Politics It's Getting Close to the Point of Nuking North Korea

[willie-pete]

if we are real lucky, maybe this will happen again and we can't go to war. 

 

http://www.wearethemighty.com/news/that-time-a-president-lost-the-nuclear-codes-for-months-and-no-one-knew?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=evergreen&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=lost-nuke-codes

[fortyofforty]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

Nothing....

Yet, you propose your obvious solution to this mess with no regards to the ramifications of doing so. Now, you get back on your soap box and comment on how the education system fails us. Perhaps you are the one who the education system failed...

Since you demand others answer your questions, perhaps you can answer the ones I posted for you... Fair is fair after all. I answered the one you have been repeating...

 

Nonsense.

There are always ramifications.  What bothers me is that most of you "geniuses" pretend there are no ramifications to doing nothing but what we have been doing all along.  There are.  Doing nothing has ramifications.  Continuing to do the same thing, expecting different results, also has ramifications, and has a different definition, as well.

When I can't even get a straight answer as to what our stated national policy is, I should learn there won't be any meaningful discussion here.

[Huaco Kid]

3 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

 I should learn there won't be any meaningful discussion here.

[fortyofforty]

5 hours ago, Huaco Kid said:

[AK_Stick]

9 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Nonsense.

There are always ramifications.  What bothers me is that most of you "geniuses" pretend there are no ramifications to doing nothing but what we have been doing all along.  There are.  Doing nothing has ramifications.  Continuing to do the same thing, expecting different results, also has ramifications, and has a different definition, as well.

When I can't even get a straight answer as to what our stated national policy is, I should learn there won't be any meaningful discussion here.

 

You did get our national policy. 

 

Then you lied and claimed it was massive retaliation to prevent them from developing the weapons they already have.

 

You are however correct, there will be no meaningful discussion when you lie every time you post. 

 

However it’s been fun pointing out your incorrect statements at every turn, and seeing EVERY poster in the thread call you out. It’s a rare thing to see. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by AK_Stick

[fortyofforty]

[fortyofforty]

And you never got our national policy.

I had to ask repeatedly and you refused to admit what it was.  Unbelievable.

[Silentpoet]

[AK_Stick]

I don’t believe he has the equipment to compete. 

 

 

Lost it in a tragic blender accident.

[fortyofforty]

I think he lost it a wetvac, which is why he's so touchy.

[tsmo1066]

 China, who has better intelligence on NK's nuclear program than anyone, has been warning for more than 2 years that "Lil Kim" likely already has at least 20 nukes he can already mount on his KN-08 intermediate range missiles (6000km range). Given this, those who propose a pre-emptive strike against NK must exmplain what their "acceptible losses" are to our allies and friends in the region when NK doubtless retaliates against them (assuming he can't reach the United States).

 

How many dead civilians in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the Phillippeans and Taiwan are "acceptible" under the pre-emptive strike proposal?

[fortyofforty]

Then the question must be asked, when a hostage taker starts making demands or he threatens to kill one of his hostages, what do you do?  Meanwhile the hostage taker is getting his hands on more deadly weaponry.  If Kim is able to launch a few artillery shells into Seoul and declare that any response will be met with thousands more shells, and any response to that action will be met with hundreds of missiles, then missiles with biological weapons launched at Japan, then nuclear-tipped missiles launched at Japan or Guam or Hawaii or Seattle or Chicago or Washington, or else the West must deliver a hundred billion dollars, what then?  Thus is the danger of allowing hostage takers to gain strength.  Kim saw the payoff given to his ally by the last administration.

Our policy so far has been tough talk and ineffectual sanctions, without any real threat to the KimKimKim regime.

[tsmo1066]

NK already has enough intermediate-range nuclear weapons mounted on mobile KN-08s to hit Tokyo, Kobe, Manila, Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, Nagoya, etc. and they will doubtless use them to retaliate against our allies and friends, even if they can't hit the mainland United States. So what are the 'acceptable losses' from a pre-emptive strike among our allies and friends in Asia, and have they agreed to this number?

[fortyofforty]

And what are the "acceptable losses of a North Korean preemptive strike" should Kim decide to use his enormous blackmail power?

[tsmo1066]

2 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

And what are the "acceptable losses of a North Korean preemptive strike" should Kim decide to use his enormous blackmail power?

There are no "acceptable losses" when you are the one being attacked, because you did not initiate the attack.

When one initiates a pre-emptive strike, however, one MUST consider what level of losses are acceptable when the enemy inevitably retaliates. 

So what are those "acceptable losses" in your mind among our Asian allies and friends? 

[fortyofforty]

8 hours ago, tsmo1066 said:

There are no "acceptable losses" when you are the one being attacked, because you did not initiate the attack.

When one initiates a pre-emptive strike, however, one MUST consider what level of losses are acceptable when the enemy inevitably retaliates. 

So what are those "acceptable losses" in your mind among our Asian allies and friends? 

Really?

In 1968 one U.S. crew member was killed and 83 tortured for weeks by North Korea, which seized the U.S. Navy ship.  We did nothing.

In 1968 North Korea launched an attack on the South Korean president in an attempted assassination.  We did nothing.

In 1969 North Korea shot down a U.S. Air Force plane, killing 31 on board.  We did nothing.

In 1976 North Koreans hacked two U.S. Army officers to death.  We did nothing.

In 1987 North Korea blew up a South Korean airliner, killing 115 people.  We did nothing.

It would seem there are, indeed, "acceptable" losses.  Do you think the losses I listed are "acceptable"?

(Finally we're getting back to my point.)

[tsmo1066]

4 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Really?

In 1968 one U.S. crew member was killed and 83 tortured for weeks by North Korea, which seized the U.S. Navy ship.  We did nothing.

In 1968 North Korea launched an attack on the South Korean president in an attempted assassination.  We did nothing.

In 1969 North Korea shot down a U.S. Air Force plane, killing 31 on board.  We did nothing.

In 1976 North Koreans hacked two U.S. Army officers to death.  We did nothing.

In 1987 North Korea blew up a South Korean airliner, killing 115 people.  We did nothing.

It would seem there are, indeed, "acceptable" losses.  Do you think the losses I listed are "acceptable"?

(Finally we're getting back to my point.)

 

So what are the acceptable number of casualties among our Asian allies and friends under your proposed pre-emptive strike? If you are honestly refusing to cite a number, then you have conceded the argument by acknowldeging that you haven't thought this through at all.

[fortyofforty]

6 hours ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

So what are the acceptable number of casualties among our Asian allies and friends under your proposed pre-emptive strike? If you are honestly refusing to cite a number, then you have conceded the argument by acknowldeging that you haven't thought this through at all.

I have thought it through, and I don't see any good alternatives.  I do believe halfway measures will lead to more deaths than a massive strike, but either way many people will die.  However, allowing the hostage taker to continue to kill with impunity will only lead Kim to push the envelope.  What would you propose we do if Kim provides WMDs to ISIS or Iran, and one or two are used against us or our allies?

Would you say we tolerate no casualties from such an attack?  If not, how many casualties are you willing to "accept" without attacking North Korea?  Why would the type of weapon used rather than the number of deaths caused be so critical to your thinking, if it is?

If your answer is "zero" acceptable deaths, then obviously North Korea has long ago passed that by, perhaps not with WMDs but with other means.

Here we are.  So, what do you propose we do about it?

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

I have thought it through, and I don't see any good alternatives.  I do believe halfway measures will lead to more deaths than a massive strike, but either way many people will die.  However, allowing the hostage taker to continue to kill with impunity will only lead Kim to push the envelope.  What would you propose we do if Kim provides WMDs to ISIS or Iran, and one or two are used against us or our allies?

Would you say we tolerate no casualties from such an attack?  If not, how many casualties are you willing to "accept" without attacking North Korea?  Why would the type of weapon used rather than the number of deaths caused be so critical to your thinking, if it is?

If your answer is "zero" acceptable deaths, then obviously North Korea has long ago passed that by, perhaps not with WMDs but with other means.

Here we are.  So, what do you propose we do about it?

I don't disagree with anything in your post above, and thanks for the forthright answer. I'll try to respond in kind...

As for the number of acceptable casualties, the question isn't so much how many WE would be willing to take, but rather how many our allies and friends in the region (who will bear the brunt of any NK retaliation for a pre-emptive strike) would be willing to tolerate. To this end, we would need to do what allies have done for ages, work with our closest allies in the region on planning and try to gain a military consensus before going off solo on such a pre-emptive attack. They aren't blind and if things get to the point where it appears likely that a North Korean first strike is imminent, they know as well as we do that they are under the gun right along with us. Even though a pre-emptive strike would doubtless entail huge casualties among their civilian populations, if the situation indeed deteriorates to the point that war seems unavoidable anyway, the argument that casualties would be lower following a pre-emptive strike option could well be compelling.

It's the "killer arithmetic of war" and our allies in Asia understand it as well (if not better) than we do.

That being said, I don't believe we are at that point yet. Just today, South Korea surprised the hell out of North Korea at some diplomatic meetings by proposing top level military talks with the North Korean leadership. There is not yet a response from Pyongyang, but the gesture from South Korea is an unusual one and they likely wouldn't make it unless they thought it was very likely North Korea will accept.

Only time will tell, but regardless of that, if things get to the point where a pre-emptive strike is deemed necessary, we would need to include our Asian allies (not China, but our ALLIES) in discussing that option. We will need their buy-in and support when the inevitable $hit storm associated with such a strike comes calling.

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

20 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

I don't disagree with anything in your post above, and thanks for the forthright answer. I'll try to respond in kind...

As for the number of acceptable casualties, the question isn't so much how many WE would be willing to take, but rather how many our allies and friends in the region (who will bear the brunt of any NK retaliation for a pre-emptive strike) would be willing to tolerate. To this end, we would need to do what allies have done for ages, work with our closest allies in the region on planning and try to gain a military consensus before going off solo on such a pre-emptive attack. They aren't blind and if things get to the point where it appears likely that a North Korean first strike is imminent, they know as well as we do that they are under the gun right along with us. Even though a pre-emptive strike would doubtless entail huge casualties among their civilian populations, if the situation indeed deteriorates to the point that war seems unavoidable anyway, the argument that casualties would be lower following a pre-emptive strike option could well be compelling.

It's the "killer arithmetic of war" and our allies in Asia understand it as well (if not better) than we do.

That being said, I don't believe we are at that point yet. Just today, South Korea surprised the hell out of North Korea at some diplomatic meetings by proposing top level military talks with the North Korean leadership. There is not yet a response from Pyongyang, but the gesture from South Korea is an unusual one and they likely wouldn't make it unless they thought it was very likely North Korea will accept.

Only time will tell, but regardless of that, if things get to the point where a pre-emptive strike is deemed necessary, we would need to include our Asian allies (not China, but our ALLIES) in discussing that option. We will need their buy-in and support when the inevitable $hit storm associated with such a strike comes calling.

 

 

 

The problem is that some allies (Japan, probably) are willing to take a lot of abuse without responding.  They are, basically, *******.  North Korea kidnaps Japanese and brings them to North Korea as slaves to teach about Japanese society and Japan does nothing.

I think a strong and credible threat of a massive nuclear strike will force China's hand.  China wants North Korea as a thorn in our side.  All of North Korea's longer range missiles are aimed at the United States, according to a spokesman.  Not China.  Not Russia.  Not Japan.

I wonder how much a president like Obama would be willing to accept (anthrax attack on a subway, dirty bomb in Times Square) and do nothing but launch a formal protest.  No matter how much proof we had that Kim was ultimately behind the attack or at least supplied the raw materials or know-how, our Asian allies would not be willing to accept one casualty on our behalf, let alone millions.

Without a buy-in we are hamstrung, and I don't see any chance of a buy-in by our allies, maybe not even if one nuclear-tipped missile takes out an American city.  Are you certain they would accept millions of dead Japanese or South Koreans after we lost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of Americans in a North Korean attack?  I'm not.

[tsmo1066]

37 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Without a buy-in we are hamstrung, and I don't see any chance of a buy-in by our allies, maybe not even if one nuclear-tipped missile takes out an American city.  Are you certain they would accept millions of dead Japanese or South Koreans after we lost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of Americans in a North Korean attack?  I'm not.

Right now? No. But if things were to deteriorate to the point that war seemed inevitable, the "killer arithmetic" would change and a pre-emptive strike might well be viewed as the only option to lessen casualties. Japan gets this...as does South Korea.

Going it alone, however, is not an option. Once America demonstrates to the world that we are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of our own allies citizens without even consulting them, America would become a pariah nation. Our Asian friends and allies would flock to China for protection, NATO would likely dissolve and Western Europe would probably become a willing, defacto Russian vassal state rather than stand by an "ally" that can be counted on to sacrifice their friends by the millions when the chips are down.

We would stand alone and the pre-emptive strike would become the world's greatest pyrrhic victory. 

[Chris]

47 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

The problem is that some allies (Japan, probably) are willing to take a lot of abuse without responding.  They are, basically, *******.  North Korea kidnaps Japanese and brings them to North Korea as slaves to teach about Japanese society and Japan does nothing.

I think a strong and credible threat of a massive nuclear strike will force China's hand.  China wants North Korea as a thorn in our side.  All of North Korea's longer range missiles are aimed at the United States, according to a spokesman.  Not China.  Not Russia.  Not Japan.

I wonder how much a president like Obama would be willing to accept (anthrax attack on a subway, dirty bomb in Times Square) and do nothing but launch a formal protest.  No matter how much proof we had that Kim was ultimately behind the attack or at least supplied the raw materials or know-how, our Asian allies would not be willing to accept one casualty on our behalf, let alone millions.

Without a buy-in we are hamstrung, and I don't see any chance of a buy-in by our allies, maybe not even if one nuclear-tipped missile takes out an American city.  Are you certain they would accept millions of dead Japanese or South Koreans after we lost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of Americans in a North Korean attack?  I'm not.

Thanks for wanting to have a discussion.

As I said before, if NK is involved in a WMD attack on the US, then it is game over. At that point, I could really care less what our Asian allies think because everyone in the region is pretty much screwed regardless. They attack us, we counter, they counter, etc.

My argument in the past was regards to a US preemptive attack on NK and the results on our allies in the region. They would respond by using whatever they could against the evil USA, SK, etc.

It is a pretty shitty situation no matter how you slice it.

At the end of the day, I still believe the NK regime is developing their capabilities and technology for one goal. So the "Kim Dynasty" remains. No matter how crazy he seems to be, he has to know an all out war is not a winning proposition. I hope...

[fortyofforty]

31 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

Right now? No. But if things were to deteriorate to the point that war seemed inevitable, the "killer arithmetic" would change and a pre-emptive strike might well be viewed as the only option to lessen casualties. Japan gets this...as does South Korea.

Going it alone, however, is not an option. Once America demonstrates to the world that we are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of our own allies citizens without even consulting them, America would become a pariah nation. Our Asian friends and allies would flock to China for protection, NATO would likely dissolve and Western Europe would probably become a willing, defacto Russian vassal state rather than stand by an "ally" that can be counted on to sacrifice their friends by the millions when the chips are down.

We would stand alone and the pre-emptive strike would become the world's greatest pyrrhic victory. 

I think the South Koreans can withstand the deaths of thousands of Americans with little problem.  Japan probably even more so.  North Korea has calculated that we will not get the nod to attack North Korea almost no matter what it does.  I can easily see North Korea supplying technology or raw materials to Iran, passed along to one of the splinter terror cells that Iran controls, or ones it doesn't.  No matter.  Dead Americans can unite disparate groups.

Hundreds of dead South Koreans, Japanese, and Americans over the years and we did nothing.  Kim can see we did nothing to Iran after Iran killed hundreds of Americans.  Nothing.  Sometimes, like in Iraq, you have to be willing to do what's right without thinking you can or should convince all your allies to get on board.

We heard all the lamentations about the death of NATO if we invaded Iraq without getting the approval of each and every member country.  We heard that NATO would be dissolved if we went back into Iraq.  Didn't happen.

When you are reliant upon getting approval to cause the deaths of millions of your allies, it won't come.  Ever.  So the threat is empty, and North Korea knows it full well.  Again, there are no good solutions, but halfway measures are worse than nothing.

[fortyofforty]

38 minutes ago, Chris said:

Thanks for wanting to have a discussion.

As I said before, if NK is involved in a WMD attack on the US, then it is game over. At that point, I could really care less what our Asian allies think because everyone in the region is pretty much screwed regardless. They attack us, we counter, they counter, etc.

My argument in the past was regards to a US preemptive attack on NK and the results on our allies in the region. They would respond by using whatever they could against the evil USA, SK, etc.

It is a pretty shitty situation no matter how you slice it.

At the end of the day, I still believe the NK regime is developing their capabilities and technology for one goal. So the "Kim Dynasty" remains. No matter how crazy he seems to be, he has to know an all out war is not a winning proposition. I hope...

I have always wanted to have a discussion.

The problem is two-fold with your argument.

First, what is a WMD attack?  Was the VX murder a WMD attack?  Would a dirty bomb be a WMD attack?  What if the attack caused a dozen deaths in a subway, or even a hundred deaths in an airport, or no deaths but mass panic?  Do you kill millions of Koreans when not one American was killed in a WMD attack?  Second, there are many ways to launch a WMD attack that don't trace directly back to North Korea.  Remember, Afghanistan never attacked us, and we gave them ample opportunity to turn over al Qaeda leaders to us, which they refused to do, back in 2001.  That attack didn't use WMDs, but I don't know if we should ignore such an attack if North Korea was behind it.  North Korea already brought down a South Korean airliner, killing all aboard.  We did nothing.

I agree that the main objective of the Kim regime is to ensure the continuation of the Kim regime.  But Kim is a megalomaniac and seeks power, and nuclear power makes it impossible to be overthrown by military force.  That was Saddam's mistake.  He didn't develop WMDs in time, and was up against George W. Bush and his understanding of the danger of letting Saddam become a nuclear power.

I have stated often it is a bad situation, one that took decades of hand-wringing and empty threats to develop.  Trump inherited a huge mess.

Edited January 10, 2018 by fortyofforty

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

I think the South Koreans can withstand the deaths of thousands of Americans with little problem.  Japan probably even more so.  North Korea has calculated that we will not get the nod to attack North Korea almost no matter what it does.  I can easily see North Korea supplying technology or raw materials to Iran, passed along to one of the splinter terror cells that Iran controls, or ones it doesn't.  No matter.  Dead Americans can unite disparate groups.

Hundreds of dead South Koreans, Japanese, and Americans over the years and we did nothing.  Kim can see we did nothing to Iran after Iran killed hundreds of Americans.  Nothing.  Sometimes, like in Iraq, you have to be willing to do what's right without thinking you can or should convince all your allies to get on board.

We heard all the lamentations about the death of NATO if we invaded Iraq without getting the approval of each and every member country.  We heard that NATO would be dissolved if we went back into Iraq.  Didn't happen.

When you are reliant upon getting approval to cause the deaths of millions of your allies, it won't come.  Ever.  So the threat is empty, and North Korea knows it full well.  Again, there are no good solutions, but halfway measures are worse than nothing.

 

The problem with this theory is that if a pre-emptive strike were made against NK, the North Koreans would most definitely NOT limit their nuclear and vast conventional/chemical/bio retaliation to just the United States. The whole NK military has standing orders that would dictate the annihilation of Seoul and anything in range that is an ally of the United States, and if the pre-emptive strike SUCCEEDS, "Lil Kim" won't be around anymore to countermand those orders or limit the retaliatory strikes that the fanatic loyalists in his top military ranks would carry out.

North Korea routinely makes it a point to test fire missiles by shooting them ACROSS the island of Japan just to drive this point home. He also regularly lobs shells into the DMZ just to remind Seoul that they are targeted as well. The military heads in Tokyo and Seoul have no illusions that should the proverbial $hit hit the proverbial fan, they will be subjected to massive civilian casualties. Should war appear inevitable, they can't, and won't, hide behind the illusion that NK is going to spare them.