Jump to content

Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?


ThaHoward

Recommended Posts

I think North Korea is harmless: they have a powerful army and (it appears) they have nuclear weapons but I bet they don't want to use them against USA, South Korea or Japan.

Kim Joun-un is just acting like he's a "tough guy" because he needs to show his citizens and all the world "how powerful DPRK is" :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sleighcaptain said:

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

I think Russia have been exporting oil to North Korea for quite some time. It just fell much shorter after the break up of USSR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sleighcaptain said:

A saw a news article online today (can't verify it's accuracy) saying that Russia has delivered oil to DPRK. If so it could be a tacit show of support 

This is on the same lines

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-north-korea-oil-imports-kim-jong-un-united-states-736144

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I hate to say it, but he bet heavily that this was a silent majority within the country, and won by a landslide.

 

He won by the Electoral College, barely.  He lost the popular vote by a landslide.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sally said:

He won by the Electoral College, barely.  He lost the popular vote by a landslide.  

Hate to say it, but a win is all that will be remembered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Hate to say it, but a win is all that will be remembered.

Then you should simply have said he won, instead of winning by a landslide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Bloated, overpopulated" states? Do you mean that states are only supposed to  have a certain number of people?  And anyone over that doesn't count?   :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with staying out of the countries surrounding North Korea is that we have a pact with Japan to be their army. After World War two we made them sign a treaty that they weren't allowed to have a standing army at all because of the lengths their soldiers would go to in order to kill the enemy. In exchange, America agreed to be their army, if they're attacked the US automatically becomes involved. So it's a bit tense when North Korea is firing test missiles over Japan. 

On the other hand, you have to understand that North Koreans are treated terribly in their own country. They're lied to their entire lives, they're malnourished, abused, brainwashed and tortured. They probably have no idea that their leader is testing out nukes against countries much larger than his or what that could bring on them. Their government doesn't give a crap about their people. I'm pretty sure that North Korea could be taken over in a month tops, and it's pretty much the only country I would support a take over in, considering the conditions it's citizens are forced to suffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sally said:

"Bloated, overpopulated" states? Do you mean that states are only supposed to  have a certain number of people?  And anyone over that doesn't count?   :lol::lol::lol:

Urban democrats in overpopulated states should move to more rural areas. Both win then :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evren said:

The main problem with staying out of the countries surrounding North Korea is that we have a pact with Japan to be their army. After World War two we made them sign a treaty that they weren't allowed to have a standing army at all because of the lengths their soldiers would go to in order to kill the enemy. In exchange, America agreed to be their army, if they're attacked the US automatically becomes involved. So it's a bit tense when North Korea is firing test missiles over Japan. 

On the other hand, you have to understand that North Koreans are treated terribly in their own country. They're lied to their entire lives, they're malnourished, abused, brainwashed and tortured. They probably have no idea that their leader is testing out nukes against countries much larger than his or what that could bring on them. Their government doesn't give a crap about their people. I'm pretty sure that North Korea could be taken over in a month tops, and it's pretty much the only country I would support a take over in, considering the conditions it's citizens are forced to suffer.

But is it worth a nuclear war? And NK should be isolated, but it will only make the conditions of the people worse. What's interesting, however, is that repordetly the North Korean youth are different, and North Koreans now know that they don't live in a socialist paradise due to 1) the great famine and 2) globalization. Japan also want to change their constitution regarding their armed forces. It remain to be seen if China will look so fondly at that regarding their history, their ambitions in the area and seeing Japan as an extension of US complicating the situation in Korea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

I think Russia have been exporting oil to North Korea for quite some time. It just fell much shorter after the break up of USSR. 

I think Russia doesn't care who it does business with as long as they get what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yato said:

I think Russia doesn't care who it does business with as long as they get what they want.

Yeah, there's alot of ships that disappear from Russia to NK and suddenly reappear back to Russia. If, however, Russia and China implented an actual embargo NK would break down - and likely cause a massive influx of refugees to them. So if they supply NK they maintain a buffer along their border, don't have to deal with refugees (neither of the countries like them, not even internal migrations) and earn some money. The West and western aligned Pacific nations are likely to be mad at Russia and China anyway, so they don't have that much to lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Actually, yes...in a way.

 

Our country needs people in rural states to, at the very least, produce crops to feed the nation.  This is still true, but it was even more true back when the country was still being formed.  Agricultural territories that produce food for the entire nation are - by the nature of their work - low in voters, and yet they are just as integral to our success.  This is one reason why we don't have a straight popular vote.  Producers, who are a minority, would simply be outvoted by consumers, which doesn't give said producers much incentive to actually produce.  "You guys have all the crops that we'll spread around to feed everyone, and we'll take all the people.  Oh yeah, we decide how to do everything based on how many people each state has" isn't a very enticing proposition.

California produces the most crops in the country. Then Texas has a little more than half of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Actually, yes...in a way.

 

Our country needs people in rural states to, at the very least, produce crops to feed the nation.  This is still true, but it was even more true back when the country was still being formed.  Agricultural territories that produce food for the entire nation are - by the nature of their work - low in voters, and yet they are just as integral to our success.  This is one reason why we don't have a straight popular vote.  Producers, who are a minority, would simply be outvoted by consumers, which doesn't give said producers much incentive to actually produce.  "You guys have all the crops that we'll spread around to feed everyone, and we'll take all the people.  Oh yeah, we decide how to do everything based on how many people each state has" isn't a very enticing proposition.

Most of the producers now, CY, are corporations.  The family farmers who are left are on contract to sell to the corporations.  The corporations' incentive to produce is profits.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are arguing against a totally nonsensical post. :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, daveb said:

You guys are arguing against a totally nonsensical post. :lol: 

Do you mean the "bloated, overpopulated states" post?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sally said:

Do you mean the "bloated, overpopulated states" post?   

That and the followup from the same source. It's like a Trump tweet without the eloquence. :P

The preshiden of the United Shtatesh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t North Korea just send off a missle recently? Where did it go? Haven’t heard anything more about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gentle Giant said:

Didn’t North Korea just send off a missle recently? Where did it go? Haven’t heard anything more about it.

Yes -- it went into the ocean near Japan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think it doesn't hurt to try and have peace negotiations.

There are no peace negotiations unless the US can accept them being a nuclear force. The only talks, would be for them to keep their nukes, but to halt current production of them. All the while, stopping their military drills in South Korea. Something they've vehemently refused to do. Neither part are willing to give any ground, for fear of appearing weak.

 

The United States will not give any ground up, until North Korea does. This is a power struggle, that won't go anywhere, any time soon. We're dealing with egos here. Very fragile, albeit powerful ones. 

 

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think a strike would only get us into another war.

It would be a world war. Russia and China likely would intervene, as the US initiating a strike, would be seen as bullying. This is not a move the US wants to make. They understand the grave consequences of doing so. North Korea, understands the grave consequences of initiating a strike. They wouldn't get any backing from their very few allies. Not a smart move. 

 

There is a reason why neither of these parties have done anything more than verbally challenge the other. They're well aware, of the devastating impact a military clash would have.

 

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:40 PM, Autumn McJavabean said:

I think their regime must end

I hope you understand why the US sees them as a threat. The United States, have acquired territory in South East Asia post the world war era, as a show of force. They've acquired key allies, as well. This keeps Russia, China as well as North Korea in check. North Korea is doing the exact same thing the US is doing. Trying to strengthen itself, to protect its interests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

As far as I know, you don't sit at the table with NK, SK and the US. Tillerson has been trying.

The more things change in this conflict, the more they stay the same. They have remained the same since the end of the Korean war. 

Until both parties can give ground--but one must initiate the move, they will remain at a stand still. 

 

8 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

That's why we withdraw as a possible move, or talks to make our move at the same time.

Withdrawing troops from South Korea, is a bad move. Its a deterrent. It should be kept as such. 

9 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

NK asking "why does the US get to keep nukes and we can't have them in our country" is a valid question for NK to ask.

It is, but obviously the US will turn them into the bad guy, if it means supporting its agenda. 

 

Also, by keeping China in check, I'm eluding to keeping them from launching any attack against the US or any of its allies. Same reason the US started Nato. Keeps Russia from launching any attacks and has kept world peace since the last world war. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

 

 

NATO was formed back in the late 1940's, before the end of the cold war. So its continuation to prevent Russia (was the Soviets) from attacking or launching is an outdated reason now.

 

 

 

Russia have proven itself to be aggressive toward its neighbours. Let it be Georgia or Ukraine, and its many aggressive manuevers in neutral countries (fighter planes going over Finnish and Swedish arieal space, submarines violating their waters) and provoking US NAvy vessels. And the only time NATO have gotten together as a mutual alliance was after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. So it might not be so outdated, it have just evolved. And Russia have the CSTO which is basically all of the Soviet Union (minus Ukraine and Georgia which got its territory invaded by Russia) as a defense alliance, are Russia just as outdated as USA then by evolving the former USSR states into an alliance? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Autumn McJavabean said:

It's outdated on the nuke part, not conflict, though obviously NATO has done hardly anything on that front considering recent actions in the past 2-3 years. I forgot, maybe 4 years?

What is it to do? Nuke countries? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...