War Drums: North Korea edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It's quite simple. However unpleasant a war today with North Korea might appear to someone, the question is whether that is a worse option than facing a North Korea with nuclear warheads on a couple dozen ICBM's in a decade or so. To me, the former option is preferable to the latter. To some, the latter appears to be an acceptable trade off for a few more years of peace.

And that, really, is what this entire difference of opinion is about. It's not about just wanting to bomb North Korea for the sake of some entertainment in an otherwise boringly normal life.

I'm going to say it one more time.

 

11 FUCKING SEASONS OF MASH. Is that a price you're willing to pay? They say suicide is painless. Whoever wrote that song didn't have to sit through 11 Seasons of Mash.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It's quite simple. However unpleasant a war today with North Korea might appear to someone, the question is whether that is a worse option than facing a North Korea with nuclear warheads on a couple dozen ICBM's in a decade or so. To me, the former option is preferable to the latter. To some, the latter appears to be an acceptable trade off for a few more years of peace.

And that, really, is what this entire difference of opinion is about. It's not about just wanting to bomb North Korea for the sake of some entertainment in an otherwise boringly normal life.

We could have nuked the Soviet Union as soon as they got the Bomb, but we didn't.  We could have nuked China when they did their nuclear test, but we didn't.  You know why we didn't?  Because starting nuclear wars to prevent other countries from getting the weapons we already have is monstrous.  And if we embrace such a policy, it's just a matter of time before American cities are nuked as well. 

The argument "we have to act aggressively now or they'll have nukes" gets weaker every time a country does a test.  There are what, nine nuclear powers now, and several other countries that could have them in a year if they wanted them?  What makes North Korea so special that we should risk World War III with China to prevent this particular country from having nukes?

[TheKitttenGuard]

54 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Even if that is the case, which I don't necessarily believe to be inevitable, that becomes the choice China faces in such a situation. In other words, once the US has bombed North Korea, China has the choice:

Do we let North Korea fall, or do we cause the destruction of both China and the US (your scenario. My scenario is that the US may have counter measures to China's inferior nuclear arsenal, but let's ignore that for now). The point is, China's choice is then between losing North Korea and losing everything.

Why would the rational Chinese choose to lose everything just because their unstable little buffer state is about to fall?

China is placing itself as N.K protector so failing that means their word does not have meaning.

Those who act irrational cannot expect rationality from others in the long term.

[Red Tiger]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm going to say it one more time.

 

11 FUCKING SEASONS OF MASH. Is that a price you're willing to pay? They say suicide is painless. Whoever wrote that song didn't have to sit through 11 Seasons of Mash.

Beats 9 seasons of Seinfeld.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Beats 9 seasons of Seinfeld.

I loves me some Seinfeld. And just to clarify, I didn't hate MASH, but 11 seasons? Twas a bit much.

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I loves me some Seinfeld. And just to clarify, I didn't hate MASH, but 11 seasons? Twas a bit much.

Yeah, but it lead to us getting two seasons of AfterMASH, so it's all good.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I loves me some Seinfeld. And just to clarify, I didn't hate MASH, but 11 seasons? Twas a bit much.

To each his own.

[Swordfish]

21 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Yes.  But that question still doesn't answer the question I asked.

Then I have no idea what you are looking for, since it's pretty much exactly what we were discussing.

[Swordfish]

 

8 hours ago, Fez said:

Twitter itself could. It's a private company, they could ban anyone from using their service. But they don't dare do so because of the fear of the blowback from Trump supporters.

One would hope the blowback would come from more than just Trump supporters. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Even if that is the case, which I don't necessarily believe to be inevitable, that becomes the choice China faces in such a situation. In other words, once the US has bombed North Korea, China has the choice:

Do we let North Korea fall, or do we cause the destruction of both China and the US (your scenario. My scenario is that the US may have counter measures to China's inferior nuclear arsenal, but let's ignore that for now). The point is, China's choice is then between losing North Korea and losing everything.

Why would the rational Chinese choose to lose everything just because their unstable little buffer state is about to fall?

Why would the rational US choose to lose everything because their unstable POTUS is about to fail? 

 

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Yeah, but it lead to us getting two seasons of AfterMASH, so it's all good.

And 7 seasons of Trapper John, M.D.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why would the rational US choose to lose everything because their unstable POTUS is about to fail? 

 “Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It's quite simple. However unpleasant a war today with North Korea might appear to someone, the question is whether that is a worse option than facing a North Korea with nuclear warheads on a couple dozen ICBM's in a decade or so. To me, the former option is preferable to the latter. To some, the latter appears to be an acceptable trade off for a few more years of peace.

And that, really, is what this entire difference of opinion is about. It's not about just wanting to bomb North Korea for the sake of some entertainment in an otherwise boringly normal life.

Sure; you've not explained why a nuclear armed North Korea in a decade or so is a problem. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

We could have nuked the Soviet Union as soon as they got the Bomb, but we didn't. 

I always thought, strategically, it was better to nuke the Soviets before they got the bomb.  But that's just me.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I always thought, strategically, it was better to nuke the Soviets before they got the bomb.  But that's just me.

Strategically, sure, but then we are the Evil Empire. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Strategically, sure, but then we are the Evil Empire. 

As a lifelong Yanks fan, that ain't so bad....til recently 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

As a lifelong Yanks fan, that ain't so bad....til recently 

Sure everything's all peaches and Tie Fighters until some farmboy with mystical powers shoots a couple of topedoes up your exhaust port. Nobody wants that.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure everything's all peaches and Tie Fighters until some farmboy with mystical powers shoots a couple of topedoes up your exhaust port. Nobody wants that.

Well, we recently found out it all woulda been fine if it wasn't for that meddling Mads Mikkelsen.  Mads!!!

[GAROVORKIN]

China has basically told Kim that if decides to launch  a war against the The US and South Korea , he's on his own. Of cousin if the US makes the first move against North Korea , China will back him.  

[A True Kaniggit]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure everything's all peaches and Tie Fighters until some farmboy with mystical powers shoots a couple of topedoes up your exhaust port. Nobody wants that.

You mean that sociopath who used to kill small rodents for fun?