Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2017, 05:28 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 124
Nuclear NK

Why are we sitting around letting NK get the capability of launching nukes to the US? I keep hearing how horrible it would be to have them launching attacks into SK, but won't it be 10x worse when they are nuclear attacks on the US instead? Why not attack them *before* they get the capability to nuke us?
Old 07-06-2017, 05:36 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,205
How many millions of people's lives are you willing to risk?

The South Koreans are the ones right on the border of North Korea, maybe we should ask them.
Old 07-06-2017, 05:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 56,222
So what branch of the service is the OP a member of?
Old 07-06-2017, 08:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 124
So the answer is to wait until the entire world is at risk? That seems rather short sighted... How many millions were at risk in WWII? It seems like it is generally regarded as a just war against evil. Is that not the case with NK? If not, why not? At what point does the international community stop wagging their fingers and saying "naughty, naughty", and actually *do* something? I'm scared that my children will grow up with the world a nuclear wasteland. What long term game are we playing?
Old 07-06-2017, 08:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 5,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishamael69 View Post
So the answer is to wait until the entire world is at risk? That seems rather short sighted... How many millions were at risk in WWII? It seems like it is generally regarded as a just war against evil. Is that not the case with NK? If not, why not? At what point does the international community stop wagging their fingers and saying "naughty, naughty", and actually *do* something? I'm scared that my children will grow up with the world a nuclear wasteland. What long term game are we playing?
Have you considered that this might be slightly more nuanced and complex issue than just "doing something" or "attacking"?
Old 07-06-2017, 09:02 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,472
ishamael69, I think that what you may not be considering is that, while a North Korea capable of carrying out a nuclear strike against the U.S. might do so at some future time, if we start bombing North Korea they almost certainly will immediately start bombarding South Korea and perhaps Japan as well, potentially killing millions and devastating the global economy. (I mention the economy to make the point that this is really bad for America even if we were to selfishly disregard the lives of our South Korean and Japanese allies, and our own citizens and servicemen stationed abroad.)

Also, there's a strong incentive for Kim Jong-Un not to initiate a nuclear first strike against the U.S., since it would guarantee a devastating American counterstrike.

Having to live with the possibility that North Korea could decide at any time to nuke the U.S. is awful, and I'm not trying to minimize it, but are we really willing to guarantee a horrible outcome today to remove the possibility of a horrible outcome which might never happen?
Old 07-06-2017, 09:11 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishamael69 View Post
So the answer is to wait until the entire world is at risk? That seems rather short sighted... How many millions were at risk in WWII? It seems like it is generally regarded as a just war against evil.
But keep in mind the United States didn't join the fighting in World War II until we were attacked by Japan. Even the European powers didn't get involved until Hitler started invading other countries. In contrast, Kim Jong-Un hasn't actually attacked anyone yet, and he might never actually do so.

Now, you might say it would have been better to invade Germany as soon as Hitler seized power -- but you're saying that with the knowledge, in hindsight, that he was about to start a world war. How many more world wars would we have caused if "invade to prevent future aggression" was our policy? Certainly we could have started a horrible one against the U.S.S.R., had we chosen to go that route.
Old 07-06-2017, 10:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
So what branch of the service is the OP a member of?
Must one be a service-member to have an opinion?

(Nuclear war threatens us all, civilian and military alike. Also, opinions are like armpits... We all have a couple...)
Old 07-06-2017, 10:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,920
Because China is enabling them. NK would fall in weeks but China is protecting them and nobody wants to get into a war with them.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Old 07-06-2017, 11:19 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 124
"Because China is enabling them."

Ah, that makes some sense and changes the equation, I guess. I thought China had pretty much washed their hands when NK kept building more after China tried to simmer them down. What would it take for China to decide enough is enough? A threat directed at them?
Old 07-07-2017, 10:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewder View Post
Because China is enabling them. NK would fall in weeks but China is protecting them and nobody wants to get into a war with them. . . .
"Fall?" Who has shown any indication of invading them?

Belgium would "fall in weeks" if France, England, and Germany decided to attack them...but that's just about equally likely.
Old 07-08-2017, 11:06 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
"Fall?" Who has shown any indication of invading them?
Well, Ishamael69 for one.
Old 07-11-2017, 07:25 AM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ishamael69 View Post
Ah, that makes some sense and changes the equation, I guess. I thought China had pretty much washed their hands when NK kept building more after China tried to simmer them down. What would it take for China to decide enough is enough?
China absolutely does not want a unified Korea with South Korea assimilating the north. This also brings the US right up to their borders. Not what they want.

When thinking of both China and Russia understand they like to have border states to keep their potential enemies miles away from their homeland. the result of several different invasions of each in the past. Long memories they have.

We in the USA don't really appreciate the geo-political concept of potential enemies close to our borders. 3,000 miles of oceans on the east and west and peaceful neighbors to the north and south. If I recall correctly the last US soil invasion was Pancho Villa at Columbus, New Mexico. Does not quite compare to the Mongols, or Napoleon, or Japan, nor Hitler per the experiences of China and Russia.

Last edited by davida03801; 07-11-2017 at 07:26 AM. Reason: grammer
Old 07-11-2017, 09:21 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,658
North Korea is a hostage situation. They can cause a lot of property damage and physical harm to South Korea and Japan so nobody does anything. However the longer we wait the more damage they can inflict.

It is like if someone takes ten hostages with a pistol, and they demand an extra five hostages and a machine gun. Then they demand twenty hostages and grenades. That is the situation.

The problem is North Korea is a major proliferator of wmd. If North Korea has nukes, they will sell them or at least sell the technology. They have already sold nuclear technology to Syria, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, etc. To help them build nukes.

Also North Korea sells chemical weapons to Syria.

https://pri.org/stories/2017-04-...ns-north-korea

Imo that is the real risk of North Korea. Not them nuking the US, it is more the risk of them selling wmd to anyone willing to write checks, and then those nations using them. North Korea could become a major proliferator of nuclear weapons and who knows how they will end up being used.

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-11-2017 at 09:24 AM.
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: helvetica in word non physical traits strongest otc laxatives selling your vote [email protected] infrared hat tourneau watches prices rf modulator hd drano pvc pipes cat bread loaf drawing salve target lv employee benefits music writing pen herds of pigs 999 million dollars ncis on roku escorts outcalls michael phelps teeth vegas texas holdem shit grin ultra capitalism portal testchamber 15 firefly proper order bacon thins turnpike doubles joanne michael nesmith falling skyscrapers elbows and assholes trisha toyota past prime is hiv airborne slackline vs tightrope does hollywood 48 hour miracle diet work d&d 3.5 class tiers how to pop a lock on a car trunk april fools day pranks for teachers to play on students sitting shiva for non jews buying more than one lottery ticket montgomery ward airline record player bands with two drummers fireplace doors with blower for wood burning why are star wars movies so expensive 2 cds stuck in car cd player jim cantore weather channel salary fluids with high viscosity gamera is really neat pass or play family feud how do artist become famous shoes cutting back of ankle is beastiality porn illegal put your weapon next to mine cadence off the schneid meaning how long does it take to charge car battery microsoft flight simulator 2002 professional edition guy passes out from dab twisted sister oh come all ye faithful how did romans do math blurry vision upon waking what does ky mean jos a bank tailoring cost clear care contact case difference between drone and rc needle through arm trick can i drink alcohol while taking penicillin vk 500 mg jury summons moved out of county fred thompson days of thunder this american life tarred and feathered