at the negotiating table. If things are calm, then there is no internal pressure valve to draw energy away from pushing back against the Kim regime domestically, and no reason for foreign powers to consider them (or the Kim family) relevant for anything.

Erm... the previous administrations essentially told NK the same thing.

I guess you're objecting to the Trumpian blunt speech yesterday. That's a fair criticism d... but, in practical terms I'm not seeing a big shift in our stance from the last 50ish years.

The big change is the fact that NK is getting better missile tech... launching them over allied head, and apparent advances to nuke tech.

For the third time today:

The problem is, IMO, the fact that we threatened total annihilation not only if attacked but also simply if we feel threatened enough.

 d-usa wrote:
For the third time today:

The problem is, IMO, the fact that we threatened total annihilation not only if attacked but also simply if we feel threatened enough.

...that's a concern in the sense that you're worried about a repeat of the Iraq war.

I get that.

But, I'm not sure you've fully appreciated the fact that the US/UN/SK is still at war with NK, in an armistice stance ready to go hot in seconds... That's a major difference between what led up to the Iraq war. There is no peaceful nation-state interaction between these entities.

I still like the idea of making peace with the Kim regime by buying all their nukes and let 'em retire on some beach somewhere, while re-unification is laboriously enacted, ala Marshall Plan 2.0. That's gotta be waaaaaay cheaper than flaring up hostility again.... especially in terms of lives.

That would be a good option, but would probably cut into our self imposed "don't negotiate with terrorists" mindset. Just look at how unpopular the Iran deal is, now think of something even bigger deal with NK.

Doing the same thing we've always done is the best option IMO. Attack if attacked, and contain otherwise. I would be fine with stopping our war games or withdrawing from NK in exchange for no more rocket tests over sovereign countries. Nuclear NK is a thing, it's time to get used to it. Short of invasion there is no way to change that, and invasion just isn't justified. Yes they do crappy stuff, but no worse than many others do.

I still like the idea of making peace with the Kim regime by buying all their nukes and let 'em retire on some beach somewhere, while re-unification is laboriously enacted, ala Marshall Plan 2.0. That's gotta be waaaaaay cheaper than flaring up hostility again.... especially in terms of lives.

Thats...actually a likely scenario.

 avantgarde wrote:
The fething USN 7th Fleet can't even keep awake at the wheel and they just started cleaning house at the top. And you want to bluff with an inside straight, that the North Koreans know you're holding?

Of course Americans will eat up that biggest dick military in the world rigmarole. Sigh...

Yeah, we've had far too many incidents in the past year, and we're running out of Ageis destroyers at this rate. I think Japan was actually going to "lend" us some of their Kongou-class DDs to make up for the loss. But of course Trump wants us to just keep our Nimitz in operation instead of mothballing them when the Ford's are completed, instead of getting us the ships we really need right now and making sure the ones we have are at full operating capacity.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we announce we are leaving NK and Japan in 24 months.and are turning over 500 nuke systems to both them and Japan,..

When I said something similar earlier, people pointed out to me that neither of those countries really wants to be Nuclear Powers.

Has no one thought about this one.

Let's say kim 3 and NK get nuclear and get decent range missiles and they manage to make a working warhead that can be mounted on a ICBM.

Now if kim does fire a missile test without warning. Suddenly we have to work out if this is a test or nuclear attack.

If current pattern of firing over Japan. Well is it a warhead bound for Japan?
If it fails and starts to dive and engines fail every air defense radar screams to full power and Fleet bases and air bases scramble to battle stations.

And the vector. If he had range is it bound for Japan, is it bound for US etc.

Suddenly everyone is very twitchy and Sk, Pacific Command, JDF all are wondering is a second wave come and potentially a preemptive attack?

If this phase does happen. Kim 3 will have to realise that random missile tests could start a war at worst case.

This is a major problem.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we announce we are leaving NK and Japan in 24 months.and are turning over 500 nuke systems to both them and Japan,..

When I said something similar earlier, people pointed out to me that neither of those countries really wants to be Nuclear Powers.

Well, no. They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.

As an action, it is also really specifically contrary to the non-proliferation treaty, and would severely disrupt both the global balance of power and international relations, so... yeah. Not an option.

Abandoning the only firm allies in the region would also just be a baffling action for the US. Not unheard of, but not in anyone's best interest.

Voss wrote:
They could be if they wanted to (they both have the tech base, assuming that's actually South Korea and Japan). But they don't want the costs involved.

Remember that Japan having a military at all is technically unConsitutional. It's taken some fancy legal footwork just to have the very, very limited JSDF. To grasp what would follow any Japanese politician accepting NUCLEAR arms: imagine the Arab Spring but with people cutting their OWN heads off.

The only nuclear powered thing popular in Japan is Gojira.