I feel like Trump is purposely escalating with NK...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

SupahEwok:
Trump wants a war. Not for power. For business. The only winners in war are the munitions factories, along with those they "lobby".

Nobody needs a war like a president doing bad in the polls.

This would be a justified war. A brutal regime will be toppled.

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

undeadsuitor:

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

Nobody needs a war like a president doing bad in the polls.

This would be a justified war. A brutal regime will be toppled.

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

undeadsuitor:

SupahEwok:
Trump wants a war. Not for power. For business. The only winners in war are the munitions factories, along with those they "lobby".

Nobody needs a war like a president doing bad in the polls.

image

Not even Bush got into Afghanistan and Iraq for the polls. The closest thing to a conventional war that that thought would apply to is Nixon intentionally sabotaging Vietnam peace talks, only he wasn't the president and he did to hurt the incumbent's presence in the polls, not bolster them.

The only thing that would really apply to would be the War on Drugs, which although done to bolster the polls in the anti-drug demographic and undermine liberal groups of the time, is obviously not a real war, but a phrase used to encompass the actions and policies of many domestic policing agencies and the CIA.

American Presidents don't go to war for the polls. As a matter of fact, they historically have been reluctant to get into wars until they were certain that they could weather the hit in public perception (see both World Wars, where it took uncovering the Zimmerman telegram for the first and the bombing of Pearl Harbor for the second to galvanize the public into acceptance for a war).

No, if Trump wants to go to war, it'll be for the same reason he has done anything else in his life: money.

Edit: although a war historically has initially resulted in a boost in polls, that boost isn't for having *a* war. It's for going to war against a target that has angered the people. If NK nuked US territory, it would be an "approved" war to fight back. If Trump were to invade NK tomorrow, it would result in a big backlash for endangering lives and expending resources unnecessarily. If Trump wanted to provoke NK into striking first to boost his place in the polls, he wouldn't be doing it via Twitter where the world could see. FDR's complicity in Pearl Harbor took decades to be brought to light and is still debated today.

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

BaldursGateTemple:

This would be a justified war. A brutal regime will be toppled.

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

That's strange, I can't tell if you're talking about North Korea or Iraq. Cuz I gotta tell you, a lot of us were thinking those same things in 2003, and it was *not* worth it.

SupahEwok:

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

That's strange, I can't tell if you're talking about North Korea or Iraq. Cuz I gotta tell you, a lot of us were thinking those same things in 2003, and it was *not* worth it.

Iraq was a mistake no doubt. Also there was a corrupt agenda behind of that for sure and that was the procurement of oil and resources unfortunately. I'm glad the Bush administration is gone.

BaldursGateTemple:

SupahEwok:

BaldursGateTemple:

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

That's strange, I can't tell if you're talking about North Korea or Iraq. Cuz I gotta tell you, a lot of us were thinking those same things in 2003, and it was *not* worth it.

Iraq was a mistake no doubt. Also there was a corrupt agenda behind of that for sure and that was the procurement of oil and resources unfortunately. I'm glad the Bush administration is gone.

I can tell you the most likely reason we haven't gone into North Korea yet is the possible severing of economic ties by other countries in addition to the impending propaganda against the United States. The parallels between a North Korean War and the Iraq War are also persuasive against this action.

Beyond all that, it doesn't make a damn lick of sense to not topple North Korea. Anyone can obviously argue the immediate loss of life would be astronomical, but it is not as if we HAVE to use nuclear weapons to take down that country. Further, compared to the potential loss of life and increased suffering caused by North Korea continuing to live on to become a significant military threat to the world, it would be the lesser of two evils. To do nothing is lazy and only fucks over the next generation; so in a way North Korea is a metaphor for global warming.

Epyc Wynn:
I can tell you the most likely reason we haven't gone into North Korea yet is the possible severing of economic ties by other countries in addition to the impending propaganda against the United States. The parallels between a North Korean War and the Iraq War are also persuasive against this action.

Beyond all that, it doesn't make a damn lick of sense to not topple North Korea. Anyone can obviously argue the immediate loss of life would be astronomical, but it is not as if we HAVE to use nuclear weapons to take down that country. Further, compared to the potential loss of life and increased suffering caused by North Korea continuing to live on to become a significant military threat to the world, it would be the lesser of two evils. To do nothing is lazy and only fucks over the next generation; so in a way North Korea is a metaphor for global warming.

The immediate loss of life will be astronomical in South Korea and Japan regardless of what weapons are used IS the issue. THAT has been their insurance policy this entire time. NK has made the promise that if you mess with us, you will not be able to save these people no matter what you do or how hard you try". Due to the close proximity and the sheer amount of weaponry pointed at their major cities, there is no way we can really stop them from destroying them. If we are not fighting to save those people, what are we fighting for?

Lil devils x:

Epyc Wynn:
I can tell you the most likely reason we haven't gone into North Korea yet is the possible severing of economic ties by other countries in addition to the impending propaganda against the United States. The parallels between a North Korean War and the Iraq War are also persuasive against this action.

Beyond all that, it doesn't make a damn lick of sense to not topple North Korea. Anyone can obviously argue the immediate loss of life would be astronomical, but it is not as if we HAVE to use nuclear weapons to take down that country. Further, compared to the potential loss of life and increased suffering caused by North Korea continuing to live on to become a significant military threat to the world, it would be the lesser of two evils. To do nothing is lazy and only fucks over the next generation; so in a way North Korea is a metaphor for global warming.

The immediate loss of life will be astronomical in South Korea and Japan regardless of what weapons are used IS the issue. THAT has been their insurance policy this entire time. NK has made the promise that if you mess with us, you will not be able to save these people no matter what you do or how hard you try". Due to the close proximity and the sheer amount of weaponry pointed at their major cities, there is no way we can really stop them from destroying them. If we are not fighting to save those people, what are we fighting for?

Oh. Then in that case a quick nuclear strike might become a necessity to prevent that.

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

BaldursGateTemple:

This would be a justified war. A brutal regime will be toppled.

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

Or it could be because NK has China on their side, who doesn't want to see them toppled and crushed. China wants "talks" with north Korea. Not action. Taking action against NK without China's backing would start a global war as everyone would get pulled into it. And to date, no one has gotten China's backing.

Not to mention they have a proverbial knife to South Korea's throat. If we declared war on them Seoul ans every town near the border would be ash and glass by the time our planes scrambled.

They aren't going to fight us. They know they would lose. They're going to cause as much collateral damage as possible

undeadsuitor:

BaldursGateTemple:

undeadsuitor:

no such thing as a good war kiddo

if toppling North Korea were that cut and dry it would have been done a long time ago.

It hasn't been done because people are selfish by nature and don't care about things that don't effect them. This time we have an excuse, and that's to rid the regime of it's Joker like dictator and it's nuclear weapons that threaten the world. Toppling the regime will be a nice bonus, we just now have an incentive to do so.

Or it could be because NK has China on their side, who doesn't want to see them toppled and crushed. China wants "talks" with north Korea. Not action. Taking action against NK without China's backing would start a global war as everyone would get pulled into it. And to date, no one has gotten China's backing.

Not to mention they have a proverbial knife to South Korea's throat. If we declared war on them Seoul ans every town near the border would be ash and glass by the time our planes scrambled.

They aren't going to fight us. They know they would lose. They're going to cause as much collateral damage as possible

Kim Jong Un will not attack or nuke Seoul. He is all talk and if he were to do that then the entire planet would invade his country and everyone will show how human KJU really is instead of the stories that were fed to the NK people about him.

Epyc Wynn:
Beyond all that, it doesn't make a damn lick of sense to not topple North Korea. Anyone can obviously argue the immediate loss of life would be astronomical, but it is not as if we HAVE to use nuclear weapons to take down that country. Further, compared to the potential loss of life and increased suffering caused by North Korea continuing to live on to become a significant military threat to the world, it would be the lesser of two evils.

You are aware that North Korea has a shitload of heavy guns at the border ready to start shelling Seoul, a city with a population of 10 million, at a moment's notice? And those guns are so heavily fortified that nuclear ordnance might be the only weapons that can effectively take them out. Even with just conventional weapons, it would be a bloodbath. The civilian death toll would likely be in the millions, the refugee crisis would destabilize most of the neighboring countries, and the economic impact would be felt worldwide. All of this chaos would end up radicalizing even more people and increasing the presence of terrorist organizations.

This is of course to say nothing of the political fallout for the US. South Korea and Japan would put us on their shitlists for recklessly endangering their civilians. Relations with China would be irreparably damaged. In fact, the US would actually lose influence on the world's stage because the US will have established in less than a single human lifetime of being a bunch of coked-up cowboys shooting from the hip.

And in the event that nukes do get deployed, there is a distinct possibility of irretrievably scarring the planet or even wiping out our entire civilization.

But hey, we're going to liberate the North Korean civilians! Except for the fact that the conscription practiced by the government there means we'll probably end up killing most of them and doing a lot of fighting in population centers, which is the worst battlefield imaginable as Iraq showed us. Also, there are approximately 25 million people living in North Korea. The population of Seoul is 10 million as I mentioned earlier. Out of over 51 million people in the whole country. Japan has a population of 127 million. So to liberate 25 million people, you would be willing to risk the lives of over 150 million civilians in the neighboring countries?

Epyc Wynn:
Oh. Then in that case a quick nuclear strike might become a necessity to prevent that.

Seoul would without question be destroyed by shelling from the north if that were attempted.

BeetleManiac:

Epyc Wynn:
Beyond all that, it doesn't make a damn lick of sense to not topple North Korea. Anyone can obviously argue the immediate loss of life would be astronomical, but it is not as if we HAVE to use nuclear weapons to take down that country. Further, compared to the potential loss of life and increased suffering caused by North Korea continuing to live on to become a significant military threat to the world, it would be the lesser of two evils.

You are aware that North Korea has a shitload of heavy guns at the border ready to start shelling Seoul, a city with a population of 10 million, at a moment's notice? And those guns are so heavily fortified that nuclear ordnance might be the only weapons that can effectively take them out. Even with just conventional weapons, it would be a bloodbath. The civilian death toll would likely be in the millions, the refugee crisis would destabilize most of the neighboring countries, and the economic impact would be felt worldwide. All of this chaos would end up radicalizing even more people and increasing the presence of terrorist organizations.

This is of course to say nothing of the political fallout for the US. South Korea and Japan would put us on their shitlists for recklessly endangering their civilians. Relations with China would be irreparably damaged. In fact, the US would actually lose influence on the world's stage because the US will have established in less than a single human lifetime of being a bunch of coked-up cowboys shooting from the hip.

And in the event that nukes do get deployed, there is a distinct possibility of irretrievably scarring the planet or even wiping out our entire civilization.

But hey, we're going to liberate the North Korean civilians! Except for the fact that the conscription practiced by the government there means we'll probably end up killing most of them and doing a lot of fighting in population centers, which is the worst battlefield imaginable as Iraq showed us. Also, there are approximately 25 million people living in North Korea. The population of Seoul is 10 million as I mentioned earlier. Out of over 51 million people in the whole country. Japan has a population of 127 million. So to liberate 25 million people, you would be willing to risk the lives of over 150 million civilians in the neighboring countries?

Epyc Wynn:
Oh. Then in that case a quick nuclear strike might become a necessity to prevent that.

Seoul would without question be destroyed by shelling from the north if that were attempted.

Well, that all sounds horrible. It also sounds like the world does not have a better alternative idea. Doing nothing is definitely, going to cause more issues. If terrorism sprouts from attacking North Korea, then that too will have to be fought; the acceptance of a terrorist country's prolonged militant nuclear growth is a far worse alternative. A stand must be made, even if more enemies may sprout from this decision. South Korea and Japan can put forth a better idea if they have one for taking down North Korea. I cannot feasibly foresee a better alternative to war against North Korea.

China's recent action to cut a billion dollars in aid while strong, is just not going to cut it if North Korea is truly set on nuclear self-empowerment. In the long-term, an autarky that is effective I would predict will evolve from this in addition to an enlarged stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If anyone in this forum has a better idea besides A: do nothing or B: nuclear weapons attack on North Korea I would love to hear it.

Epyc Wynn:

Well, that all sounds horrible. It also sounds like the world does not have a better alternative idea. Doing nothing is definitely, going to cause more issues. If terrorism sprouts from attacking North Korea, then that too will have to be fought; the acceptance of a terrorist country's prolonged militant nuclear growth is a far worse alternative. A stand must be made, even if more enemies may sprout from this decision. South Korea and Japan can put forth a better idea if they have one for taking down North Korea. I cannot feasibly foresee a better alternative to war against North Korea.

China's recent action to cut a billion dollars in aid while strong, is just not going to cut it if North Korea is truly set on nuclear self-empowerment. In the long-term, an autarky that is effective I would predict will evolve from this in addition to an enlarged stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If anyone in this forum has a better idea besides A: do nothing or B: nuclear weapons attack on North Korea I would love to hear it.

A: Diplomacy
B: Diplomacy
C: Diplomacy
D: All of the Above

All of which is precisely not doing nothing. There exists no opportunity but massive loss of life if you pursue military options. Including those of Western forces. Whether or not an allied offensive commits to active counterforce or not.

Un doesn't want to die. In 2016 they were even talking up promoting a NFU pledge to the UN, so there's plenty of wriggle room still there. Un just wants to appear strong to his own people, and not end up like Libya which did start disarming their long-strike capacity and was toppled by NATO forces, anyways. Give him what he wants ... let him run the spiel on his state owned networks how the UN accepts his NFU pledge, and wind back the military rhetoric and send diplomats to secure a longterm view of slow de-escalation. We could also do things like reduce military exercises in the interim until tensions diminish.

That's all he wants. Basically the worst case scenario is escalating strike readiness on both sides of the border, and Un either feeling like one of his generals will give him a chronic case of botulism and install another family member if he tries to back down. Replacing him with a near family member who might be far more death or glory.

That's the worst case scenario on both sides of the divide.

Epyc Wynn:
-snip-

You're looking for simple solutions. There aren't any. This is a messy, complicated, dangerous issue with a fuck load of moving parts, an unpredictable antagonist and tens of millions of civilian lives have a proverbial gun to their head. If we're going to make it out of this without massacres and mushroom clouds, we need to play the long game.

On a side note, Massacres and Mushroom Clouds is my new punk band as of right now.

BeetleManiac:

Epyc Wynn:
-snip-

You're looking for simple solutions. There aren't any. This is a messy, complicated, dangerous issue with a fuck load of moving parts, an unpredictable antagonist and tens of millions of civilian lives have a proverbial gun to their head. If we're going to make it out of this without massacres and mushroom clouds, we need to play the long game.

On a side note, Massacres and Mushroom Clouds is my new punk band as of right now.

Long game gives North Korea a permanent large nuclear arsenal to threaten the world with. That will create an even bigger problem. We need action now because the long game will ONLY create a bigger problem.

Epyc Wynn:
Long game gives North Korea a permanent large nuclear arsenal to threaten the world with. That will create an even bigger problem. We need action now because the long game will ONLY create a bigger problem.

And what immediate action would not result in devastation that will scar East Asia for generations, possibly centuries to come? Long game is also not the same thing as "sit around doing nothing," as you seem to imply.

BeetleManiac:

Epyc Wynn:
Long game gives North Korea a permanent large nuclear arsenal to threaten the world with. That will create an even bigger problem. We need action now because the long game will ONLY create a bigger problem.

And what immediate action would not result in devastation that will scar East Asia for generations, possibly centuries to come? Long game is also not the same thing as "sit around doing nothing," as you seem to imply.

Are you saying more lives would be saved if we instead allowed North Korea to build a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of destroying the world? Should we do a trust fall into the arms of Satan while we are at it?

Epyc Wynn:
Are you saying more lives would be saved if we instead allowed North Korea to build a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of destroying the world? Should we do a trust fall into the arms of Satan while we are at it?

Well, if you'd like to tell South Korea that they need to lose their capital and millions of lives for your sake, you're free to pitch it to them. Hope you're willing to enlist.

Fact remains that if there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented years ago.

BeetleManiac:

Epyc Wynn:
Are you saying more lives would be saved if we instead allowed North Korea to build a stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of destroying the world? Should we do a trust fall into the arms of Satan while we are at it?

Well, if you'd like to tell South Korea that they need to lose their capital and millions of lives for your sake, you're free to pitch it to them. Hope you're willing to enlist.

Fact remains that if there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented years ago.

Nobody has the balls to do the easy solution; except maybe Donald J. Trump.

Epyc Wynn:

BeetleManiac:
Well, if you'd like to tell South Korea that they need to lose their capital and millions of lives for your sake, you're free to pitch it to them. Hope you're willing to enlist.

Fact remains that if there were an easy solution, it would have been implemented years ago.

Nobody has the balls to do the easy solution; except maybe Donald J. Trump.

I assume by "balls" you mean "deadness inside." Remember, the easy solution starts with North Korea shelling Seoul the moment any US planes are spotted in Korean airspace. South Korea is an ally of the US. This would go down in history among the most erect of dick moves. Sacrificing an ally without their consent. Mr. Donald J. Trump would also have the dubious honor of being among the historical figures with the most blood on their hands. And that's assuming he doesn't try to nuke anything.

Lil devils x:
So what should they do if he hits Guam?

Sorry for my late reply. I was waiting for that mid-August deadline to roll around and for this to predictably happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-report-idUSKCN1AU2GH
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/346566-north-korea-backs-off-guam-missile-threat-report

All right then. So they'll chill for the moment and keep watching to see if America will do anything before acting.

Also, could everyone here screeching that we need to start a war just drop the pretense of giving a shit about the plight of the average North Korean pleb because it's transparent as fuck. You have a hard on for starting some shit with that fat asshole in the North, you couldn't give less of a shit about bringing freedom to North Koreans. Just be honest.

Chewster:

Lil devils x:
So what should they do if he hits Guam?

Sorry for my late reply. I was waiting for that mid-August deadline to roll around and for this to predictably happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-report-idUSKCN1AU2GH
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/346566-north-korea-backs-off-guam-missile-threat-report

All right then. So they'll chill for the moment and keep watching to see if America will do anything before acting.

Also, could everyone here screeching that we need to start a war just drop the pretense of giving a shit about the plight of the average North Korean pleb because it's transparent as fuck. You have a hard on for starting some shit with that fat asshole in the North, you couldn't give less of a shit about bringing freedom to North Koreans. Just be honest.

I am glad you told me so. There is nothing to hate about being right here. I need you to stay right here. I WANT to be wrong as I am terrified for everyone in the region as long as that monster is in charge there and even more so with a monster in charge here. The entire situation scares the bejebas out of me.

I am MORE worried for the people in South and Japan in this due to what is at stake here and the threats they are facing.

My view on North Koreans is it is an extremely bad situation either way. We have many there that have been brainwashed from birth to believe that prick is some sort of man god and I know that no matter what happens here with any option given, that their lives would be a living hell for a long time regardless of what happens. Most of the people that manage to gain access to outside leave when they find out the truth, but many there may not even be able to handle the truth. This whole situation does one hell of a psychological number on people and it will take generations and abundant resources for them to recover in every way. Many of the families that are split have not ever been able to see their relatives there and do not know or understand them anymore as their lifestyles have grown so different now. Even if Korea united today without any violence at all, it would take a very long time to reconcile and recover. I do not blame the people there, I have no ill will towards North Koreans, as I feel they are more of pawns more of a " human shield" (albeit a dangerous one) rather than the primary ones to blame.

I do not even think that a peaceful option will ever really happen unless somehow Norths government and military command somehow get beamed into the sun by aliens or something.

Lil devils x:
Smerp!

Just for the record, that last part of my previous post wasn't directed toward you. You're obviously much more compassionate than some other posters in this thread who seem unduly excited by the prospect of starting a second Korean war (you know who you are).

Chewster:

Lil devils x:
Smerp!

Just for the record, that last part of my previous post wasn't directed toward you. You're obviously much more compassionate than some other posters in this thread who seem unduly excited by the prospect of starting a second Korean war (you know who you are).

I have no desire to have a Korean war, like at all.. EVER. I AM terribly worried about having Crazies with big weapons in charge. I would feel better if South Korea was in charge of negotiating here as they have the most to lose, rather than the US currently due to how bad the current US administration is.

My biggest concern here is to mitigate damages in case someone gets trigger happy and to try to save as many people as humanly possible. This is an extremely volatile situation right now, and the risks are too high for me to stomach. When I think about the options here I seriously get nauseous, as there are no good answers, and even an accident right now could set off a chain reaction that could not be stopped.

Epyc Wynn:

Well, that all sounds horrible. It also sounds like the world does not have a better alternative idea. Doing nothing is definitely, going to cause more issues. If terrorism sprouts from attacking North Korea, then that too will have to be fought; the acceptance of a terrorist country's prolonged militant nuclear growth is a far worse alternative. A stand must be made, even if more enemies may sprout from this decision. South Korea and Japan can put forth a better idea if they have one for taking down North Korea. I cannot feasibly foresee a better alternative to war against North Korea.

So you are willing to stop North Korea from ever being able to hurt the American main land with as many South Korean lives sacrifices as necessary ?

This kind of thinking is the reason no one really likes the US.

BeetleManiac:
South Korea is an ally of the US.

Yet.

So far Trump has been pretty good at alienating allies.

Satinavian:
Snip

Don't worry. We can force him to watch all of MASH, Clockwork Orange style, until he gets over this bloodthirsty line of thinking.

Chewster:

Lil devils x:
Smerp!

Just for the record, that last part of my previous post wasn't directed toward you. You're obviously much more compassionate than some other posters in this thread who seem unduly excited by the prospect of starting a second Korean war (you know who you are).

If some form of immediate action isn't taken the situation will get much worse.

realJeremyP:
If some form of immediate action isn't taken the situation will get much worse.

Consider this: if the US strikes first, China gets involved on North Korea's side. If Kim Jong Un strikes first, China has officially stated that they will withdraw all support from the DPRK. The country will fall, but it will take millions of civilian lives out with it. Maybe north of 10 million before it's over. Double that if they go after Japan. How many more deaths do you believe you'd be preventing with a first strike? China will stick to their word and get involved if we throw the first punch. America's got a big military industrial hard-on to swing around, but China is a world super power these days, and a very powerful enemy. We'll still lose multiple South Korean and Japanese cities. And then we'll also have to hold the Korean peninsula against the military of its next door neighbor: China. Are you that confident in this decision?

BeetleManiac:

realJeremyP:
If some form of immediate action isn't taken the situation will get much worse.

Consider this: if the US strikes first, China gets involved on North Korea's side. If Kim Jong Un strikes first, China has officially stated that they will withdraw all support from the DPRK. The country will fall, but it will take millions of civilian lives out with it. Maybe north of 10 million before it's over. Double that if they go after Japan. How many more deaths do you believe you'd be preventing with a first strike? China will stick to their word and get involved if we throw the first punch. America's got a big military industrial hard-on to swing around, but China is a world super power these days, and a very powerful enemy. We'll still lose multiple South Korean and Japanese cities. And then we'll also have to hold the Korean peninsula against the military of its next door neighbor: China. Are you that confident in this decision?

China won't get involved. It would cost more political capital for Xi Jinping to abandon the Indian border dispute than to turn on North Korea. The only reason China is still helping them is because they don't want to deal with North Korean refugees. If the US guaranteed that they'd institute the North Korean version of the Marshall Plan China wouldn't be interested in helping North Korea.

realJeremyP:
China won't get involved. It would cost more political capital for Xi Jinping to abandon the Indian border dispute than to turn on North Korea. The only reason China is still helping them is because they don't want to deal with North Korean refugees. If the US guaranteed that they'd institute the North Korean version of the Marshall Plan China wouldn't be interested in helping North Korea.

Are you totally confident in that assertion? Are you sure that Xi Jinping's priorities and outlook are the same as yours? Because however important the border dispute would be, China's standing on the international stage would take a much worse hit and long-term because they declined to protect an ally whom they had pledged to defend if they were struck first. That blow would be exceptionally difficult to come back from. In terms of long game, it could very easily be worse than a war with the US. Remember, in this scenario, we threw the first punch. We sacrificed Seoul. We sacrificed South Korea and Japan's civilians without their consent. We're not going to have a lot of friends after that and China will inevitably find some way to work this to their advantage.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Pyrrhic victory?" It refers to winning a fight at so high a cost as to make it not worth it. At what point do you say it's not worth it?

BeetleManiac:

realJeremyP:
China won't get involved. It would cost more political capital for Xi Jinping to abandon the Indian border dispute than to turn on North Korea. The only reason China is still helping them is because they don't want to deal with North Korean refugees. If the US guaranteed that they'd institute the North Korean version of the Marshall Plan China wouldn't be interested in helping North Korea.

Are you totally confident in that assertion? Are you sure that Xi Jinping's priorities and outlook are the same as yours? Because however important the border dispute would be, China's standing on the international stage would take a much worse hit and long-term because they declined to protect an ally whom they had pledged to defend if they were struck first. That blow would be exceptionally difficult to come back from. In terms of long game, it could very easily be worse than a war with the US. Remember, in this scenario, we threw the first punch. We sacrificed Seoul. We sacrificed South Korea and Japan's civilians without their consent. We're not going to have a lot of friends after that and China will inevitably find some way to work this to their advantage.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Pyrrhic victory?" It refers to winning a fight at so high a cost as to make it not worth it. At what point do you say it's not worth it?

We didn't sacrifice anything.

realJeremyP:
We didn't sacrifice anything.

Past tense? I'm not asking what we've already sacrificed, though we have screwed up on numerous occasions and should learn from that. No, I'm asking if you're willing to completely destroy our standing in the international community for years to come?

BeetleManiac:

realJeremyP:
We didn't sacrifice anything.

Past tense? I'm not asking what we've already sacrificed, though we have screwed up on numerous occasions and should learn from that. No, I'm asking if you're willing to completely destroy our standing in the international community for years to come?

If the international community has an issue the president just has to say Europe no longer has protection from the United States. Russia can take whatever they want.

realJeremyP:

Chewster:

Lil devils x:
Smerp!

Just for the record, that last part of my previous post wasn't directed toward you. You're obviously much more compassionate than some other posters in this thread who seem unduly excited by the prospect of starting a second Korean war (you know who you are).

If some form of immediate action isn't taken the situation will could possibly in the slimmest of chances get much worse.

FTFY

In any case, people have been saying that since before both of us were born and yet we're all still here. This argument ignores the fact that North Korea doesn't necessarily need ICBMs to launch a nuclear attack against the West and it ignores that other countries that were/are openly hostile to America also have nuclear weapons. And, of course, all this is predicated on something maybe happening in the future at some point, it could happen, possibly, you never know, maybe.

I really wish you armchair generals would just admit that shock and awe gets you hard rather than trying to couch your inexplicable love of destruction in flawed arguments like "it'll get worse" or "what about the poor North Koreans!"

Try harder next time or don't bother.

Chewster:

realJeremyP:

Chewster:

Just for the record, that last part of my previous post wasn't directed toward you. You're obviously much more compassionate than some other posters in this thread who seem unduly excited by the prospect of starting a second Korean war (you know who you are).

If some form of immediate action isn't taken the situation will could possibly in the slimmest of chances get much worse.

FTFY

In any case, people have been saying that since before both of us were born and yet we're all still here. This argument ignores the fact that North Korea doesn't necessarily need ICBMs to launch a nuclear attack against the West and it ignores that other countries that were/are openly hostile to America also have nuclear weapons. And, of course, all this is predicated on something maybe happening in the future at some point, it could happen, possibly, you never know, maybe.

I really wish you armchair generals would just admit that shock and awe gets you hard rather than trying to couch your inexplicable love of destruction in flawed arguments like "it'll get worse" or "what about the poor North Koreans!"

Try harder next time or don't bother.

Didn't the British say that when they pulled forces from the Falklands? "Argentina won't do anything." You really think if we leave them unchecked they won't do anything? Maybe Hitler would have settled down after Danzig.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here