North Korea

11101 said:
It's a foothold in the literal sense. China is content with the odd aircraft carrier but if Korea ever reunified the US could stage troops and equipment right on the Chinese border.
Click to expand...
And Russian (probably uncomfortably close to the naval base at vladivostok) ... which is why I cant see anyway it happens in anyway they have US Military on the ground - any military force there will have to either be chinese lead or at least UN with a large chinese contingent / oversight... otherwise in the several months its taken the USA to build up the land forces in South Korea China will have sent in troops and secured it all anyway - most probably under humanitarian reasons if they had to...
But before any of that we have to see if little hands and rocket man can play nicely
 
I do want the threat of Kim removed, but I feel a confrontation is coming for the wrong reasons. Trump will start a war to draw attention away from himself. His recent statement about "calm before the storm" point to some upcoming event.
 
ghagua said:
I do want the threat of Kim removed, but I feel a confrontation is coming for the wrong reasons. Trump will start a war to draw attention away from himself. His recent statement about "calm before the storm" point to some upcoming event.
Click to expand...

From my posts here you can tell I am no fan of the NK regime, but you will also note I am not banging the drums of war either. Even before they had nukes there was no outcome to a war on the Korean Peninsula that would justify the cost of the war in terms of deaths, injuries and yes will even add money. The same still holds true, war is best avoided.
 
ShadesOfTomato said:
I'm still convinced there is no way a war happens.
Click to expand...

Sadly I have gone from always believing a 2nd Korean War would only happen if the North once again launched an invasion or as an offshoot of an uprising in the North to thinking that idiot Trump just might think attacking North Korea is a good idea, not at all understanding the ramifications that might come from such an action.
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
Id like to think so - but to be honest I wouldnt be surprised if he didnt say Iran helped NK make the nukes and he started blowing both up - I just have so little faith in his ability to act rationally or give a toss about lives that are not possible trump voters in 2020
Click to expand...

I fear he does not really understand what war really is. All he knows he probably got from news coverage of war, watching movies, listening to his ignorant advisors and listening to his voting base who also don't understand the true effects of war.
 
ghagua said:
I do want the threat of Kim removed, but I feel a confrontation is coming for the wrong reasons. Trump will start a war to draw attention away from himself. His recent statement about "calm before the storm" point to some upcoming event.
Click to expand...

Lots of state leaders have created situations abroad as a diversion from their domestic issues but I think the suggestion that Trump would launch a war against NK on that basis has no grounding in reality. Not in the age of nuclear weapons, and not while China holds hands with NK, however tenuous or undesirable that grip may be. Starting WWIII is hardly the most logical way to draw attention away from yourself, even for the dotard in Washington.
 
ghagua said:
I do want the threat of Kim removed, but I feel a confrontation is coming for the wrong reasons. Trump will start a war to draw attention away from himself. His recent statement about "calm before the storm" point to some upcoming event.
Click to expand...
Trump won’t start any war without the direction and backing of the military men around him. He can’t do anything without their agreement and they are certainly not going to make any moves unless they are fairly sure they will work and they will come out on top.
 
Red Defence said:
Trump won’t start any war without the direction and backing of the military men around him. He can’t do anything without their agreement and they are certainly not going to make any moves unless they are fairly sure they will work and they will come out on top.
Click to expand...

And come on top without much human casualties because no one wants a Vietman mk2. I wonder what would happen if the US where alone on that one though.
 
11101 said:
It's a foothold in the literal sense. China is content with the odd aircraft carrier but if Korea ever reunified the US could stage troops and equipment right on the Chinese border.
Click to expand...
Having US forces in South Korea is a lot more threatening then the odd aircraft carrier. It is easy to reinforce. The bases are unsinkable. Larger and more aircraft can be staged from South Korea.

So it is more than a foothold.
 
I honestly though that the more evolved and developed countries in the world had almost moved past the nuclear weapon threat shit. Countries had agreed to reduce numbers and certainly not increase them and yet now we have this going on. Also, today India and Pakistan are also using strong and aggressive rhetoric about the use of nukes. I should imagine the Doomsday Clock will be changed accordingly and we will move ever closer to midnight.
 
Red Defence said:
Trump won’t start any war without the direction and backing of the military men around him. He can’t do anything without their agreement and they are certainly not going to make any moves unless they are fairly sure they will work and they will come out on top.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep saying this? Here's how it works, he tells the generals to do something and if they refuse he fires them and replaces them with someone who will. If people further down the chain of command try and refuse orders, they face having their careers destroyed and possible jail time. The only defense they could have is if they could prove an order is 'illegal' and good luck with that. The US president has practically unlimited power to start a conflict and there isn't a damn thing anyone would do to stop him.
 
Kentonio said:
Why do people keep saying this? Here's how it works, he tells the generals to do something and if they refuse he fires them and replaces them with someone who will. If people further down the chain of command try and refuse orders, they face having their careers destroyed and possible jail time. The only defense they could have is if they could prove an order is 'illegal' and good luck with that. The US president has practically unlimited power to start a conflict and there isn't a damn thing anyone would do to stop him.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point you raised in the other thread (the MAD doctrine purposely giving one person absolute control of the arsenal) but I still feel there is a debate to be had about the exact workings of a real nuclear order.

As the details of the protocol are heavily classified I think it is difficult to come to concrete conclusions, but from what little I understand of the process I feel less sure than you seem to be that Trump could in reality launch the US nukes on a whim. I suspect opportunity for serious conversations and interventions down the chain of command would be possible.
 
12OunceEpilogue said:
That's a fair point you raised in the other thread (the MAD doctrine purposely giving one person absolute control of the arsenal) but I still feel there is a debate to be had about the exact workings of a real nuclear order.

As the details of the protocol are heavily classified I think it is difficult to come to concrete conclusions, but from what little I understand of the process I feel less sure than you seem to be that Trump could in reality launch the US nukes on a whim. I suspect opportunity for serious conversations and interventions down the chain of command would be possible.
Click to expand...

This time I was talking more about a conventional attack, as I don't actually believe he'd launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike. I was just saying in the other thread that he does actually have that power. You could well be right though, and it could be the one order that caused an internal coup of sorts.

If he orders a conventional attack though there is absolutely nothing to stop him for the first 30 days. A conventional attack triggers a near automatic NK conventional response on Seoul with a staggeringly high death toll, and then all bets are off. China already said they'd defend NK in the case of a US first strike, so then we're way into nuclear brinkmanship territory for the first time since Cuba, and this time it would be in sequence with a huge bloody war ratcheting up the pressure minute by minute. It's the nightmare scenario basically, and all it probably takes to trigger it is Trump ordering airstrikes on NK. Anyone seriously think he's not capable of giving that order?
 
Kentonio said:
This time I was talking more about a conventional attack, as I don't actually believe he'd launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike. I was just saying in the other thread that he does actually have that power. You could well be right though, and it could be the one order that caused an internal coup of sorts.

If he orders a conventional attack though there is absolutely nothing to stop him for the first 30 days. A conventional attack triggers a near automatic NK conventional response on Seoul with a staggeringly high death toll, and then all bets are off. China already said they'd defend NK in the case of a US first strike, so then we're way into nuclear brinkmanship territory for the first time since Cuba, and this time it would be in sequence with a huge bloody war ratcheting up the pressure minute by minute. It's the nightmare scenario basically, and all it probably takes to trigger it is Trump ordering airstrikes on NK. Anyone seriously think he's not capable of giving that order?
Click to expand...
does it count if he issues the order by twitter?... if so then yeah its gonna happen - if not and he actually has to follow due process Im not sure he has the patience
 
Kentonio said:
This time I was talking more about a conventional attack, as I don't actually believe he'd launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike. I was just saying in the other thread that he does actually have that power. You could well be right though, and it could be the one order that caused an internal coup of sorts.

If he orders a conventional attack though there is absolutely nothing to stop him for the first 30 days. A conventional attack triggers a near automatic NK conventional response on Seoul with a staggeringly high death toll, and then all bets are off. China already said they'd defend NK in the case of a US first strike, so then we're way into nuclear brinkmanship territory for the first time since Cuba, and this time it would be in sequence with a huge bloody war ratcheting up the pressure minute by minute. It's the nightmare scenario basically, and all it probably takes to trigger it is Trump ordering airstrikes on NK. Anyone seriously think he's not capable of giving that order?
Click to expand...

Ah sorry I misunderstood, though I also think there are more checks and balances on conventional warfare than 'Trump orders, Trump gets' without any opportunity for intervention from the chain of command.

However I agree a conventional attack leading to nuclear brinkmanship is a more conceivable series of events than an outright nuclear strike and that we've every right to be worried about the possibly.
 
sun_tzu said:
does it count if he issues the order by twitter?... if so then yeah its gonna happen - if not and he actually has to follow due process Im not sure he has the patience
Click to expand...

You may be right. :lol:

12OunceEpilogue said:
Ah sorry I misunderstood, though I also think there are more checks and balances on conventional warfare than 'Trump orders, Trump gets' without any opportunity for intervention from the chain of command.
Click to expand...

I think his personality is the main issue. With anyone rational, generals raising concerns and even threatening to refuse an irrational order would probably cause the president to seriously reconsider. Would that scenario cause Trump to reconsider? Obviously we don't know for sure, but if he's anything like as egotistical and crazy as he appears, then I don't see how they get him to back down. Then again as @sun_tzu implies, maybe they can just wave a colourful bit of paper at him until he gets distracted and forgets. :lol:
 
Kentonio said:
You may be right. :lol:



I think his personality is the main issue. With anyone rational, generals raising concerns and even threatening to refuse an irrational order would probably cause the president to seriously reconsider. Would that scenario cause Trump to reconsider? Obviously we don't know for sure, but if he's anything like as egotistical and crazy as he appears, then I don't see how they get him to back down. Then again as @sun_tzu implies, maybe they can just wave a colourful bit of paper at him until he gets distracted and forgets. :lol:
Click to expand...

Indeed. Pop some glasses of water near the codes and he'll hopefully spend the day rearranging them instead of ordering the end of the world.
 
Kentonio said:
Why do people keep saying this? Here's how it works, he tells the generals to do something and if they refuse he fires them and replaces them with someone who will. If people further down the chain of command try and refuse orders, they face having their careers destroyed and possible jail time. The only defense they could have is if they could prove an order is 'illegal' and good luck with that. The US president has practically unlimited power to start a conflict and there isn't a damn thing anyone would do to stop him.
Click to expand...
They keep saying this because some of you are thinking irrationally, the same thing you accuse Trump of doing. He’s well aware of the seriousness of initiating a nuclear war and is hardly likely to start one without the backing of his military advisers. I don’t doubt for one minute that he respects them and will take their advice. It’s also extremely unlikely that he will fire them if they don’t follow his orders and appoint others who will. This in itself would be fraught with problems and would be the end of Trump.

He’s not going to start WW3 no matter how much some of you are secretly wishing he would, if only to prove your point.
 
Red Defence said:
They keep saying this because some of you are thinking irrationally, the same thing you accuse Trump of doing. He’s well aware of the seriousness of initiating a nuclear war and is hardly likely to start one without the backing of his military advisers. I don’t doubt for one minute that he respects them and will take their advice. It’s also extremely unlikely that he will fire them if they don’t follow his orders and appoint others who will. This in itself would be fraught with problems and would be the end of Trump.

He’s not going to start WW3 no matter how much some of you are secretly wishing he would, if only to prove your point.
Click to expand...
One we do know that during transition he had trouble grasping the reason nukes could not be used.

He seems dead set on pushing confrontation with NK which suits them since they are dead set on confrontation also. So chances are increasing for war there. Since both sides have WMD's so the ease with which things could get out of control is there.

So is he going to wake up one day and start WW3 on purpose? Unlikely. But could his actions could lead to it.

especially if it gets our minds off some other shit he is doing or if he thinks a big war win can boost his standing or put more accurately if he sees a war win as an ego boost.
 
Red Defence said:
They keep saying this because some of you are thinking irrationally, the same thing you accuse Trump of doing. He’s well aware of the seriousness of initiating a nuclear war and is hardly likely to start one without the backing of his military advisers. I don’t doubt for one minute that he respects them and will take their advice. It’s also extremely unlikely that he will fire them if they don’t follow his orders and appoint others who will. This in itself would be fraught with problems and would be the end of Trump.

He’s not going to start WW3 no matter how much some of you are secretly wishing he would, if only to prove your point.
Click to expand...

Not like Trump doesn't do enough to give them actual grievances to moan about either.

If anyone starts this war it'll be Kim but very oddly there's hardly a bad word said about him in this thread compared to Trump.
 
A pretty interesting article from a New York Times journalist who visited North Korea recently:


Inside North Korea, and Feeling the Drums of War

,,Far more than when I previously visited, North Korea is galvanizing its people to expect a nuclear war with the United States. High school students march in the streets in military uniform every day to denounce America. Posters and billboards along the public roads show missiles destroying the U.S. Capitol and shredding the American flag. In fact, images of missiles are everywhere — in a kindergarten playground, at a dolphin show, on state television. This military mobilization is accompanied by the ubiquitous assumption that North Korea could not only survive a nuclear conflict, but also win it."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/sunday/nuclear-north-korea.html
 
Kentonio said:
This time I was talking more about a conventional attack, as I don't actually believe he'd launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike. I was just saying in the other thread that he does actually have that power. You could well be right though, and it could be the one order that caused an internal coup of sorts.

If he orders a conventional attack though there is absolutely nothing to stop him for the first 30 days. A conventional attack triggers a near automatic NK conventional response on Seoul with a staggeringly high death toll, and then all bets are off. China already said they'd defend NK in the case of a US first strike, so then we're way into nuclear brinkmanship territory for the first time since Cuba, and this time it would be in sequence with a huge bloody war ratcheting up the pressure minute by minute. It's the nightmare scenario basically, and all it probably takes to trigger it is Trump ordering airstrikes on NK. Anyone seriously think he's not capable of giving that order?
Click to expand...

We don't know how advanced is the intercontinental ballistic missile defense, since Bush they are trying to develop the anti-missile system and after I saw a laser destroying 5 drones I would think twice in striking US with a nuclear missile, that would give an opportunity to completely destroy a country and if that country is China the world economy would crash like we never saw, so China has no interest at all if the war starts in having NK to attack SK (can they control them?) and US and the rest of the world has no interest at all in having a massive economy crash, so nothing is going to happen, just barking from 2 leaders.
 
barros said:
We don't know how advanced is the intercontinental ballistic missile defense, since Bush they are trying to develop the anti-missile system and after I saw a laser destroying 5 drones I would think twice in striking US with a nuclear missile, that would give an opportunity to completely destroy a country and if that country is China the world economy would crash like we never saw, so China has no interest at all if the war starts in having NK to attack SK (can they control them?) and US and the rest of the world has no interest at all in having a massive economy crash, so nothing is going to happen, just barking from 2 leaders.
Click to expand...

From all reports, they can't control them and the control they had has dropped considerably since the latest Kim came in. The danger seems to be that although Korea might not be the issue it once was for China, they've put their reputation on the line now by clarifying their position. It's not a bad position by any means, it's basically just a way of trying to guarantee peace, and under any other president it would work just fine.

At the current time though with China looking at genuine superpower status (probably within the next decade) and them already expanding their influence around the region and the world, can they risk being made to look weak? Having guaranteed to defend NK, if they then fail to do so it makes their promises look worthless, and shows them as still bowing down before US might. Given their aggressive posturing in the South China Sea, if they back down over NK then why would their neighbours take them seriously over those issues?

We'd basically be relying on China accepting that Trump is a madman, and sacrificing their own egos and national pride to accommodate that fact. I'm not sure they'd be willing to do it. I'd expect a conventional response from them with the expectation that America would then have to rein in Trump before it went nuclear. If any ICBMs start to fly, then the game is over. Russia wouldn't just sit and watch.
 
Kentonio said:
From all reports, they can't control them and the control they had has dropped considerably since the latest Kim came in. The danger seems to be that although Korea might not be the issue it once was for China, they've put their reputation on the line now by clarifying their position. It's not a bad position by any means, it's basically just a way of trying to guarantee peace, and under any other president it would work just fine.

At the current time though with China looking at genuine superpower status (probably within the next decade) and them already expanding their influence around the region and the world, can they risk being made to look weak? Having guaranteed to defend NK, if they then fail to do so it makes their promises look worthless, and shows them as still bowing down before US might. Given their aggressive posturing in the South China Sea, if they back down over NK then why would their neighbours take them seriously over those issues?

We'd basically be relying on China accepting that Trump is a madman, and sacrificing their own egos and national pride to accommodate that fact. I'm not sure they'd be willing to do it. I'd expect a conventional response from them with the expectation that America would then have to rein in Trump before it went nuclear. If any ICBMs start to fly, then the game is over. Russia wouldn't just sit and watch.
Click to expand...

China would protect NK only if Kim doesn't do anything stupid (nuclear), but they would create another Vietnam if US try to invade them but if Kim decides to rain Seoul and Japan with missiles and artillery then US only trump-option would be nuking the country to stop the mass killing (stopping mass killing with extreme mass killing)
 
Henrik Larsson said:
A pretty interesting article from a New York Times journalist who visited North Korea recently:


Inside North Korea, and Feeling the Drums of War

,,Far more than when I previously visited, North Korea is galvanizing its people to expect a nuclear war with the United States. High school students march in the streets in military uniform every day to denounce America. Posters and billboards along the public roads show missiles destroying the U.S. Capitol and shredding the American flag. In fact, images of missiles are everywhere — in a kindergarten playground, at a dolphin show, on state television. This military mobilization is accompanied by the ubiquitous assumption that North Korea could not only survive a nuclear conflict, but also win it."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/sunday/nuclear-north-korea.html
Click to expand...

Only thing I will add to this is that they are masters of propaganda. When a journalist visits from the West it's akin to a theatre production where they make sure that every stage is designed impeccably to purvey a message and everyone acts their part.

Some of the most illuminating photos of North Korea are the ones taken when the spotlights are off and the masks are off.
 
barros said:
China would protect NK only if Kim doesn't do anything stupid (nuclear), but they would create another Vietnam if US try to invade them but if Kim decides to rain Seoul and Japan with missiles and artillery then US only trump-option would be nuking the country to stop the mass killing (stopping mass killing with extreme mass killing)
Click to expand...

The thing is, doesn't stopping more killing with killing only work with a rational government? I would imagine nuking or just regular old bombing enough to stop the threat (taking out leaders and known sites, essentially), would be enough, rather than purposely nuking citizens to scare the leaders into surrender?

I would think a large number of their citizens would secretly welcome the wiping out of their leaders (obviously with as little impact on them as is possible), but I'm not 100% of on that as it's difficult to tell whether they're genuinely brainwashed or just going along with everything to survive.
Although I imagine they'd soon conscript the entire nation if it kicked off.
 
VeevaVee said:
I would think a large number of their citizens would secretly welcome the wiping out of their leaders (obviously with as little impact on them as is possible), but I'm not 100% of on that as it's difficult to tell whether they're genuinely brainwashed or just going along with everything to survive.
Although I imagine they'd soon conscript the entire nation if it kicked off.
Click to expand...

I do think one thing worth factoring in is that the entire economy - means of production, distrubution etc is under the control of the government - if (when) they decapatate the leadership there is a real strong possibility that at least in the short term the ability to head houses, get food, and water to people is in real jepordy - it could be a humanitarian disaster like never before - of course with the added potential of nuclear fall out and 3 superpowers in a landgrab ... i dread to think how bad the situation could get
 
sun_tzu said:
I do think one thing worth factoring in is that the entire economy - means of production, distrubution etc is under the control of the government - if (when) they decapatate the leadership there is a real strong possibility that at least in the short term the ability to head houses, get food, and water to people is in real jepordy - it could be a humanitarian disaster like never before - of course with the added potential of nuclear fall out and 3 superpowers in a landgrab ... i dread to think how bad the situation could get
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely. I hope they're prepared to help in that way afterwards if it happened.
I assume they'd use that as an excuse to control whoever gets put in power for a good while anyway, to avoid another dictator just doing the same thing.


Red Dreams said:
There is no need for nukes.

Mind you just so called regular missiles can kill hundreds of thousands. Its essential the back channel dialogue succeeds or we cannot stop war.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. It's seems like more of a point to be made than anything. I imagine a few massive airstrikes would be as destructive (without the long term problems).
 
sun_tzu said:
So apparently NK can kill 90% of Americans by (possibly) turning the electric off...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/north-kor...-nuclear-emp-bomb-experts-warn-083149786.html



somebodys gonna have to explain that one to me because I dont see how 90% of americans die when the power goes out
Click to expand...


edit to say having looked at the document http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20171012/106467/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-PryP-20171012.pdf
its probably fake news as I see no mention of this killing 90% of americans anywhere in it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.