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

[fortyofforty]

1 hour ago, AK_Stick said:

America's position on what we would do in retaliation for use of a WMD on us or our allies is quite clear. I don't really think anyone needs me to say, we'd retaliate with the full capability of our military if they hit us with a WMD.

But there, I've answered what I would do if they used a WMD.

 

1 hour ago, AK_Stick said:

NK firing a missile at Japan is not the immediate retaliatory obligation of the United States. 

[AK_Stick]

Do you not understand there is a marked difference between immidiately retaliating while weapons are in the air, vs a retaliatory strike after weapons have hit an ally?

 

 

I'm guessing not as you don’t seem to understand anything else you claim, but it is perplexing given earlier claims....

[AK_Stick]

8 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

 

Very revealing.  Very, very revealing.  And, I'm done.  I'll let the above statements speak for themselves since continuing is a waste of my time.

Indeed, it’s quite revealing that you’ll lie, insult other posters, lie more. Misquote news articles and then refuse to post when people factually correct you. 

 

Very revealing. 

[fortyofforty]

Shuck and jive.

Obviously, if North Korea launches a full scale ICBM attack on the United States, our plan is to retaliate with nuclear weapons in a major way.  A bit too late for those in any cities hit with operable nuclear or biological weapons, but no matter to some here.

Everything less than that becomes more difficult.  In fact, it becomes so difficult even the self-anointed experts here cannot answer what we should do.  That is why I posited the scenarios.  And if they, anonymously on the internet, aren't sure what our responses should be, can we be sure our government has the "right" answer?

 

[fortyofforty]

7 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

Do you not understand there is a marked difference between immidiately retaliating while weapons are in the air, vs a retaliatory strike after weapons have hit an ally?

 

 

I'm guessing not as you don’t seem to understand anything else you claim, but it is perplexing given earlier claims....

"Retaliate with the full capability of our military."  Minutes later.  Hours later.  Days later.  Weeks later.  Full capability.  Massive retaliation.  Millions of Koreans dead.  Shuck and jive, but you've been exposed.

I'm guessing you've been trapped by your own words, and have no choice but to pretend we can't read.  Again, clearly English is your second or third language, but trust me you aren't comprehending the meaning of words.

[tsmo1066]

20 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Then let's start evacuating Seoul.  Maybe the message would be received in Pyongyang.  Otherwise, Seoul is always going to be held hostage.  NK could launch a shell or two into Seoul today and we'd be too afraid of a massive strike to respond at all.  NK could get away with a lot without real fear of retaliation.

 

Evacuating Seoul isn't something "we" can do. It's up to our South Korean allies to decide when/if Seoul should be evacuated. Setting that aside, however, Seoul is a city of 10 million people. Where exactly do you intend them to evacuate to? 10 million men, women and children hitting the bricks and evacuating would create a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. The surrounding villages and towns of South Korea simply couldn't accomodate or sustain that sort of mass migration and the economy of South Korea would collapse.

 

Ten million people simply can't pick up stakes on short notice and skeedaddle.

Edited January 3, 2018 by tsmo1066

[AK_Stick]

33 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

Evacuating Seoul isn't something "we" can do. It's up to our South Korean allies to decide when/if Seoul should be evacuated. Setting that aside, however, Seoul is a city of 10 million people. Where exactly do you intend them to evacuate to? 10 million men, women and children hitting the bricks and evacuating would create a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. The surrounding villages and towns of South Korea simply couldn't accomodate or sustain that sort of mass migration and the economy of South Korea would collapse.

 

Ten million people simply can't pick up stakes on short notice and skeedaddle.

 

Come on now, that was already brought up. The answer was to shift the conversation to lying about national policy. You don't really expect he's suddenly going to have a coherent position on how we could do something completely impossible do you?

 

Evacuating Seoul is right up there with protecting it from the estimated 13Kish artillery pieces NK has along the DMZ.

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, AK_Stick said:

 

Come on now, that was already brought up. The answer was to shift the conversation to lying about national policy. You don't really expect he's suddenly going to have a coherent position on how we could do something completely impossible do you?

 

Evacuating Seoul is right up there with protecting it from the estimated 13Kish artillery pieces NK has along the DMZ.

 

People who say "just evacuate Seoul" don't understand the realities of population densities in that region and the logistics of what they are suggesting. South Korea has a total population of 51 million people and one-in-five of them live in Seoul. To put this in perspective, relocating one-in-five Americans on short notice would mean moving more than 60 million people. As a logistical operation, it would be like evacuating New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and all of the next 40 largest cities in America at the same time.

It simply cannot be done without creating a humanitarian crisis of near-biblical proportions.

Edited January 3, 2018 by tsmo1066

[AK_Stick]

19 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

People who say "just evacuate Seoul" don't understand the realities of population densities in that region and the logistics of what they are suggesting. South Korea has a total population of 51 million people and one-in-five of them live in Seoul. To put this in perspective, relocating one-in-five Americans on short notice would mean moving more than 60 million people. As a logistical operation, it would be like evacuating New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and all of the next 40 largest cities in America at the same time.

It simply cannot be done without creating a humanitarian crisis of near-biblical proportions.

 

Now you're just shuckin and jiving using the facts and logical understanding of the problem.

 

We'll just put them on a bus and bus them out of the danger zone.

Don't as to where, don't ask how they'll manage the roads. Busses. Out of Danger.

 

Now we can nuke NK.

[fortyofforty]

4 hours ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

Evacuating Seoul isn't something "we" can do. It's up to our South Korean allies to decide when/if Seoul should be evacuated. Setting that aside, however, Seoul is a city of 10 million people. Where exactly do you intend them to evacuate to? 10 million men, women and children hitting the bricks and evacuating would create a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. The surrounding villages and towns of South Korea simply couldn't accomodate or sustain that sort of mass migration and the economy of South Korea would collapse.

 

Ten million people simply can't pick up stakes on short notice and skeedaddle.

No, it's not like it was ever done anywhere else in human history.  It simply can't be done, even under the threat of nuclear annihilation.  But it could be strongly suggested that people move south.

Either that or you live with the simple reality that Kim Jong-un has you by the balls, and refuse to change it.

[fortyofforty]

3 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

 

Come on now, that was already brought up. The answer was to shift the conversation to lying about national policy. You don't really expect he's suddenly going to have a coherent position on how we could do something completely impossible do you?

 

Evacuating Seoul is right up there with protecting it from the estimated 13Kish artillery pieces NK has along the DMZ.

Still won't admit you're flat out wrong on our national policy, will you?  Shuck and jive all you want.  You wrote it.  You were and are wrong.  I proved it.  Now you just shuck and jive.

[tsmo1066]

4 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Either that or you live with the simple reality that Kim Jong-un has you by the balls, and refuse to change it.

 

That's the logical fallacy of "false alternatives". You are presenting two scenarios and claiming that there is no "door number three".

Rather than "refuse to change it" I would recommend keeping up pressure on NK in the form of tightening trade restrictions and heavily leaning on China to start playing more hardball with "Lil Kim" until something snaps and he is either deposed, assassinated, or agrees to come to the table in earnest.

But a pre-emptive strike simply won't work, and can't work. Between all-out war and doing nothing there lies a host of options along various political and economic lines. We need to explore those before setting half of Asia on fire.

[AK_Stick]

5 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Still won't admit you're flat out wrong on our national policy, will you?  Shuck and jive all you want.  You wrote it.  You were and are wrong.  I proved it.  Now you just shuck and jive.

 

Was that when you claimed that our policy was not to allow NK to develop nuclear weapons. Which they have.

Or when you claimed that our policy was not to allow them to develop weapons with the range to hit continental United States. Which they have.

Or when you claimed that our policy was to respond with massive retaliation to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons? Which they already posses.

[fortyofforty]

It's United States policy not to allow a nuclear North Korea.  Yet it is nuclear.  It is United States policy not to allow North Korea to develop missiles that can hit the United States.  Yet it has long range missiles that can hit the United States.  It is United States policy not to allow North Korea to develop nuclear warheads that can be delivered by its missiles.  Yet it is working on them right now.  It is United States policy to destroy North Korea if it attacks us or our allies.  Is it a real threat?  Does it have teeth?  Why would it, if no other official policy has had teeth?

[fortyofforty]

2 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

 

That's the logical fallacy of "false alternatives". You are presenting two scenarios and claiming that there is no "door number three".

Rather than "refuse to change it" I would recommend keeping up pressure on NK in the form of tightening trade restrictions and heavily leaning on China to start playing more hardball with "Lil Kim" until something snaps and he is either deposed, assassinated, or agrees to come to the table in earnest.

But a pre-emptive strike simply won't work, and can't work. Between all-out war and doing nothing there lies a host of options along various political and economic lines. We need to explore those before setting half of Asia on fire.

Bingo.  That is exactly what a credible threat of nuclear war will do.  Start evacuating.  Warn China and Russia that a missile launch detected from the United States towards North Korea is not aimed at them.  Watch how fast they rein in their boy.  But without that credible threat, we get more games and a more dangerous North Korea.

[AK_Stick]

13 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Bingo.  That is exactly what a credible threat of nuclear war will do.  Start evacuating.  Warn China and Russia that a missile launch detected from the United States towards North Korea is not aimed at them.  Watch how fast they rein in their boy.  But without that credible threat, we get more games and a more dangerous North Korea.

Start evacuating to where?

With what?

Who is going to support SK when the entire economy collapses because you're attempting to evacuate the capital?

 

 

Evacuation is not a feasible plan of action. Much like a preemptive nuclear attack, you're talking crippling their country, to prevent NK from crippling their country.

Edited January 3, 2018 by AK_Stick

[willie-pete]

Maybe if we give them enough time, they will do it to themselves.

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/746504/north-korea-accidentally-hit-cities-missile-report-says

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Bingo.  That is exactly what a credible threat of nuclear war will do.  Start evacuating.  Warn China and Russia that a missile launch detected from the United States towards North Korea is not aimed at them.  Watch how fast they rein in their boy.  But without that credible threat, we get more games and a more dangerous North Korea.

Since Hawaii, California and Washington State are all within striking distance of NK nukes, why not start evacuating them instead?

Answer: Because it would be logistically IMPOSSIBLE, yet in terms of percentage of national population involved vs available national resources to accomplish the task, this would actually be far LESS of an undertaking than asking South Korea to start evacuating Seoul.

Edited January 3, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

Because we are told that the real danger is the artillery that North Korea might use against Seoul, which would not involve the use of nuclear weapons nor involve a direct attack against the United States.  The city is held hostage.  Simple enough?

[fortyofforty]

Page after page of shucking and jiving, and yet not one of you has the intellect to answer my question:

What would you propose we do if we suspect North Korea has supplied a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group that uses said weapon against the United States or one of our allies?

Still no takers?  Hello?

There are plenty of follow up questions, but your first step down the road is to answer that one.  Go ahead.

Edited January 3, 2018 by fortyofforty

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

What would you propose we do if we suspect North Korea has supplied a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group that uses said weapon against the United States or one of our allies?

In the event that such happens, a nuclear response would doubtless be on the table, but you don't GUARANTEE a nuclear war in order to avoid the POSSIBILITY of one.

[tsmo1066]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Because we are told that the real danger is the artillery that North Korea might use against Seoul, which would not involve the use of nuclear weapons nor involve a direct attack against the United States.  The city is held hostage.  Simple enough?

We are told that the real danger TO SEOUL is the artillery - an equally real danger exists to Hawaii, California, Alaska and Washington State in the form of his nuclear missiles. So why don't we evacuate these states? If evacuating Seoul is called for, why not all of the US West of the Rockies?

Edited January 4, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

32 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

In the event that such happens, a nuclear response would doubtless be on the table, but you don't GUARANTEE a nuclear war in order to avoid the POSSIBILITY of one.

What type of nuclear response?  What do you mean, "on the table"?  How sure do you have to be and what in North Korea do you hit?

[fortyofforty]

32 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

We are told that the real danger TO SEOUL is the artillery - an equally real danger exists to Hawaii, California, Alaska and Washington State in the form of his nuclear missiles. So why don't we evacuate these states? If evacuating Seoul is called for, why not all of the US West of the Rockies?

Because we can hit North Korea's missile launch sites far from Seoul and knock out missiles and missile launch sites far easier than artillery launch sites.  North Korea is still using liquid fueled rockets, but is developing solid fuel rockets.  Do you know why?

[itisbruno]

Size matters!!!