Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
America & North Korea America & North Korea

08-10-2017 , 02:08 PM
As America loses its mind, South Korea goes about business as usual

Quote:
The trains ran and the planes flew, the president talked about health-care reform, and the news agencies sent out alerts about the corruption case against Samsung’s heir apparent. The main stock exchange is up more than 300 points since the beginning of the year.

Store workers and bus drivers laughed when asked whether they were ready for war.
Quote:
South Korean television networks on Thursday resorted to reporting that American media were marveling at how “amazingly calm” South Koreans were in the face of all these threats.

The current “crisis,” as it’s being termed in the United States, feels pretty mundane here. If anything, the risks comes from the unpredictable Trump, not the relatively predictable (if tempestuous) Kim.
08-10-2017 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raradevils
That's disgusting
I can't tell if you're upset with the vile Pastor or Namath.

Last edited by Jbrochu; 08-10-2017 at 02:12 PM. Reason: I'm upset with my pony
08-10-2017 , 02:15 PM
Hot Take: North Korea has tested all the former us presidents
08-10-2017 , 02:29 PM
... who ever said tact had anything to do with diplomacy?
08-10-2017 , 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReliableSource
Hot Take: North Korea has tested all the former us presidents
I don't remember Lincoln having to deal with them but didn't really pay attention in history class
08-10-2017 , 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
As America loses its mind, South Korea goes about business as usual
Quote:
South Korean television networks on Thursday resorted to reporting that American media were marveling at how “amazingly calm” South Koreans were in the face of all these threats.

The current “crisis,” as it’s being termed in the United States, feels pretty mundane here. If anything, the risks comes from the unpredictable Trump, not the relatively predictable (if tempestuous) Kim.
Ouch.
08-10-2017 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
It seems like North Korea thinks there is potentially a fourth play, which is a strike (perhaps conventional, perhaps nuclear) on a military target in a US territory, in this case Guam. Is there some path to North Korea not crushed and Kim Jong Un staying in power through that play?

It seems like it only serves to provoke the US into all-out war, further strengthen global resolve against Pyongyang, further entice China to be against KJU, and thus lead to bad outcomes for KJU.

Unless he believes that destroying the US military bases on Guam can be so detrimental to the US ability to launch a first-strike attack that it takes it off the table, in which case the US may come up with some proportional retaliation and then stop to see what happens... at which point if North Korea "blinks," he has created a world in which he is no longer at risk of a first strike but is not under all-out assault.

Is there any one base so critical to a US first strike? If so, is it in Guam? It seems unlikely that the ability of the US to carry out a large-scale attack on North Korea to wipe out it's nuclear capabilities would be so reliant on one base, given the massive scale of such an operation.

Also, this would have to be a base with capabilities that our allies couldn't give us through access to one of their bases. Japan has no military, so what we have there is what we have. We already cooperate so fully with South Korea I doubt that would fit. Duterte was blustering about kicking us out of the Philippines, so that seems unlikely... So perhaps our options to replace the capabilities lost from the base in Guam would be limited.
Pretty sure around 50 years ago we stopped requiring regional air bases to deploy nuclear weapons. Hopefully KJU is aware of this and doesn't OOPS his way into getting vaporized by striking Guam under this false assumption.
08-10-2017 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by campfirewest
No, just one sub can take care of it. Or a couple B-2's from Missouri.
One sub is probably correct tbh. 24 missiles with 10 MIRVs each. And we've got 14 of those subs. Kinda scary when you realize how powerful that is.
08-10-2017 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bware
One sub is probably correct tbh. 24 missiles with 10 MIRVs each. And we've got 14 of those subs. Kinda scary when you realize how powerful that is.
Not all 14 are on patrol at once, there are turn over times for the split crew members.
08-10-2017 , 02:50 PM
*Deleted post*
08-10-2017 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chips Ahoy
The US could first strike effectively enough that NK can't fire nukes. That's winning and not MAD. Because the US winning is a threat, NK has to strike first when there's a probability of a US first strike. Not because they are crazy but because it's the rational play.
What makes you so sure of this? NK has a sub fleet. What if they've already deployed some devices to their subs?

Besides, even their land-based assets are probably in secure locations in remote areas. I mean, I'm sure a US first strike would go a long way to getting all of the NK weapons, but even if it were 99% effective you could still be looking at 20m+ dead Americans.

Also, I'm pretty sure a first strike by the US is a) illegal by both US and international law, and b) a war crime.

All military options are horrible here, folks. You don't get to just stop Kim by pushing a few buttons. You need to be willing to sacrifice potentially 100,000 troops, 2-3m Koreans, and possibly a nuclear strike on the USA.

And all to stop a guy who's never fired a shot at anyone, except with words.

Last edited by dinopoker; 08-10-2017 at 03:13 PM.
08-10-2017 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
Right, but I'm not just talking about launching the missiles, I'm talking about wiping out his ability to retaliate, minimizing his ability to hit Seoul, and securing any nuclear materials that are unguarded. I have to imagine that the type of all-out attack that would stand any chance (low as it may be) of preventing retaliation on Seoul would require several bases in the region.
there is no scenario where 10s of thousands (likely 100s of thousands) of South Koreans die. no. scenario.

and then when we break it we own it. remember Iraq?
08-10-2017 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
What makes you so sure of this? NK has a sub fleet. What if they've already deployed some devices to their subs?

Besides, even their land-based assets are probably in secure locations in remote areas. I mean, I'm sure a US first strike would go a long way to getting all of the NK weapons, but even if it were 99% effective you could still be looking at 20m+ dead Americans.

Also, I'm pretty sure a first strike by the US is a) illegal by both US and international law, and b) a war crime.

All military options are horrible here, folks. You don't get to just stop Kim by pushing a few buttons. You need to be willing to sacrifice potentially 100,000 troops, 2-3m Koreans, and possibly a nuclear strike on the USA.

And all to stop a guy who's never fired a shot at anyone, except with words.
and then you own the rebuilding effort and refugee crisis with millions of Koreans walking around looking for food and shelter. but strength power america strong. amirite?
08-10-2017 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
there is no scenario where 10s of thousands (likely 100s of thousands) of South Koreans die. no. scenario.

and then when we break it we own it. remember Iraq?
I agree, I'm very anti-war with North Korea and in general. My post just tied into a conversation about the rationale behind the Guam threat, like whether or not there was some scenario KJU was envisioning where he could avoid destruction and retain power through attacking Guam.

Doesn't seem like there's much to it, though. It could just be level one chest thumping.
08-10-2017 , 04:05 PM
I wonder how all of this would have went down if Clinton was president (im sure would have been handled a lot better).I think war is pointless but trump is going to look super weak if nothing happens after his statements. I feel appeasement is a joke. Look what happened in the past when world leaders try to appease.

I hate Kju and he doesn't want to diplomatically come to a deal. I honestly hope we wipe North Korea off the map if they send missiles toward Guam. Why would anyone want a leader with a developing nuclear weapon arsenal that has posted propaganda vids of destroying the us with a nuke?
08-10-2017 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
there is no scenario where 10s of thousands (likely 100s of thousands) of South Koreans don't die. no. scenario.

and then when we break it we own it. remember Iraq?
obv meant to say "don't die".
08-10-2017 , 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuserounder
I agree, I'm very anti-war with North Korea and in general. My post just tied into a conversation about the rationale behind the Guam threat, like whether or not there was some scenario KJU was envisioning where he could avoid destruction and retain power through attacking Guam.

Doesn't seem like there's much to it, though. It could just be level one chest thumping.
i see.

i'm thinking KJU has all the facts/wants all the facts. unlike potus. KJU is also interested in the world and reads books. unlike potus.
08-10-2017 , 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkpoker10
I wonder how all of this would have went down if Clinton was president (im sure would have been handled a lot better).I think war is pointless but trump is going to look super weak if nothing happens after his statements. I feel appeasement is a joke. Look what happened in the past when world leaders try to appease.

I hate Kju and he doesn't want to diplomatically come to a deal. I honestly hope we wipe North Korea off the map if they send missiles toward Guam. Why would anyone want a leader with a developing nuclear weapon arsenal that has posted propaganda vids of destroying the us with a nuke?
No fire and fury talk, probably getting further in cooperation with China and including European allies in the process. That Robert Jeffress guy would probably be condemning her even considering using force. Instead of being at like an 8/10 on a scale from everything's fine to GG West Coast, we'd be at like a 6.
08-10-2017 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkpoker10
I wonder how all of this would have went down if Clinton was president (im sure would have been handled a lot better).I think war is pointless but trump is going to look super weak if nothing happens after his statements. I feel appeasement is a joke. Look what happened in the past when world leaders try to appease.

go on

I hate Kju and he doesn't want to diplomatically come to a deal. I honestly hope we wipe North Korea off the map if they send missiles toward Guam. Why would anyone want a leader with a developing nuclear weapon arsenal that has posted propaganda vids of destroying the us with a nuke?

KJU posts videos about destroying the U.S., while the U.S. actually goes around the world destroying countries. Which do you think is worse?
.
08-10-2017 , 04:39 PM
08-10-2017 , 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
what would be the impact of nuclear warhead going off in the atmosphere? proly not a good thing.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-After-.../dp/0765356864
08-11-2017 , 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
Trump's leathery countenance looks like it has withstood a nuclear blast.
08-11-2017 , 12:11 AM
08-11-2017 , 12:42 AM


Trump looking pretty THICCC here.
08-11-2017 , 12:47 AM
HAETYPTYUTMGDA

      
m