or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best way to attack North Korea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best way to attack North Korea - Page 2

post #41 of 109
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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #42 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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.

The sanctions were terrorism. Isn't that killing innocent civilians, isn't that hypocrisy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2irN1G5HiRo
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #43 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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

To quote the NK Foreign Ministry:
Quote:
"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."

How many times have UN sanctions been imposed upon the nations that conducted those 99.99% of the prior tests? Also, how did the sanctions against India and Pakistan in 1998 go? Anyone recall those?

Hypocrisy? Absolutely. Duplicity? Resoundingly. Is the UN a credible organization? (silly question?)
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #44 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Hypocrisy? Absolutely. Duplicity? Resoundingly. Is the UN a credible organization? (silly question?)

We don't have an issue with North Korean PEOPLE having nuclear weapons, after North Korea is merged with South Korea under the SK government. It is the combination of unstable government/crazy leader/nuclear weapons that is a problem.

Pakistan is also an issue, if they don't get things in order there undoubtedly there will have to be an invasion there as well.

The Iraq sanctions killed more people than the war did (100K/year). People who think sanctions are better than war are not thinking it thorough, IMHO.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #45 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Kim Jong Il doesn't care about his people, he cares only about himself and being worshipped as a god. The entire country of North Korea is under a mass-delusion, starting with it's leader.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #46 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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...

Two things:

1) Ain't gonna happen.

2) Ain't gonna happen.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #47 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Since both South Korea and Japan have not attacked North Korea, there's nothing to worry about at this point.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #48 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Who are the neighborhood police in your analogy?

You aren't. That's all that matters for the purposes of this analogy.

And no, I do not believe the U.S. should be or was ever meant to be the "World Police".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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

I'm not the one making the bets. Kim Jong Il is, and if he bets wrong, he'll be deposed tout de suite.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #50 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That comment makes you the neighbourhood cop!

...or the kid who takes his football home as he leaves.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #51 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

The correct answer is: No and No.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #52 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

No, and No, respectively.

We do not need to be the world's policeman. We have no legal or moral right to attack any other nation for the simple reason that we believe they "sure need attacking".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #53 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You aren't. That's all that matters for the purposes of this analogy.

And no, I do not believe the U.S. should be or was ever meant to be the "World Police".

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #54 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Glad that kind of thinking wasn't prevalent during the cold war.
post #55 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Police are there to enforce the law, not be your own personal bodyguard. If someone comes at you with a knife, a policeman will not magically *poof* in between you and your attacker and protect you.

When seconds count, the police will be there within minutes.

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

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

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

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?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #57 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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?

Exactly, empty your guns whilst we load ours!

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapon...-reliable.html

And here in the UK-

"Instead, the new Brown government has already allocated £10 million for the fiscal years 2006-2008 on preparatory work for "future deterrent" capabilities. The annual cost of nuclear weapons in recent years has been between £1 billion and £2 billion. Therefore, it will cost between £50 billion and £100 billion to keep the Trident system from 2007 until 2055. The white paper is deliberately vague, but the total is likely to be nearer to £100 billion (incredibly only around 6% of the defence budget). Although the long-term costs remain closely guarded secrets, recent estimates have placed the cost of replacement at a minimum of £25 billion with maintenance costs of £76 billion over the program's lifetime."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...bournewweapons

US spent $52 billion on nuclear weapons and programs in 2008? http://yubanet.com/usa/Report-U-S-sp...-year-2008.php
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #58 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

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

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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

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.
post #60 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Glad that kind of thinking isn't prevalent now.
post #61 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

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......

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

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.

Quote:
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.

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....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #62 of 109
I think we should do exactly what the George Bush administration did.

NOTHING!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

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

NOTHING!

Bush did a lot more than nothing. Much like Clinton (or Bush Sr.) he achieved nothing, as will Obama, but NK is in the driver seat (so to speak). The UN has its face pushed to the floor with a bleeding orifice as always.
post #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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......

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.

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

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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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....

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.
post #65 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

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?
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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?

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.
post #67 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

Wrong answer. They want them to protect themselves and to get their way. Same as NK.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #68 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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?

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #69 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

Given NK could already use leveling Seoul as a means of extortion (not just Japan!), why has Aid so readily be given and then dropped for years? 'Give us aid or we'll flatten our neighbors' is not a game that NK has been playing, and it's highly unlikely to in the future, unless it's only intent was to to become involved in an all out war.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #70 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

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

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.
post #71 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Given NK could already use leveling Seoul as a means of extortion (not just Japan!), why has Aid so readily be given and then dropped for years? 'Give us aid or we'll flatten our neighbors' is not a game that NK has been playing, and it's highly unlikely to in the future, unless it's only intent was to to become involved in an all out war.

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #72 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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


I'm not willing to bet American lives. We don't need to involve ourselves with every temper tantrum that comes out of North Korea.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #73 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

If Iran nuked London, the British PM would get on the phone to his officers and have them launch Trident at Iran. If you think they would piss about with the US and the UN, you don't know Brits very well. Russia would just have to sit pretty, until they landed in Iran or face a barrage of Trident too, which should keep it's finger off the button.

The destructive power of Trident is huge, far exceeding Polaris and more than enough to cause massive destruction to numerous countries. 165 Trident missiles, think about it, that's 165 cities destroyed. At least 16 cities destroyed within an hour.


Germany and Japan lost the war and so don't have nukes. That puts them at a big disadvantage, less bargaining power IMHO.

NK with nukes, makes it less likely anyone will attack them. Why you don't think so is beyond me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6448173.stm
http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/..._exercise.html
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #74 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

It is a big difference, but there's no way NK is going to extort money with the threat of nukes. Most of it's money comes from China anyway and China won't be that helpful if NK starts an extortion campaign against SK, Japan or whoever. It just doesn't make China look good!
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #75 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.

He's just realistic. And e#s I take it you are a fellow Risk player?

Jesus I hope NK doesn't start something. That's the last thing we need. We have actual problems! War is just more problems. It's like...why. We already have enough crap, you know? Like what is that Kim Jong Ill guy's deal, anyway? Like what is he trying to accomplish? Aren't people in NK sick of him, and don't they want to spend their money on healthcare, research, infrastructure, etc., instead of retarded nuke tests? I mean those must be, like, expensive. Now of course I say the same thing about the US and most other industrialized countries. Let's use nukes for power not war. I mean why can't everyone team up for that purpose?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #76 of 109
The paranoia about Iran and NK is absurd and overblown beyond all proportion. The wars in which both nations have been involved in modern history have been local affairs, against neighbor; Iraq in the 1980s and South Korea in the 1950s respectively. (In Iran's case, they were attacked by US ally Iraq). Neither Iran nor NK have a current intent, or a past track record of far-reaching imperialism accompanied by wanton violence, and neither have the means to even fantasize along those lines, let alone accomplish such. The temptation for NK to develop nuclear weapons, and the possibility that Iran might want to follow suit, is to lessen the chances of being attacked, end of story. The US (and allies) have a track record of initiating dozens of wars in recent decades.. this cannot be denied.. and it is difficult or impossible to rationalize "national security" as a reason for any of them.

The likelihood of Iran attacking a European country, or the United States, is as far fetched as aliens landing on the W.H. lawn. The possibility of the US, or Israel, (or a US led coalition) attacking Iran is very real however, and the neocons have been itching for such a conflict since 1999. We're addicted to making war, but we are in denial about it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #77 of 109
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

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #78 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

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

Of course you know that there was no real end to the Korean war. We're operating under a cease fire. For all intents and purposes the war is still going on.
post #79 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

He's just realistic. And e#s I take it you are a fellow Risk player?

I like Risk a lot, but my real love board game love is reserved for the old Avalon Hill games - Titan, Diplomacy, Civilization (different from the computer game), etc. I really want to get back into that stuff, once my youngest child is old enough to read a bit better...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #80 of 109
Ahhh, Diplomacy. That's a quality game. I have good memories of that one.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best way to attack North Korea