lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:17 PM) Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one. If we knew everything that was going to happen, all the time, the Secretary of State would have an easy job. Generals too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:23 PM) He's got much more to worry about than a coup if he attempts even an unsuccessful nuclear strike against a remote US territory. I believe he has no intention of actually doing something. Its all BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:22 PM) But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like. Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field. Yeah, totally agree. Truman PII. Even more justified. There would be no screwing around and reason to not is well documented for over 50 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:34 PM) Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field. I think it was Balta who said that NK is holding SK hostage. Best analogy. We can't make the first move without sacrificing a lot of lives, but we can't wait around either. Best way for this to end is some James Bond s*** going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:22 PM) But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like. Not to mention the millions of Korean lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:17 PM) Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one. It's not your ass on the line here,sk doesn't seem as gung-ho for war as some Americans do. Edited April 4, 2013 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:34 PM) Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field. Can't really complete an operation like this without ground troops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 BTW unlike Iraq in this case the IC isn't pretending like it knows anything, and there's no officials in the administration right now trying to get them to bulls*** like they do. We know almost nothing except what can be seen from above and never have. Dennis Rodman knows more about Jong Un than the entire IC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 Sure, let's piss them off some more... North Korea's Twitter and Flickr accounts hacked by Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Looks like they are/were planning on either a strike or another test, according to intercepted communication: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/k....html?hpt=hp_t1 Communications intercepts in recent days indicated that Pyongyang could be planning to launch a mobile ballistic missile in the coming days or weeks, the official said. It's unknown whether it would be a test or a strike. The news emerged as South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin told a parliamentary committee in Seoul that the North has moved a medium-range missile to its east coast for an imminent test firing or military drill. The missile doesn't appear to be aimed at the U.S. mainland, Kim said, according to the semi-official South Korean news agency Yonhap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 10:25 AM) Looks like they are/were planning on either a strike or another test, according to intercepted communication: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/k....html?hpt=hp_t1 This could be really interesting, the US might well be in position to shoot down whatever they test (or, alternatively, have the interceptor fail). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 08:07 AM) Can't really complete an operation like this without ground troops Can't really send ground troops into a radioactive hole in the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:32 PM) I believe he has no intention of actually doing something. Its all BS. That's what everyone in the media seems to be saying, this is him blustering to try to strengthen his regime...but the worry everyone keeps saying is that he might not know where the red line is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade. Unless NK has hundreds of nukes and the capability to deliver them across the ocean, this isn't a MAD scenario. This is more like a "oooo look at the pretty glowing mountains" scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) Unless NK has hundreds of nukes and the capability to deliver them across the ocean, this isn't a MAD scenario. This is more like a "oooo look at the pretty glowing mountains" scenario. A single one fired as Seoul or Tokyo is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Yeah, MAD for Seoul, not the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Oh, if you mean Seoul, yeah that's different. They can't possibly do as much damage to the US as the US could do to them (within a couple of hours, if they wanted to) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The problem with realpolitik is it assumes rational action on all parts -- I don't think the NK regime has credibility as a rational actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 01:56 PM) Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line. It should be a requirement that if you want the US to go to another war, you are obligated to permit, say, 5% more in income taxes to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 4, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) It should be a requirement that if you want the US to go to another war, you are obligated to permit, say, 5% more in income taxes to pay for it. This one's fairly cheap. The price is a few missiles that we've already bought. There wouldn't be anything left on that peninsula to occupy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted April 4, 2013 Author Share Posted April 4, 2013 I dont know how accurate this is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Maybe they'll screw with everyone and launch something at Beijing. You know, something totally out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts