Pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

[ChillaKilla]

I saw a headline about the DPRK's failed missile launch that said something like "Kim Jong-Un is having trouble getting one up"

[Skycaptain]

^^maybe they should use Viagra as rocket fuel 

[Sally]

7 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

^^maybe they should use Viagra as rocket fuel 

They'd have to get it up first.  Viagra only keeps it up.  

[Skycaptain]

Don't want to around when that blows it's stack 

 

Back on topic. Good reason not to make a preemptive strike. Even with nukes North Korea doesn't have the military capability to attack anywhere other than South Korea. 

[lapat67]

Let's start with a post-emptive strike on the country that has actually used nuclear weapons.

[ThaHoward]

"North Korea won't be able to develop rockets". 

[Skycaptain]

I still think a preemptive strike would be counterproductive, it would antagonise China and Russia needlessly. The sole exception would be a targeted strike by conventional weaponry with full UN backing. 

I can see justification for openly operating AEGIS or their successor anti-missile systems which are defensive only around the Sea of Japan, though 

[ThaHoward]

So you're against it, but you are for it? "I don't eat food, unless it is edible".

 

But now it is too late. They've capabilities to strike as far as Europe with large amounts atomic and hydrogen bombs stored in secret locations. Hopefully they will only use them as detterence.

 

The nuclear umbrella is also not flawless and make China lose their strike capable upsetting the balance.

[Skycaptain]

@ThaHoward, I expressed myself badly (mea culpa). What I meant was that I'm not in favour of a preemptive nuclear strike, however I can see a conventional cruise missile attack on a rocket farm, if discovered, being viable, so long as it is done by the UN, as opposed to a nation acting alone becoming viable. Particularly if missiles are fired over sovereign territories that may become causus belli 

[ThaHoward]

But they have developed enough missiles and bombs - both which now are on unknown locations - that a strike would lead to a likely nuclear strike from them. We've gone from a situation where their capabilities was small and known to large and unknown in a matter of months. 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Yatogami]

I say go for it. China isn't exactly our allies, and Japan only has a Defense force and not a Military. Not to mention, Russia could interfere with everything.

[ThaHoward]

31 minutes ago, Yato said:

I say go for it. China isn't exactly our allies, and Japan only has a Defense force and not a Military. Not to mention, Russia could interfere with everything.

Russia would likely stay out. China have said they will intervene in a defensive war, Japan actually have offensive capabilities, and are looking to change the constitution. But what's worrying now is that North Korea can with certanty US west coast and likely rest of the world. Now it is too late for a military action - unless you want to risk a nuclear attack. 

[Homer]

On 23.3.2017 at 9:43 AM, Nidwin said:

keep an eye on that retard in power and wait for that pathetic and idiotic gene pool in power there to vanish.

I can't tell which side you're referring to.

 

Also, pre-emptive attacks have been overwhelmingly successful throughout history!

 

/s

[Skycaptain]

Japan will probably stay quiescent, for two reasons. One, they are the only nation to have been on the receiving end of atomic warfare, and secondly, courtesy of the jet stream, there is a very real possibility that the radioactive ☢ fallout from a nuclear detonation in North Korea could contaminate their territory 

[ThaHoward]

44 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

I can't tell which side you're referring to.

 

Also, pre-emptive attacks have been overwhelmingly successful throughout history!

 

/s

The cyber attack on Iran was. Also full fledged wars, look to Israel. Appeasment have proved to not work.

 

Then there is preemptive strikes that didn't succeed and where appeasment did.

[Skycaptain]

@ThaHoward, we just need to look at Iraq for the "law of unintended consequences" coming into play. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was considered by some to be a good idea, but people didn't expect ISIS to spawn from the wreckage. Maybe get rid of KJH and something similar could happen 

[ThaHoward]

11 minutes ago, Sleighcaptain said:

@ThaHoward, we just need to look at Iraq for the "law of unintended consequences" coming into play. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was considered by some to be a good idea, but people didn't expect ISIS to spawn from the wreckage. Maybe get rid of KJH and something similar could happen 

Iraq isn't North Korea. But the cyber attack on Iran was successfull to put them decades back and make obtaining nuclear weapons much more difficult - and they came to the negotiation table. 

 

Spraking of Iraq the Israeli bombing of Iraqi nuclear reactors, which forever ruined their chances of obtaining nuclear weapons. These two examples are more relevant than a full blown invasion and a failed rebuilding of Iraq.

[Sally]

9 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

So you're against it, but you are for it? "I don't eat food, unless it is edible".

 

But now it is too late. They've capabilities to strike as far as Europe with large amounts atomic and hydrogen bombs stored in secret locations. Hopefully they will only use them as detterence.

 

The nuclear umbrella is also not flawless and make China lose their strike capable upsetting the balance.

They can strike the US also.  

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sally said:

They can strike the US also.  

They could, but this would spell the end of their regime. You're then forcing the US to retaliate. You were the aggressor, and even China wouldn't back you at this point. The retaliation would be devastating, but for all parties involved. I think the US is underestimating North Korea's capabilities to inflict severe damage. 

 

9 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

Iraq isn't North Korea.

Correct. North Korea doesn't have oil, or assets worthy of fighting over other than strategic land. Strategically, this either bolsters the US or China, depending on who takes over the Northern half of the peninsula. Financially however, there are no incentives on initiating a strike. Going through the costs of war for zero incentive, would be a foolish move. 

 

10 hours ago, Sleighcaptain said:

we just need to look at Iraq for the "law of unintended consequences" coming into play.

The unintended consequences in North Korea's situation would be horrific. North Korea if backed into a corner, would unleash on their bitter rival on the south, to maximize the death toll. A few carefully aimed strikes could kill millions, and decimate the epicenter of South Korea.

 

They also have immense quantities of deadly nerve agents. Odds are, they'd strike ruthlessly, and go against any rules of engagement in terms of using them. Lets not kid ourselves. This is a regime that would be proud to get a chance to crush their neighbor. All they need is a reason, but have been prepared for this for decades. 

 

This is without accounting that their entire population is brainwashed. ISIS would have nothing vs the fury that would be unleashed by anyone armed in that country. This along with the millions more who are malnourished, who would be flooding the Chinese border as refugees. It would be catastrophic economically, as well as in terms of the loss of life. 

 

The true victims however, are those who would be the collateral damage for all these big egos at play. 

 

There's a reason why so many politicians have left the North alone. The risks are just not worth it. Anyone with half a brain would not even remotely attempt to poke the bear, considering. Strikes or some type of retaliation have been considered for generations at some points. When factoring the damage that could be done, those plans were quickly removed from the table, and diplomacy or sanctions were used, instead. 

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[Yatogami]

We can destroy NK without nukes. We just tested a MOAB bomb.

 

There is also EMP bombs, and secret rail guns

[Sally]

17 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Anyone with half a brain would not even remotely attempt to poke the bear, considering. 

Trump doesn't have even half a brain.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Sally said:

Trump doesn't have even half a brain.

That's what makes many of his allies, including his own citizens very nervous. 

 

He doesn't understand diplomacy, let alone know how to spell it probably O_o

 

I know people like this. They view diplomacy as weakness. Their view of power, is that loud mouth, who bullies their way to it. Mind you in a sense, it works when dealing with equally bull headed leaders who'd otherwise try to take advantage of that very diplomacy. 

  

[Yatogami]

3 hours ago, Sally said:

Trump doesn't have even half a brain.

I personally think you are severely underestimating him, and that is why the Democrats will lose in 2020. Mark my words. 

[Sally]

16 minutes ago, Yato said:

I personally think you are severely underestimating him, and that is why the Democrats will lose in 2020. Mark my words. 

I don't think Trump will be running in 2020.  The Republicans won't make this mistake again; even they are not that stupid.

[Yatogami]

28 minutes ago, Sally said:

I don't think Trump will be running in 2020.  The Republicans won't make this mistake again; even they are not that stupid.

Implying Trump needs them to win. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Yato said:

Implying Trump needs them to win. 

I'll give Trump this. He knows how to sell. He knows his market. 

 

He knew there was a large portion of the US, that would prefer style over substance. Or if you prefer, a change of guard from the typical boring thing they call diplomacy and politics.

 

Type who see resolving terrorism, with solutions such as: "Just bomb the continent/country/city, and start over". Look at North Korea, and you see he actually seriously thinks this is a viable solution. 

 

I hate to say it, but he bet heavily that this was a silent majority within the country, and won by a landslide. These are those racists, bigots and the like who due to political correctness have to keep their thoughts to themselves. He gave them a voice, and did he ever!

 

He barely speaks at a 5th grade level. Most politicians speak at high school and college levels, with regards to vocabulary. 

 

I'm not sure I'd brag about him winning, as its showcasing how large that silent majority really is. I'd be embarrassed. 

 

Mind you, once over--can count as "looking for change". 

 

They re-elect him, and can no longer be hypocritical and voice disgust for the person they keep putting back into office. 

 

I think the anger he has caused, will force many more to go and vote. He's sparked quite the movement. He's gotten millions more interested in politics, but for the wrong reason. 

[Skycaptain]

The problem with Kim is that he's Seoulless 

[daveb]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

won by a landslide

Really? Maybe in his mind.

 

To get back to the OP - I saw a recent news story that apparently some North Korean official said war is inevitable. Between the North Korean regime and the US one it makes me very nervous.