-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DRUDGE REPORT: North Korea Says Nuclear Test Successful
- Thread starter goodcow
- Start date
- Status
Rookies1stDay
Banned
You think China and NK want Japan to have nukes?
Experience > Knowledge
What makes you so damn credible anyways?
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Boogie said:
Not an armed Japan. What's written in article nine of their constitution?
---To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.
this one is creepy.
sidenote
China does not own the most of United States Deficiet
ok... please research this. People say this without actual knowledge.
Japan first with ---637
China---321
UK---179
Opec---98
Korea---72
Taiwan--Granted china is high..but not 1st. This will give people an idea if japan got nuked its economic effects would harm the U.S badly.
included a few more for fun.
this one is creepy.
sidenote
China does not own the most of United States Deficiet
ok... please research this. People say this without actual knowledge.
Japan first with ---637
China---321
UK---179
Opec---98
Korea---72
Taiwan--Granted china is high..but not 1st. This will give people an idea if japan got nuked its economic effects would harm the U.S badly.
included a few more for fun.
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Boogie said:
I'd say living there for the majority of my life and getting the shit beat out of me for 2 years in the military. Having grandparents that lived through the Japanese occupation. Father/Uncles that were in the Korean War. What about you?
Rookies1stDay said:
There are smart people in the military. There are also stupid ****s in the military. Declaring your military service as a basis for pontificating on international relations is retarded.
Rookies1stDay said:
Newsflash: Japan has been armed for some time now.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_mil_exp.asp
You think that China would break off all relations with a major trade partner, and that NK would engage in all out nuclear war if Japan did?Rookies1stDay said:
Military Experience =/= Geopolitical Experience
Thing is, I never claimed that I was, while you have. You are not more credible or well versed on Japanese-Asian relations than the "experts and thinktanks" by sole virtue of your location. Saying that you are is so absurd that I was half expecting you to be a joke poster.
That's some great geopolitical education right there.Rookies1stDay said:
WTF? Are you really trying to bring your ancestors into this? If you want to play the race card, I'm half Korean and half Japanese, I have ancestors on both sides that both participated in and endured the occupation.
That doesn't say shit about my credibility, nor does your heritage say shit about yours. You're a disgrace, relying on your nationality to lend your nonsensical babblings a little legitimacy. Welcome to the ignore list.
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Boogie said:
Military service in SK works like this. Wake up, get the shit beat out of you, sit in a room while they pound the current political climate into your head, get the shit beat out of you, eat, sleep.
The JSDF doesn't have the volume to repel shit. They're technologically advanced but can they handle a drawn out siege? No
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Rookies1stDay said:
Fixed!
Rookies1stDay said:
Wow. You mean, they indoctrinate you? Well then, obviously you are better equipped to understand the nuances of the international system than someone who hasn't had one perspective drilled into him for two years.
****, you're stupid.
Eighth largest inventory of aircraft in the world.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_aircraft.asp
Sixth largest navy in the world
http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_ships.asp
Sixth most artillery systems in the world
http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_artillery.asp
And a drawn out siege against who? Or are you pulling shit out of your ass? What the **** does a drawn out siege have to do with what we are talking about here?
Phoenix
Member
whytemyke said:
From a purely military perspective - yes, we could without question take down NK. The cost would be higher than we might be willing to pay given there is no immediate threat to our own shores, but we have both the ability to deliver punitive strikes against NK as well as incapacitate them from the air.
The BIGGER question is the one that you allude to but don't tough, the 'what next' question. Once you've attrited the shit out of their ability to make war, you've got to put boots on the ground. What would the military objectives be? How do you broach that with the Chineese who clearly aren't going to let us just TAKE North Korea? How do you deal with the economic collapse in the region that would result from a real war on the Asian peninsula.
Those are the things that you have to get right and have partners (including China) ready to discuss... and not in that crappy "end of WW2" sort of way that the allied partners ****ed up Europe.
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Zyid said:
Alternately, do you think Japan would break off all relations with a major trade partner in order to arm itself? And do you know what NK would do in that situation? Kim Jong Il is a very unpredictable leader and as such, creates a very delicate situation. I'm sure, the US is just gonna say "lol have some nukes Japan"
Can I talk to someone that does?
You attacked me from the getgo with your post of me not "making any sense." I tried to make a point and add credibility with real life experiences. You however, seem to enjoy
attacking people without even trying to add anything. Bring me an article or anything instead of trying to "discredit the discredited."
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Boogie said:
Look at your own links. China and NK have larger navies and artillery systems with China also having a larger aircraft inventory
haha - is that for realz?ourumov said:
what a crappy page.
North Korea should forget the nukes for now until they bolster their webpage design capabilities.
Btw, going to war with NK is not an option.
The US can 'take' NK all they want, but 1 big strike on Seoul/Tokyo would pretty much make the whole operation a failure.
My apologies if this has been covered already, but why does everyone assume Japan would want or need nukes? In nearly all situations where Japan might feel the need to use nuclear weapons, they US would almost certainly be willing to use them on Japan's behalf. They have no need to develop nuclear weapons when their close allies already have them.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Bregor said:
Good question. USA got like a bazillion nukes, could Japan just ask for some?
HomerSimpson-Man said:
You misunderstand me - Japan doesn't even need to possess nuclear weapons, whether of their own manufacture or from the US. If the situation became extreme enough that Japan would be willing to use a nuke, then almost certainly the US would view the situation just as gravely, and be willing to fire one of America's nukes on their allies behalf.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Norante said:
Maybe. I mean obviously the Chinese wouldn't want any more missles in the region, but anything launched from Japan would probably give them more of an early warning than anything launched from U.S. subs parked right off their coast. The weapons to hit China are already in place, so this wouldn't be much different. But still, your point is a good one, that the Chinese wouldn't want more weapons on their doorstep.
nationalistic pride and a feeling that, as a sovereign nation, they should have total control over their self-defense. you could also ask why Japan would want to spend the $$ to amend their constitution and create a larger standing army in spite of US protection, but that movement is making headway.Bregor said:
scorcho said:
True, but conventional defensive forces are in an entirely different category in the public perception than nuclear weapons. Its a lot easier to accept or even desire conventional forces which have a clear defensive purpose than it is to accept nuclear weapons whose purpose is almost entirely as a deterrent, especially when your ally already provides an existing nuclear deterrent that protects you.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Bregor said:
Even more so when you're living in a country that is in an exclusive club. The only nation on Earth to ever suffer a nuclear attack.
Global Firepower has been known to throw up false information. Russia has 701 ships? How can they afford that when they barely pay their ground forces $5 a month? Not to mention the cost of upgrading existing systems in the Army and Airforce. At the moment, the Russian Navy only has 80 - 100 ships, and most of those are in ports.
The North Korean Navy consist of 22 Romeo class coastal/patrol submarines, 4 Whiskey class coastal/patrol submarines, 22 Sang-O class coastal infiltration submarines, + Osprey class semi-submersible infiltration craft plus numerous patrol boat ships and missile boats. Nothing major, but they can prove to be an annoyance. Most people put the NK Navy at around 300 ships total. Mostly outdated stuff however.
The United States Navy does not consist of 1,800 Ships. The US Navy consist of 500,000 men, and 282 ships. Not to mention, I believe, 3,000 Aircraft.
I haven't done any real research on the Chinese Navy. But I doubt its that big.
The North Korean Navy consist of 22 Romeo class coastal/patrol submarines, 4 Whiskey class coastal/patrol submarines, 22 Sang-O class coastal infiltration submarines, + Osprey class semi-submersible infiltration craft plus numerous patrol boat ships and missile boats. Nothing major, but they can prove to be an annoyance. Most people put the NK Navy at around 300 ships total. Mostly outdated stuff however.
The United States Navy does not consist of 1,800 Ships. The US Navy consist of 500,000 men, and 282 ships. Not to mention, I believe, 3,000 Aircraft.
I haven't done any real research on the Chinese Navy. But I doubt its that big.
Rookies1stDay
Banned
Boogie said:
They wouldn't you shitmonster. They don't want to start shit with China
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
scorcho said:
You rang?
Steriletom
Member
Shitmonster redeems this thread. :lol
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Rookies1stDay said:
Rule #1 of debate class: When getting out witted, call someone a name.
Rule #2 of debate class: Come up with something clever.
Phoenix
Member
Bregor said:
Reliability of response is the answer I would give to that question. When the shit really does hit the fan, the Japanese government may want to have more control over when and how they respond as depending on an ally who may have a different view of the type of response warranted.
Rookies1stDay said:
You said:
"Would the US really want to ally with Japan instead of staying amiable with the majority?"
To which I replied that the US is already allied with Japan.
To which you replied:
"Not an armed Japan. What's written in article nine of their constitution?"
To which I pointed out that Japan IS ARMED. That they have the fourth highest military expenditure in the world, and that the USA has, for the past couple decades, been IN FAVOR of Japan's rearmament and revision of the constitution to allow for more flexibility in Japan's use of its military.
To which you tried to change the subject to the quality of Japan's armament (ie. saying they're no match for China, can't hold out in a "siege"). Then you called me a "shitmonster" and ignored my point.
All in all, another typical neoGAF debate between myself and a random arrogant internet ****tard.
billymcnilly
Member
Boogie said:
Wikipedia said:
You're wrong. Until Japan both upgrades its military and ammends it's constitution, Japan is not considered armed. Not to mention the JSDF is run by civilians and has no real military hierarchy
- Status