Printable View
After reading about NK new threats I have a question for everyone: should the USA, with the help of South Korea, attack North Korea?
IMHO, I believe we should. I fairly certainly we have the technology to quickly knock out most of their nuclear and larger weapons. Like I said before, this is only going to get worse, not better.
No most certainly not, you guys dont want another Iraq on your hands do you? 100's of soldiers being killed for absoloutely nothing, and nothing good coming from it.
I like the old america the 'America First' and we dont want to be World Police. Let the south koreans deal with it.
It would be very hard to destroy all of their nuclear weapon stockpiles in less time than it would take for them to launch them, so the chances of at least one ICBM getting through and hitting a populated area are just too great to be risked. So no, I don't think any attack on North Korea is worth it, both in terms of human lives lost in the war or in human lives lost in the nuclear attacks. The nuclear factor trumps everything, not even the USA would risk it.
I'm not going to go into how pointless a war like that would be, I'm just talking about how risky it would be.
No way, although I expect it will happen and then it will all kcik off with China.
What's one more? I say, the more the merrier! Consequences be damned! Shock and awe, baby, shock and awe.:juggle2:
North Korea is not Iraq. It's an Iraq with the added complication of a China.
Yikes. This is just a bad situation no matter what. We invade and Europe mocks us. We stand Idle, and NK develops additional capability and potentially sells its weapons on the black market. I feel like Israel.
What do the Europeans want to do?
Why attack North Korea becouse we only need to wait enough time and it will grumble by itself.Eventually Chinese will also realize that supporting them is not good PR and after that its just matter of time when it will collapse.North Korea is like former DDR.Its just artificial dictatorship that wont last.
Sit back and let you guys handle it ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
:balloon2:
It's nothing to do with us. Our interests and their interests barely overlap. We do not have anything they want, they do not have anything we want. Beyond diplomatic niceties, what can we do with each other when our interests are so far apart?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
However, the US and the North Koreans cross interests over South Korea, so what you do is of interest to each other. It also interests China and Japan, the two main east Asian powers in the locality.
A parallel would be a Finland developing nuclear weapons and threatening Sweden and America (the US is the only global power) with them. China and Japan would be barely interested in this dispute so far from their lands that does not affect them.
South Korea will never help us in an attack on North Korea. They know that they will be the target of a nuclear retaliation, whereas the U.S. could remain safe in the knowledge that North Korea - even with this new missile - doesn't have to capability to deliver a nuclear warhead here.
It's pretty clear that NK will eventually fail. The only question is how much suffering will the people there endure in the meantime, and how much damage will the leadership cause on their way down. I think it's pretty clear that South Korea is prepared to wait it out and then pick up the pieces afterwards.
Use the US satellites to beam in a MMORPG to NK, I'm sure that will knock off a few who forget to eat...
South Korea says it want's reunification. Have them prove it!
I thought the Chinese told NK to back off all that? I don't know.
I think someone needs to reduce their testosterone levels.
No.
1) One war at a time please.
2) The NKs have tested exactly 1 IRBM - the one they sailed through Japanese airspace a while ago. We really know nothing about this missile's capabilities and I think it's unlikely that they have managed to develop a true ICBM. So the situation remains basically unchanged.
3) We also don't know if they actually have nukes. If so, it's a near certainty that they don't have one small enough to mount on a missile.
4) The South Koreans wouldn't support it. In a 2004 poll, 20% said the US was more of a threat than NK, and 30% thought the US and NK threatened S. Korean security equally.
I wonder if you'll say that when Kim's missile comes crashing through you're living room window, granted it doesn't fall apart mid trip due to quality communist craftsmanship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
:laugh4:
You think China would go to war with you over North Korea? Not a chance. That'd give America the excuse to wipe out the emerging superpower's power, so that will most definitely not happen.
Pannonian: everyone is interested in eveything in the world political scene. Don't forget that apart from territory, the economy and trade is important.
Considering the state of South Korea after the war and the risk that China gets involved in the conflict, I wouldn't recommend an attack unless it's truly unavoidable.
Quite annoying situation though.
It would be a hell of a lot more justified than the Iraq invasion anyway.
China doesn't like 'em, South Korea doesn't like 'em, Europe doesn't like 'em, the US doesn't like 'em...
I think you might actually be able to form a coalition for this war !
Now wether it should be fought, i'm not sure. On the one hand a war is always a violent afair resulting in many casualties and rarely does anything good come from it. On the other hand, the North Korean people are already starving to death and the regime is just a time bomb with its acces to WMDs. :juggle2:
Yeah and I wonder if that happens to be the dumbest post for at least a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
North Korea is slowly destablising through images and media being smuggled into the country. The question is whether the dissent can seep into the army - and whether there will be a significant power shift if perhaps one or two of the old guard in control pop their clogs.
Yes. I was anti-Iraq war but I am definately pro war with North Korea. There is a serious hummanitarian catastrophe going on there and they pose a serious danger to the security of the free world.
Well im happy if its just america who go's id be very angry if they sent British troops there, very angry indeed, they posen no threat to us and we have no historical ties to them.
Do you get your view of reality by watching movies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
In movies, people like Kim Jong Il have the sole purpose of being an antagonist against the heros. They have no other lives, no other aims, just a plot device.
North Korea is not a plot device; it's a land full of people. Kim Jong Il might be a nut, but he is not a marionette in a South Park movie.
Don't be governed by fear.
Yes, that's true. War is not the answer. It causes even worse humanitarian catastrophes, and spreads them to all the nations involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Idaho: That's nice you think it's dumb because I certainly don't. The North Korean dictator has shown he is unstable, violent, and doesn't really care much about his people. Would it really surprise you if he took a pot shot at the United States given the chance?
Tachikaze: Nice blind accusation. I certainly don't base my view of the North Koreans off a crude, caveman image cartoon, nor any of other film that has been made.
Employ a strategy of containment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
North Korea is such bizarre regime that nobody likes them, not even China. They consider them a loose canon. For the moment, they are not that keen on the US, Japan and South Korea intruding on what they consider their turf. With China's power gradually increasing, someday they should be able to be convinced that they don't need that set of muppets for an ally, that North Korea is not an asset, but a liability to them.
Once North Korea is politically completely isolated, we can just wait for it to either implode or for China to make an end to it.
Ourselves, we shall of course sit back, let you guys handle it and mock you while at it. ~;)
Sign up anyway. At least by joining early you'll have a little bit of rank on your sleeve before we go to North Korea. Ever wonder why only Privates jump on the Grenade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I'd be for it on three conditions:
1) When the war was waged we would wage total war short of nuclear weapons. I would not support a war like it was in the 50s where the UN forces just stopped advancing and let the war drag on for years while peace talks happened.
2) If the People's Republic of China gave the US the okay to not help or harbor North Korea's military in addition to their remaining neutral in the conflict.
3) If the US had no other landwars happening at the time, we'd have to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan for that. North Korea is very mountainous which takes away the advantages of our long range fire power meaning we'd need to commit more troops to a moving front so that enemy units can infilrate between and behind our forces.
As a further note King Ragnar it wouldn't be hundreds of troops it'd be thousands. If the North Korean military manages to use their tunnel system effectively and negates the use of our airsuperiority to drag a war out for over a year expect at least 10,000 casualities as a minimum. Yes, the US has the best military in the world but the terrain just isn't permiting to many of our advantages. Mechanized forces just won't fair as well because we'll be restricted to roads and alright terrain. We'll need a lot of light infantry to cover the everything between the roads and like all dismounted infantry they are exremely venerable to indirect and direct fire meaning lots of casualties.
I don't think North Korea will come apart on it's own. It's a strict police state and despite it's crap economy it's gaining conccesions from the great powers each time we need them halt nuclear research.
I figured that you would say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I know it is tough to feel the honor bound call to service, though under leaders you dislike, distrust, or even fear. A soldier serves his country and trusts in the power of democracy to send him to the just fight. It is not always so, but if there were not those who trusted the people enough to get it right, we would not have a volunteer service. Many of my fellows disliked the leadership of Clinton when I served under him. And many do not trust our leaders now. This distrust will always exist so long as there are men of action and decision in service. A member in the profession of arms is merely willing to make the sacrifice, and trust his nation. This does not mean we are spectators, it means only that we are willing to give up on that component of the decision making process. This is why it is called servitude; I am given orders and willingly obey despite my personal will. I have chosen to make that sacrifice.
Some of us carry deep scars as a result of that sacrifice. It is not the risk of death. It is not from personal injury. We pay the price with our very souls. The honor of it is not in medals, nor survival, nor even experience. The honor comes when you step back on these shores and the way you perceive our freedom changes forever. When you look into the eyes of your loved ones, and realize that they will never know what you do, never experience what you have. That they continue to live in a veil of blessed innocence provided by the protection of you and your men. For most, that honor makes worthy the sacrifice. For others, they may be tormented unto the death.