Korea
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2017, 02:14 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 01:41 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Now, if you're terrified of nuclear war, so terrified you'd rather live under the yoke of oppression, knock yourself out, its your opinion and you are entitled to it but please don't try to make out there's no difference.

There's no either or here. Both are on the same lines actually.

There's no question that nobody should disarm unilaterally, but that whole NK scenario is blown out of proportion. They have some kind of nuclear capabilities, but they're only a danger to their own people and their neighbour in the south. Apart from the fact that calling this Kim or any of his predecessors lunatics is missing the mark by a lightyear. This is their life insurance policy. All Kim does is reminding the west of what he could do. But he only would do it, if he's cornered.

As opposed to 1950 NK hasn't got any allies. They're completely on their own, with the Soviet Union gone and China turning away.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 02:19 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:00 PM)ImFred Wrote:  
Quote:Your opinions are your own and I'm glad you can enjoy and express them but don't forget my friend to ask yourself if those freedoms would be extended to you by other powers such as North Korea.

North Korea has no history of meddling in American affairs. We get up in their ass every time they turn around. Their government isn't oppressing me and never has. My government is oppressing me and millions more OUTSIDE of America. I'm not worried about Kim Jung Un. I'm worried about Trump. If the North Koreans decide to revolt good for them.

This post explains pretty much everything to me, you're basically majorly pissed at the U.S. government and comparing them with the North Koreans suits your purpose, possibly because they don't allow you unfettered access to Mary Jane and because Trump sucks, yes your justice system is putative but rape in jail occurs worldwide its not confined to America you're making false comparisons, and if you think that the practice of not meddling in your affairs would continue if North Korea was the only one in possession of nuclear weapons you seriously need to flush out your headgear mate. Trump sucks he's a danger Imo, but nothing to what little Kim would be like if he was the only one in possession of nuclear weapons.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
07-07-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: Korea
The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
07-07-2017, 02:29 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:14 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 01:41 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Now, if you're terrified of nuclear war, so terrified you'd rather live under the yoke of oppression, knock yourself out, its your opinion and you are entitled to it but please don't try to make out there's no difference.

There's no either or here. Both are on the same lines actually.

There's no question that nobody should disarm unilaterally, but that whole NK scenario is blown out of proportion. They have some kind of nuclear capabilities, but they're only a danger to their own people and their neighbour in the south. Apart from the fact that calling this Kim or any of his predecessors lunatics is missing the mark by a lightyear. This is their life insurance policy. All Kim does is reminding the west of what he could do. But he only would do it, if he's cornered.

As opposed to 1950 NK hasn't got any allies. They're completely on their own, with the Soviet Union gone and China turning away.

Fair comment mate, and yes multilateral disarmament would be awesome. At the moment NK poses little threat like you say but disallowing yourself nuclear weapons while allowing them to develop them unfettered isn't the way to go Imo. It has to be multilateral to succeed I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
07-07-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Oh that's a fucking *great* idea. Let's make an already volatile situation unbelievably more dangerous. Fuck sakes. Where do you geniuses get your ideas?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 02:37 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 12:27 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 12:15 PM)Dom Wrote:  What does this have to do with Korea? Why does every thread you post in have to turn into a bipartisan chasm?

It was relevant. It was about military support for action against Korea.

It was about partisan military support and how many republicans are in the military. Seems like you have only partisan thoughts. Sometimes I think you are not even a person - but then once in a while you say something that's human. This partisan stuff is devouring you. It's not healthy. Maybe try reading or doing more things that have nothing to do with politics...

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 02:44 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Oh that's a fucking *great* idea. Let's make an already volatile situation unbelievably more dangerous. Fuck sakes. Where do you geniuses get your ideas?

Yes, this sort of proliferation is fraught with danger and isn't in my opinion strictly deterrence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 02:44 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:14 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 01:41 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Now, if you're terrified of nuclear war, so terrified you'd rather live under the yoke of oppression, knock yourself out, its your opinion and you are entitled to it but please don't try to make out there's no difference.

There's no either or here. Both are on the same lines actually.

There's no question that nobody should disarm unilaterally, but that whole NK scenario is blown out of proportion. They have some kind of nuclear capabilities, but they're only a danger to their own people and their neighbour in the south. Apart from the fact that calling this Kim or any of his predecessors lunatics is missing the mark by a lightyear. This is their life insurance policy. All Kim does is reminding the west of what he could do. But he only would do it, if he's cornered.

As opposed to 1950 NK hasn't got any allies. They're completely on their own, with the Soviet Union gone and China turning away.

The danger is that deterrence against a North Korean invasion and occupation of the South is greatly diminished by the North's weapons programs if the programs are allowed continue on their current path.

Yes, Kim is not directly a threat to the US. But he is a threat to South Korea. But the North's weapons programs are meant to deter the role the US may play in a North invasion of the South. The US could back away from its defense of South Korea, however that would virtually guarantee war as we are the only force preventing the Korean war from continuing (there is no actual peace treaty from the Korean war, if you recall).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:27 PM)BryanS Wrote:  The only solution to this problem is to make the situation intolerable enough to China so that they feel compelled to bully the North Koreans into good behavior. I think the best way to do that would be to station US nuclear weapons in both South Korea and Japan to counter North Korean weapons developments.

This is ultimately the end game anyway--if we end up having to live with a nuclear North Korea with a capacity to send nuclear missiles to the US, our only option is to station nuclear weapons in both Japan and South Korea--it has to be both due to the two countries' history of war and security concerns. And we would have to station them or risk either one developing their own nukes.

China would shit themselves over this out of concern for their own security situation. We would then finally have the leverage with China to make them more concerned about NK than they are. Our nuclear weapon deployments would be a bargaining tool--denuclearize NK in exchange for removal of our nukes.

Oh that's a fucking *great* idea. Let's make an already volatile situation unbelievably more dangerous. Fuck sakes. Where do you geniuses get your ideas?

It is less dangerous than the South Koreans or Japanese developing their own nuclear weapons programs to counter the North Koreans. It's much easier to withdraw our own weapons than to convince a country to abandon a program once it is in place.

Besides, there is precedence for this working. JFK traded withdrawing nukes stationed in Turkey in exchange for the Soviet withdrawal of nukes in Cuba. Reagan negotiated away nukes stationed in Europe in exchange for a 50% reduction in Soviet stockpiles (which at the time were disproportionately larger than the US). Many people called Reagan "fucking crazy" at the time, but he used the European nukes to negotiate reductions in weapons.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
07-07-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Korea
(07-07-2017 02:44 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:36 PM)morondog Wrote:  Oh that's a fucking *great* idea. Let's make an already volatile situation unbelievably more dangerous. Fuck sakes. Where do you geniuses get your ideas?

Yes, this sort of proliferation is fraught with danger and isn't in my opinion strictly deterrence.

Speaking of proliferation, it should be mentioned that the North Koreans were active participants in the A.Q. Kahn nuclear proliferation ring. And the North has formally withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There is a real risk the North Koreans will sell their technology to the highest bidder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: