Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Korean Dilemma

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by hboGYT View Post
    I hope this has not been posted before.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...s-trump-215555
    America is losing ground in the region. They can talk about a pivot to Asia all they want, but as time goes on, China gets stronger and South Korea and Japan are going to have to decide which side they are on. China is not going anywhere, and neither are we. Even if the long-term trend takes decades, we have time. China has made clear our collapse is a bigger concern than our provocations. We are only getting stronger as America loses ground to China and their alliances show more and more stress. If we can help that process along, so much the better.
    Weaken the alliances ? how well is that working

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Amled View Post
      Looking at it in that context, it means that they pretty well have carte blanche to do anything short of launching an all-out attack against the South or Japan.
      Essentially, yes. "Small" scale acts of war have been "overlooked" for decades. Some of them are literally incredible, for the utter brazenness of the attack and the lack of retribution that followed:

      A KPA Special Forces platoon infiltrates South Korea and gets within 100 meters of the South Korean presidential residence before being detected and eventually exterminated.
      30 South Koreans and Americans are killed, 66 are wounded, including civilians.

      A North Korean mini sub blows a South Korean corvette out of the water without warning or provocation, killing nearly half the crew.

      I cannot imagine another country getting away with such actions.

      Originally posted by Amled View Post
      I wonder would the same restraint be present if one of Tiny Kimís missiles broke up and crashed on the Japanese mainland, with eventual casualties?
      Yes, I believe there would be restraint shown. Certainly no overt kinetic military action undertaken.

      Originally posted by Amled View Post
      Bowing to pay Danegeld has usually never proven effective. The Dane has a habit of comming back for more!
      You are so right. In this case, the Danegeld has mostly kept the peace since 1953, kicking the problem down the road until the North Koreans have both nuclear weapons and an intercontinental delivery system...And now the Dane is truly coming back for more.
      TwentyFiveFortyFive

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by snapper View Post
        Not enough boots on the ground or time to stop them nuking Seoul.
        Or just subjecting it to a tube and rocket artillery barrage on a scale unseen since World War II
        TwentyFiveFortyFive

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          Or just subjecting it to a tube and rocket artillery barrage on a scale unseen since World War II

          You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by snapper View Post
            You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.
            I was referring Seoul. It could subjected to that NK artillery barrage, even if it wasn't nuked.

            To be clear, I am completely against a completely unprovoked "first-strike" on North Korea.
            Last edited by TopHatter; 31 Aug 17,, 23:23.
            TwentyFiveFortyFive

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by snapper View Post
              You want to take that risk? The civilian casualties on both sides... even if you succeed you need more boots on the ground to stop the straight assault on Seoul (and it's 10m civvies). Not really an option in my book.
              What if there are no options available? Other than caving in to Tiny Kim’s demands?
              Appeasement didn’t work in the late 1930’s when politicians, diplomats and the media in Europe were trying to curtail the actions of another militaristic dictator.
              Appeasement didn’t work then, it only made him stronger.
              When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

              Comment


              • #22
                Amled, I believe in appeasement probably least of all people that contribute to this forum; I am now a Ukrainian citizen and see the front line often. The point is not to appease fatty Kim ill whatever but to save civilian lives. He should have been taken out years ago clearly but much is simple from hindsight. The problem as it stands is that hundreds of thousands would die in the event of war. The question is whether there is any possible way to avoid that and still resolve the problem? The answer to that question is yes in my view. It is only polite to give them a chance before you opt for total destruction on both sides. A first strike is insanity at the cost of thousands of SK lives. If they go - and they will not - fine but I would not have those civilian lives on my conscience by attacking them first.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by snapper View Post
                  Amled, I believe in appeasement probably least of all people that contribute to this forum; I am now a Ukrainian citizen and see the front line often. The point is not to appease fatty Kim ill whatever but to save civilian lives. He should have been taken out years ago clearly but much is simple from hindsight. The problem as it stands is that hundreds of thousands would die in the event of war. The question is whether there is any possible way to avoid that and still resolve the problem? The answer to that question is yes in my view. It is only polite to give them a chance before you opt for total destruction on both sides. A first strike is insanity at the cost of thousands of SK lives. If they go - and they will not - fine but I would not have those civilian lives on my conscience by attacking them first.
                  I sure hope that you are right, in that there is a solution that’ll save a modicum of face on both sides.
                  In my layman’s eyes it seems that the longer the present provocations and War on Words continues, the greater the chance of even a small inadvertent incident might escalate the conflict.
                  When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Solution appears when Nrk missiles fly into China. Everybody else can then finally sit back and watch

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      Not enough boots on the ground or time to stop them nuking Seoul.
                      There's the entire SK army.

                      Their nuclear delivery systems are still immature. Their artillery systems are problematic but manageable.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        I was referring Seoul. It could subjected to that NK artillery barrage, even if it wasn't nuked.

                        To be clear, I am completely against a completely unprovoked "first-strike" on North Korea.
                        How much more provocation do you want?

                        Do you really think we could live with the world where NK is nuclear armed and striving to proliferate, with a long queue of authoritarian regimes to follow?

                        How far after that do you think we'll see mushroom cloud in some unfortunate corner of the world (eg, los angeles)?
                        Last edited by citanon; 01 Sep 17,, 04:58.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          Yea. It's not quite time to hit them yet,but getting close.

                          Any use of force should be massive, decisive, and overwhelming, and undertaken with surprise.
                          I truly doubt there could be a surprise. I have a funny feeling that both Russia and China would pick up on the activity and notify the North. No way you are going to hide ship or plane movement from them. They may not be happy with Kim but I get the feeling Putin wouldn't be all broken up if something bad happened to the South or us. Once alerted, and I were Kim, I would let fly every single rocket and shell in my arsenal at once rather than have them caught on the ground. If I'm going down then Seoul goes down with me.

                          Call it a once in a lifetime going out of business blow out sale rather than being caught with inventory.
                          Last edited by tbm3fan; 01 Sep 17,, 05:35.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think we have to be prepared to live dangerously. Theoretically, there are many ways to cause mass destruction without relying on fissile material such as laser-ignited fusion and asteroids slammed into the planet by spacecrafts. These technologies will migrate to the civilian sector eventually. We cannot hope to safeguard against them all.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The war / no war decision has to be made by the South Koreans; they’re the ones who will have to live – and die – with the results.

                              The best position may just be to ignore the DPRK. If there is no provocation, there is unlikely to be any reaction. If there are border skirmishes, they should be met forcefully, but without escalation.

                              We have no history of any nation on earth using a nuclear weapon without cause. Let’s not start a war because someone thinks it is unthinkable to let the DPRK – or Iran, for that matter – have their bombs, too.
                              Trust me?
                              I'm an economist!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I just wonder how an insignificant state like NK is able to effectively blackmail the world economy...who are the enablers and what are their motives...because it would seem to me that no China or Russia and you would have no NK....so my only conclusion is talking to NK is futile...as the puppet master resides elsewhere..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X