Support NeoGAF

[VivaciousSoul]

I think we've become well versed in the disaster that is possible if the US/others intervene. What is the end result if the US never does anything?

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

I think we've become well versed in the disaster that is possible if the US/others intervene. What is the end result if the US never does anything?

Tactical nuke inbound!

 

[TarNaru33]

If 60 years is not enough for you, there isn't anything on the world political stage that's stable. The argument becomes meaningless.

You mean the 60 years NK has used to develop nuclear capability and nuclear weapons? lol

I am not sure I consider that stable. The only good thing about it was it was delayed for that long.

I get the idea that NK is a shitty nation that oppresses and murders its own and definitely shouldn't have nukes. But the thirst for war you and others have is so blatant that any excuse you give for it is hollow.

I give you this one, after all, I do support NK and Syrian intervention. I am not saying it should happen now (for NK), just that I do agree if all else fails and U.S intelligence deem them close to developing a functional ICBM, then that is when U.S should intervene.

I believe in non-proliferation and if it can be prevented, then all options are on the table to prevent any other nation from obtaining nuclear weapons. I even want the countries that do have it to destroy all of it, but we know that won't happen, and its probably a good thing as it keeps major powers from direct conflict.

 

[EatinOlives]

If the situation was so stable why has our government been going on about how we need to stop NK from doing this or that for the past couple decades? If the situation was stable they wouldn't be talking about it all the time. Quit telling me it's a problem if the situation is "stable" as you would say.

It's almost like this is a multilayered, nuanced issue with no easy answer.

SHOCK

 

[littleworm]

Which brings up a salient point: does South Korea want a new war? No they don't.

Of course they don't and I don't blame them. However if NK continues with its weapons programs it does become less and less of their call. As other nations start to fall in range of NK's military capability, they too have the right to protect themselves if they deem it necessary.

 

[jakonovski]

You mean the 60 years NK has used to develop nuclear capability and nuclear weapons? lol

I am not sure I consider that stable. The only good thing about it was it was delayed for that long.



I give you this one, after all, I do support NK and Syrian intervention. I am not saying it should happen now (for NK), just that I do agree if all else fails and U.S intelligence deem them close to developing a functional ICBM, then that is when U.S should intervene.

I believe in non-proliferation and if it can be prevented, then all options are on the table to prevent any other nation from obtaining nuclear weapons. I even want the countries that do have it to destroy all of it, but we know that won't happen, and its probably a good thing as it keeps major powers from direct conflict.

60 years includes two world wars. Keeping peace in the Koreas for that long is a major achievement and the longer it goes on, the harder it is for anyone to start a new war.

Literally the only reason right now we're panicking is because Trump is a thundercunt.

 

[Xando]

You mean the 60 years NK has used to develop nuclear capability and nuclear weapons? lol

I am not sure I consider that stable. The only good thing about it was it was delayed for that long.

So in that same time period the UK,France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have developed nuclear weapons.

Do you want military action in these countries? If not what is different with NK?

 

[VivaciousSoul]

Tactical nuke inbound!

It's such a difficult situation. Man I wish it didn't have to be dealt with.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

So in that same time period the UK,France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have developed nuclear weapons.

Do you want military action in these countries? If not what is different with NK?

Because Theresa May can't launch a bunch of nukes at France because she's having a bad day and get off scott free.

No one would give a shit if n.korea had some kind of checks and balances accountability system. Bur if Kim got mentally ill say , and he wanted to burn it all he could do it.

It's what ultimately makes all dictatorships so unstable. When you entrust everything into the hands of a singular human being, it generally ends in a horrible fucked up situation. A delayed fuse.

 

[jakonovski]

Of course they don't and I don't blame them. However if NK continues with its weapons programs it does become less and less of their call. As other nations start to fall in range of NK's military capability, they too have the right to protect themselves if they deem it necessary.

Considering it's all tied to American presence in SK, it's 100% their call. Also NK has been shouting incoherent threats for decades, which makes your eagerness to sacrifice thousands or even millions of South Koreans even more questionable.

 

[Pomerlaw]

What I'd like to know if all these people on Gaf were Trump supporters all the time, or if it was the idea of bombing campaigns that warmed them up to him.

I have not warmed up to him.

Then you have to admit that Clinton wanted to bomb Assad too. She said so not even 3 weeks ago, something along the lines of "We should bomb his airports".

 

[littleworm]

Considering it's all tied to American presence in SK, it's 100% their call. Also NK has been shouting incoherent threats for decades, which makes your eagerness to sacrifice thousands or even millions of South Koreans even more questionable.

The US presence which exists because the fact that NK invaded SK in the first place.

 

[Xando]

Because Theresa May can't launch a bunch of nukes at France because she's having a bad day and get off scott free.

No one would give a shit if n.korea had some kind of checks and balances accountability system. Bur if Kim got mentally ill say , and he wanted to burn it all he could do it.

Who says Putin can't just nukes countries if he wants to?
Who says Xi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Bibi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Pakistan can't just nuke countries if they want to?

There is something called mutually assured destruction that's why no one can just nuke countries if they want to. Not even Kim.

The time to get rid of NK nukes would have been 20 years ago. Now any war will destroy SK and possibly japan and is therefore not advisable.

 

[jakonovski]

The US presence which exists because the fact that NK invaded SK in the first place.

The fuck does that matter? Do they have some blood debt to die in a new war to appease American warmongers?

 

[sprsk]

This whole thread feels like history repeating. The flimsy reasoning from the government, the posters saying we'd be in and out super easy.

Just need someone to go to the UN and make up evidence and off we go to be the hero liberators.

Except our president is even dumber than before, and the dictator is way crazier and way more dangerous to the allies that neighbor it.

 

[norm9]

This whole thread feels like history repeating. The flimsy reasoning from the government, the posters saying we'd be in and out super easy.

Just need someone to go to the UN and make up evidence and off we go to be the hero liberators.

Except our president is even dumber than before, and the dictator is way crazier and way more dangerous to the allies that neighbor it.

And the sudden ticking clock deadline where everyone is pushing things to be done faster and faster.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

Who says Putin can't just nukes countries if he wants to?
Who says Xi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Bibi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Pakistan can't just nuke countries if they want to?

There is something called mutually assured destruction that's why no one can just nuke countries if they want to. Not even Kim.

Not saying that you're wrong. I don't know if your right or wrong but the way that the people of North Korea have been treated says to me that it's probable that Kim cares less about them then these other countries leaders care about their people.

 

[Glasshole]

There is nothing that can stop NK from developing better ICBMs, unless Trumps offers them a lot (peace treaty etc.). Whoever supports a war against NK is batshit insane.

It's absolutely bizarre: Somewhere in this world, you have the right to vote, and that scares me shitless.

It's so easy, fellas. Trump just has to offer them more (peace treaty etc.) then we'll have peace. Stupid politicians!

Nobody in their right mind hopes a war is coming our way, but you've proven there are quite a few people who have ZERO understanding of this conflict and how it came to be. But at least you have an opinion.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Cool, another thread full of Americans speaking authoritatively about something they obviously don't understand at all!

This Kind of War
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/118690.This_Kind_of_War

The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448135.The_Coldest_Winter

Good reading before we make more ignorant, bad posts.

---

Also a not-very-uplifting but super-very-good historical fiction read related to the Gwangju Uprising by someone who lived through it:

Human Acts by Han Kang
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30091914-human-acts

You can read this in 4 hours and know so much more about Korea's political history just by understanding context clues.

 

[norm9]

Cool, another thread full of Americans speaking authoritatively about something they obviously don't understand at all!

This Kind of War
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/118690.This_Kind_of_War

The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/448135.The_Coldest_Winter

Good reading before we make more ignorant, bad posts.

tl:dr Give it to me in 140 characters or less. Gif format also acceptable.

 

[Xando]

Not saying that you're wrong. I don't know if your right or wrong but the way that the people of North Korea have been treated says to me that it's probable that Kim cares less about them then these other countries leaders care about their people.

Well i'm pretty certain he values his own life. Nuking any country will get himself nuked.

 

[littleworm]

The fuck does that matter? Do they have some blood debt to die in a new war to appease American warmongers?

Considering your position that all hostilities is due to the US war machine and ignoring the fact that it exists in the first place was due to NK makes you argument pretty hollow. It shows that NK can act irrationally and is willing to take preemptive military action against threats to its existence either real or perceived. No SK has no debt to pay to the rest of the world, just as the rest of the world doesn't have to submit to North Korea's increasing military influence on behalf of the south.

 

[jakonovski]

Considering your position that all hostilities is due to the US war machine and ignoring the fact that it exists in the first place was due to NK makes you argument pretty hollow. It shows that NK can act irrationally and is willing to take preemptive military action against threats to its existence either real or perceived. No SK has no debt to pay to the rest of the world, just as the rest of the world doesn't have to submit to North Korea's increasing military influence on behalf of the south.

If your viewpoint ever truly wins out in the US government, I feel bad for South Korea. Become an economic giant despite adversity and then be ruined by scared Americans starting a major war in their country.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Who says Putin can't just nukes countries if he wants to?
Who says Xi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Bibi can't just nuke countries if he wants to?
Who says Pakistan can't just nuke countries if they want to?

There is something called mutually assured destruction that's why no one can just nuke countries if they want to. Not even Kim.

The time to get rid of NK nukes would have been 20 years ago. Now any war will destroy SK and possible japan.

Because Pakistan is a democracy there would need to be a vote. There are multiple checks they would have to go through.

Bibi is a prime minister not a dictator. All the people you mention are culpable to someone else.

Except maybe Russia who we have been in some kind of conflict with since WW2.

Which nuclear state would you be more worried about if their respective leader went crazy? Cos if Theresa May went banannas and screamed "nuke them all" she'd be ousted in a heart beat.

If Kim screamed "nuke them all!" He wouldn't be. Again this is what happens when you put all power into one single person. If they flip its game over.

I say again if N.Korea announced they were going to become a democratic society with checks and balances absolutely no one would care about their nuclear program

 

[Polari]

There's no way a military solution is going to work for North Korea. Millions will die. The only way is to get North Korea to open up from within.

As for the nukes thing, North Korea wanting nukes is perfectly rational. It's the best deterrent to the sort of regime change the US have carried out repeatedly when foreign states haven't fallen in line with UD interests.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Why should he be able to send it? Please explain how this is normal.

It was intended as an expression of enthusiasm for his fellow Airmen and he's not wired like a typical civilian. It's perfectly normal to get hyped up for combat or celebrate a display of force. The only difference is instead of sharing it internally he wanted to put it on Twitter. That's the world we live in now.

 

[jakonovski]

It was intended as an expression of enthusiasm for his fellow Airmen and he's not wired like a typical civilian. It's perfectly normal to get hyped up for combat or celebrate a display of force. The only difference is instead of sharing it internally he wanted to put it on Twitter. That's the world we live in now.

Sean Spicer is that you?

 

[Xando]

Which nuclear state would you be more worried about if their respective leader went crazy? Cos if Theresa May went banannas and screamed "nuke them all" she'd be ousted in a heart beat.

It's quite ironic that you write this 2 weeks after she declined to rule out war with spain for several days because of gibraltar.

She hasn't been ousted yet.


Also good job on ignoring the whole concept of deterrence and MAD.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

Since World War II every single American foreign military intervention has been an obscene waste of life and resources.

I can't remember the last successfully resolved campaign America has completed...

Vietnam nope
Afghanistan nope
Iraq nope
Iraq v2 nope

When every single intervention you've made has created even more abject fucking misery. Refugee crisis that other countries have to deal with. And a terrorist insurgency in Europe.

Why in Gods name of all fuck. Would you want America anywhere near a difficult and nuanced situation?

Am I missing something here? Has there been a campaign that didn't end in total disaster or a state of perpetual flux?

Who in their right fucking mind is taking American foreign policy seriously at this point? It's like recruiting a homeless person to teach economics. I don't get it.

We have the worlds most powerful military. In the end that is what matters.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

It's quite ironic that you write this 2 weeks after she declined to rule out war with spain for several days because of gibraltar.

She hasn't been ousted yet.

Again she's not a dictator. Even if she said let's go to war she would have to get parliamentary approval. That means she would require the consent of the house of commons to do that and if she didn't get consent she wouldn't be able to. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship...

Now ask yourself who does Kim need approval from to blast a hole in Seoul? If Kim goes mental, who is gonna stop his strikes? His non existant parliament?

Trying to equate governance and stability between a dictatorship and a democracy is fochen asinine.

Talking about MAD doesn't make a difference if you're dealing with irrational actors.

 

[kmfdmpig]

It was intended as an expression of enthusiasm for his fellow Airmen and he's not wired like a typical civilian. It's perfectly normal to get hyped up for combat or celebrate a display of force. The only difference is instead of sharing it internally he wanted to put it on Twitter. That's the world we live in now.

Diplomacy, as in ratcheting up or calming the rhetoric when dealing with NK, is best left to the State Department (not that there is much of a state department now) and not an individual cigar chomping General who seems to relish the idea of having a war start.

Again she's not a dictator. Even if she said let's go to war she would have to get parliamentary approval. That means she would require the consent of the house of commons to do that and if she didn't get consent she wouldn't be able to. That's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship...

Now ask yourself who does Kim need approval from to blast a hole in Seoul? If Kim goes mental, who is gonna stop his strikes? His non existant parliament?

Trying to equate governance and stability between a dictatorship and a democracy is fochen asinine.

Talking about MAD doesn't make a difference if you're dealing with irrational actors.

The North Korean government, it seems to me, is a rational actor. They say blustery things and act in a way which tries to make people think they're not rational, but they don't ever really follow through. If you step back from the fact that they're evil and terrible I'd say they actually do a good job of skirting the line without crossing it, which has benefited them greatly in the past, although not as much recently now that China is starting to distance itself from them.

 

[Xando]

Talking about MAD doesn't make a difference if you're dealing with irrational actors.

That's just plainly wrong considering MAD has kept us from nuclear war since 1945.

Deterrence and MAD are the only way to keep irrational actors like kim in check. Especially since they have no parliament.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

Is there any more squeezing that can be done that could possibly make NK want to talk? I thought I saw something about China and oil. Does an NK that is completely cut off from the rest of the world for years start talking?

There's something else I don't understand. Perhaps it's just not feasible money, manpower, and time wise. But is removing US forces from SK and Japan not an option? Could they not be brought back if NK starts testing nukes again? I mean we can tell all the way over here via the earthquakes. Could NK cause that much devastation to SK and Japan in the time it would take US forces to get back there?

Or is the US presence on the Korean peninsula not really the issue?

 

[TarNaru33]

The USSR collapsed after ~70 years. Obviously the situation is not exactly the same but the idea that any system is eternal and will never change is not realistic.

This is true, but who knows how much of a tighter grip NK has on it's country than Soviets did. Not sure if praying to the stars that NK collapse first is wise though.

60 years includes two world wars. Keeping peace in the Koreas for that long is a major achievement and the longer it goes on, the harder it is for anyone to start a new war.

Literally the only reason right now we're panicking is because Trump is a thundercunt.

The two world wars? What? Those wars happened way more than 60 years ago lol.

I do believe we should clear things up a bit, from my understanding NK did not even start developing nuclear weapons and the like until the 1970s or 1980s, am I wrong on this?

I don't know what to say about the panic part, since, the only reason we were able to delay an intervention is due to the fact they still have no capability to hit U.S

So in that same time period the UK,France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have developed nuclear weapons.

Do you want military action in these countries? If not what is different with NK?

Many of those countries that you listed, had nuclear capabilities before NPT even came into effect and the only country I would worry about that you listed would be Pakistan because of their insurgency.

NK's started around the 1970s or so. You should note, I excluded any nations who already have that capability, because they already have it. Nothing can be done when they do.

Why worry about this? Because several times countries (post Hiroshima and Nagasaki) had been very close to using nukes. India and Pakistan were going to nuke one another which required deescalation and Israel showed signs of getting ready to use nuclear weapons during the Yom Kippur War.

This shows that even rational countries contemplate using nukes.

 

[Regulus Tera]

It was intended as an expression of enthusiasm for his fellow Airmen and he's not wired like a typical civilian. It's perfectly normal to get hyped up for combat or celebrate a display of force. The only difference is instead of sharing it internally he wanted to put it on Twitter. That's the world we live in now.

The problem here is that the Trump administration has used twitter as a way to voice policy intentions, so a general utilising the platform in a similar manner can be misconstrued for hostility. It only helps ratchet up tensions.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

That's just plainly wrong considering MAD has kept us from nuclear war since 1945.

Deterrence and MAD are the only way to keep irrational actors like kim in check. Especially since they have no parliament.

No because again, comprehension of MAD to a crazy person doesn't work. If he wants to die in a blaze of glory and take his people with him, why not?

Like those suicide cults following their dear leader 'hey everyone drink this poison and we'll be welcomed by our god".

Why do you think everyone is kind of tense him having nukes that can reach the states or the west?

Geopolitically speaking, in the future say, we let him get all the nukes he wants. And the world continues to ignore him. Do you really think his shit is gonna stop there?

Nobody wants to invade N.Korea. The world would be happy to just leave him to it. But what do you honestly think he's gonna do after he can nuke any place he wants. Sit back, say "Mission Accomplished" to himself and get back to providing the best living environment for his people he can?

Like you think Kim Jongs main worry afterwards will be "okay great! I can't be deposed cos of MAD time to deliver immmense prosperity to my people who I casually throw into concentration camps if they dont clap hard enough!"

Do you sincerely believe thats what happens next?

 

[TarNaru33]

That's just plainly wrong considering MAD has kept us from nuclear war since 1945.

Deterrence and MAD are the only way to keep irrational actors like kim in check. Especially since they have no parliament.

Ignoring the "rational actors" part of that I see.. Irrationality means they are completely unpredictable and unpredictability makes things unstable.

U.S and the Soviets put A LOT of effort into assuring one another that they would not attack one another.

Hell the Soviets promised U.S that they wouldn't go into Europe if U.S helped South Korea during the Korean War. There was a lot of communication between the two and they knew that they could not threaten one another with nuclear attacks as you see coming from NK all the time.

Many incidents almost caused nuclear Armageddon, how hard is it to understand this? The Soviets thought many times "No way would U.S first strike us" when their ICBM alarms went off and that is why we are still here today.

So, no, putting faith into irrational actors with the chance to cause billions of deaths is not a good idea.

 

[jakonovski]

The two world wars? What? Those wars happened way more than 60 years ago lol.

I do believe we should clear things up a bit, from my understanding NK did not even start developing nuclear weapons and the like until the 1970s or 1980s, am I wrong on this?

I don't know what to say about the panic part, since, the only reason we were able to delay an intervention is due to the fact they still have no capability to hit U.S

I mean that a span of 60 years can include two world wars, so it's not exactly unstable if something lasts that long. To underline the achievement of having a 60 year peace.

NK's nuclear history is easily found on Wikipedia.

The reason US hasn't attacked NK is that they're a rational actor that understands diplomacy and non-military sanctions, just like NK so far. Kim Jong Un and Trump are a volatile mix however, and could conceivably escalate either into irrational territory.

 

[AmyS]

MAD is by far the most sane and rational thing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. / Russia have ever put into practice.

 

[Xando]

No because again, comprehension of MAD to a crazy person doesn't work. If he wants to die in a blaze of glory and take his people with him, why not?

Like those suicide cults following their dear leader 'hey everyone drink this poison and we'll be welcomed by our god".

Why do you think everyone is kind of tense him having nukes that can reach the states or the west?

Geopolitically speaking, in the future say, we let him get all the nukes he wants. And the world continues to ignore him. Do you really think his shit is gonna stop there?

Nobody wants to invade N.Korea. The world would be happy to just leave him to it. But what do you honestly think he's gonna do after he can nuke any place he wants. Sit back, say "Mission Accomplished" to himself and get back to providing the best living environment for his people he can?

Like you think Kim Jongs main worry afterwards will be "okay great! I can't be deposed cos of MAD time to deliver immmense prosperity to my people who I casually throw into concentration camps if they dont clap hard enough!"

Do you sincerely believe thats what happens next?

You make it sound like kim is some kind of suicidal psychopath which he isn't and neither has been his father otherwise we would have had war 10 years ago.

North Korea is acquiring nukes because they are convinced the US wants to destroy their regime (which i guess is kinda true).

Kim has seen what happened in Libya, what happened in Ukraine when you dispose your WMDs and he is determined to not have the same faith as Gaddafi. Remember this guy lived in switzerland his whole childhood. He's not some pagan dictator, he actually knows how it is in the west.

The whole NK doctrine relys on the fact that the US is at some point going to attack them (which again seems to be kinda true at the moment) and the only way to keep them from it is by being able to hit the US.

The only people being tense about this is the US. SK is okay with the current situation as long as they're under a nuclear umbrella (Hey here's MAD) and europe certainly doesn't give a fuck about being part of military action.

So what will he do when he has his ICBMs? Nothing. He'll keep his anti america rhetoric but he won't attack SK because they're protected by nukes.

Give SK nukes and have the US leave would probably be the best option for the peninsula.

Ignoring the "rational actors" part of that I see.. Irrationality means they are completely unpredictable and unpredictability makes things unstable.

U.S and the Soviets put A LOT of effort into assuring one another that they would not attack one another.

Hell the Soviets promised U.S that they wouldn't go into Europe if U.S helped South Korea during the Korean War. There was a lot of communication between the two and they knew that they could not threaten one another with nuclear attacks as you see coming from NK all the time.

Many incidents almost caused nuclear Armageddon, how hard is it to understand this? The Soviets thought many times "No way would U.S first strike us" when their ICBM alarms went off and that is why we are still here today.

So, no, putting faith into irrational actors with the chance to cause billions of deaths is not a good idea.

So are you purposefully ignoring the back channel the US and NK have and have had for several years? Or China intermediating between the two?

 

[IndoAssassin]

Why are people still implying that North Korea doesn't have nukes already?

Please read.

Either way just let Japan and SK have their nukes and be done with.

 

[norm9]

From the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-military-strategy_us_58efe50ae4b0bb9638e2a291?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark# titled- The U.S. Military Thinks Missiles And Bombs Work Better With A Strategy, Too

Similarly, the White House ordered the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its accompanying warships to head toward the Korean peninsula this week after Trump made vague threats about halting North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons development. But the White House gave no explanation of the naval armada’s precise purpose, and did not address what reaction it anticipated or how the U.S. would handle a North Korean escalation.

The military’s insistence that it operate with a coherent strategy and a defined end is hardly academic. They want to make sure that lives ― their own, their buddies, all the men and women they command ― are not spent in vain.

“One third of the Army’s general officers have children serving in the military. I have three children who have served,” said Eaton, a West Pointer who now serves as a senior adviser to the progressive group VoteVets. With his two sons still on active duty, Eaton said, “we are consumed with the outcome of the mission and the human lives that are at stake, both American and on the other side.”

So when they look to the commander-in-chief, they have a blunt request.

“If you’re going to give a four-star [general] a mission, then you better be clear about what your end state is,” Eaton said.

No strategy or clear end state has ever been defined for the ongoing U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, he said, with more potential conflicts tempting American intervention, “we as a military class do not want a mission where we’re going to be set up for failure.”

In a nutshell, have a fucking plan. Bomb them, get rid of them, install democracy isn't a plan.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You make it sound like kim is some kind of suicidal psychopath which he isn't and neither has been his father otherwise we would have had war 10 years ago.

North Korea is acquiring nukes because they are convince the US wants to destroy their regime (which i guess is kinda true).

Kim has seen what happened in Libya, what happened in Ukraine when you dispose your WMDs and he is determined to not have the same faith as Gaddafi. Remember this guy lived in switzerland his whole childhood. He not some pagan dictator, he actually knows how it is in the west.

The whole NK doctrine relys on the fact that the US is at some point going to attack them again (which again seems to be kinda true at the moment) and the only way to keep them from it is by being able to hit the US.

The only people being tense about this is the US. SK is okay with the current situation as long as they're under a nuclear umbrella (Hey here's MAD) and europe certainly doesn't give a fuck about being part of military action.

So what will he do when he has his ICBMs? Nothing. He'll keep his anti america rhetoric but he won't attack SK because they're protected by nukes.

Give SK nukes and have the US leave would probably be the best option for the peninsula.

Right on! Everyone read this.

---

It's been frustrating to see US ideologies and party fighting play out in this thread as if they're relevant. We figure our political knowledge is accurate because we see history as a shared narrative of accepted facts rather than the conflict of ideals we live out daily.

North Korea has a side to their story, too. It's very interesting to see people talk about a brainwashed nation while speaking out of their ass about Korea.

 

[EatinOlives]

You make it sound like kim is some kind of suicidal psychopath which he isn't and neither has been his father otherwise we would have had war 10 years ago.

North Korea is acquiring nukes because they are convince the US wants to destroy their regime (which i guess is kinda true).

Kim has seen what happened in Libya, what happened in Ukraine when you dispose your WMDs and he is determined to not have the same faith as Gaddafi. Remember this guy lived in switzerland his whole childhood. He not some pagan dictator, he actually knows how it is in the west.

The whole NK doctrine relys on the fact that the US is at some point going to attack them again (which again seems to be kinda true at the moment) and the only way to keep them from it is by being able to hit the US.

The only people being tense about this is the US. SK is okay with the current situation as long as they're under a nuclear umbrella (Hey here's MAD) and europe certainly doesn't give a fuck about being part of military action.

So what will he do when he has his ICBMs? Nothing. He'll keep his anti america rhetoric but he won't attack SK because they're protected by nukes.

Give SK nukes and have the US leave would probably be the best option for the peninsula.



So are you purposefully ignoring the back channel the US and NK have and have had for several years? Or China intermediating between the two?

You make this sound like Kim is doing all this for self defense, which is lol. It's extremely clear Kim and his lineage have lofty ideologies of expansion. They're still technically at war with South Korea, and their long term plans absolutely include taking them over.

There's no doubt that the US would be wise to not pick fights (the US should not intervene unless their allies are attacked), but let's not pretend Kim is amassing an arsenal to protect himself and for no other reason.

 

[TarNaru33]

I mean that a span of 60 years can include two world wars, so it's not exactly unstable if something lasts that long. To underline the achievement of having a 60 year peace.

NK's nuclear history is easily found on Wikipedia.

The reason US hasn't attacked NK is that they're a rational actor that understands diplomacy and non-military sanctions, just like NK so far. Kim Jong Un and Trump are a volatile mix however, and could conceivably escalate either into irrational territory.

No, the reason U.S hasn't attacked NK is that they did and do not have the capability to hit U.S, because U.S was able to put it off through those diplomatic means (which were just delay tactics) and with the knowledge that those capabilities take a long time to develop in addition to China factor.

I do believe diplomacy can still be used, but all gloves off if they are too close to obtaining the capability.

 

[Vilix]

I think we've become well versed in the disaster that is possible if the US/others intervene. What is the end result if the US never does anything?

NK sells nuke, or miniature nuke technology, to rouge states and terrorist organizations that end up going off in the US, and/or one of its allies.

 

[Xando]

You make this sound like Kim is doing all this for self defense, which is lol. It's extremely clear Kim and his lineage have lofty ideologies of expansion. They're still technically at war with South Korea, and their long term plans absolutely include taking them over.

There's no doubt that the US would be wise to not pick fights (the US should not intervene unless their allies are attacked), but let's not pretend Kim is amassing an arsenal to protect himself and for no other reason.

Might point is he won't attempt take over SK as long as they are protected by nukes.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

So what will he do when he has his ICBMs? Nothing. He'll keep his anti america rhetoric but he won't attack SK because they're protected by nukes.

Yeah sure, and he definitely won't use his new nuclear arsenal as leverage to start demanding shit. No way that'll happen.

Yeah definitely, he'll shift his policy to domestic, giving North Korean public the best life he can and not spend his whole time undermining and destabilising the region around him with his new toys.

Just like, the Russians, once they realised they would never be invaded or destroyed they 100% started to focus on domestic policy and not...destabilising the regions around them.

 

[jakonovski]

No, the reason U.S hasn't attacked NK is that they did and do not have the capability to hit U.S, because U.S was able to put it off through those diplomatic means (which were just delay tactics) and with the knowledge that those capabilities take a long time to develop in addition to China factor.

I do believe diplomacy can still be used, but all gloves off if they are too close to obtaining the capability.

Why are you so convinced that NK will attack the US (thus committing immediate mass suicide)? You take it as a matter of faith and thus are hell bent on starting a war at some point. Because you consider your future speculation a fact.

 

[Xando]

Yeah sure, and he definitely won't use his new nuclear arsenal as leverage to start demanding shit. No way that'll happen.

Yeah definitely, he'll shift his policy to domestic, giving North Korean public the best life he can and not spend his whole time undermining and destabilising the region around him with his new toys.

Just like, the Russians, once they realised they would never be invaded or destroyed they 100% started to focus on domestic policy and not...destabilising the regions around them.

Way to go not reading my post. I never said he's gonna turn NK into some kind of utopia.

Will he try to get some stuff? Maybe.
But as long as SK is under a nuclear umbrella they can say fuck off if they want to.