What US sanctions will do to Russia, Iran and North Korea - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14831533
Personally, even though I abhor the idea, a nuclear strike makes sense. The US can not risk the war even lasting a few days. Any other military action has a much greater risk of war with China and/or
Russia. One decisive strike is the best option, if war is inevitable.
#14831542
War is not inevitable and launching a Nuke could have such ridiculously bad effects that it isn't worth contemplating. Nukes take time to actually hit and are detectable. Counter strikes could be launched before the bombs hit NK. Several large cities in the US and Asia could be destroyed and millions dead.

A preemptive nuclear strikes would be irresponsible to put it mildly.
#14831551
I can't see what the West can do, any attack on North Korea conventional or nuclear would be an absolute disaster. Seoul would no doubt be attacked, can you imagine how the stock market would react, how China would react and North Korea knows this. Militarily the West can do very little.


North Korea is an isolated, impoverished but highly militarised state. Its leadership has one essential goal - survival. That is why they have placed huge resources in their nuclear and missile programmes as the ultimate insurance policy for the regime.
Any use of its nuclear capability would be catastrophic - especially so for North Korea itself. The regime would not survive the ensuing conflict.
But this awful prospect is not necessarily the immediate worry. It is the threat of the escalating war of words between Washington and Pyongyang moving from rhetoric to reality.
North Korea is a country that has episodically resorted to the use of force in the past and could do so again. In March 2010 it is believed to have sunk a small South Korean warship. In the same year its artillery shelled a South Korean island and if this current crisis does go hot, it is likely to be South Korea that is on the receiving end of the North's anger.
North Korea's military has the numerical advantage over the South and is deployed close to the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) marking the boundary between the two Koreas. It is frequently suggested that North Korean artillery and rocket forces (its strongest card) could level the South Korean capital Seoul within hours of the outbreak of a conflict.
This is not actually so. Seoul is some 40km (24 miles) from the DMZ and can only be reached by the North's longest range artillery pieces. Their firing would betray their positions - many of them are not very mobile - and this would leave them vulnerable to attack by the South.
South Korea has by far the qualitative edge and it is of course backed up by the extensive strike power of the US military. Any reprise of the Korean War of the 1950s - the movement of the North's forces southwards - would create huge numbers of civilian casualties (indeed among them would be many Chinese students and businesspeople resident in Seoul) but would inevitably end in a catastrophe for the North Korean regime.
Such a Korean War Mark II is hopefully unlikely. But the danger is that the North might seek to use its military forces for provocations or other steps that might precipitate a more generalised conflict.
Quite apart from the reach of its artillery and rocket forces, the North has an extensive chemical arsenal. It may also have biological weapons. It has large numbers of highly trained special forces and other units designed to infiltrate the South. And it has developed a cyber attack capability as well.
So it has many means by which it might seek to take military action. But any attack against the US or its allies in the current context risks a more generalised war. And assuming that the Pyongyang regime is not suicidal - and despite many of the rhetorical claims to the contrary, this is not an irrational regime - then the North Korean leadership must be aware of the risks they run.
From the North Korean perspective, having a nuclear weapon and an intercontinental missile capability to hold at risk the territory of the continental United States is entirely rational. The demise of the dictatorships in Iraq and Libya, the North Koreans would argue, was in large part because they did not have recourse to the ultimate weapon.
Risking an all-out war with the United States though that could only end in the regime's demise makes no sense. Any war on the Korean peninsula would play to Washington's advantages. North Korean forces would be channelled southwards into limited avenues of advance due to the topography and the Pentagon could employ the classic concepts of its air-land battle to defeat them.
Such a war though is unthinkable. It is in neither side's interests. The risk now is entirely of mistake, miscalculation and actions taken on the basis of clumsy and confused rhetorical signals. The North Koreans usually broadcast at full volume. The US now needs to be cautious about the tone of its own messaging.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40878370
#14831607
mikema63 wrote:No, there are no real scenarios that woul make us use an atomic weapon on NK unless they blew up San Fran or something. Even then a nuke would absolutely destroy our relationships in the region that we would like to maintain even after a conflict with NK.

I personally think the most likely thing to happen is China increasingly putting pressure on NK to back down since they aren't happy either. If I were in charge I'd probably hold back on any military options until the situation came to the point that China would also participate which would make it far less bloody and much quicker an operation. Beyond that there isn't really much need to do anything but set up stronger missle defense systems to try and stop any preemptive missiles.

Really the biggest threat is trump trying something stupid to prove his manhood or something like that.


You have some reasonable ideas until you discredit your argument by attempting to say Kim Jon-un is the sane reasonable person in this dispute.
#14831618
mikema63 wrote:There are levels of unhinged and the kim's may be batty but they know how to hang on to power and suicide isn't how you do it.


Great doubling down? What exactly are the levels of unhinged are you talking about, either you are or you are not imo? Seriously you watch too many movies let me guess the Dead Zone is that what you are trying draw an analogy. That's a lot of tinfoil.
#14831625
Every article I read is the same. War is irresponsible. The US should find a way to negotiate. This conveniently ignores the fact that North Korea has made it crystal clear they will not negotiate their nuclear power and they intend to use it.
So, forget the idealism and face the reality. If we believe them, and we should, then we need to strike first with everything we have. To do otherwise will kill many Japanese and South Koreans. If someone must die, it is a good idea to choose the enemy.
#14831626
NK will never be a threat to the US, regardless how advanced their nuclear program becomes. The USA surveillance of NK today would be so high that by the time a missle was set up to be launched the US would know about its existence. Even then, once it was launched they would know where it was heading and the distance of travel across the Pacific would mean that it would be intercepted long before a land strike was even possible. This crisis is a pissing contest. Both sides wants the other to blink but neither side can do anything make them do it.

Nonetheless an pre-emptive attack by either side to the other is a losing strategy. If NK did it, not only would the missle they fired be intercepted, The US would have support to burn NK to the ground. If the US strikes first they would be internationally condemned. I expect this pissing contest to continue for many more years to come.
#14831628
I agree the US is not in any danger. That is propaganda to prepare for war. Americans must be made afraid of the missiles before they will agree to the destruction of North Korea. This pissing contest was a mistake because it is based upon the major players using restraint. The problem is, the US loses too much by allowing it to continue. Restraint is defeat in the entire area. North Korea must do a 180 or be destroyed, and it needs to happen soon.
#14831632
One Degree wrote:The problem is, the US loses too much by allowing it to continue. Restraint is defeat in the entire area. North Korea must do a 180 or be destroyed, and it needs to happen soon.


NK have been saying the same bullshit for as long as I can remember. If they really wanted to be oblivated off the face of the planet they would have attacked the South by now. After all, Korea is technically still at war. The US are a threat to them. That is why they will not give up on their nuclear program whatever the cost is to them. Because they know the threat of an nuclear attack by them being possible will be enough to prevent them becoming the next Iraq.

The only answer to this crisis is more investment in missle defense in Asia and more sanctions on NK. There is no other option open to the US. China will not allow the US to have troops at their border. It is that simple.
#14831636
I will admit I am mostly just speculating, but a real war might look real attractive to Trump right now, and you are right that it can not be a war with our troops in North Korea. This makes things dangerous.
#14831641
B0ycey wrote:NK will never be a threat to the US, regardless how advanced their nuclear program becomes. The USA surveillance of NK today would be so high that by the time a missle was set up to be launched the US would know about its existence. Even then, once it was launched they would know where it was heading and the distance of travel across the Pacific would mean that it would be intercepted long before a land strike was even possible. This crisis is a pissing contest. Both sides wants the other to blink but neither side can do anything make them do it.

Nonetheless an pre-emptive attack by either side to the other is a losing strategy. If NK did it, not only would the missle they fired be intercepted, The US would have support to burn NK to the ground. If the US strikes first they would be internationally condemned. I expect this pissing contest to continue for many more years to come.

I am not sure if your first paragraph is wholly accurate, but I'd be willing to bet if the US put out an international call for a team of scientists to assemble to upgrade this aim, people would haul hiney to join it.

The second paragraph rings truer. If the NK did anything of the sort the entire world would be on deck as they were for bin Laden.
America should sit this one out. Don't fight, just defend the moral high ground
#14831645
The Americans are hoping to force DPRK to strike first thus justifying their war planning that is already underway. You guys should really study the invasion of Iraq and the Japanese Pearl Harbour decision to better understand what is happening here.

Most likely, assuming the DPRK doesn't do anything stupid tomorrow, the US will continue to refine its war plan for another six to 12 months, then likely invent a justification for a strike, anything will do, a missile launch, perceived "aggression". Note that Trump was retweeting reports about cruise missiles being loaded onto patrol craft in DPRK, which has historical precedence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

In his interview with H. R. McMaster, Hugh Hewitt straight up asks the national security advisor if this is all preparation for a first strike. Check it out.

#14831651
Stormsmith wrote:I am not sure if your first paragraph is wholly accurate, but I'd be willing to bet if the US put out an international call for a team of scientists to assemble to upgrade this aim, people would haul hiney to join it.


There be satellites in space watching NK right now. Then there is radar. Do you think a nuclear missle fired from NK towards the US will go unnoticed? Once its spotted its just a matter of hitting the target and destroying it. You're safe I can assure you. It isn't the US who are in danger of NK. It is South Korea. But the amount of missle defence invested in the region with the amount training done of such of an attack taking place, even they should be able to prevent a missle from reaching it's target before a chain reaction takes place.
#14831652
MB. wrote:The Americans are hoping to force DPRK to strike first thus justifying their war planning that is already underway. You guys should really study the invasion of Iraq and the Japanese Pearl Harbour decision to better understand what is happening here.

Most likely, assuming the DPRK doesn't do anything stupid tomorrow, the US will continue to refine its war plan for another six to 12 months, then likely invent a justification for a strike, anything will do, a missile launch, perceived "aggression". Note that Trump was retweeting reports about cruise missiles being loaded onto patrol craft in DPRK, which has historical precedence in the Gulf of Tonkin incident...

In his interview with H. R. McMaster, Hugh Hewitt straight up asks the national security advisor if this is all preparation for a first strike. Check it out.



Lets get something clear, Americans don't want a war lets not spin this.
#14831659
Oxymoron wrote:why would we have to? We can annihilate them with conventional arms.


I'm no expert in military logistics.
A nuclear attack would annihilate NKs leadership quickly whereas a conventional attack would take long enough for North Korea to decimate Seoul with biological and chemical weapons and for IBMs to be launched.
USA has over 4000 nuclear weapons and President Trump is insane.


Image
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

This settles it. We should burn as much fossil fu[…]

The proud boys and the other wingnut larpers are […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

I wouldn't say that a sense of resentment leading[…]

Whatever the Kashmirs deserve or dont deserve det[…]