Ouchface
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis What You Aren't being Told"
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:59. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



schwerpunk said:
Okay, so why is one super-state preferable to a more balanced triumvirate (three roughly equal states)? Do you think you'd feel the same way if you lived in another state? Say, China, or Holland?


I don't know what the results would be with a 3 state (multi-polar) world order, but I'm sure it would operate kind of like Europe prior to WWI (I think). Also, if I was Chinese, or from any other country, I would want my country to be the best.

Old Post 04-05-13 19:26 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quasar
Moderator


Posts: 6043
Registered: 08-00


Do you think you'd be cheering for America's nukes to rain down on North Korea if you lived there? Or in South Korea, Japan, or parts of China and Russia, where the fall-out will spoil the environment for decades?

NK is one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes ever. I'm not rooting for them in any way. But, I also don't see how we'll benefit their people and make them better off by turning their country into a steaming nuclear shithole. That's not liberation, it's obliteration. The US is not going to give two craps about the country after blowing up, until it restabilizes enough under just-as-totalitarian rulers who have US interests in mind and will sell their already setup slave labor system to US companies. You watch and see. It's happened in other places, it'll happen here the same way, or worse.

Old Post 04-05-13 19:27 #
Quasar is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Quasar said:
Do you think you'd be cheering for America's nukes to rain down on North Korea if you lived there? Or in South Korea, Japan, or parts of China and Russia, where the fall-out will spoil the environment for decades?

NK is one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes ever. I'm not rooting for them in any way. But, I also don't see how we'll benefit their people and make them better off by turning their country into a steaming nuclear shithole. That's not liberation, it's obliteration. The US is not going to give two craps about the country after blowing up, until it restabilizes enough under just-as-totalitarian rulers who have US interests in mind and will sell their already setup slave labor system to US companies. You watch and see. It's happened in other places, it'll happen here the same way, or worse.



I never said we should nuke them, I said we should destroy their infrastructure, kill their leaders, and support pro-U.S. factions there. I advocate neutralizing a hostile regime, not genocide.

Old Post 04-05-13 19:30 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2050
Registered: 05-12



Kontra Kommando said:
I'm not saying I like realism; I just think it's a necessary path to take.
Pragmatism is always preferable to idealism - there we agree. My main objection is that I disagree with a single super-state being the optimal path. True, there will always be abuses of power, but history shows that there will be more abuses, not less, if a single state gets too much of that power for itself.

The U.S. isn't some kind of democratic angel (nor is my own country), either. There are better democracies out there, and I'd rather not see their influence further diluted.

Old Post 04-05-13 19:32 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



schwerpunk said:
Pragmatism is always preferable to idealism - there we agree. My main objection is that I disagree with a single super-state being the optimal path. True, there will always be abuses of power, but history shows that there will be more abuses, not less, if a single state gets too much of that power for itself.

The U.S. isn't some kind of democratic angel (nor is my own country), either. There are better democracies out there, and I'd rather not see their influence further diluted.



I get what you're saying, but at the same time, since the U.S. is in the position to be the main super power, it should not be obligated to relinquish that either. But I believe now that we live in a globalized world, if the U.S. does lose it's place at the top, I don't think it would be through war. Perhaps the next great empire can be forged through economic competition. I see that being a more likely scenario. But I also believe hostile states like N. Korea, and Iran will eventually lose since they refuse to participate because of their incompatible social and economic ideologies.

Old Post 04-05-13 19:39 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
GeckoYamori
Member


Posts: 280
Registered: 07-08


Alright North Korea, sit down.

Old Post 04-05-13 20:29 #
GeckoYamori is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
GreyGhost
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 8687
Registered: 01-08



Quasar said:
Do you think you'd be cheering for America's nukes to rain down on North Korea if you lived there? Or in South Korea, Japan, or parts of China and Russia, where the fall-out will spoil the environment for decades?

NK is one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes ever. I'm not rooting for them in any way. But, I also don't see how we'll benefit their people and make them better off by turning their country into a steaming nuclear shithole. That's not liberation, it's obliteration.

If North Korea is fool enough to fire a nuke at the US (or a close ally) and there isn't at least an equal response, that'll most likely be interpreted as a sign of weakness and embolden the North to go even further. At the very least the Pentagon should have contingency plans to eliminate Kim Jong-un, his inner circle and key military units. I agree that a nuclear carpet bombing of the entire country would be overkill, but a very forceful "DON'T FUCK WITH US!" might be the only sort of language that'll prompt Kim (who's yet to shed his training wheels) to back down.

Old Post 04-06-13 06:22 #
GreyGhost is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2641
Registered: 03-02


They're not going to fire a nuke at the US. They can't do it. They also know that attacking a NATO country is a horrible plan. Attacking the West is a good way to get killed, whether either side is justified or not.

Anyway, I don't buy that bullshit about not telling other countries what to do. That's like saying you shouldn't do something about the guy you know who beats his girlfriend. The Prime Directive isn't a real thing and it's a stupid concept. I can see no justification for countries refraining from interfering in others' affairs.

Old Post 04-06-13 06:41 #
Aliotroph? is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Alfonzo
Broadcaster


Posts: 895
Registered: 01-10



Aliotroph? said:
I can see no justification for countries refraining from interfering in others' affairs.
Agreed wholeheartedly... well, leaving aside the pressing political and economical reasons behind abstaining from certain conflicts, of course. North Korea is not a country that's bound to win over advocates for moral relativism any time soon (Incidentally I think that there are right and wrong answers to be made in response to ethical problems wherever they arise, and that relativism is a tired and outdated argument).

Think about the worst possible misery for you and your family.

Now imagine being born into today's North Korea; a destitute necrocracy presided over by a flabby-cheeked adolescent -- war reared from birth -- to whom all forms of media and entertainment are dedicated, all praise and thanks is given, and whose government decrees on pain of unspeakable acts that he be regarded as someone bordering on the divine. At all times. At all costs.

The two are one and the same. If ever there were a reason to rid a country of its "policy" based on humanitarian grounds alone, then North Korea.

Old Post 04-06-13 07:06 #
Alfonzo is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DoomUK
Forum Staple


Posts: 3845
Registered: 04-04



Aliotroph? said:
I don't buy that bullshit about not telling other countries what to do. That's like saying you shouldn't do something about the guy you know who beats his girlfriend. The Prime Directive isn't a real thing and it's a stupid concept. I can see no justification for countries refraining from interfering in others' affairs.

There's a difference between respectful negotiation and the sort of acquiescence Kirk, Picard et al adhered to in the name of not interfering with other cultures and inadvertently damaging them. By all means, call me naive, but I believe words and then more words should be used before violence is considered - even in response to previous violence. Discussion and reasoning can be powerful tools if they're used skillfully.

When that doesn't work, and a regime as belligerent as NK's continues to throw its military weight around, how about EMPing their tactical hotspots, crippling their weaponry without harming the bricks-and-mortar of the country or its people? The tech is available, so why not put it to use? It would also mean they'd lose their internet connections, but that's inconsequential when a war has been avoided - or at least postponed.

Last edited by DoomUK on 04-06-13 at 08:17

Old Post 04-06-13 08:12 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
printz
CRAZY DUMB ZEALOT


Posts: 8850
Registered: 06-06



DoomUK said:
It would also mean they'd lose their internet connections,
What Internet?

__________________
Automatic Wolfenstein - Version 1.0 - also on Android

Old Post 04-06-13 08:31 #
printz is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
DoomUK
Forum Staple


Posts: 3845
Registered: 04-04


Heh, good point.

Old Post 04-06-13 08:33 #
DoomUK is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
GreyGhost
Why don't I have a custom title by now?!


Posts: 8687
Registered: 01-08



DoomUK said:
how about EMPing their tactical hotspots, crippling their weaponry
That's wishful thinking. Military communications and other essential hardware is probably radiation hardened, so all an EMP is likely to do is deprive the civilian population of power and communications.

Quick question - how do we prevent EMP blasts from crossing borders into places like China or Russia?

Old Post 04-06-13 13:18 #
GreyGhost is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12505
Registered: 07-06



Kontra Kommando said:
and support pro-U.S. factions there


That's one major difference of NK with most other "US-liberated" countries, that most analysts agree upon: there's no "pro-U.S." faction to speak of, and most people would rather blindly fight and die for their Dear Leader rather than face an uncertain destiny at the hand of a foreign agent. The North Korean people are not a rag-tag bunch of Gonzalez and Pedros that will just jump on the "winner's" bandwagon at the first gunshot, they operate with an entire different mindset.

Yeah, there are occasional defectors, but there's also a strong/blind party-centric support (or rather, an entire cosmotheory) revolving around the entire Juche personality cult and philosophy.


DoomUK said:
When that doesn't work, and a regime as belligerent as NK's continues to throw its military weight around, how about EMPing their tactical hotspots, crippling their weaponry without harming the bricks-and-mortar of the country or its people?


Good luck crippling a bunch of WW2-era technology trucks and tanks with some fancy EMP alone. And EMP won't stop a million regular troops from pulling the triggers on their very mechanical and very EMP-hardened AK-47s.

All military analyses about NK's attack dogma mention "all-out attacks" and human wave tactics, where the lowly Infantry is the "Queen of the Battlefield" like it was in WW II.

If anything, massive uses of EMP weaponry would cause greater collateral damage to the US "allies" (South Koreans) who rely on higher-tech weaponry. NK soldiers would just as cheerfully kill 10 US Marines for a bowl of rice with EMPs or without EMPs.

If the action indeed gets "hot", IMO there will be no nuking but just limited conventional warfare between NK and SK alone. The US will find some excuse not to intervene (at least not single sidedly, not even with conventional hit & run air raids), and wait for a UN resolution of some sort. After all, there's no oil to be gathered this time.


Several people said:
Unipolar/Multipolar world


As hard as the tensions were in the Bipolar world of the Cold War, that tension had some advantages for the working class people, in particular in terms of worker's rights: almost all Western govt's, especially in Europe, were VERY eager to concede worker rights, social welfare, etc. so that the "worker paradises" of the Eastern Block wouldn't appear too appealing/preferable.

Once the Wall came down however, the world has turned very quickly into an -apparently- unpolarized neoliberalist "fair game" arena, which is undergoing a festering crisis as we speak. There is definitively an enemy here, but nobody knows where to find him, which also makes it hard to keep the masses down. Blaming it all on an abstract concept such as "neoliberalism" sounds too vague and unsatisfactory. From time to time, vague enemies such as "terrorists" or "undemocratic regimes" are indicated, but it seems they are not convincing enough in distracting people from much more real problems. Most people will care more about their unpaid bills than about a possible nuclear exchange in some place they've never been, and never will.

Last edited by Maes on 04-06-13 at 13:45

Old Post 04-06-13 13:28 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03


Lol @ EMPs. Maes said it right:


Maes said:


Good luck crippling a bunch of WW2-era technology trucks and tanks with some fancy EMP alone. And EMP won't stop a million regular troops from pulling the triggers on their very mechanical and very EMP-hardened AK-47s.

All military analyses about NK's attack dogma mention "all-out attacks" and human wave tactics, where the lowly Infantry is the "Queen of the Battlefield" like it was in WW II.

If anything, massive uses of EMP weaponry would cause greater collateral damage to the US "allies" (South Koreans) who rely on higher-tech weaponry. NK soldiers would just as cheerfully kill 10 US Marines for a bowl of rice with EMPs or without EMPs.

If the action indeed gets "hot", IMO there will be no nuking but just limited conventional warfare between NK and SK alone. The US will find some excuse not to intervene (at least not single sidedly, not even with conventional hit & run air raids), and wait for a UN resolution of some sort. After all, there's no oil to be gathered this time.



If the Koreans really decide to go at it, the ROK and USA will easily steamroll the DPRK "army"; the only reason they haven't done so so far is that the DPRK has the ability to destroy Seoul. That's about it. I think there will be a full American military response. The USA has a lot to lose by doing nothing.

I think we were closer to actual war in 2010: DPRK sub sank an ROK boat, bombarded an island with artillery (!). Yet even then, the South Koreans kept their cool. I can't see anything different happening this time.

Old Post 04-06-13 13:50 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:


That's one major difference of NK with most other "US-liberated" countries, that most analysts agree upon: there's no "pro-U.S." faction to speak of, and most people would rather blindly fight and die for their Dear Leader rather than face an uncertain destiny at the hand of a foreign agent. The North Korean people are not a rag-tag bunch of Gonzalez and Pedros that will just jump on the "winner's" bandwagon at the first gunshot, they operate with an entire different mindset.



That may be so, but it would be a terrible idea for the U.S. to embark on nation-building, the way it did in Iraq. It's reconstruction would most likely be a collaboration between what ever Pro-U.S. faction may be available, S. Korea, the U.S., and China. I think in the Aftermath, there may be a re-unified Korea.

Moreover, I believe the U.S. military has the capacity to crush a bunch of tin-pot, half-starved "soldiers". I don't see how inferior weaponry is somehow an advantage for N. Korea. Those infantry would be wiped out by a firestorm from above.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-06-13 at 14:08

Old Post 04-06-13 13:57 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:


As hard as the tensions were in the Bipolar world of the Cold War, that tension had some advantages for the working class people, in particular in terms of worker's rights: almost all Western govt's, especially in Europe, were VERY eager to concede worker rights, social welfare, etc. so that the "worker paradises" of the Eastern Block wouldn't appear too appealing/preferable.

Once the Wall came down however, the world has turned very quickly into an -apparently- unpolarized neoliberalist "fair game" arena, which is undergoing a festering crisis as we speak. There is definitively an enemy here, but nobody knows where to find him, which also makes it hard to keep the masses down. Blaming it all on an abstract concept such as "neoliberalism" sounds too vague and unsatisfactory. From time to time, vague enemies such as "terrorists" or "undemocratic regimes" are indicated, but it seems they are not convincing enough in distracting people from much more real problems. Most people will care more about their unpaid bills than about a possible nuclear exchange in some place they've never been, and never will.



Actually, the start of neoliberalism throughout the world came in 1945 with the Brentton woods agreement, signed by the U.S. and many of the Allies during the last stages of WWII. As for the enemy, it doesn't really matter how they are defined, they're just people getting in the way of business. But I would argue that it is still in fact a uni-polar world because the U.S. still has a dominance of hard power (military), and soft power, (economic, and cultural influence). North Korea is a relic from the past Cold War that will eventually be dealt with. Even China, their "communist" allies will be forced to side with the USA.

Last edited by Kontra Kommando on 04-06-13 at 14:49

Old Post 04-06-13 14:27 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:


Moreover, I believe the U.S. military has the capacity to crush a bunch of tin-pot, half-starved "soldiers". I don't see how inferior weaponry is somehow an advantage for N. Korea. Those infantry would be wiped out by a firestorm from above.



The USA doesn't exactly have a great record fighting shitty armies. Afghanistan?

Old Post 04-06-13 14:47 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Mr. T said:


The USA doesn't exactly have a great record fighting shitty armies. Afghanistan?



The wars themselves were quickly over, its the occupation, and reconstruction that creates the quagmires for the U.S. That's why i believe we should not occupy N. Korea. Instead, it should be a joint-effort with other states.

Old Post 04-06-13 14:51 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12505
Registered: 07-06



Kontra Kommando said:
Moreover, I believe the U.S. military has the capacity to crush a bunch of tin-pot, half-starved "soldiers".


Are you kidding? They all have awesome ninja skills.

And, as it's usual for "poor enemies" such as NK targetting an economically "dense" enemy such as SK, even if they throw some artillery shells at random they will do much more human and economic damage than the other way around. Plus, unless a massive bombing campaign takes place before any troops are moved, SK will be swarmed by 1 mln of NK troops in a matter of hours, and "steamrolling" will be a tactical impossibility, as the actual fighting will have already become door-to-door urban warfare.

To paraphrase Heinlein, with the NKPLA, "War becomes a personal issue, like a punch to the face". A kind of war that pasty-faced UAV operators aren't all too well-accustomed with.

Old Post 04-06-13 14:54 #
Maes is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Maes said:


Are you kidding? They all have awesome ninja skills.

And, as it's usual for "poor enemies" such as NK targetting an economically "dense" enemy such as SK, even if they throw some artillery shells at random they will do much more human and economic damage than the other way around. Plus, unless a massive bombing campaign takes place before any troops are moved, SK will be swarmed by 1 mln of NK troops in a matter of hours, and "steamrolling" will be a tactical impossibility, as the actual fighting will have already become door-to-door urban warfare.

To paraphrase Heinlein, with the NKPLA, "War becomes a personal issue, like a punch to the face". A kind of war that pasty-faced UAV operators aren't all too well-accustomed with.



LOL, that was a sick combat roll.

But I get what you're saying about them dealing immediate damage on S. Korea. It's seems the S. Korea would have the most to lose. Yet if the U.S. launch around-the-clock bombing of important North Korean structures, like military bases, power-lines, dams, and industrial complexes, don't you think they'd be inclined to surrender? I see the U.S. sending supplies and resources to S. Korea to wage the fight on the ground, while the U.S. attacks from afar with stealth bombers and missile cruisers. I see it being like Libya, the U.S. had basically done what I had said, while local anti-Qaddafi forces acted as foot soliders.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:03 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:


The wars themselves were quickly over, its the occupation, and reconstruction that creates the quagmires for the U.S. That's why i believe we should not occupy N. Korea. Instead, it should be a joint-effort with other states.



You mean like... Iraq and Afghanistan?

Old Post 04-06-13 15:17 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Mr. T said:


You mean like... Iraq and Afghanistan?



Yes, exactly, both of those wars were over quickly. The major issue was the occupation, and reconstruction. War isn't like it was in the old days. Like in Roman times, they could just simply slaughter and crucify insurgents like they had done in Masada. The U.S. and the rest of the world now has to respect human rights and follow certain rules about war.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:23 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:


LOL, that was a sick combat roll.

But I get what you're saying about them dealing immediate damage on S. Korea. It's seems the S. Korea would have the most to lose. Yet if the U.S. launch around-the-clock bombing of important North Korean structures, like military bases, power-lines, dams, and industrial complexes, don't you think they'd be inclined to surrender? I see the U.S. sending supplies and resources to S. Korea to wage the fight on the ground, while the U.S. attacks from afar with stealth bombers and missile cruisers. I see it being like Libya, the U.S. had basically done what I had said, while local anti-Qaddafi forces acted as foot soliders.



The North Koreans aren't going to surrender easily. They have fortified their guns pointed at Seoul in such a way that the US wouldn't be able to get them all before Seoul is a big parking lot (swimming pool?), with the accompanying millions(!) of casualties and billions of economic damage.

The USA also has to go all in; it has a lot to lose by not. Just using bombers and cruisers says to China, hey, our ally isn't worth that much to us. Go ahead and invade Taiwan or even Japan.

The ROK has a powerful military on it's own. Together with a large contingent of US troops (from those already in Korea, and Japan), the conventional war will be extremely one-sided, which is why NK has invested so much in their capability to destroy Seoul.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:24 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



Mr. T said:


The North Koreans aren't going to surrender easily. They have fortified their guns pointed at Seoul in such a way that the US wouldn't be able to get them all before Seoul is a big parking lot (swimming pool?), with the accompanying millions(!) of casualties and billions of economic damage.

The USA also has to go all in; it has a lot to lose by not. Just using bombers and cruisers says to China, hey, our ally isn't worth that much to us. Go ahead and invade Taiwan or even Japan.

The ROK has a powerful military on it's own. Together with a large contingent of US troops (from those already in Korea, and Japan), the conventional war will be extremely one-sided, which is why NK has invested so much in their capability to destroy Seoul.



I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. The N. Koreans may not even have the balls to act, they could just be bluffing. Perhaps the U.S. and their allies may act preemptively, before the N. Koreans can take the first shot.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:28 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Mr. T
Senior Member


Posts: 1486
Registered: 12-03



Kontra Kommando said:


I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. The N. Koreans may not even have the balls to act, they could just be bluffing.



Yes. The danger is, this time they have probably overplayed their hand. Kim Jong-il was a master at threatening "just enough" to get economic and political concessions. Building nukes, missiles; it was all a ploy to get the Americans to give him $$$ when he demolished his nuclear plant.

The problem for his successors is that this time the US seems to be calling their bluff.


Kontra Kommando said:


Perhaps the U.S. and their allies may act preemptively, before the N. Koreans can take the first shot.



No. If they could have gotten away with doing that, they would have done it already.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:33 #
Mr. T is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
schwerpunk
Senior Member


Posts: 2050
Registered: 05-12


EDIT: Sniped. This is a reply to KK.

Guhh. You're killing me here... For someone who says war should be a last resort you sure seem like you'd like to jump to that last resort pretty quickly.

Besides, it's just North Korea doing what it's always done: saber rattling until they get attention so they can make some demands. The cost of a war with North Korea is too great to take on so cavalierly.

Old Post 04-06-13 15:35 #
schwerpunk is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Kontra Kommando
Let's attack aggressively


Posts: 1364
Registered: 02-13



schwerpunk said:
EDIT: Sniped. This is a reply to KK.

Guhh. You're killing me here... For someone who says war should be a last resort you sure seem like you'd like to jump to that last resort pretty quickly.

Besides, it's just North Korea doing what it's always done: saber rattling until they get attention so they can make some demands. The cost of a war with North Korea is too great to take on so cavalierly.



It's a tough situation, but N. Korea is threatening nuclear holocaust on the U.S. and S. Korea. They've boasted about their capacity to do so, even if it may not be true, it's cause for alarm. Moreover, their radical malcontent leaders make it impossible for them and states like the U.S. to even have a dialogue. Personally, I hope the sanctions work, and we do not need to engage them. What may be happening is that their government is running out of time resources, maintaining control over their people, and therefore are bluffing as a last ditch effort. Perhaps they'll simply implode, imagine going from being paid in rice to nothing at all?

Old Post 04-06-13 15:46 #
Kontra Kommando is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7936
Registered: 08-04


I imagine Kim Jong Un is under extreme pressure. He has to gain the respect of his countries military generals, many of which are from his grandfathers era. He really is standing on the shoulders of giants, I just hope he doesn't get himself too deep.

Old Post 04-06-13 19:46 #
Technician is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Enjay
ASK ME ABOUT FOOTBALL / STEAM / DEAD CELEBRITIES / THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT


Posts: 6381
Registered: 12-00



Kontra Kommando said:
Yes, exactly, both of those wars were over quickly.

Tell that to the soldiers still getting killed in Afghan.

Afghanistan has been at war in one form or another for centuries. It is quite possible war will never be over there.

Old Post 04-06-13 23:28 #
Enjay is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:59. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > "The North Korean Nuclear Crisis What You Aren't being Told"

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.