US Military Plans Bombing Strikes On North Korea

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2017, 12:27 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Unfortunately those experts haven't had much of a say in the diplomacy over the last couple of decades then. 

Who knows, maybe Trump's rhetoric could be what is needed after all. He may not mean striking first, but if he gets China & Russia worried that he might, they may actually have to step up their game to get a leash on Fatboy.

The problem now if that we are between a rock and a hard place. If we act, we look like bullies. If we don't act, we look like we are all bark and no bite. What we do need is a third party to come in and de-escalate the situation, between NK is in the same predicament. If a third-party comes in to calm it down then there is a potential for face saving for both parties.

[*jason*]

(08-11-2017, 12:05 PM)Millhouse Wrote: When I did mention using nukes on them? Only reason I would support a nuke attack on them if they launch one first. Otherwise I would never support that.
 
Anyways, my question was what should be done. Based on your questions as answers, I am assuming you want nothing to be done and we will just have to cross our fingers hoping they will never use them on us in the future.  

I know you never said we should nuke them. There person who has the power to do so is the one suggesting it. You did pretty much sums up my thoughts on the situation. Personally I feel Kim is selling wolf tickets like his daddy, and his daddy's daddy before him. What's different is the United states' reaction to it. I know Trump's whole persona is based on acting tough, but some situations call for cooler heads.

[Bengalzona]

(08-11-2017, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem now if that we are between a rock and a hard place. If we act, we look like bullies. If we don't act, we look like we are all bark and no bite. What we do need is a third party to come in and de-escalate the situation, between NK is in the same predicament. If a third-party comes in to calm it down then there is a potential for face saving for both parties.

We already have the reputation of being bullies. Particularly after Iraq. Drone strikes and bombing missions since have done nothing but accentuate that point. We have blood on our hands. That is who we are to much of the world.

If we are not consistently and dramatically trying to alter that image of ourselves (something I think this Admn has no interest in doing as it is not popular with their base), then we just need to accept it and use it. We are already suffering the consequences for it.

Heck, I've got no problem with bullying Russia and China a bit as well. We are flitting the tab for this huge military to keep the world safe for our corporations to make money. Might as well get the taxpayers' moneys worth out of it.

[Benton]

(08-11-2017, 12:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem now if that we are between a rock and a hard place. If we act, we look like bullies. If we don't act, we look like we are all bark and no bite. What we do need is a third party to come in and de-escalate the situation, between NK is in the same predicament. If a third-party comes in to calm it down then there is a potential for face saving for both parties.

Not sure by parties if you're referring to our two political parties, but I keep expecting (not wanting, but expecting) Russia to step in here and try to get an actual cease fire between NK and the US. It would be win-win for Putin, as far as gaining international support for Russia. If he calls for both countries to have cooler heads, he gains ground lost in supporting Assad and the problems in Crimea. Bonus, he gets to make Trump look even less skilled at diplomacy. Worst case scenario, he tries to get NK and the US to a table and the US opts not to show up, which lets him throw all his weight behind NK.

(08-11-2017, 01:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  

Heck, I've got no problem with bullying Russia and China a bit as well. We are flitting the tab for this huge military to keep the world safe for our corporations to make money. Might as well get the taxpayers' moneys worth out of it.

Orrrr... we could scale back, pay down some bills, maybe save up for that vacation we need.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 11:30 AM)Millhouse Wrote: So what should the U.S. and the world do?

The same approach over the last few decades, with the result being them building more and more nukes with more ICBMs as diplomacy, no matter who does it, will not work? All the while perfecting that technology and constantly making threats on wiping out our country? Not just verbal threats, but showing videos of them doing so. And when they do have a massive stockpile 10 to 20 years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We will just have to cross our fingers and hope that this soulless ultra-militaristic nation with a lifelong sadistic dictator wont use them on us or anyone. And people yapping about Iraq and Afghanistan. Blah blah blah. Those countries and Islamic groups never posed a threat as great as North Korea is right now. They have explicitly stated they want to destroy us with nukes, and they are building the capabilities to do so.

But hey, if they do use them on us someday down the road and we never took action, at least we can hold our heads high while seeing it all end around us and say, 'at least we didn't have any bloodshed in not preventing in our destruction.'

I'm almost at a loss for words.

Almost.

North Korea is a potential threat. Islamic terrorists are a threat. Thousands of Americans have died as a result of 911 and combat operations overseas. American service members are still dying combating the very people you just claimed are less of a threat than the people they aren't fighting. The attacks affect not just America, but many other countries as well.

You're argument is the same argument used to depose Saddam. "What if he gets his hands on WMDs?" What if the Taliban, ISIS, or al-Qaeda gets their hands on one of Pakistan's nukes? What if Iran gets their hands on nukes? Whose ass should we put our foot up first? North Korea or Iran who don't have nukes? Or Pakistan who does have nukes?

[Benton]

(08-11-2017, 11:30 AM)Millhouse Wrote: So what should the U.S. and the world do?

The same approach over the last few decades, with the result being them building more and more nukes with more ICBMs as diplomacy, no matter who does it, will not work? All the while perfecting that technology and constantly making threats on wiping out our country? Not just verbal threats, but showing videos of them doing so. And when they do have a massive stockpile 10 to 20 years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We will just have to cross our fingers and hope that this soulless ultra-militaristic nation with a lifelong sadistic dictator wont use them on us or anyone. And people yapping about Iraq and Afghanistan. Blah blah blah. Those countries and Islamic groups never posed a threat as great as North Korea is right now. They have explicitly stated they want to destroy us with nukes, and they are building the capabilities to do so.

But hey, if they do use them on us someday down the road and we never took action, at least we can hold our heads high while seeing it all end around us and say, 'at least we didn't have any bloodshed in not preventing in our destruction.'

I think a lot of countries trying to develop or that developed nukes in the last couple decades looked at the US stockpile of nukes and said something to that effect. That's an unfortunate side effect of developing any weapon that trumps the other guy's weapon. Guy has a stick? Develop a bow to beat him. He gets a bow? Get a catapult so you can hit him further away.

We got nukes, used nukes and everyone else had to get nukes for defense.

That leaves three options.

1- We fight everyone. You got a nuke? We've got 10, so we're coming to take yours and have 11 (except Russia, who has more.... let's forget about them for a minute). So... China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, just wrap up your nukes and hand them over. We'll have FedEx there in 24 hours or less.
2- Everyone sits down and agrees no one uses nukes. Ever. Pinky promise with the UN to dismantle all ICBMs and weapons grade cakes, you break it and everyone invades and takes your stuff. That means the US — the only country to ever use a nuke on civilians or troops — and Russia (with that biggest stockpile) have to get rid of everything, too. 
3- We build our defenses. We pull back from world police and keep developing better and better technology to detect and stop nuclear weapons. Shoot a nuke? We're pulling a Mars Attacks and turning it into helium (or whatever the Martian leader did). We can keep our nuclear stockpile, but we don't get too involved with whoever else is building theirs. Why? Because that's the responsibility of the UN and the other 6.8 billion people on the planet. That's not saying that if someone fires a nuke that we wouldn't stop it if possible, but only after diplomacy — not a military invasion — failed.


To me, 1 & 2 are never going to happen. Even when the UN was doing a decent job and the US government wasn't corrupted by personal interests, no one could get the world to play nice. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Not sure by parties if you're referring to our two political parties, but I keep expecting (not wanting, but expecting) Russia to step in here and try to get an actual cease fire between NK and the US. It would be win-win for Putin, as far as gaining international support for Russia. If he calls for both countries to have cooler heads, he gains ground lost in supporting Assad and the problems in Crimea. Bonus, he gets to make Trump look even less skilled at diplomacy. Worst case scenario, he tries to get NK and the US to a table and the US opts not to show up, which lets him throw all his weight behind NK.

No, I was just referring to a third-party in a broad sense, like another country not involved in the conflict directly. Your assessment here is pretty spot on, as well.

[Bengalzona]

(08-11-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Orrrr... we could scale back, pay down some bills, maybe save up for that vacation we need.

We could. Unfortunately, your fellow Americans have decided to vote corporate needs and big war machine by their choice in the last election. So that's who we are now.

[BmorePat87]

I'd be surprised if there haven't been plans for years now, constantly being updated as new intel was obtained.

Hopefully Trump isn't dumb enough to initiate some military conflict.

[NATI BENGALS]

I quit social media to get away from the high school level drama.

Glad to see my prez on twitter talking shit. Nothing like escalating potential nuclear war on twitter like a high school tween who has beef with her bffs rival.

[samhain]

Being in position to strike is one thing, attacking is another. It would be incredibly stupid to attack them for anything short of an attempt to strike us first. The blood of Japan and South Korea would be on our hands almost immediately after any preemptive strike.

Maybe your average American couch general with zero need for diplomacy or measured geopolitics doesn't care about Tokyo or Seoul. I mean, Murica!, right? If it costs a few hundred thousand of them other yeller fellers, it probably won't bother your average red-blooded know-nothing warhawk that's ready to put a boot in someone's ass.

In reality, the repercussions worldwide would be even more crippling than the initial war. It would exponentially escalate tensions with China and Russia, who has specifically warned the US to leave Pyongyang alone. Would they stand by while it happened? I'd rather not find out the hard way. No doubt we'd win a war vs NK. How would we fare against two serious military powers with resources near or (combined) equal to our own? Is that what we want? Nuclear war sound like fun to the Toby Keith's out there?

Even if we did manage to strike and avoid WWIII or global nuclear conflict, the economic impact would likely be catastrophic. South Korea and Japan both possess top 10 world economies. You may think killing everyone on the Korean peninsula and a few thousand in Japan would have no effect on your life, but you'd soon find out that you're dead wrong.

[*jason*]

(08-11-2017, 07:24 PM)samhain Wrote: Being in position to strike is one thing, attacking is another. It would be incredibly stupid to attack them for anything short of an attempt to strike us first. The blood of Japan and South Korea would be on our hands almost immediately after any preemptive strike.

Maybe your average American couch general with zero need for diplomacy or measured geopolitics doesn't care about Tokyo or Seoul. I mean, Murica!, right? If it costs a few hundred thousand of them other yeller fellers, it probably won't bother your average red-blooded know-nothing warhawk that's ready to put a boot in someone's ass.

In reality, the repercussions worldwide would be even more crippling than the initial war. It would exponentially escalate tensions with China and Russia, who has specifically warned the US to leave Pyongyang alone. Would they stand by while it happened? I'd rather not find out the hard way. No doubt we'd win a war vs NK. How would we fare against two serious military powers with resources near or (combined) equal to our own? Is that what we want? Nuclear war sound like fun to the Toby Keith's out there?

Even if we did manage to strike and avoid WWIII or global nuclear conflict, the economic impact would likely be catastrophic. South Korea and Japan both possess top 10 world economies. You may think killing everyone on the Korean peninsula and a few thousand in Japan would have no effect on your life, but you'd soon find out that you're dead wrong.

Fun fact... I remember seeing Toby Keith interviewed on the old Colbert Report years ago. He's a Democrat.