Just curious: Would you support war aganst North Korea if it meant that your country would be involved and a large portion of troops would come from your country?
Printable View
Just curious: Would you support war aganst North Korea if it meant that your country would be involved and a large portion of troops would come from your country?
Yes or Yes?
:inquisitive:
I vote no, tyvm. ~;)
EDIT: ah, forgot to put reasons in.
Well firstly, like everyone's saying, China's got NK by the balls. Why fight when you can just squeeze 'em with sanctions?
Also, I live with range of their nukes. While they may not be able to make it to Alaska, they probably could make it right to this apartment over here.
What happens when the regime collapses? A flood of unskilled labour into China? NTY. Enough problems with poverty as it is.
Ridiculously high casualties. Reported casualties (probably under-reported) according to a source from wikipedia says China suffered 1.86m casualties last time, give or take. These were against mainly democracies which would have a hard time trying to get more troops in due to public opinion. If against Korea, I suspect Kim do a Stalin would just pour lots and lots of troops, which would maybe even be threatened with death by machine-gun like the Soviets in WWII.
Yes, but the condition would be full south korean political support, we all know who is going to have to deal with the consequences of such a thing.
voting option without a no or gah ?
I'd vote no. Flood NK with luxuries, feed them. Over a long run, no dictatorship can stay in power. Be patient. No need to risk a new world war. Most of all, listen to the South Korean and follow their agenda.
This is getting silly...
Are you trying to get a mod to change your poll options? :laugh2:
Anyway, I'm indifferent... :shrug:
These are poll options North Korean style ~;)
I currently wouldn't support a war against NK, no matter which country would be involved or supply the troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
lol good one !
The only way I would support a war against N.K. is if they actually nuked somebody, or invaded S.K. The US has no credibility to push for military action, and is stretched too thin militarily to deal with a third front anyway. From my perspective, the doctrine of preemptive military action has failed, and I won't make the mistake of supporting it again. (I should clarify that - there are very rare cases in which I would support it, but I don't care to identify them here.) We simply aren't going to successfully counter the global challenges we face through traditional military might.
You will also notice that the voter has the options of choosing how many times to vote yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
The poll is mean to be facitious, but the topic isn't. What conidtions would you willing support war against Kim Jong Il & Co. ?
The only way it would make sense is if they attack and destroy Seoul or Tokyo first. Then there wouldn't be a point in holding back since they'd spent their one massive bargaining chip, and a thorough leveling would be in order.
Ditto. As long as NK directly attacks either state, there's little left to lose then. And if the US decides to all-out, because let's face it, NKs military is massive and it'll be long and rather bloody.
Edit: if I was American. As it is, well, I'd love to see Holland taking on NK on its own.
I would support the war if North Korea struck first, not before.
Otherwise, be patient, NK will collapse, like every other dictatorship did.
rofl, great poll :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Well, the question is a bit pointless, since unless you're an American or a Chinese, it's highly unlikely your country will provide most of the troops in the eventuality of a war.
*screams in high-pitched accusatory voice: Divinus is discriminating against non-Americans and non-Chinese !!*
Seriously though, I agree with some of the above posters - I would support an attack on them if they started anything (bombing something, declaring war, etc).
If and when there is a clear and present danger that North Korea will attack its neighbours on a large scale.Quote:
Under what conditions would you support war in N.K.?
Or if there's a garuantee of Chinese neutrality or better; South Korea backs the war effort and takes responsibility for the nation building effort afterwards; and Korea will be reunited with democratic Korea.
I'm not interested in starting WWIII over a bizarre regime that can only prolonge its pityful existence by extortion of rice shipments. They'll crumble sooner or later.
I would only support a war with NK if they were a direst threat to us or if another country negotiated a deal with us to join them in a war against NK.
I'd support a war against NK if they cross the 38th parallel. They do that it's on!
Agreeded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keba
Only if Eclectic/DA stops posting facetious polls. Then I might consider it.
Good LORD! Some people here would actually wait until NK nukes a city before taking them down? I'm not sure of the size of their nukes or how many they have but if they were to use them, they may just use them all as even one would bring about their destruction. So loosing Seoul or Tokyo is acceptable to some people? True, if military force was used against them they may retaliate with nukes but then we'd be in a better position to defend against them.
Sorry but if the four-foot-dictator tries to hold the world hostage (for one million dollars] he needs to die. Not that I think that will happen but I'm not willing to wait for him to kill a million people. If you try using the counter argument that many North Koreans would die due to pre-emption, remember that they would also die from the military reaction.
I agree with Louis (yet again), South Korea should take over responsibility for reconstruction. They're always supportive of their backwards cousins, now let's see just how serious they are.
Quite an assumption - what is it based on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Why should the South Koreans take responsibility for reconstruction if they didn't want a war in the first place? What was Powell's remark about Iraq (made to GHW Bush)? You break it, you own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
How? A missile fired at that close range is next to impossible to stop. It might (and I cannot stress this might enough) be possible to stop one launched at Hawaii or the West Coast, as there would be enough time to track, target and destroy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Seoul is within a hundred kilometers of the border, a missile travelling on average at the speed of sound will cross the distance within moments ... Tokyo would barely have enough time to detect the missile and no time whatsoever to respond.
On top of that, what is stopping North Korea from employing those same nuclear weapons on your advancing troops? Simply wipe out several hundred thousands soldiers ... the civilian population would cave, and anti-war people would gain in strength, you would lose such a land war before it even started.
If Korea strikes first, then it is MAD ... the Western powers have every authority to retaliate in full force.
Sorry to hijack, but I'd like to ask what kind of effect a North Korean nuclear attack would have if it were focused on the EMP. What kind of range could it have, and how badly could it harm the West Coast or Japan/SK?
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spartan
It will probably take the equivalent of a Pearl Harbour attack on South Korea or Japan to create enough drum beating for a war to be viable.
I would not support a war with out a good reason but i will always support the troops if they are sent to war but not always the goverment.
Given the unkown nature of the nuclear weapons in North Korea's hands, which according to some sources is around 5 working weapons, it would be hard to predict the effects of EMP. For EMP effects to be the greatest the weapon has to be exploded at a specific altitude (one that I don't remember right now) and there is some thought around the size of the weapon and type (again can't remember the specific data).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kongamato
But I think we can agree that the EMP effects of a ground burst of a nuclear weapon in Toyoko or Soeul would create increased havoc for civilians - no ability for the civilian authority to communicate via television and radio to the people, civilians will have to evacuate the area by foot, power to hospitals would also be a problem (unless they have nuclear blast harderned backup generators and equipment.) etc.etc. in other words a nightmare scenerio in more ways then one.
I remember reading in the propaganda magazine of the military industrial complex (Pop-Sci :laugh4: ). That for a regular nuke to work as an EMP weapon it would ahve to detonate 10 KM up. And you might get it to affect an area the size of Japan and SK or the west coast of the US. But never both at the same time. To get that kind of coverage it would have to be in orbit. And the atmosphere would absorb it then. But this is all IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
IIRC the EMP wave of a Nuke doesn't go much farther than the radiation wave. But with modern multi-megaton warheads that's still a hell of a lot of area covered. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Holy cow, I guess I should respond.
The answer is simple: Ser, Keba; Which is worse, a sucker punch or a hit to the jaw when you fighting? The answer is simple. When you're on a war footing or in a fighting stance you're more prepared to take a hit.
As to South Korea: Pannonian, my comment was mostly directed at the youth of the country who feel closer to North Korea than us. The older generations know better but I don't appreciate the attitude of the younger ones.