Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: But it also means that North Korea will be far more likely to harden their resources and make sure that they are as difficult to take out as possible. When the biggest difficulty for a pre-emptive strike is that there are so many unknown targets that are also very likely very hard targets, making that even more difficult seems like a better guarantor of failure. Honestly, based on that logic what the right call would be to do is to make it look as if we aren't going to go anywhere. Reduce troop strength there, keep families around, and de-escalate those forces while preparing others for attack. I would think the point is that it is impossible to take out the North Koreans without facing any retaliatory strikes whatsoever. Knowing this, any strike would have to be preceded by withdrawing vulnerable personnel from the frontline first. Meaning that as long as the US does not do that, any talk of attacking North Korea is obvious as being just a bluff and will not be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: That took really long. You know you said it first, right? Okay, thought excercise: try to imagine a world where the US is not automatically the good guy. Where it can't be counted on to be peaceful just because. Where it has the only record of actually using nukes, and where it has a pattern of invasions and sponsored regime changes to suit it's own interests in the dozens. Can you imagine that? If you can, imagine you are the leader of a nation the US has earmarked as evil and you look around at the other guys who heard that and they're not looking back because they're dead. Except the ones who got nukes. In this thought excercise, how do you survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, James Arryn said: You know you said it first, right? Okay, thought excercise: try to imagine a world where the US is not automatically the good guy. Where it can't be counted on to be peaceful just because. Where it has the only record of actually using nukes, and where it has a pattern of invasions and sponsored regime changes to suit it's own interests in the dozens. Can you imagine that? If you can, imagine you are the leader of a nation the US has earmarked as evil and you look around at the other guys who heard that and they're not looking back because they're dead. Except the ones who got nukes. In this thought excercise, how do you survive? Not interested in the thought experiment, or the North Korean regime's supposedly justifiable motivations. Just interested in removing them as a nuclear threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: Not interested in the thought experiment, or the North Korean regime's supposedly justifiable motivations. Just interested in removing them as a nuclear threat. As you'd have been interested in the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistani, the Iraqis, etc. at the time. If you think the rhetoric about the imminent dangers those 'raving brainwashed fanatics' represented at the time was any less...or often in fact much, much worse...you should read a little more history. I don't want us dying from ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I would think the point is that it is impossible to take out the North Koreans without facing any retaliatory strikes whatsoever. Knowing this, any strike would have to be preceded by withdrawing vulnerable personnel from the frontline first. Why? If it meant that you were 10% more likely to succeed in stopping them as a nuclear threat, why would you tip your hand? 10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Meaning that as long as the US does not do that, any talk of attacking North Korea is obvious as being just a bluff and will not be taken seriously. Again, why? Why are nonessential military and nonmilitary personnel particularly so important that you'd rather save them than use surprise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, Kalbear said: Why? If it meant that you were 10% more likely to succeed in stopping them as a nuclear threat, why would you tip your hand? Again, why? Why are nonessential military and nonmilitary personnel particularly so important that you'd rather save them than use surprise? I don't understand your question. Why would you not want to save the lives of your citizens if you can do so? Are you suggesting sacrificing the lives of those personnel in a cold blooded and calculated decision to use them as sacrifical lambs in your quest to make your military goal more achievable by a miniscule margin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Just interested in removing them as a nuclear threat. Well then, you're clearly going to have to convince the pussies to let your dicks fuck this asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I don't understand your question. Why would you not want to save the lives of your citizens if you can do so? Are you suggesting sacrificing the lives of those personnel in a cold blooded and calculated decision to use them as sacrifical lambs in your quest to make your military goal more achievable by a miniscule margin? I don't understand any of this. Who cares about warnings, who cares about getting people out. NK is not basing it's behaviour on what the US does, right? It's just waiting until it has the technology for missiles to reach Freedom and then launching, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: I don't understand your question. Why would you not want to save the lives of your citizens if you can do so? Are you suggesting sacrificing the lives of those personnel in a cold blooded and calculated decision to use them as sacrifical lambs in your quest to make your military goal more achievable by a miniscule margin? Dude aren't you the one advocating a pre-emptive strike? Wtf do you think is going to happen to South Korea and Japan, let alone innocent North Koreans when you start lobbing bombs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: That took really long. I'm glad you're somewhat aware that propaganda works both ways. 7 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Okay, thought excercise: try to imagine a world where the US is not automatically the good guy. Goodness gracious, what a terrible thing to envision! Next thing you know you're going to suggest that getting nukes to protect one's country from US imperialism is actually a perfectly rational thing to do. And that for a dictator, it's even a logical policy to ensure they remain in power. But no, surely, no one would ever voice such craziness... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/kim-jong-un-wants-to-stay-in-power--and-that-is-an-argument-against-nuclear-war/2017/08/10/52b6ae7c-7d2e-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa_story.html?utm_term=.1813b9194ed1 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivor-not-a-madman/ https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/9/15516278/north-korea-more-rational-than-you-think https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/north-korea-nuclear-deterrence/539205/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-1.4244020 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/02/09/commentary/world-commentary/pyongyangs-rational-deterrent/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39269783 http://www.europe1.fr/international/juliette-morillot-la-coree-du-nord-na-aucune-envie-dattaquer-les-etats-unis-3295565 ... etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, larrytheimp said: Dude aren't you the one advocating a pre-emptive strike? Wtf do you think is going to happen to South Korea and Japan, let alone innocent North Koreans when you start lobbing bombs? Less than what would happen once North Korea has nuclear warheads on ICBM's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, larrytheimp said: Dude aren't you the one advocating a pre-emptive strike? Wtf do you think is going to happen to South Korea and Japan, let alone innocent North Koreans when you start lobbing bombs? Uh, the people being evacuated are American, and therefore actually valuable. Big difference. Yuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Less than what would happen once North Korea has nuclear warheads on ICBM's. What makes you think they'd use them? The only nuclear power that's ever used one on other people is.....us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Rippounet said: I'm glad you're somewhat aware that propaganda works both ways. Goodness gracious, what a terrible thing to envision! Next thing you know you're going to suggest that getting nukes to protect one's country from US imperialism is actually a perfectly rational thing to do. And that for a dictator, it's even a logical policy to ensure they remain in power. But no, surely, no one would ever voice such craziness... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/kim-jong-un-wants-to-stay-in-power--and-that-is-an-argument-against-nuclear-war/2017/08/10/52b6ae7c-7d2e-11e7-b2b1-aeba62854dfa_story.html?utm_term=.1813b9194ed1 http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/26/kim-jong-un-is-a-survivor-not-a-madman/ https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/9/15516278/north-korea-more-rational-than-you-think https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/north-korea-nuclear-deterrence/539205/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-donald-trump-1.4244020 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/02/09/commentary/world-commentary/pyongyangs-rational-deterrent/ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39269783 http://www.europe1.fr/international/juliette-morillot-la-coree-du-nord-na-aucune-envie-dattaquer-les-etats-unis-3295565 ... etc Yeah, because all North Korea cares about is protecting itself from the big bad imperialist US. If the US just let them be, they would just be a peaceful, pacifist threat to no one. So rather let them get nuclear missiles and everyone would be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, Free Northman Reborn said: Yeah, because all North Korea cares about is protecting itself from the big bad imperialist US. If the US just let them be, they would just be a peaceful, pacifist threat to no one. So rather let them get nuclear missiles and everyone would be better off. The Kim's have been running things in NK for ~ 70 years. In those 70 years, how many nations have they invaded? In those same 70 years, how many has the US invaded? Again, what's peaceful when it's at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, larrytheimp said: What makes you think they'd use them? The only nuclear power that's ever used one on other people is.....us. Oh, North Korea wouldn't use them just for the hell of it. But they would suddenly become far more aggressive in other ways, knowing that they are pretty much invulnerable to attack. They could engage in pretty much any international provocation, and know that their nuclear arsenal shields them from a military response. The sinking of that South Korean naval vessel a while ago, that and worse would become the norm, as they could start acting belligerently at will, without fear of retaliation. Heck, they could invade South Korea, and the world would still end up debating if acting against them was worth risking nuclear war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Yeah, because all North Korea cares about is protecting itself from the big bad imperialist US. If the US just let them be, they would just be a peaceful, pacifist threat to no one. So rather let them get nuclear missiles and everyone would be better off. You do understand there's perhaps a little room in between being pacifists and suicidal enough to start a nuclear war in which they'll be annihilated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, ljkeane said: You do understand there's perhaps a little room in between being pacifists and suicidal enough to start a nuclear war in which they'll be annihilated? See my post above yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: The sinking of that South Korean naval vessel a while ago, that and worse would become the norm, as they could start acting belligerently at will, without fear of retaliation. Heck, they could invade South Korea, and the world would still end up debating if acting against them was worth risking nuclear war. That's nice. Of course there's the little problem that they'd probably lose a conventional war against the South Koreans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said: See my post above yours. You mean they start to act like Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.