Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

[Joe the Stoic]

32 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

So you want us to waste tax dollars on a war for the sake of it?

Sherlocks, try to have a little perspective here and really digest what I am saying.  I feel like you are not reading my posts.

 

First, this is a hypothetical situation proposed by ThaHoward.  This is not a real question that exists right now.  There is no actual debate about whether or not we need to make war on North Korea at the moment.  I am not actually advocating for a war right now, as you seem to think I am.  I am laying out conditions in a hypothetical scenario in which I think war would be practical.  My preferred choice is for China to annex North Korea and skip the war.  China would still have its sphere of influence, and we would be free of a loose cannon in the form of the Kim family.  It's win-win.  I don't want to send people to their deaths, if it can be avoided.

 

Second, I am not saying that I want war for the sake of it.  I specifically said that there are reasons for why I would support a war.  At no point have I said anything like, "You know what?  Let's fight North Korea.  Probably be fun."  That is not the idea in the slightest, and you know I have not said anything like that.  You have no cause to say that I want war for the sake of war.  I feel like the United States could get invaded, with our citizens being murdered and raped, and if I proposed that we fight back, you would complain that I just want war for the sake of war.  No, I do not want war for the sake of war.  I just accept that war is an option on the table for dangerous situations that peaceful politics cannot resolve.  We should not have invaded Iraq because it was no threat, and we knew it was no threat.  The same does not hold true for North Korea.

 

Third, if I were really a warmonger, like you say I am, I would be defending the invasion of Iraq as well.  After all, if I like war for the sake of war, why wouldn't I defend that war? Alas, I do not defend any and every war, as I do not want war for the sake of war.

[Sherlocks]

16 minutes ago, Joe Parrish said:

Sherlocks, try to have a little perspective here and really digest what I am saying.  I feel like you are not reading my posts.

 

First, this is a hypothetical situation proposed by ThaHoward.  This is not a real question that exists right now.  There is no actual debate about whether or not we need to make war on North Korea at the moment.  I am not actually advocating for a war right now, as you seem to think I am.  I am laying out conditions in a hypothetical scenario in which I think war would be practical.  My preferred choice is for China to annex North Korea and skip the war.  China would still have its sphere of influence, and we would be free of a loose cannon in the form of the Kim family.  It's win-win.  I don't want to send people to their deaths, if it can be avoided.

 

Second, I am not saying that I want war for the sake of it.  I specifically said that there are reasons for why I would support a war.  At no point have I said anything like, "You know what?  Let's fight North Korea.  Probably be fun."  That is not the idea in the slightest, and you know I have not said anything like that.  You have no cause to say that I want war for the sake of war.  I feel like the United States could get invaded, with our citizens being murdered and raped, and if I proposed that we fight back, you would complain that I just want war for the sake of war.  No, I do not want war for the sake of war.  I just accept that war is an option on the table for dangerous situations that peaceful politics cannot resolve.  We should not have invaded Iraq because it was no threat, and we knew it was no threat.  The same does not hold true for North Korea.

 

Third, if I were really a warmonger, like you say I am, I would be defending the invasion of Iraq as well.  After all, if I like war for the sake of war, why wouldn't I defend that war? Alas, I do not defend any and every war, as I do not want war for the sake of war.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you want another pointless war for the same reason we apparently went to war in the middle east and the war in the middle east did not really benefit us that greatly and despite getting rid of the dude we were looking for, we are still for some reason still out there. You are warmongering plain and simple. You are ignoring the fact that while we been at war we been neglecting the issues back home like the job crises, the falling test scores, the decline in the public school system, and the crappy transportation systems which need to be updated for people in poorer neighborhoods but no lets go play hero and try to fix yet another country, which is going to cost us more money and resources which we could be using to help people back home. You have absolutely no case at all! You just like the idea of going to war. Its not financially feasible and logical to jump into another war which is not going to give us any returns. I know America likes to go to other countries and say they are "Helping develop" but news flash AMERICANS MATTER TOO! Would you force your children to go hungry while you feed the poor children on the street? Well going to another war we cant afford is doing just that. 

 

I have to wonder if there is something you gain from US going to another war. You sound like you are from some special interest group that has some kind of deal or profit from war even if the war is going to screw everything else up.

[SithAzathoth WinterDragon]

No,we have many allies. We do not need to gain more enemies as we have enough as it is. Let the other nations deal with it if they feel that they need to deal with it, we have enough here we deal with as it is. 

[Sherlocks]

1 minute ago, Shieldmaiden WinterDragon said:

No,we have many allies. We do not need to gain more enemies as we have enough as it is. Let the other nations deal with it if they feel that they need to deal with it, we have enough here we deal with as it is. 

 

I agree with this! 

[Joe the Stoic]

3 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

Yes, you want another pointless war for the same reason we apparently went to war in the middle east and the war in the middle east did not really benefit us that greatly and despite getting rid of the dude we were looking for, we are still for some reason still out there. You are warmongering plain and simple. You are ignoring the fact that while we been at war we been neglecting the issues back home like the job crises, the falling test scores, the decline in the public school system, and the crappy transportation systems which need to be updated for people in poorer neighborhoods but no lets go play hero and try to fix yet another country, which is going to cost us more money and resources which we could be using to help people back home. You have absolutely no case at all! You just like the idea of going to war. Its not financially feasible and logical to jump into another war which is not going to give us any returns. 

I am going to try one more time...

 

First, here is my original reply to the OP.

 

On 3/22/2017 at 2:34 PM, Joe Parrish said:

I would not remove it from the table.  North Korea with a nuke is a very dangerous situation.

 

Notice what I say there.  "I would not remove it from the table" is not the same as saying "Let's invade North Korea right now!"  This implies that I think there are other better options to pursue.  A warmonger doesn't want other options.  A warmonger just wants war.  I am not outright in favor of a war, but I am also not outright opposed to it.

 

I have tried to address every point you have made.  You have not addressed single one that I have made.  You ignore my text and just say that I want war for the sake of war, despite statements I have made to the contrary.  I would like it if you did not do that.  I would like it if you could actually discuss my actual opinions with me.  You are replying to me without actually discussing my beliefs.  What exactly are you accomplishing by doing that?

[Sally]

Reminder:  Howard didn't say we should start a nuclear war with North Korea.  He proposed a discussion regarding military action to eliminate North Korea's nuclear capability.  

[Kelly]

I was trying to be humorous with the Bannon remark.  But in truth, it really scares me.  A North Korea with a nuke is certainly concerning.  But I also perceive that the POTUS, Our Glorious Leader, is in charge of a multitude of nukes and is, IMHO, a nutcase.  Bannon and Our Glorious Leader seem to be itching for war, and perhaps WWIII.  Their "travel ban" grew out of what they had referred to as a Muslim Ban, and the only thing that I think that it is for is to try to get Americans to hate/fear all people of a certain religion or certain countries in order to justify a war against them, too.  May God help us if Our Glorious Leader starts nuking other countries (which may include North Korea and Arab countries that he is trying to demonize).

 

How many of us have visited Middle Eastern countries or live/lived there?  I have, and I found the people that I met to be wonderful.  Demonizing all citizens of a country does not help.  And our past invasions did not help.  Once Our Glorious Leader nukes North Korea (which would kill a lot of innocent civilians), when would he stop?  It will not end well.

 

We might call it a war to prevent a war, but the War to End All Wars 100 years ago lead to very punitive actions against the citizens of Germany and ended up starting something even worse.

[Joe the Stoic]

3 minutes ago, Kelly said:

I was trying to be humerus with the Bannon remark.  But in truth, it really scares me.  A North Korea with a nuke is certainly concerning.  But I also perceive that the POTUS, Our Glorious Leader, is in charge of a multitude of nukes and is, IMHO, a nutcase.  Bannon and Our Glorious Leader seem to be itching for war, and perhaps WWIII.  Their "travel ban" grew out of what they had referred to as a Muslim Ban, and the only thing that I think that it is for is to try to get Americans to hate/fear all people of a certain religion or certain countries in order to justify a war against them, too.  May God help us if Our Glorious Leader starts nuking other countries (which may include North Korea and Arab countries that he is trying to demonize).

 

How many of us have visited Middle Eastern countries or live/lived there?  I have, and I found the people that I met to be wonderful.  Demonizing all citizens of a country does not help.  And our past invasions did not help.  Once Our Glorious Leader nukes North Korea (which would kill a lot of innocent civilians), when would he stop?  It will not end well.

 

We might call it a war to prevent a war, but the War to End All Wars 100 years ago lead to very punitive actions against the citizens of Germany and ended up starting something even worse.

Forget Trump.  In fact, imagine that a Democrat is President in this scenario and that Congress has a solid, Democratic majority.  Let's just weigh logic of conflict with North Korea and not worry about which party is in power, and let's not limit it to a nuclear strike against NK.  I actually would not want that, as the fallout would probably provoke China and could affect our allies Japan and South Korea.  Then, of course, the North Koreans are basically prisoners of their own government.  It would be unfortunate for them to die because of that.

 

Let's suppose that we could knock out the regime with a quick, expeditionary force.  Is that as scary of a prospect?

[Sherlocks]

Just now, Joe Parrish said:

I am going to try one more time...

 

First, here is my original reply to the OP.

 

 

Notice what I say there.  "I would not remove it from the table" is not the same as saying "Let's invade North Korea right now!"  This implies that I think there are other better options to pursue.  A warmonger doesn't want other options.  A warmonger just wants war.  I am not outright in favor of a war, but I am also not outright opposed to it.

 

I have tried to address every point you have made.  You have not addressed single one that I have made.  You ignore my text and just say that I want war for the sake of war, despite statements I have made to the contrary.  I would like it if you did not do that.  I would like it if you could actually discuss my actual opinions with me.  You are replying to me without actually discussing my beliefs.  What exactly are you accomplishing by doing that?

 

You are warmongering and going for a second war is not financially wise, and your motivation for going is pure ego. I mean it's nice you think America is great but just because we are does not mean we need to be going to war for the sake of saying "America is awesome yeah!" At this point, if we go to another war it should be a logical reason that will give us some kind of profit vs the sake of saying "Yeah! We are great!" 

[ThaHoward]

And what if North Korea get the possibility to nuke Hawaii? Would it then be profitable if Hawaii were bombed in wrost case scenario? North Korea have openly stated that they are developing ballistic missiles to reach Hawaii. And they have recently tested missiles that can strike Japan. Those are facts, that Joe is a warmonger is just a figment of your imagination. 

[Joe the Stoic]

16 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

You are warmongering and going for a second war is not financially wise, and your motivation for going is pure ego. I mean it's nice you think America is great but just because we are does not mean we need to be going to war for the sake of saying "America is awesome yeah!" At this point, if we go to another war it should be a logical reason that will give us some kind of profit vs the sake of saying "Yeah! We are great!" 

Well, I tried.

[borkfork]

I'm going to assume you've (the collective you of everyone on AVEN) heard of Patriot missiles because several U.S. allies have them. There are others interceptors in place such as Aegis and THAAD. Those are just ones civilians know about. Aegis is in the Pacific and could add to anti-missile defenses Japan and South Korea already have. Japan also has vessels equipped with Aegis. North Korea will eventually just get squashed like the insignificant bug they are. They've been beating their chests but not doing anything for more than 60 years. 

 

What's going on in North Korea is a U.N. concern, not a United States World Police concern.

 

The real problem will be with North Koreans who have been raised in the Kim cult of personality adapting to outside influences. The influence of Imperial Japan still looms in their rejection of acknowledgement of wrongdoings during WWII, but I suppose those are apples and oranges. As far as we know.

[daveb]

9 hours ago, Joe Parrish said:

Let's suppose that we could knock out the regime with a quick, expeditionary force.

That is a huge and dangerous supposition. It's one that has often been used in previous wars, many of which didn't turn out to be so quick, and even got bogged down into long-lasting conflict with considerable damage (collateral and otherwise).

 

I would be very wary of resorting to a first strike proposal. In terms of practicality as well as ethics and other considerations. I would hope the international community could come up with a better way of dealing with the situation. Since we're talking hypotheticals, how about some hypothetical solution that doesn't involve military action?

[SorryNotSorry]

31 minutes ago, daveb said:

Since we're talking hypotheticals, how about some hypothetical solution that doesn't involve military action?

Ok... for a couple of years now, I've been thinking it might not be such a bad idea to somehow get the Vietnamese government to talk to the North Koreans as living testimony that a communist government can remain in power while loosening its control over the national economy.

 

The Vietnamese and North Koreans have had a few unfriendly incidents in the past, but I think it's worth a try because the Vietnamese have a long history of resentment toward Chinese meddling in Vietnam's internal affairs. The Chinese communist party doesn't much like Kim Jong-un, and the North Koreans probably don't care for the CCP telling them what to do and how to do it. Vietnam is another story.

[Sally]

^^  I doubt if Kim Jong-Un is interested in doing anything other than what he is doing right now.   He's a dictator, not a communist.  

[borkfork]

You want to cozy up to Kim Jong-un, deploy the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls. 

[Joe the Stoic]

2 hours ago, daveb said:

That is a huge and dangerous supposition. It's one that has often been used in previous wars, many of which didn't turn out to be so quick, and even got bogged down into long-lasting conflict with considerable damage (collateral and otherwise).

Generally this is because the nations envisioning these strategies lacked the physical means to pull them off.  The United States/UN/NATO would not lack these means against a country like North Korea.  A long-lasting conflict on the ground is also preferable to nuclear conflict.

 

Like seriously, you all know that Howard made this thread in regards to nuclear weapons?  He was not talking about fighting North Korea just to settle old scores.  We are talking about how we should respond if NK gains the technology to become globally destructive.  What do you do, if you cannot guarantee that NK will act peacefully with a nuclear arsenal?  We are talking about weapons that could potentially end our entire species in an instant.  A drawn-out conflict does not even compare.

[Sally]

9 minutes ago, Joe Parrish said:

Like seriously, you all know that Howard made this thread in regards to nuclear weapons?  

Really?  

 

From Howard:  "With the growing capabilities of North Korea, do you believe that USA/PRC/UN/who else should launch a military operation to ensure that they don't get nuclear and ballistic capabilities to strike their neighbours or even US?"

 

He didn't mention launching a nuclear operation (which wouldn't be an operation), and I didn't interpret it  as such.   The US has launched military operations for the same reason, but not nuclear operations.  

[daveb]

Here's another (rhetorical) question...

What would Bernie Sanders do?

 

9 hours ago, Joe Parrish said:

nuclear weapons?  He was not talking about fighting North Korea just to settle old scores.  We are talking about how we should respond if NK gains the technology to become globally destructive.  What do you do, if you cannot guarantee that NK will act peacefully with a nuclear arsenal?  We are talking about weapons that could potentially end our entire species in

Yes, I first read the OP as a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea. But on closer reading I can see it can be taken as any sort of strike to prevent or remove North Korea's nuclear capabilities. I don't know how one would do that. Maybe a certain orange politician could just order his generals to come up with a plan in short order (like he said he would do for dealing with ISIS and Syria).

 

I also don't think North Korea has the capabilities to produce enough nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to potentially end our entire species. That said, they could potentially do some damage once they have the means. But if they did that I don't see it spreading to the entire world. That's not to say it would be horrific, but hyperbole doesn't help the case.

[Joe the Stoic]

1 hour ago, daveb said:

Here's another (rhetorical) question...

What would Bernie Sanders do?

I have never seen his position on dealing with nuclear threats.  The answer to that is unknown.

 

1 hour ago, daveb said:

Yes, I first read the OP as a pre-emptive nuclear strike against North Korea. But on closer reading I can see it can be taken as any sort of strike to prevent or remove North Korea's nuclear capabilities. I don't know how one would do that. Maybe a certain orange politician could just order his generals to come up with a plan in short order (like he said he would do for dealing with ISIS and Syria).

 

I also don't think North Korea has the capabilities to produce enough nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to potentially end our entire species. That said, they could potentially do some damage once they have the means. But if they did that I don't see it spreading to the entire world. That's not to say it would be horrific, but hyperbole doesn't help the case.

At this moment, no, NK does not have that.  Overtime, they could develop those capabilities.  Maybe they would fall short of making mankind extinct.  How many hundreds of millions of people have to die before a pre-emptive war is favorable?  A drawn-out land war (which is not even a certainty) is better than nuclear war in every scenario.  It seems to me that people are getting blind-sided by the way Iraq went.  Iraq is a very different country than North Korea and in a very different region than the Middle East.  You cannot look at what happened in Iraq and use that as a litmus test for what would happen in NK.

[borkfork]

14 hours ago, daveb said:

 

I also don't think North Korea has the capabilities to produce enough nuclear weapons and the delivery systems to potentially end our entire species. That said, they could potentially do some damage once they have the means. But if they did that I don't see it spreading to the entire world. That's not to say it would be horrific, but hyperbole doesn't help the case.

 

They can't make anything stable enough to travel on a missile according to scientists from U.N. countries. I haven't found anything about whether something not stable enough to be on a missile could make an old fashioned Fat Man/Little Boy type implosion nuclear weapon. Probably simple for a physicist, but BFA here.

 

Are we supposed to believe there isn't radar on North Korea and they aren't being watched? Anything resembling a missile leaving their airspace will get shot out of the sky anyway. 

 

If more than half the world population were terrified of oranges Kim Jong-un would have manipulated photos of California and Florida.

[Kelly]

2 hours ago, borkfork said:

I haven't found anything about whether something not stable enough to be on a missile could make an old fashioned Fat Man/Little Boy type implosion nuclear weapon. Probably simple for a physicist, but BFA here.

Speaking as a physicist, Fat Man and Little Boy were not that simple.  We do now know the basic theories on how they were made, and their basic theories do seem simple at first glance.  Both used different techniques and obviously, both worked.  A main object is to get enough of the proper uranium in a pure enough form.  And the impurities matter as they greatly affect the fission profile.  But there is more to all of that.

 

Does NK have enough material?  I do not know.  Iran may eventually have enough.  A "preemptive" nuke strike against Iran frightens me more.

 

H-bombs are much more destructive than the above mentioned A-bombs, but also much more difficult to make.

[borkfork]

12 hours ago, Kelly said:

Speaking as a physicist, Fat Man and Little Boy were not that simple.  

Simple as in easier to figure out having far superior knowledge.

 

Thanks for breaking it down.

 

edit: I've been refraining from mentioning H-bombs in this thread even though I keep thinking about it with SCROTUS in the driver's seat.

[iff]

On 24/03/2017 at 5:35 PM, Joe Parrish said:

 I feel like the United States could get invaded, with our citizens being murdered and raped, and if I proposed that we fight back, you would complain that I just want war for the sake of war.

For clarification, is the us being invaded a real fear of yours or this as a hypothethical example?

[Perissodactyla]

Secret State of North Korea

PBS Frontline 1/14/2014

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/secret-state-of-north-korea/

[Guest]

There will be no strikes against North Korea, unless those strikes are retaliatory in fashion.

 

War is not about helping others. War costs billions, if not trillions of dollars in artillery, personnel, and vehicles.

 

You go to war, to protect your own interests. Whether it be oil, precious metals, or immeasurable assets. Main reason the U.S is fighting ISIS so aggressively (has nothing to do with innocent civilians -- once you wage war, its your responsibility to minimize collateral damage, which is bad for PR).

 

When you trade oil for U.S dollars (look up OPEC, and the countries which have joined what some call the "oil cartel"), the stoppage of this, would have devastating impacts on their economy--if not collapse it. Something worthy of war, to protect.

 

North Korea as a result, would be an idiotic move, considering. There are no real assets that are worthy of such a financial and human toll.

The collateral damage, would be immense (in tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties). Just like the blood bath of the Iraq war, you need to realize a country with a history of provocation, torture, and violence, will not go down quietly.

 

They're only truly a threat, should they start attacking countries which are immense assets to the U.S. or any of its allies.

 

Even North Korea is not that idiotic, as they are well aware, of the forceful retaliatory measures that would ensue.

 

North Korea is not worth the trouble. They're best left alone.

[Skycaptain]

And what if any world leader with nukes  thinks Trump is unstable and bellicose, liable to strike out at any nation just because he doesn't like them, and launches a pre-emptive strike? 

[Guest]

And what if any world leader with nukes  thinks Trump is unstable and bellicose, liable to strike out at any nation just because he doesn't like them, and launches a pre-emptive strike?

 

War is something that is carefully calculated. An intricate game of chess. You will not engage in it, unless you stand to lose assets (or gain assets, if you observe history). You will only wage war, in retaliatory fashion, otherwise. Even the craziest of leaders, is aware of what they stand to lose, in waging war with a super power.

 

I.E Had the U.S aggressively pursued Taiwan, as a potential ally -- when they're claimed by China, and forcefully taken off the table as a bargaining chip--this would be worthy of war. Donald Trump while foolish, immediately retreated.

 

Even then. Calculation. China would have been likelier to impose economical sanctions, that would have crippled the U.S (to assert its power). Checkmate.

 

To move to nuclear strikes, is you starting a world war. The death toll, and pure loss, would not be something even the craziest of leaders would want to contemplate unless their backs were against the wall.

 

History has shown us the true devastation of a world war. Nobody gains, once war is at a global level. Doesn't sound like a sound chess move to me.

 

 

[aeimquy159]

On 3/22/2017 at 7:25 AM, ThaHoward said:

With the growing capabilities of North Korea, do you believe that USA/PRC/UN/who else should launch a military operation to ensure that they don't get nuclear and ballistic capabilities to strike their neighbours or even US? 

No, we have no reason to start a conflict with the DPRK. A conflict would probably trigger the growing tensions in the South China Sea leading to a significantly larger conflict . With the majority of the Earths population living in that part of the world an Asian conflict would lead to an astronomical loss of life through disease and famine alone.  The DPRK knows that if they use a nuclear weapon they would be decimated in the resulting conflict. They're not a terrorist cell, they have real power and a country to lose in a conflict. People in power want to stay in power. The DPRK has nothing to gain by attacking South Korea or the west and everything to lose. That's why they've been sabre rattling for 54 years with very little real action and they'll keep it up. 

[aeimquy159]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:35 AM, Joe Parrish said:

I feel like the United States could get invaded, with our citizens being murdered and raped, and if I proposed that we fight back, you would complain that I just want war for the sake of war.

This is laughably unrealistic. This isn't that crappy Red Dawn remake. The DPRK has absolutely no ability to invade the continental US or even Guam, Midway or Hawaii.