Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General North Korea discussion

260 replies to this topic
Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#241

Posted A week ago

You don't think missiles hitting South Korea and Japan would have consequences wide ranging that makes this China's, Russia's and the United States' problem as well?

But you are right, using the word 'problem' was a wrong choice, I mostly meant it in a sense that this is the fault of China, Russia and the United States (see Korean war), and mostly China since then for maintaining a protection of the regime.

But what can South Korea and Japan do? Neither would want to risk a war with North Korea, because that would likely mean a confrontation with China (in addition to the devastation to rain upon themselves in the mean time).

For the record, Chiari, you seem to ignore an important factor in your 'act of mercy' argument; while it's horrible to live in North Korea, and putting them out of their misery would probably be an acceptable argument, if that would be the only thing that was going to happen. But you know as well as I that any confrontation with North Korea would rain destruction upon Seoul causing causalities in the thousands, for a people who do not live in misery.

So I ask, how would your plan deal with South Korea and Japan, both of which will most likely feel the wrath of North Korea before the war's end?
  • darthYENIK and Tchuck like this

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#242

Posted A week ago

 

 

I must ask, because you sound very cavalier about this whole thing, but if Tump does bomb them, and butcher their citizenry, do you think it will help? Do you think it's an issue which can be solved by the President throwing another tantrum and deciding to kill a few people to alleviate his frustration?

 

Yes Typhus, I think it will help. When NK is gone, the threat that it poses will go with it. I absolutely grasp what I'm saying here.The carrot and stick approach can work when there's intent without capability. Now we believe the capability is there so it's time for a different tactic. That aside, it should be painfully clear that whatever strategy previous administrations have used over the last few decades hasn't worked. Wouldn't you agree it's time for something new?

I would agree that a new approach is perhaps needed, but mostly by working with the Chinese. Consider that China is, beneath the Communist trappings, a highly Capitalistic nation. America is a huge trading partner, and yet North Korea - a glorified vassal state - has repeatedly strained this relationship by their continual provocation. Rather than bombing them, which will only validate the perception of America as a dangerous warmonger, it would be better to try and convince China themselves to remove the North Korean regime, and take control themselves.

They are a puppet state which has repeatedly disregarded China's advice, and how the Chinese have tolerated it for so long I don't know. Just today I was reading about how the Chinese Prime Minister stated that they will not defend North Korea if they initiate hostilities:

https://www.washingt...m=.3400b519a5e3

There is clearly tension in this relationship that America could exploit. But a naked show of force may well reconcile the Chinese and North Koreans against a common enemy.


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#243

Posted A week ago Edited by Eutyphro, A week ago.

 Sorry for missing this yesterday. Anyways I'm a little startled to see you make a comparison as unusual as this. I suppose if I were to play along, I would say that euthanasia is appropriate in cases in which the pain of life supersedes the fear of death.

And generally it takes an incredible amount of pain and hopelessness for people to actually desire death. Often many people in horrible circumstances still think their life is worth living. You could think of people such as Viktor Frankl or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. As long as someone is still able to discern some form of purpose in their life, they'll be willing to suffer quite a lot for it.
 

It most certainly is an act of love. I'm guessing that you would probably rather have a merciful, quick death than live the rest of your natural life in North Korea, under the tyrannical rule of a psychotic imbecile. 

I actually wouldn't. I actually think most people wouldn't, because I think people are brave. The main point is really that it is not up to you to decide what is good for anyone other than yourself. Any principled conservative thinker should really understand that. Its amoral thinkers generally on the far right or far left who think they are entitled to decide what is good for everybody. People are ends in themselves, and entitled to determine their own good.

  • Tchuck and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

Tyler
  • Tyler

    fire season

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • None
  • Best Poem 2014
    Best Story 2014
    Most Talented Writer 2014
    Newcomer of the Year 2010

#244

Posted A week ago

I appreciated your post right up until the point where you implied I'm a deranged monster. I think that traditional warfare between 2+ nuclear-capable states is outdated. We have moved into a new era where we are ruled by an unpredictable man with limited patience who openly expresses a desire to strengthen our nuclear arsenal, and a couple other states are in exactly the same situation. Even if we weren't it's still wrong to say that a preemptive nuclear strike won't come in to play. That option is always on the table and it's a good option. It spares the lives of American soldiers and spares the American citizens a long, expensive war. It's ridiculous to spend years and trillions of dollars in NK only to accomplish what could've been done in a day.

 

The issue here is that you are treating the nuclear option as if it is equally tenable as a military option as anything else in our arsenal. The truth is that it is not the most effective weapon we have for neutralizing enemy threats, preemptively striking specific targets, or even demoralizing our enemy. The simple fact of it is that nuclear weapons are a political tool that are only useful for maiming large populations of people and causing potentially long-term damage to a large ecological area.

 

Your argument is that a preemptive nuclear strike would be cost-effective and morally righteous because it would spare our soldiers and only kill people who are already miserable. In reality, a nuclear strike would complicate the matter more than more covert methods like network exploitation and cyber-attacks on high-profile KPA targets. Not only would it create a precedence for nuclear weapon use (something that could dramatically alter the way countries like India and Pakistan interact), but it would also directly and negatively affect important regional allies like South Korea, who would face a massive influx of refugees. That's not even going into the environmental effects that nuclear strikes so close SK. We're also playing a dangerous game by throwing such an important political statement down a few miles from China's border, directly onto a nominal ally of China.

 

My point is that there is no effective benefit of using nuclear weapons in this case. They are, at present, an extremely powerful tool in global relations. However, North Korea is a country that can be engaged using many of our more precise, covert tactics. I don't really like using analogies in a debate, but launching an ICBM at Pyongyang is tantamount to murdering someone's family because they said they were going to kill your daughter. It escalates things to a point far beyond an already undesirable situation, and doesn't even really negate the possibility of harm coming your way--in fact, it multiplies the chance by your use of total force so early against an enemy with potentially nothing to lose. People joke about North Korea being an irrational and emotional regime that could break at any moment. The case may be so, but the situation only becomes more terrifying if we ourselves fall to that level of emotional thinking and then proceed to act on it.

 

 

Do you guys really think there is going to be another war in the Korean peninsula? I highly doubt it honestly

 

Unfortunately, war or at least massive crisis is almost inevitable given the last six decades of a global community attempting to stall.

  • Tchuck, sivispacem and marco6158 like this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#245

Posted A week ago Edited by jpm1, A week ago.

i don't think Pyongyang will break in actual state. because it's a terror regime. people are too scared to open their mouth. i agree on the fact that there's no need of nuclear strike at this point. a good recon, and conventional strikes on nervous centers could be the solution i think. if it's chaos inside government main lines of commandment, then the NK people could raise up, and take power. China did definitely a great move yesterday. Pyongyang today is isolated as never. will it be enough, wait and see

 

And NK people are very courageous people btw. because when you have such a retard government, you need to be courageous


A8ul99
  • A8ul99

    This is my car, Suzuki Wagon R

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2014
  • Indonesia

#246

Posted 6 days ago

If this (foolish) crisis really breaks:

M.
A.
D.

That's all I wanna say.

Svip
  • Svip

    I eat babies

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2001
  • None
  • Best Returning Member 2014
    Lifetime Achievement Award

#247

Posted 6 days ago

Actually no. North Korea does not have the capacity nor the capability to assure the United States' destruction. That's only assuming other nuclear powers get involve against the United States, and then decides to use nuclear weapons, which seems exceedingly unlikely.

For all China's attempts at remaining vague whether they'd intervene in a US first strike scenario, I doubt China would actually intervene against the US. China will make a lot of noise, but stop short of doing anything militarily against the US.

In a fight between the US and North Korea, North Korea stands alone. For all China's lack of desire of having a US ally on their border, they recognise that a cordial relationship with the US is far more important. If push comes to shove, China will go with the latter option.

The reason the US is and has been hesitant since the end of the Cold War to do something militarily about North Korea may initially have been a China less reliant on the US (but that has changed), but more importantly the risk a NK-US war would pose to important US allies in the region, specifically South Korea and Japan. For decades now, North Korea have had the capability to strike Seoul in South Korea within minutes, basically, of a US strike. As long as that factor remains, the US is unlikely to engage in an armed conflict with North Korea.

Heated rhetoric could make the situation worse, because while the North Korean regime is calculating and rational, unlike how they are usually perceived, they may be prone to panic in a tense situation. And could take the wrong cue as a sign of an impending attack.

Indeed, some in this topic has suggested covert operations, which are hard enough as it is in North Korea, but getting to the leader is quite hard. And while they may not hit the button as soon as they catch one of these operators, they may be inclined to do so should the agents get close enough to the leader, particularly in a tense situation.

Remember, the NK regime's first priority is self-preservation. But a real armed conflict between the US and North Korea would - at present anyway - pose little actual threat to the majority of the US heartland. Yes, there would be causalities, but not assured destruction.
  • Tchuck and Raavi like this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#248

Posted 6 days ago Edited by jpm1, 6 days ago.

the problem is South korean and Japan. actual NK regime is just insane. in 2017 NK people are still forbidden to access the internet. this is just crazy to see how a small bunch of disturbed guys can hijack their whole people. a commando is highly unprobable to me. i mean it's too hard. i think there are 2 solutions. or conventional strikes on nervous command centers and create chaos so that people is not afraid of raising up anymore. or secret tractations with a high ranked dissident and then a push. of course we can wait until they have long range ballistic missiles, but then it's pandora box


DOUGL4S1
  • DOUGL4S1

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2016
  • Brazil

#249

Posted 6 days ago

the problem is South korean and Japan. actual NK regime is just insane. in 2017 NK people are still forbidden to access the internet. this is just crazy to see how a small bunch of disturbed guys can hijack their whole people. a commando is highly unprobable to me. i mean it's too hard. i think there are 2 solutions. or conventional strikes on nervous command centers and create chaos so that people is not afraid of raising up anymore. or secret tractations with a high ranked dissident and then a push. of course we can wait until they have long range ballistic missiles, but then it's pandora box

I don't think people would rise against the government in NK. They've been living in what's left of Socialism since the 40s. People literally were born and died like that, and probably over 90% of their population doesn't know anything else. Their Government and Military is not only very restrictive, but they're embeded into their minds at this point. Any attack would just be seen as "Oh, look at what those Westener pigs did to our beautiful country", and if anything, would make things 10x worse.

 

I've also **heard** that life in NK became somehow better, with people being able to buy cars (Chinese, if course), TVs, Computers and they have their own type of Internet (heavily monitored, but still). If that's true and not some sort of propaganda, I could totally see their government using that to turn their people even more against the rest of the world, but it's most likely that they'd launch their nukes first.

  • Tchuck likes this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#250

Posted 6 days ago Edited by jpm1, 6 days ago.

idk maybe you're right. but there's something i'm sure about too it's that you can't lure a people endlessly. there's no internet in NK btw. only 5 heavily monitored sites (no joke)


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#251

Posted 6 days ago

Well, 28 actually.

 

But sure, you can't lure a people endlessly. Which is why what NK is doing is not simply luring. The NK people are raised to believe in everything their leader says. Even if they may question one thing or another, there's always some answer they get and they have to believe or else. And with little contact to the external world, they don't really have a comparison. 

 

And then there's the whole image of Americans in general, depicting them as bloodthirsty and evil and what not. And you can bet whenever there's training exercises between SK and US, or whenever US threatens NK, that it just reinforces those stereotypes even further. Your idea of "rising against the government" would fail since oppressed as they are, they are pretty content with everything. Ignorance is bliss, right?

 

Maybe if they know what would await them should they be free of the regime, maybe they'd be willing to change things, or resist with the support of external agents. But what would await them? American history of "liberating" countries isn't positive at all. Kuwait, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan et al aren't exactly paradises.

 

The only solution to this is diplomatic. Let the two Koreas and China discuss the deals. Let them sit at a table and talk it over. None of them want a war. Without US interests being taken into account, I believe a diplomatic peace is completely achievable, specially since SK's new president is far more favourable to discussing things with NK.


jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#252

Posted 5 days ago

Maybe if they know what would await them should they be free of the regime, maybe they'd be willing to change things, or resist with the support of external agents. But what would await them? American history of "liberating" countries isn't positive at all. Kuwait, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Sudan et al aren't exactly paradises.

well, it's not USA job what you're saying. USA did the most difficult. freed the peoples from extreme extremists. for me actual Afghanistan or Iraq is much better than it was before. because even if chaotic, at least now there's hope


Chiari
  • Chiari

    It only happens if it doesn't matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#253

Posted 5 days ago

For the record, Chiari, you seem to ignore an important factor in your 'act of mercy' argument; while it's horrible to live in North Korea, and putting them out of their misery would probably be an acceptable argument, if that would be the only thing that was going to happen. But you know as well as I that any confrontation with North Korea would rain destruction upon Seoul causing causalities in the thousands, for a people who do not live in misery.

So I ask, how would your plan deal with South Korea and Japan, both of which will most likely feel the wrath of North Korea before the war's end?

 

I'm not ignoring it, I'm just assuming that self-preservation will kick in before the desire to retaliate. I believe that nuclear weapons can induce immediate compliance. Afterall, we're talking about a weapon that literally altered Japanese culture.

 

SK and Japan are not my concern. Interestingly though, one would think Japan would be a bit more proactive in this whole thing.... 

 

There is clearly tension in this relationship that America could exploit. But a naked show of force may well reconcile the Chinese and North Koreans against a common enemy.

 

I'm operating under the belief that the USA is infinitely more valuable in China's eyes than North Korea. There is simply no scenario in which China sides with NK over America. Exploiting a tense relationship between NK and China is more of a long game and I think it's possible that we've reached a point where a more immediate solution is required. Every time NK performs a missile test it's putting other countries at risk, all the while striving to acquire missiles that can kill Americans that live in major cities...  people like me.

 

We should look to the one and only instance in which nuclear weapons were used: WWII. The result of using them was amazing. A culture that believed it was better to die than to surrender agreed to surrender unconditionally. It was essentially an instant war winner, and the nation that suffered the 2 strikes became a close, unwavering ally. These are the actual results of nuclear weapons.

 

 

 The main point is really that it is not up to you to decide what is good for anyone other than yourself. Any principled conservative thinker should really understand that. 

 

I understand that a lot of people don't know what's in their own best interest. Other than that, I think that if you were confronted with the reality of living in a country like NK, as opposed to imagining what's like, you'd probably have a very different opinion. Then again, perhaps that's because you know how good you have it in the West, whereas North Koreans have never known anything other than tyrannical cruelty.

 

 

Your argument is that a preemptive nuclear strike would be cost-effective and morally righteous because it would spare our soldiers and only kill people who are already miserable. In reality, a nuclear strike would complicate the matter more than more covert methods like network exploitation and cyber-attacks on high-profile KPA targets. Not only would it create a precedence for nuclear weapon use (something that could dramatically alter the way countries like India and Pakistan interact), but it would also directly and negatively affect important regional allies like South Korea, who would face a massive influx of refugees. That's not even going into the environmental effects that nuclear strikes so close SK. We're also playing a dangerous game by throwing such an important political statement down a few miles from China's border, directly onto a nominal ally of China.

 

My point is that there is no effective benefit of using nuclear weapons in this case. They are, at present, an extremely powerful tool in global relations. However, North Korea is a country that can be engaged using many of our more precise, covert tactics. I don't really like using analogies in a debate, but launching an ICBM at Pyongyang is tantamount to murdering someone's family because they said they were going to kill your daughter. It escalates things to a point far beyond an already undesirable situation, and doesn't even really negate the possibility of harm coming your way--in fact, it multiplies the chance by your use of total force so early against an enemy with potentially nothing to lose. t.

 

You make a lot of good points in your argument. Perhaps nuclear weapons aren't the best course of action, but they do achieve results the quickest. I'm not really concerned about setting a precedent for casual nuclear strikes. History shows that only one country has the love and compassion to use them so I'm not worried about India and Pakistan nuking it out over Kashmir.

 

Whatever few North Koreans may be left after a nuclear strike would hopefully flee to China. Since China has supported NK for a while now it makes sense that they would take on the refugees. Most importantly though, I disagree that the use of these weapons increases the chance of harm coming my way. Ideally, after a nuclear strike, which should vaporize citizens and destroy structures in the blink of an eye, there should really be nothing to left fight back with. That's kind of the point of nuclear weapons, destroy everything. Total force so early should induce submission and obedience, not vengeance. 


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    poetic justice

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#254

Posted 5 days ago

 

 The main point is really that it is not up to you to decide what is good for anyone other than yourself. Any principled conservative thinker should really understand that. 

 

I understand that a lot of people don't know what's in their own best interest. Other than that, I think that if you were confronted with the reality of living in a country like NK, as opposed to imagining what's like, you'd probably have a very different opinion. Then again, perhaps that's because you know how good you have it in the West, whereas North Koreans have never known anything other than tyrannical cruelty.

Can you prove that you know what is in your best interest, and if you fail to do so according to my personal whim, am I then justified in bombing you? Can I kill anyone that kind of looks miserable? You're once again trying to defend your point by quoting a small part of my comment and then misinterpreting it. But you've completely failed to make a coherent moral reasoning for murdering innocent people.


Chiari
  • Chiari

    It only happens if it doesn't matter

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#255

Posted 5 days ago

Can you prove that you know what is in your best interest, and if you fail to do so according to my personal whim, am I then justified in bombing you? Can I kill anyone that kind of looks miserable? You're once again trying to defend your point by quoting a small part of my comment and then misinterpreting it. But you've completely failed to make a coherent moral reasoning for murdering innocent people.

 

 

I literally quoted the sentence where you said 'the main point...'. I don't know what's wrong with you today. Serving an insane, tyrannical ruler as if he were God is not what's best for me. If you believe that's what's best for you then why not let me spare you that dismal, worthless future?

 

The moral argument is a lesser of 2 evils. There is no pain in the nuclear blast. There's no suffering. It is moral to spare the citizens a lifetime of kissing Kim Jong-un's ass.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Nškyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#256

Posted 5 days ago

I'm of the view that extrapolating likely outcomes from a sample size of one is probably not the most sensible way of running strategic policy. Let's not forget that the US has a pretty chequered history of mistakenly imprinting its own sociopolitical concepts- especially related to military deterrence- into foreign nations and assuming their validity. Case in point- the entire concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, which the Soviet Union never actually subscribed to. They just had better intelligence than the US thanks to successfully infiltrating every level of the US government and military hierarchy, and knew that US strategic second strike capability far outweighed their own.

But supposing we entertain a hypothetical limited nuclear strike against North Korea. What then? Do you really expect a military capitulation through weight of ordinance alone? Do we expect the DPRK to behave in a way we would consider rational? I mean we know that the DPRK engages in brinkmanship that makes the worst excesses of the Cold War look like a playground brawl- from hacking US soldiers to death with axes, to torpedoing South Korean frigates, to shelling civilians, to using special forces to try and assassinate the South Korean president.

I don't foresee trying to force some kind of capitulation from the DPRK regime through threatened or actual violence as being effective. It's not worked in the past. In fact, it could be argued that any perceived capitulation would be more harmful to the interests of the North than an equally aggressive response.

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#257

Posted 5 days ago Edited by Tchuck, 5 days ago.

well, it's not USA job what you're saying. USA did the most difficult. freed the peoples from extreme extremists. for me actual Afghanistan or Iraq is much better than it was before. because even if chaotic, at least now there's hope

 

 

It is the USA's job if they make it their job, though. If they go around destabilizing regimes in order to "bring freedom", they better stick around to make sure things get stable. 

What do you base your assertion that Iraq or Afghanistan are better off now than before? Iraq was a much better country before the west encouraged and supported it in attacking Iran. And then it recovered, and then it went to sh*t again once Kuwait began destabilizing Iraq's economy through cheap oil and got support from America, now working against Iraq. And now, instead of one tyrant, they have hundreds. Instead of a single government, they have dozens. Instead of one threat, they have thousands. While they make more money nowadays, they also have to cope with terrorism at an unprecedented level.

Number of terrorist attacks increased several times since Saddam was deposed, and has only intensified in the recent years since ISIS gained strength. How exactly is that better?

 

And for once, I surprisingly agree with what Bannon says:

 

 

“There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

 

And for that reason, dropping nukes in North Korea would be the stupidest idea ever. You know what good nukes do to underground installations? f*ck all. North Korea has thousands of artillery emplacements within range of Seoul, all in mountainous terrain and very well protected. Unless you nuke the entire mountain range in North Korea at once, undetected, they will level Seoul or at least deal an insane number of civilian deaths to South Korea in the first hour of war. Say what you want about "taking North Koreans out of their misery", does that apply to South Koreans too? You know, the 11th largest economy in the world, with one of the highest indexes of human development.

 

Yeah, nuke the peasants of North Korea, nuke the people who haven't asked for a war, while the leadership lies safe and sound in their bunkers, commanding artillery strikes, and receiving validation on their image of America. And then the dead in South Korea, the dead in Japan. Watch how support for America will dwindle to an all time low in this region, making it prime for "unification" with China and Japan at the helm, replacing the US in the region, and watch as US' economy stumbles as China now controls everything, and watch as the crisis will come to America, potentially blocked by Chinese sanctions as retaliation for an atomic bomb. All that suffering to "put North Koreans out of their misery". f*cking hell some people can't see beyond their navels.

 

The only solution to the crisis is diplomacy. It begins with a commitment from China to denuclearization of the peninsula, and a commitment from the US to remove their soldiers from South Korea, and stop their joint exercises (or, rather, flexing of muscles). Only maniacs would advocate for war.

  • JZFB likes this

jpm1
  • jpm1

    Vice city citizen

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2005
  • European-Union

#258

Posted 5 days ago

so you prefer Afghanistan when it was ruled by talibans. talibans = daesh. if i were an afghan i would take anything but talibans to rule my country. nukes is last thing to do with North korea. perfect solution to raise up definitely the NK people against you.


Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#259

Posted 5 days ago

so you prefer Afghanistan when it was ruled by talibans. talibans = daesh. if i were an afghan i would take anything but talibans to rule my country.

 

The Taliban? The ones that were freeing Afghanistan from Soviet Union while American funded them, and then became enemies of the world when America decided enough was enough? Again, speaks volume about how American intervention in general doesn't result in paradise. How much better off are Afghans now? Much worse, considering Afghanistan was about to embark on a process of unification in the late 90s, and support for Taliban was diminishing. Where was the American support? It only came after the Taliban retaliated by killing Massoud, and attacking America, inviting a war that all but destroyed Afghanistan's hope for recovery. Now Afghanistan is in ruins, living in a perpetual state of war. Much good the intervention did, aye?

 

 

nukes is last thing to do with North korea. perfect solution to raise up definitely the NK people against you.

 

It isn't because that simply will never happen. Brainwashed as they are, with US' actions only furthering their beliefs, it's extremely unlikely that the people of North Korea could be goaded into rising up against the regime. Not only is a fifth of the population in the army, loyal to the leader, it would be extremely difficult to get the movement happening underground to achieve enough force for a revolution. If Un notices he's losing his grasp on the power, he'll just be pressured to take drastic measures and we end up with millions of dead in South Korea. 


Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#260

Posted 3 days ago Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 3 days ago.

so you prefer Afghanistan when it was ruled by talibans. talibans = daesh. if i were an afghan i would take anything but talibans to rule my country. nukes is last thing to do with North korea. perfect solution to raise up definitely the NK people against you.

 
To be fair, no one ever 'ruled' Afghanistan.  Everything about that place, from its terrain to its numerous rivaling tribes to its largely illicit economy is unruly.  The most a state power (much less a foreign one) could ever hope for is ruling Kabul, and even that's a little naive considering the lack of benefit for the steep costs involved in such a process.


 

And for once, I surprisingly agree with what Bannon says:
 

“There’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

 

 

For the most part, Bannon is right. Although Bannon's estimated number of dead civilians in the first 30min. totaling Seoul's entire population sounds like a bit of an exaggeration (probably more like a few hundred thousand civilians in the opening days), this idea of the US becoming the heroes of the peninsula through military might is indeed just a bunch of puffery.  Judging from his interview with Kuttner, Bannon's isolationist urge causes him to oversimplify the diplomatic option.  Not only is the US unable to simply abandon its South Korean ally with North Korean nukes on the peninsula, but any diplomatic effort would have to involve definitive actions instead of mere agreements.

 

 

A lot of Americans have this bad habit of thinking North Korea is like Iran or something where we can sit down with world leaders, chisel out an agreement, and all sides comply.  North Korea's supreme leaders have a near-perfect record of completely abandoning their word.  Wouldn't be surprised if the actual negotiations are with the China.  Nonetheless, I smell a bunch of US concessions being re-branded as some America First policy much to the satisfaction of the Chinese.  Nuclear war just doesn't seem likely.  Even nuclear standoffs tend to land presidents in hot water.  Not to mention the economic impact of such flexing.

  • Tchuck likes this

Dr. Robotnik
  • Dr. Robotnik

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2012

#261

Posted 2 days ago Edited by Dr. Robotnik, 2 days ago.

 Nonetheless, I smell a bunch of US concessions being re-branded as some America First policy much to the satisfaction of the Chinese.  Nuclear war just doesn't seem likely.  Even nuclear standoffs tend to land presidents in hot water.  Not to mention the economic impact of such flexing.

 

 

That could be a bad idea. I've read at least one analysis that says we should resist the temptation to say, give them Taiwan in exchange for their cooperation.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users