Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 12:54:02 GMT -5
It was an excellent question, I thought. Why are we attacking North Korea in this hypothetical situation? To prevent a bigger conflagration farther down the road ? In the hypothetical of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 13:09:41 GMT -5
To prevent a bigger conflagration farther down the road ? In the hypothetical of course. Fair enough. So this is done to a North Korea that has done nothing other than develop a missile, and possibly an ICBM. They have not actually attacked anyone (other than with their displays of outlandish behavior) So are we thus the aggressor? I thought you read my reply #25. I'm not for an attack on North Korea. Just deterrence of actual nuclear war, as the bigger conflagration down the road. They are well aware of the US nuclear capability.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 16, 2017 15:37:33 GMT -5
They are getting better access to the internet and realise the threat of anihilation by the US, contrary to what they have been told..... isn't actually there. Where are you getting this from? It's my understanding that not only is the Internet locked down tighter than Fort Knox (for the previous few who can even access it), any group of three or more North Koreans has at least one government spy. Any pro-US or anti-government website would be discovered and blacklisted immediately. Anyone accessing that kind of thing would be taking their life into their own hands. I don't see the Internet "fixing" this one. Its not the "internet" - BUT there is some 'leakage' of pop culture from the outside getting into North Korea. I read that there was a thriving 'black market' for South Korean video (or on DVD or on some format) and music. North Koreans watch South Korean TV (soap operas, game shows, news, etc). They also have plenty of 'black market' movies from around the world. I bet most of the Wealthy or people with some sort of power have seen the Marvel Movies or the Transformer Movies for example.
Yes, TV/Movies provides a distorted 'view' of what life outside NK is like - but it's still a taste of what they DO NOT have. And it's an acknowledgement that 'good stuff' exists outside NK since they KNOWINGLY purchase 'black market' stuff.
There's also quite a bit of "transfer" between mainland China and North Korea. China isn't so 'agricultural' anymore. and even in agricultural areas there's modern access to the "world". I would think it's hard to keep the "modern world" out whenever the North Koreans have direct interaction with their Chinese counterparts... a lot of stuff is shipped back and forth between the two countries.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 16, 2017 15:42:31 GMT -5
What is aggression and what is defense? I'm sure you can find a dictionary if you look a bit ... Carry on. I think BillisonBoard has a valid question. North Korea practically starts a war with the US every Spring. They spew threatening propaganda about how we are cowards and how their missiles can annihilate us. When ever the US and South Korea and Japan have their "war games" every summer - North Korea gives an ultimatimatum that if the 'games' do not stop they will assume War has been declared!!!
Is that aggression? Literally threatening the US with War if we don't move our war ships??
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 16, 2017 15:46:34 GMT -5
Fair enough. So this is done to a North Korea that has done nothing other than develop a missile, and possibly an ICBM. They have not actually attacked anyone (other than with their displays of outlandish behavior) So are we thus the aggressor? I thought you read my reply #25. I'm not for an attack on North Korea. Just deterrence of actual nuclear war, as the bigger conflagration down the road. They are well aware of the US nuclear capability. So, we keep the status quo which is a kind of 'war of words' with North Korea?
They could annihilate South Korea (and possibly part of Japan). Did you not read Deminmaine's long post - which explains why there's the "war of words" going on?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 16, 2017 15:51:04 GMT -5
Two questions to firm up the thought processes, since Chuck Norris, Jason Stratham and Steven Seagal are otherwise occupied: 1. What would it take to get you to support a US (and possibly multinational) naval and air blockade of North Korea if the Chinese concurred (either passively or actively)? Taking into account that, because of the direct result of the blockade, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans would die of hunger or disease (no humanitarian assistance acceptable). 2. What would it take to get you to support a US (and possibly multinational) military attack of North Korea, of whatever form but which the Chinese agreed to allow, which killed the same hundreds of thousands of North Koreans directly or indirectly? No one need reply. The goal is for folks to think about a) the relative moral acceptabilities of killing people based on how the killings were accomplished, and b) how far you would tolerate North Korean aggression before supporting any action which would induce significant casualties. You aren't taking into account the thousands of South Koreans that would die when North Korea lashes out and attacks them within minutes of any kind of action they decide is a declaration of War.
I'd guess a blockade would be seen as a hostile act and a declaration of War.
I'd also guess that any sort of military attack on North Korea - even if it was super stealthy would unleash their own attack on South Korea.
See deminmaine's really long post.
This isn't about tens of thousands of Americans dying - it's about the tens of thousands of civilians who will die in South Korea (and possibly Japan) and anywhere else the North Korea submarines can get to and launch missiles against).
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 16, 2017 15:54:34 GMT -5
I thought you read my reply #25. I'm not for an attack on North Korea. Just deterrence of actual nuclear war, as the bigger conflagration down the road. They are well aware of the US nuclear capability. Thanks Diogenes, I missed the gist of that reply. ( A lot to cover lately on the little time I have to be here!) That is my opinion as well. Do you think that Japan or South Korea may be tempted to "go nuclear" in the near future? Them going nuclear doesn't really solve the problem... although it might keep the stalemate going long enough for North Korea to collapse on it's own. (not sure what happens if Kim Jong Un dies unexpectedly of natural causes OR becomes incapacitated accidentally).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 16, 2017 16:48:17 GMT -5
... North Korea practically starts a war with the US every Spring. They spew threatening propaganda about how we are cowards and how their missiles can annihilate us. When ever the US and South Korea and Japan have their "war games" every summer - North Korea gives an ultimatimatum that if the 'games' do not stop they will assume War has been declared!!!
Is that aggression? Literally threatening the US with War if we don't move our war ships?? Or is a reasonable response to us playing war games near their territory (and not close to ours)?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 16, 2017 20:11:19 GMT -5
You aren't taking into account the thousands of South Koreans that would die when North Korea lashes out and attacks them within minutes of any kind of action they decide is a declaration of War.
I'd guess a blockade would be seen as a hostile act and a declaration of War.
I'd also guess that any sort of military attack on North Korea - even if it was super stealthy would unleash their own attack on South Korea.
See deminmaine's really long post.
This isn't about tens of thousands of Americans dying - it's about the tens of thousands of civilians who will die in South Korea (and possibly Japan) and anywhere else the North Korea submarines can get to and launch missiles against).
this was their one hostage (Seuol) before nukes. Projections are for up to 20M dead in a war with NK due to their ability to launch artillery, tanks, and chemical weapons on the south in a surprise or instant response attack www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/north-korea-military-attack-threat/2036639/ Wow.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:00:21 GMT -5
I thought you read my reply #25. I'm not for an attack on North Korea. Just deterrence of actual nuclear war, as the bigger conflagration down the road. They are well aware of the US nuclear capability. Thanks Diogenes, I missed the gist of that reply. ( A lot to cover lately on the little time I have to be here!) That is my opinion as well. Do you think that Japan or South Korea may be tempted to "go nuclear" in the near future? I truly hope not. I'm actually not up to date on modern oriental culture. I don't know what it would take to set off a massive killing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:06:16 GMT -5
Well, not yet, but soon. They are attempting to build an ICBM that can reach the western United States while carrying a viable nuclear armed payload. As far as the public knows, they have not yet done so. It must also be at least somewhat reliable, and evade anti-missile defenses, which we are sure to employ. They do not have a viable missile that can reach the US.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:11:21 GMT -5
I thought you read my reply #25. I'm not for an attack on North Korea. Just deterrence of actual nuclear war, as the bigger conflagration down the road. They are well aware of the US nuclear capability. So, we keep the status quo which is a kind of 'war of words' with North Korea?
They could annihilate South Korea (and possibly part of Japan). Did you not read Deminmaine's long post - which explains why there's the "war of words" going on?
I believe we should keep the "status quo" as far as a US response. That can change of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 11:23:17 GMT -5
They do not have a viable missile that can reach the US. Yeah, I think I wrote that. I did qualify it by saying "as far as the public knows". We can't be absolutely certain of anything, if for some reason it was being kept under wraps, or if they have a missile that we are not fully aware of yet. But yes, it seems that they are still trying to acquire the technology, but don't yet have it. The furthest they have actually flown a missile is the Sea of Japan, correct? Correct. If you saw the little clip on the news a couple of days ago of the missile launch, where the missile is ejected and then fires it's engines, that is a ship/submarine launch system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 13:00:57 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 13:33:51 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2017 20:21:35 GMT -5
... this was star wars from the 80's the a certain side of the aisle ridiculed. wish we had it now. ... I am glad we don't have the added debt from continuing to attempt to develop it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2017 20:25:19 GMT -5
Was there some positive effect from this activity in the 60's or did the planes just fly around?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2017 12:31:11 GMT -5
Was there some positive effect from this activity in the 60's or did the planes just fly around? Jobs for bomber pilots? Seriously, does anything military have "some positive effect" aside from its military objectives?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2017 12:50:21 GMT -5
Was there some positive effect from this activity in the 60's or did the planes just fly around? Jobs for bomber pilots? Seriously, does anything military have "some positive effect" aside from its military objectives? As I read it, the entire operation was to have three planes in the air at all times. It seems they were in locations to shorten delivery times of thermonuclear bombs. Since the bombs were never dropped, the military objective of the operation didn't pay out. So was an action by enemies of the United States that would have negatively impacted the US or is allies deterred by the presence of the planes? Or were they seen as evidence of US aggression and hardened the resolve of those enemies to strengthen their defenses and deterrents?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2017 13:22:34 GMT -5
Jobs for bomber pilots? Seriously, does anything military have "some positive effect" aside from its military objectives? As I read it, the entire operation was to have three planes in the air at all times. It seems they were in locations to shorten delivery times of thermonuclear bombs. Since the bombs were never dropped, the military objective of the operation didn't pay out. So was an action by enemies of the United States that would have negatively impacted the US or is allies deterred by the presence of the planes? Or were they seen as evidence of US aggression and hardened the resolve of those enemies to strengthen their defenses and deterrents? I'm sure they were intended as a deterrent. I can't tell you whether it succeeded, whether it was counterproductive, ... As for "the bombs were never dropped", that's beside the point. Most cops never fire their weapons in the line of duty and most lifeguards never have to perform CPR, but I still consider the objectives of their weapons and CPR training met. I realize you're referring to "some positive effect" a posteriori. Did we end up needing to use the bombs? (No, obviously.) But where uncertainty is high, you know as well as I do that a posteriori data aren't particularly relevant to current decisions. I for one am glad my lifeguard has CPR training he'll probably never use.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2017 13:47:13 GMT -5
... I for one am glad my lifeguard has CPR training he'll probably never use. She will probably never have to do a lot of things. However, of all things, there is a tiny subset of things she might reasonably have to do as a part of being a lifeguard. CPR training DNA analysis What things make a nation more safe? Less safe? Are just a waste of money? Which are a reasonable expense? Well functioning smoke detectors are deemed worth the expense by most. Professional 24/7 armed guards would make your home safer. Are they worth the expense? Hiring a local thug might save you some money short term.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2017 16:41:00 GMT -5
... I for one am glad my lifeguard has CPR training he'll probably never use. She will probably never have to do a lot of things. However, of all things, there is a tiny subset of things she might reasonably have to do as a part of being a lifeguard. CPR training DNA analysis What things make a nation more safe? Less safe? Are just a waste of money? Which are a reasonable expense? Well functioning smoke detectors are deemed worth the expense by most. Professional 24/7 armed guards would make your home safer. Are they worth the expense? Hiring a local thug might save you some money short term. Then the question you want to ask is "Given the risks, was flying the planes around worth the cost of flying the planes around?" and not "Was there some positive effect from this activity or did the planes just fly around?" Military missions have no positive effects besides accomplishing their objectives. Since the objective was to nuke Russian targets if ever the need arose, the planes fulfilled their objective perfectly well by just flying around. Hence the answer to "Was there some positive effect from this activity or did the planes just fly around?" is "Yes".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2017 16:53:17 GMT -5
... Military missions have no positive effects besides accomplishing their objectives. ... If accomplishing their objective is a positive.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 18, 2017 18:20:16 GMT -5
... Military missions have no positive effects besides accomplishing their objectives. ... If accomplishing their objective is a positive. If you want consensus on whether the US's military actions are a good thing, you might get most of the way on WWII. I believe a definitive majority of Americans still agree that entering WWII was a positive thing. After that? Ask any ten people, get ten different opinions. Ask any ten experts, get ten more different opinions. Personally I suspect the world would have been better off without the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the many wars of the new millennium. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? No. We simply don't know how bad things would have become had the US not stepped in. Many say the Korean War was a disaster for the US, which is true in a sense, but I sit here reading this post on a Samsung monitor--a Korean manufacturer--while North Korea is a communist paradise. We can't say for certain that communism would have consumed Asia or spread to other parts of the world had the US not been so paranoid about fighting "commies", but we can't say for certain that it wouldn't have either. For all we know, the US's taking a stand in Asia was among the greatest boons to humanity in recorded history. That's the unfortunate nature of war. It isn't always bad.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Feb 23, 2017 14:16:08 GMT -5
For all we know, the US's taking a stand in Asia was among the greatest boons to humanity in recorded history. All my detailed analysis points to this being true. Especially when we factor in China recently cutting off all NKorean coal imports; and is now preparing for a potential regime collapse in N Korea.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 11:57:16 GMT -5
For all we know, the US's taking a stand in Asia was among the greatest boons to humanity in recorded history. All my detailed analysis points to this being true. Especially when we factor in China recently cutting off all NKorean coal imports; and is now preparing for a potential regime collapse in N Korea. China starting to get on the "isolate them" bandwagon. Interesting.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 11, 2017 13:01:51 GMT -5
If accomplishing their objective is a positive. If you want consensus on whether the US's military actions are a good thing, you might get most of the way on WWII. I believe a definitive majority of Americans still agree that entering WWII was a positive thing. After that? Ask any ten people, get ten different opinions. Ask any ten experts, get ten more different opinions. Personally I suspect the world would have been better off without the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the many wars of the new millennium. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? No. We simply don't know how bad things would have become had the US not stepped in. Many say the Korean War was a disaster for the US, which is true in a sense, but I sit here reading this post on a Samsung monitor--a Korean manufacturer--while North Korea is a communist paradise. We can't say for certain that communism would have consumed Asia or spread to other parts of the world had the US not been so paranoid about fighting "commies", but we can't say for certain that it wouldn't have either. For all we know, the US's taking a stand in Asia was among the greatest boons to humanity in recorded history. That's the unfortunate nature of war. It isn't always bad. It's always easy to look back historically and come up with how we could have done things better in hinsite...I agree now that Viet Nam could have been avoided...just let a semi democratic government fall to the "Communist"...Gulf War...second one...just let Hussein stay and keep control..possible better..Personally I believe our intervention into Korea was a good war.. I was sent to war under the old "Domino theory" that all our political and military leaders up to that time believed in...and being a very young man with very limited experience , I too believed in it and even today could give u a pretty good explanation of...even though it didn't work out that way...,thats called hindsight...I didn't volunteer for that adventure..nor taken in , I was not...but never considered of immigrating North or having to be dragged off screaming and kicking.....today in hindsight..I might be speaking French as a second language but that too is in hindsight...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 11, 2017 13:12:56 GMT -5
... ..Personally I believe our intervention into Korea was a good war.. ... I think the proper word would be "is" instead of "was" since it hadn't ended. I will be waiting for the final body count before I pass judgement on it.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 11, 2017 16:52:20 GMT -5
... ..Personally I believe our intervention into Korea was a good war.. ... I think the proper word would be "is" instead of "was" since it hadn't ended. I will be waiting for the final body count before I pass judgement on it. Granted we are still in a technical state of war...beyond accidents or as some years ago the murder of a US officer at the peace village by Nort Korean soldiers...seems the shooting and active combate on the penninsula is not active...
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Mar 11, 2017 20:25:26 GMT -5
All my detailed analysis points to this being true. Especially when we factor in China recently cutting off all NKorean coal imports; and is now preparing for a potential regime collapse in N Korea. China starting to get on the "isolate them" bandwagon. Interesting. Lets face it, part of it has to be because NKorea has a terrible track record with missile launches... a loaded warhead may be intended for America...
|
|