#1
Old 07-06-2017, 04:28 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 125
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?
#2
Old 07-06-2017, 04:36 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 21,831
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.
#3
Old 07-06-2017, 04:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,296
So what branch of the service is the OP a member of?
#4
Old 07-06-2017, 07:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 125
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?
#5
Old 07-06-2017, 07:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,308
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"?
#6
Old 07-06-2017, 08:02 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,553
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?
#7
Old 07-06-2017, 08:11 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,553
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.
#8
Old 07-06-2017, 09:03 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...)
#9
Old 07-06-2017, 09:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,048
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
#10
Old 07-06-2017, 10:19 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 125
"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?
#11
Old 07-07-2017, 09:03 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.
#12
Old 07-08-2017, 10:06 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.
#14
Old 07-11-2017, 06:25 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 06:26 AM. Reason: grammer
#15
Old 07-11-2017, 08:21 AM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,694
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 08:24 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 07:50 AM.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: [email protected]

Send comments about this website to:

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: dear sir madam sacramento russian big love nicki icu nurse gifts hanno the navigator brian or bryan gapers delay oglaf secret page open pet scan off color jokes swallowed air bubble pp vs pg can body spray be used as deodorant projector for powerpoint presentations what did scrooge do for a living oh ee oh ee oh how to buy a houseboat why do female swimmers have no breasts why do birds hop crispin glover letterman youtube how to pronounce putin where did jingle bells batman smells come from