• 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.

NYT explains North Korea's capabilities & threat to the world, and Trump's options.

Status
Not open for further replies.
At what number of bombs built by North Korea does it become necessary to do something? What if they start selling bombs and building submarines? I'm not saying I know what to do or when the optimal time to do it is but left alone the situation will only get worse and worse.
 
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up 🙄

Strong rebuttal.

Or you know the threats every couple months against South Korea, Japan and the U.S (including preemptive nuclear strike threats) over literally everything...

Threats that never come to fruition. Maybe - being the weaker party in a life-or-death, multi-state struggle - part of NK's defense strategy necessitates a belligerent diplomatic posture.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
You should read the history of the Korean War and why China joined and almost won the war.

I am not sure if the comparison is the same.. China only managed to push that far due to everyone believing they wouldn't intervene at all. Also U.S is much more powerful militarily than the 1950s when it was demilitarizing and considered South Korea to not be that strategic. There is just too much of a difference in military, technological, and economical power alongside leadership for that history to be relevant in discussion today. Only thing one should look at that now is just not to underestimate an enemy and plan for potential consequences.

Those same things that happened then, are nowhere near the same as U.S and SK now.


EDIT:

To others, Iran is not the same as North Korea, with Iran having a much more stable leadership than NK. NK is too unpredictable, giving them the options to blackmail more nations with threats of nuclear war is not bright. NK is literally the only nation that threatens nations with possible nuclear strikes. Israel, Pakistan, India, China, U.S, France, and UK do not not threaten any nation with nuclear first strikes in such a public way.

NK really is the only major threat to U.S. Russia isn't stupid to go into conflict with U.S, it is a rational actor and the same goes for China. Pakistan is the only other nation U.S is concerned about due to it's instability, but U.S would never let it get that far.
 
I would imagine even if China wants NK as a buffer state, they don't want them to be an unpredictable nuclear neighbour. If things really start to get out of hand I can imagine a situation where China takes the initiative with the support (even if informal) from the US.
 
What would be the negatives of sending in troops to take Kim Jong Un and any others that support him? China wouldn't like it?
 
China (maybe even together with Russia) should step in and create a new regime there to act as a buffer. One they can control to not do stupid shit.

What would be the negatives of sending in troops to take Kim Jong Un and any others that support him? China wouldn't like it?
North Korea has a very large army. Not a modern one, but you are still talking about millions of people which would mean a very long and costly war.

Next to that, they can target cities in South Korea which means hundreds of thousands of deaths.
 
China (maybe even together with Russia) should step in and create a new regime there to act as a buffer. One they can control to not do stupid shit.


North Korea has a very large army. Not a modern one, but you are still talking about millions of people which would mean a very long and costly war.

Next to that, they can target cities in South Korea which means hundreds of thousands of deaths.


For some reason, I think that if we just kill/take Jong Un and his few top leaders - that the "army" and the people would be happy/thankful and even cooperative with us. I could be wrong obviously..
 
For some reason, I think that if we just kill/take Jong Un and his few top leaders - that the "army" and the people would be happy/thankful. I could be wrong obviously..
Sadly, it is not that simple. You can't guarantee to grab all the leaders at once, so some can order attacks on South Korea. Someone else could take over. And since North Korea basically is one large cult, the population might not be happy when we get rid of their leader.
 

reckless

Member
Threats that never come to fruition. Maybe - being the weaker party in a life-or-death, multi-state struggle - part of NK's defense strategy necessitates a belligerent diplomatic posture.
Yeah threatening nuclear attacks is cool and totally fine because they want some aid again or need to distract their oppressed citizens.

I mean they've shelled a South Korean Island, sunk South Korean ships...

Obviously they don't want to start an actual war because they would get destroyed but they like tempting the U.S and South Korea to start shooting back.
 
China should just make a alliance with Philippines and take it, feel like if they do it alone that everyone in Asia would freak out.
Duterte would most likely help, if they got Taiwan to help would be a plus too.

Not only they gain North Korea, mess up USA meddling/work towards china sea issue.
 

emag

Member
What would be the negatives of sending in troops to take Kim Jong Un and any others that support him? China wouldn't like it?

Whoever did so would have to militarily occupy and rebuild NK over the course of years if not decades, along the lines of divided Germany post-WWII at best. South Korea would have to be intensively involved as well, and China would need some significant concessions to allow such an operation. The US is unwilling and/or unable to agree to such terms, and the SK public would not be entirely supportive of a reconciliation based on military force. A lot of younger SKs don't even support peaceful reunification, as integration of NKs would significantly harm the SK economy and quality of life in the short term.

Just taking out the top leaders world leave an anarchic failed state wallowing in misery, and one with nuclear weapons at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom