Best way to attack North Korea - Page 2

Originally Posted by sammi jo

And who is it who gets the shaft via economic sanctions? Remember Saddam Hussein and economic sanctions... he and his henchmen continued living the high life in their palaces, while the Iraqi people (who??) bore the brunt of the effects of the sanctions. Some 500,000 Iraqi kids died as a result of those sanctions; some will say it was SH's fault, but thats total BS because the sanctions would have stayed in place no matter what course of action SH took.. even resigning.

It will be the same deal with Kim and his crew... sanctions? what sanctions?.. while the NK people (who??) starve.

The architects of sanctions dont give a rat's about ordinary people.. but thats the trend anywherer in the world, as regards the attitude of the powers-that-be and those they supposedly represent (in democracies), those they rule over (in dictatorships), and so on.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

The sanctions were terrorism. Isn't that killing innocent civilians, isn't that hypocrisy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2irN1G5HiRo

"The nuclear test conducted in our nation this time is the Earth's 2,054th nuclear test. The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have conducted 99.99 percent of the total nuclear tests."

Originally Posted by e1618978

They are all for show as long as we pay up. If we fail to provide aid, and his people's poverty deepens, things will escalate. At some point, he will need to go to war with somebody just to distract the proles from rebellion, and the only somebody handy is South Korea. How sure are we that China would go to the aid of SK? The best bet for China and Japan cost-wise is to let the war play out and step in after it cools down.

Originally Posted by e1618978

How small do NK's nuclear weapons need to get before you start to worry? If NK attacks first, it would be a lot worse than if they are attacked first - why would we isolate ourselves when events in the rest of the world could have such a profound effect here? Think of the worldwide recession a new Korean war could cause...

Originally Posted by e1618978

That isn't a good analogy. He isn't just calling you names, he is shooting bullets into your neighbors yard, and kidnapping his kids.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Who are the neighborhood police in your analogy?

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I guess you're willing to bet other peoples' lives on that.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

That comment makes you the neighbourhood cop!

Originally Posted by e1618978

Not really - the meta discussion has really become "Does the US have the need/right to keep its current position as the policeman of the world? And it so, should we use preemptive attacks to reduce the costs of inevitable war?"

If the answer turns out to be "yes, and yes", then we return to our original discussion about the best way to attack North Korea, since they sure need attacking IMHO. I think that we need to be the world's policeman, because otherwise we get drug in later when the costs are higher like in WWII.

Originally Posted by e1618978

Not really - the meta discussion has really become "Does the US have the need/right to keep its current position as the policeman of the world? And it so, should we use preemptive attacks to reduce the costs of inevitable war?"

If the answer turns out to be "yes, and yes", then we return to our original discussion about the best way to attack North Korea, since they sure need attacking IMHO. I think that we need to be the world's policeman, because otherwise we get drug in later when the costs are higher like in WWII.

Originally Posted by e1618978

But the whole analogy is BS if there are *NO POLICEMEN AT ALL*, you aren't a vigilante if there is no other force protecting you from violence. At what point are you allowed to attack a country in this new world? Once they detonate a nuclear weapon in one of your cities? That seems stupidly late... We no longer live in a world where we can sit with our thumbs up our asses waiting for Pearl Harbor to occur.

Originally Posted by e1618978

But the whole analogy is BS if there are *NO POLICEMEN AT ALL*, you aren't a vigilante if there is no other force protecting you from violence. At what point are you allowed to attack a country in this new world? Once they detonate a nuclear weapon in one of your cities? That seems stupidly late... We no longer live in a world where we can sit with our thumbs up our asses waiting for Pearl Harbor to occur.

Originally Posted by screener

Glad that kind of thinking wasn't prevalent during the cold war.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Perhaps NK is indulging in Cold War type of thinking: "If we do not come across as being 'tough and strong', then we shall render ourselves liable to being attacked at any tme. Thus we shall develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against being attacked".

NK obviously does not want their own Pearl Harbor (or Hiroshima), and superpowers have a track record of attacking 'weak' nations (which do not possess nuclear weapons), and talking/negotiating with "strong" nations.... in the mode of the cowardly school playground bully, where the little guy is beaten up and the bigger guy is addressed as one of their own. Furthermore, NK saw exactly what happened to Iraq, one of Bush's "Axis of Evil" triumvirate, and thought that the best way of preventing (or delaying) a similar fate of scorched earth, a trashed infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of dead (all based on lies), would be to get a nukes program happening ASAP.

Israel and the US have been rattling sabers against the other "Axis Of Evil" member, Iran, for a few years, craving yet another war for the corporate welfare money trench. If Iran is on a similar nukes development program, then who (with any common sense) would blame them?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

NK is telling us to leave them alone or they will retaliate. Here's a thought: how about we leave them alone?

Originally Posted by e1618978

USSR != North Korea. We were dealing with a more civilized enemy, and since they were a superpower they had a lot to lose from letting terrorist groups have their nuclear weapons, unlike NK. Which brings me back to wanting small countries to go away, in a world where only superpowers exist, we are all much safer.

Originally Posted by vinea

Glad to. Now that they've decided to arm themselves with nuclear weapons I suggest we send them nothing and let them starve to death or revolt.

Of course, the most likely outcome is that they will simply attack the South.

Which is our ally and not to put too fine a point on it...a significant source of parts for Apple products among other things.

Originally Posted by Northgate

I think we should do exactly what the George Bush administration did.

NOTHING!

Originally Posted by sammi jo

End the sanctions and let them be. At some point, the powers-that-be there will become more realistic and drop their hardline approach... or they'll fade away, or get deposed.The USSR and Eastern Europe imploded and collapsed with little outside prodding......

Really now? NK is developing nukes to prevent being attacked.

They have everything to lose by invading the South. Kim may be a power-crazed egomaniac, but he's not a dumb-ass, and he's not likely to endanger his position by launching a war which he will not only lose, but get taken out personally, guaranteed.

And whose responsibility is that? If Apple had invested in the US economy, rather than going for profit maximization, for the benefit of a foreign power in part of the world thats looking more unstable....

Originally Posted by vinea

The army is fed. The army is loyal. Thus far anyway. Ratchet up the sanctions and even they start to starve.

As far as the idea that hardline dictators fade away or get deposed goes you only have to look as far as Cuba to see that they don't.



Bullshit. Who the hell was going to attack them? Nobody. There's this big ass country to it's north with a big ass military and a large number of nukes that protects it just as we protect the south. Nobody was going to attack NK. Not even Bush.

There was zero defensive need for nukes. Same for Iran. China gets its oil from Iran and if we mucked with it there would be hell to pay. So not even Bush was going to be dumb enough to do that.

The only way Iran or NK gets into a war is if THEY start one with a minor possibility that Israel might attack Iran. At which point we're probably not involved unless Iran chooses to make us involved.

The IAF looks like it might be capable of such a raid depending on if/when Iran gets S300s.



At some point he'll have nothing to lose if he thinks he's about to lose control of the military.



Please. South Korea is not unstable and they have some of the best tech out there in competition with the Japanese and the US. If you want to join the "Freedom Fries" short bus I'm afraid that bandwagon sailed with the last president.

Which part of "South Korea is our friend and likes doing business with us" that you simply don't understand or accept? We are not universally hated or the evil bad guys...sorry to burst your little bubble.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

If there's "zero defensive need for nukes" why does the UK want to have a new and improved Trident, when it has the US to protect it?. Why doesn't the US just leave it up to the UK to protect it and get rid of it's nukes, or vice versa?

Originally Posted by vinea

The UK (and France) still want the illusion of being a world power. That's why.

Why does Thailand have one carrier that barely works with airplanes the barely fly? National prestige.

Originally Posted by e1618978

It will be a long time before North Korea has nukes that are good enough for a deterrent. They don't need a deterrent, they can destroy Seoul in 30 seconds or something via current gun emplacements.

The reason that they are developing nuclear weapons is extortion, because (1) we keep paying them massive amounts of money to stop, over and over, and (2) we will not deny them aid if they can hit Japan with a nuclear missile.

We will soon get to the point where we have to choose to lose Seoul, lose Tokyo, or pay them money every year. It would be much better to attack now while our options are more open ended - maybe we can save Seoul and annex NK into SK, if it could be done for $1 trillion with no major urban damage it would probably be worth it.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Wrong answer. They want them to protect themselves and to get their way. Same as NK.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

I guess you're willing to bet other peoples' lives on that.

Originally Posted by vinea

Wow. You can declare something and you win the argument! Amazing. Not.

France has eliminated all nuclear production capabilities and reduced its inventory to about 100 warheads and delivery systems...about half SLBMs and half bombs.

The UK has eliminated everything but their SLBM force and has about 160-190 warheads left.

If nuclear weapons meant that much value to these nations would they do that?

So tell me...does Germany or Japan matter less on the world stage than UK and France? Does the UK and France "get their way" any more then German or Japan?

Let's say the unthinkable happens: Iran destroys London or Paris with a nuke. Do you believe that the UK or France would:

a) unilaterally fire SLBMs at Iran to turn it into a glowing crater (and also risk the Russians misinterpreting the missile flight paths and start WWIII).

or

b) go to the UN and the US and ask that Iran be destroyed via conventional means?

The defensive value of nukes to NK isn't exactly zero but pretty damn close. Against the US, Japan and SK, which has no real reason to attack NK, the value IS zero*. It has OFFENSIVE value, however.

The only nation a NK nuke has significant defensive value against is...China.

--

* yes, it has defensive military value after NK starts the war but as a part of DEFENSIVE foreign policy that's not quite the same thing since this is in support of offensive operations against neighbors.

Originally Posted by e1618978

When they only had a single threat, they did not dare use it and have nothing left. If they have nuclear weapons on missiles then they can use it and still be a threat afterwords - big difference.

Originally Posted by e1618978

I think that the imaginary e1618978 in your head is different from the actual me. The bloodbath was a means to an end, not the end itself, I would prefer that it didn't happen. We need sub-Saharan Africa to be a single superpower 15 or so years from now, however we get there is fine.

I also want South America to merge into a single (probably socialist) state, which will take violence probably.

Originally Posted by Aizmov

we don't

we should wait UNTIL they use the nukes

until UN backing

and with a coalition

we have no right to attack or invade any country