North Korea...what if?

[Richard-H]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

That would be the situation we are in today, aka "The Obama Impotency".

Obama, Obama, Obama...blah, blah, blah....

Get over it and answer the question....

I did answer it: It's the situation we are in right now! There's no "what if" word play games, this is where we are thanks to Obama refusing to lookout for us!

So, since the situation would not be any worse than it is now, would you agree that there is no justification for the U.S. to take military action?

So far, no one has been killed.

 

[Richard-H]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

So your saying that, the NoKos would ignore any peace treaty, invade SoKo and probably attack Japan?

 

[DarkFury]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

So your saying that, the NoKos would ignore any peace treaty, invade SoKo and probably attack Japan?

Yup. It's a very short missile shot.

 

[whitehall]

How come nobody talked about "justifying the invasion of N.K." during the eight years of Obama even after the little pot bellied pig set off a half dozen nuclear explosions and tinkered with ICBM's? Is this another one of the left's dirty tricks by drumming up war with North Korea and and Russia and God knows who else and then blaming republicans?

 

[miketx]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

That would be the situation we are in today, aka "The Obama Impotency".

Obama, Obama, Obama...blah, blah, blah....

Get over it and answer the question....

I did answer it: It's the situation we are in right now! There's no "what if" word play games, this is where we are thanks to Obama refusing to lookout for us!

So, since the situation would not be any worse than it is now, would you agree that there is no justification for the U.S. to take military action?

So far, no one has been killed.

So, you want to wait until a nuclear device is launched at us and detonated. You are either fool or an Obama patsy.

 

[forkup]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

 

[miketx]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

So since you can't dazzle us, baffle us? No mention of you telling him that he was ok with millions of Japanese being killed. Got it.

 

[Richard-H]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

 

[forkup]

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

So since you can't dazzle us, baffle us? No mention of you telling him that he was ok with millions of Japanese being killed. Got it.

-I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?
I highlighted and underlined the relevant bit of the post. Since you seem to be too busy putting words in MY mouth. It's called being precise with wording. You might try it sometimes, it helps when confronted with people who aren't interested in having actual informed discussions.

 

[Divine Wind]

....In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

Disagreed. Sure, some here are beating war drums, but I strongly doubt a single one of them is in the military or is willing to lead the first wave on the beach.

American leadership is concerned about this, but they're also putting a lot of pressure on China to fix it.

 

[Richard-H]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

So do you feel that we should attack before NoKo has the capability of nuking Japan? Or do you think that it's to late and if we attacked, NoKo would nuke Japan as a consequence?

 

[DarkFury]

In order to justify military action against North Korea, the following question needs to be answered:

What if we do not take military action and let North Korea develop and arsenal of nuclear missiles?

What would the consequences be?

To take it one step further, what if we conceded to all of North Korea's demands? i.e. lift sanctions, remove U.S. troops from Korea, and make a peace treaty?

What would be the consequences?

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

Oh I disagree. A nuke drop changes everything. But the reply would come before any national grief. Anger would be the first human reply. To deny that makes one a fool.

 

[miketx]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

How many innocents burned alive will be acceptable to you before korea is stopped?

 

[Richard-H]

....In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

Disagreed. Sure, some here are beating war drums, but I strongly doubt a single one of them is in the military or is willing to lead the first wave on the beach.

American leadership is concerned about this, but they're also putting a lot of pressure on China to fix it.

So you do not believe that there is some point in NoKo nuke development that the U.S. can not allow and would have to attack?

Effectively, you're saying that we should try all diplomatic means, but if that fails we should take no military action and allow NoKo to develop a nuclear arsenal.

Consequences?

 

[forkup]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

 

[Richard-H]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

How many innocents burned alive will be acceptable to you before korea is stopped?

How many innocents will be burned alive if NoKo is NOT stopped?

 

[Richard-H]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

 

[forkup]

I think the man running the country is insane and is not to be trusted. I don't really know what the answer is here.

Fat boy has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Yes he has a 3stage missile but it's not dependable enough Thus far boy nukes Japan and starts shelling South Korea. That takes Japan out for at least 3 days.

A nuke in the middle of Tokio would cause millions of death, but I guess that would just be collateral damage to you?

Why do you fail at putting words in others mouth?

Darkfury in his post said that Japan would be taken out for only 3 days in event of them being nuked. Thereby totally skating by the fact that a single nuke in a densely populated country like Japan would have dire consequences on a human level. If someone talks about nuclear weapons purely military while disregarding the human cost. It is a valid reply to question the callousness of that poster. I also made it a point to put it out as a question, not a statement. Since I'm always very careful when I give opinions, since I'm aware of the difference between my opinion and the truth and try to distinguish the 2.

So do you feel that we should attack before NoKo has the capability of nuking Japan? Or do you think that it's to late and if we attacked, NoKo would nuke Japan as a consequence?

I don't know if they are capable of marrying their ICBM's (which they have), to nuclear weapons (which they also have) and since I don't know I want to err on the side of caution. Hoping your enemies weapons fail doesn't seem like sound strategy to me.

 

[forkup]

So, to sum up what has been said by a few:

1. Don't answer the question, but attack Democrats instead, since that's all some people apparently know how to do.

2. Some believe that there would be no major change, but that NoKo would sell arms, including nuclear missiles to any of a number of belligerent countries - possibly even terrorist groups.

3, NoKo would attack and invade SoKo, possibly nuke Japan, and if the U.S. intervened probably launch missile attacked against the U.S.

My thoughts on this are:

1. Noko signed an agreement with the Bush administration (The elder President Bush), whereby they agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. The fact that they have violated this agreement shows that they can not be trusted in any agreements.

2. If allowed to develop nuclear missiles, they will use them to extort the U.S.: They will invade SoKo. They will sell nuclear missiles. For as long as we are unwilling to attack them they will continue to leverage the threat of a nuclear missile attack against us in every way possible.

3. Until this time the U.S. involvement in Korea has been strictly to defend SoKo from NoKo. Given that NoKo is threatening the U.S. directly, our strategic interest has changed drastically. We are justified in unilaterally attacking NoKo.

4. The only strategy (that I can think of), that is short of an all out attack against NoKo, would be if our anti-ballistic missile systems were capable of destroying NoKo missiles and we were to prove that the next time NoKo tested a missile. That would effectively render their missile program impotent.

5, Since item #4 is doubtful. An all out attack against NoKo is the only possible strategy.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

In other words, from an American point of view, the consequences of not attacking them are far worse than the consequences of attacking them.

If you doubt point 4 why do you believe that the consequences of not attacking them would be worse? This is where you lose me. If you have no defense against ICBM's then any attack against N-Korea would more then likely result in catastrophic damage to Japan and S-Korea. Piss of China because not only is N-Korea under their protection but they also would receive fallout either from Japan or the pile of rubble that used to be N-Korea. Not attacking N-Korea doesn't mean that Kim Jung Un will launch his. The consequences of attacking N-Korea are far reaching and unpredictable. Not attacking N-Korea caries risk too but it has the benefit to count on basic self preservation on Kim Jung Un's part to make it work.

As of now, NoKos missile capabilties are not developed enough to nuke anyone. There may be a huge amount of casualties from conventional weapons in SoKo if we attacked now, however there is a large probability that the number of casualties would not be near what some have predicted. It depends how we attacked. Japan would not be attacked.

The consequences of NOT attacking are much more far reaching that the consequences of attacking.

China will do NOTHING. The war would probably be over before China know that it started.

And you know this how? They've had both failed and succeeded missile tests.

 

[tycho1572]

NK is a can presidents have been kicking down the road for years. We now have a president who knows it's a can we can't keep kicking along.

NK is now a serious threat to the US, and its allies. We finally have a president who isn't afraid of addressing this problem head on.
IMO, it's about f'ing time!