ConfusingJazz
Member
Yes, it was the US who provoked North Korea in invading South Korea in 1950.
It was the US who invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland during the Cold War.
Stop US, stop it!
-
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.
BBC: Tremor is detected in North Korea (up: nuclear test conducted)
- Thread starter mid83
- Start date
Yes, it was the US who provoked North Korea in invading South Korea in 1950.
It was the US who invaded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland during the Cold War.
Stop US, stop it!
Also, I want to point out this beautiful example of you quote mining a sentence in order to make it seem to say the complete opposite: Here's the full context you intentionally and deceitfully omitted:
Joel Wit said:
It's clear from the whole picture that whatever "material" NK had, was useless without the facilities. Said facilities were only rebuild after the deal collapsed thanks to Dubya.
So yeah, I'll give you an A+ for how hard you're trying to negatively spin what Joel said.
darkhunger
Member
China isn't at a position where they can much at this point. They already don't have much of a relationship with Kim and don't want to further antagonize or make an enemy out of nuclear-armed NK because that's a far worst outcome for them than an armed SK or Japan.
Keep in mind Communist regimes can and have turned on one another very quickly in the past.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I agree totally. In the present moment, NK is not a power player.
But there is no endgame to this NK situation. We have this feeling of military superiority/containment over them, but how long is this supposed to last, exactly? Decades? Centuries?
If there is never a point to initate conflict with them and neutralize them, then they will grow to become something that maybe is a kind of minor power someday. Long term, they might emerge as something worth paying attention to.
I really don't have much to contribute. This isn't a topic I've followed closely, ever.
But I did always assume we'd have the higher ground and allies to debate/defuse/defend against this, so to me it was mostly a non-issue. Selfishly at least. I do recognize other countries could/can always suffer from this.
But now? Well. Fuck. Not much else I can say. This was inevitable. The conflict. To have an incompetent beyond words man 'leading' our nation in these trying times? Fuck. Just, fuck.
It'd be a good time to have a president now. A president. Trump isn't one. Never has been. Never will be. But we could use one right about now.
But I did always assume we'd have the higher ground and allies to debate/defuse/defend against this, so to me it was mostly a non-issue. Selfishly at least. I do recognize other countries could/can always suffer from this.
But now? Well. Fuck. Not much else I can say. This was inevitable. The conflict. To have an incompetent beyond words man 'leading' our nation in these trying times? Fuck. Just, fuck.
It'd be a good time to have a president now. A president. Trump isn't one. Never has been. Never will be. But we could use one right about now.
The Warsaw Pact, the only military alliance to have ever invaded itself.
Schucky Ducky
Banned
I worry about this too. I imagine them doing their big parade and marches leading up to their biggest missile launch yet, only for it to explode on the launch pad. The massive loss of life along with the fallout would lead to a humanitarian crisis I imagine. Not sure how to best handle something like that.
ClosingADoor
Member
I don't see a possible path for them to become any kind of power, outside of one that can throw a nuke around sadly.
They don't have a way to grow to that. They don't have the resources, they don't have the economy, they don't have the size, they don't have any way to expand. With Russia they can throw their weight around, because they have a lot of smaller countries to do it with (reason a lot of them joined NATO). China has the economic might to throw around a bit and the size and military to bully surrounding countries.
North Korea can never stand up to Russia, China or South Korea. The only way they can become more of a threat is if they somehow grow more powerful. But the funny then is, if they want to become that, they actually need to transform their country into a more modern and capitalistic state, which makes them less dangerous to others.
You don't use live nukes in these missile launches. And even if you do, they don't just go off like that. We have had airplanes crash with nukes in them and nothing happened.
I suppose that long term the hope is that the military leadership will eventually oust the Kim family and slowly move away from the Juche ideal of North Korea. Who knows if that will ever happen.
All nuclear bombs have locks and failsafes to prevent accidental detonation. These are only removed immediately before use. For example, the nukes that fell on Japan had their locks removed only mid-flight over the ocean.
I think there was an incident in the US where a military plane carrying a nuke crashed, yet the nuke didn't detonate thanks to the lock.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
It's almost like Kim Jon Un doesn't use Twitter
Bitch Pudding
Member
Sorry but ... wut?!
Jezbollah
Member
Woosh.
ClosingADoor
Member
He's ridiculing the idea that the US is somehow responsible for Russian aggression in Europe, when history has shown Russia to invade multiple countries there during the Cold War.
theignoramus
Member
What do we do when NK conducts an atmospheric test of one of their hydrogen bombs?
Stead Fast
Banned
Agreed with the previous comments above me, the allusion that the US and NK are similar to Europe's relation with Soviet Russia isn't apt.
I'm sure a dummy missile landing on a populated Japanese area would go down well.
Yup, the warmonger crowd is just as wrong as the "let's do nothing!" crowd.
USA nukes have locks but who's to say North Korea builds them the same way. They're not exactly following international guidelines.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
My hope is that NK's increasing military might will help them to develop a sense of security and self-determination that would allow them political freedom to move toward market reforms and more open borders. I don't know if this would happen, though.
Bitch Pudding
Member
That's my point.
The only reason to be really afraid right now is that Americans thought it would be a splendid idea to elect an impulsive ape as their president who thinks negotiating is not a solution but a sign of weakness.
There's absolutely no rational reason for NK to omit safety locks.
You think that all the NK politicians and generals would be fine standing next to an unsecured nuke? They're brutal and oppressive, but they aren't morons or suicidal.
As I said earlier in this thread, the sad fact right now is that the current leader of NK is more rational than the manbaby in the White House.
Lmao. Have you got the slightest idea of the amount of shit that the US have done in the last 70 years?
Like actively supporting genocide and stuff?
Bitch Pudding
Member
At least Seoul would be annihilated with or without nukes, that much hasn't changed. New is the threat for Japan and other countries in the area, and - inevitably - US soil itself at some point.
Again you can't go to war in the backyard of Russia and China. You will lose and it would be disastrous.
Within the last 50 years, the US has lost every war where Russia rears its head. In NK you will be fighting China and Russia. The US, Japan and SK are not going to win such a war.
The US army is also stretched thin. Diplomacy is the best option here.
I mean, this was true regardless of NK's ability to build a nuke. They could do susbtantial damage with conventional weapons alone.
This saga is intensely worrying and I can't see how a resolution might play out.
ClosingADoor
Member
Russia did not invade those countries because the US was doing shit somewhere else. The events are unrelated. You can blame the US for a lot, but not for the actions of Russia or North Korea. Those are the actions of those nations and their decisions. To somehow shift that blame to the US is a very strange thing to do, as if those nations are only capable of reactionary actions and no decision making themselves.
This depends on how the events unfold. China will not step in if North Korea is the one attacking first. Russia has nothing to gain from it also.
And just the same, because of China and Russia, North Korea has limited capability of what to do in the region because they can't really risk their relation with those two too much.
So nothing will happen either way, unless North Korea is really crazy enough to strike first, but I don't believe they are.
The last person that could have taken Kim out of power was his aunt's husband. We all know how he met his end. The generals around him know they have nothing to lose either. Offering them and their families amnesty won't work because they are aware the West cannot be trusted and they are most likely going to end up in prison.
I live in sweden. And because of US/Nato are expanding in sweden/EU and moving bases/shitload of military around russia. Russia move their military muscles too. Protecting their borders.
Do you see the connection? . What do you think Usa would do if Russia put up an base outside their door. I would love to hear a good answer to that.
ClosingADoor
Member
But then you are saying that those nations surrounding Russia should not be free to choose their own allies. Which is basically saying they should be fine with functioning as a "buffer zone" for Russia until the end of days. This is not something you can ask of a nation. They are free to choose in which direction to take their country. Would you be OK with Russia deciding Swedish foreign policy?
Also, the recent movement of NATO material to the Russian border is very much a response to Russian aggression.
You might also want to look at the reason the former Eastern Bloc rushed to get into NATO and the EU, and did not seek closer ties with Russia again.
Audioboxer
Member
Trump doesn't want to die either.
I know you can never be 100% sure, but in situations, with most dictators, they want to remain alive and in control of their country/wealth/power. Sabre-rattling is the cause of just about anything 99.9% of the time. America being the powerhouse it is with army, bombs, weapons, nukes and so on means if anyone did first strike against the US they better be happy being dead. As in completely wiped out dead.
That's the real fear in this world if you ask me, if a maniac who doesn't fear death (maybe a religious fanatic) gets ahold of nuclear weapons. You see how many terrorists these days don't fear death, they actually approve of martyrdom and meeting their end. Religious fanaticism with nukes is far more worrying than a small chubby dictator who wants to feel more powerful than he ever can be.
All of that being said I still support nuclear disarmament in the country I live in because it's a waste of money and most dictators around the world still won't 1st strike even if you have no nukes. They'll still most likely meet their death because the world as a collective isn't going to sit idle as a dictator fires off nukes. If someone did fire a nuke I'd go as far to say the moral plan to rid of them would still be conventional missles/ground and sea attacks. Nuclear weapons just kill far too many innocents. Even more innocents than conventional war.
dripdripsplash
Member
Bomb their asses back to the Stone Age.
it was underground.
They probably don't have the territory to do it safely.
But none of that gets out, into drinking water, etc?
Lightning Count
Member
They are definitely irradiating their own land and possibly their own people to some extent throughout possible ground water contamination and air irradiation, but these detonations are performed underground both to inhibit US surveillance and limit collateral damage.
Also I doubt very much that the regime gives a fuck about the civilian population at all, especially given their track record of human rights abuses.
AlimNassor
Banned
Seoul wont be destroyed. You gravely overestimate how powerful their artillery guns are. Even a nuke wouldnt destroy Seoul.
Thanks, that's what I figured. So messed up.
maybe a bit but I would assume it's done away from important areas like this (edit: or they don't care). Underground testing is considered a lot safer because the bomb itself would create a tomb and prevent fallout from escaping into the atmosphere.
Costa Kid
Member
Waiting around = no war, no death, and no destruction.
Attacking NK = immédiate destruction of Seoul, and more.
Kim isn't gonna attack anybody. He knows his country can be flattened in an instant if he tries anything.
You seem to have a bizarre definition of "destroy".
Do you also think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't "destroyed"?
Hi there, whataboutism.
kingkaiser
Member
That escalation is just the logical conclusion to G.W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and the Iraq Invasion. This guy fucked up the US foreign policy that much even the Donald would have a hard time matching that.
And the nuke they just tested is 5x+ as powerful...