North Korea...what if?

[forkup]

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

The leader of NoKo has shown no honesty humanity or reason. And he might be just dumb enough to think he would survive.

Want me to post some of the rhetoric Reagan spouted? The USSR went broke because they believed he would attack them. He didn't and he was neither insane nor stupid. Convincing the other side you will not hesitate using nukes has been a tactic used by Kennedy, Brezhnev, Reagan and others. At the moment you have simply fear, and you are willing to risk millions of lives to alleviate it.

There Soviets went broke over star wars. Oh and Truman wanted to use the bomb on NoKo himself!

No, Macarthur did. Truman fired him because of it. It is the increase in military expenditure, of which star wars was just one part that destroyed the Soviets.

 

[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?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

Yes there is a reason to believe they would behave. Certainty of death usually focuses the mind wonderfully.. As to him striking Japan with a single nuclear weapon. What happens you think when someone attacks a member of NATO with nukes? That nations lifespan is measured in minutes, that simple. Thinking anything else is silly.

Japan is not a member of NATO.

What happens if we respond to an attack on Japan when NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal capable to reaching the U.S.?

 

[MaryL]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

 

[DarkFury]

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?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

Yes there is a reason to believe they would behave. Certainty of death usually focuses the mind wonderfully.. As to him striking Japan with a single nuclear weapon. What happens you think when someone attacks a member of NATO with nukes? That nations lifespan is measured in minutes, that simple. Thinking anything else is silly.

Japan is not a member of NATO.

What happens if we respond to an attack on Japan when NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal capable to reaching the U.S.?

They say at best he has 3 to 5 nukes. No word on their distance though.

 

[Richard-H]

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

The leader of NoKo has shown no honesty humanity or reason. And he might be just dumb enough to think he would survive.

Want me to post some of the rhetoric Reagan spouted? The USSR went broke because they believed he would attack them. He didn't and he was neither insane nor stupid. Convincing the other side you will not hesitate using nukes has been a tactic used by Kennedy, Brezhnev, Reagan and others. At the moment you have simply fear, and you are willing to risk millions of lives to alleviate it.

There Soviets went broke over star wars. Oh and Truman wanted to use the bomb on NoKo himself!

No, Macarthur did. Truman fired him because of it. It is the increase in military expenditure, of which star wars was just one part that destroyed the Soviets.

Neither star wars nor military expenditures destroyed the Soviet Union. It had NOTHING to do with outside influences.

The people of the Soviet Union became overwhelmingly cynical towards the Soviet Union - especially after Chernobyl. Even high level members of the communist party realized that communism was BULLSHIT.

But That's a who;e other discussion.

 

[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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

I think that you hit the nail on the head!

 

[Richard-H]

Good night all!

Please keep discussing!

 

[forkup]

Of course you wouldn't ignore a dud. The question is do you attack a country because they develop nuclear weapons and ICBM's because they don't like you? When you can't predict the full consequences of an attack, or for that matter can't establish a reasoning for that country to want to commit collective suicide?

The reply to this is rather easy. Would you rather live with the deaths of 3 million innocents or criminals?

How do you know it would be 3 million death? A nuke on Japan would be considerably more.N-Korea is over 25 million people. S-Korea is 50 million. If the US carries out an unprovoked attack, how would China respond? Or the rest of the world for that matter. There are so many variables in this equation it should make your head spin. Not to mention that you still haven't established a real reasoning why a country with 25 million people would attack a country of 50 million backed by the most powerful nation in the world. Why do you feel the US is justified risking the lives of more then a hundred million people and if this escalates possibly the world on the assumption the leader of S-Korea is suicidal?

The instant kill zone of the nuke dropped in Japan was 1.6 square miles. I just looked it up.

So, lets assume that N-Korea would only kill a million Japanese. 25 Million N-Koreans would likely die in retaliation. All because the US assumed that N-Korea was irrational enough to commit suicide. Do you know how that scenario ultimately pans out? Show me an actual reasoning behind your belief that N-Korea would start something and then you might have a point.

Here's my reasoning:

1. NoKo sells arms to the highest bidder. They're no reason to believe they would not sell nukes to terrorists.

2. NoKo is determined to united all of Korea. They're ability to nuke Japan and the U.S. gives them the leverage to force the U.S. out of Korea and SoKo into submission.

3. NoKo can use the threat of nukes to get anything they want as long as the U.S. does not take action.

4. If the U.S. is forced to take action in the future, after NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal, the consequences will be far worse than if the U.S. takes action now.

1. Nuclear material can be traced to it's origin Nuclear bomb debris holds clues to who planted it If the bomb is traced to N-Korea the effect would be the same.
2. No it doesn't. As long as there is no doubt attacking S-Korea would result in US intervention. Something that isn't questioned anywhere in the current or previous administrations. Leverage only works if the other side can't strike back. The US can certainly strike back so that chip is of the table. I've made this point at nausea. There is no scenario where N-Korea attacks anybody without being burned to a crisp.
3."There is no scenario where N-Korea attacks anybody without being burned to a crisp.'
4. History disagrees. Almost 70 years of nuclear weapons haven't resulted in any nuclear exchange because such an exchange means death to both belligerent nations.

 

[12icer]

Fire a shit ton of missiles all at once and take out as many artillery as possible. Then bomb every one of his missile sites and nuclear testing sites... and finally bomb whatever palace Fat Boy Kim is at. Game over.

You people are funny as hell, Apparently you know nothing whatsoever of the actual systems in play in the event of a nuclear launch by any nation in the world. instant tracking and instant target impact result probability. The FACT is there Is already a programmed plan for every possible launch that can be used to target any spot on earth, and an automatic instantaneous retaliation plan for each possible. They are upgraded daily and only subject to the input of a completed launch initiation string. ONCE the Input is received there is NO way to reverse the action as the entire program is closed and the directions are run in a completely local system that is protected from any outside breach. When you initiate an attack against on of the sites it goes offline and retaliates with the last programmed initiating string and unless it is manned at the time of the attack and stopped from initiating a launch it will carry out it's last instructions. That is a short simple explanation that does not include all of the systems in play for failsafe operation. After all it is designed to try to inform liberals of a worldwide system that they could not possibly begun to understand.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

The only problem with your statement, is that the U.S is the one who has invaded many lands, rather than North Korea.

 

[U2Edge]

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?

North Korea already has 20 Nuclear Warheads that can be used on their short and medium range ballistic missiles that have ranges from 200 to 800 miles, essentially all of South Korea, Japan and parts of China and Russia.

What North Korea is now building toward is a long range missile or ICBM that can hit the United States. They have achieved the range with the rockets they used last week. But many believe these rockets are too small to carry a nuclear warhead. They will need a larger missile with the same range able to carry a Nuclear Warhead or multiple warheads or decoys. The next thing is that they need to design a warhead that can survive re-entry into the atmosphere since ICBM's go into outer space during their glide phase. They also need to work on CEP, or Circular error probable because initially the error's in targeting with such a long range missile are probably large.

Another factor to consider is if they have mastered the use of solid fuel. If so that opens up a lot more options for them and will help them conceal their missiles and make them ready to launch at any time.

The consequences of achieving this will likely be that the United States and its allies will need to rely on deterrence and containment in order to prevent North Korea from ever using such weapons. The threat of nuclear annihilation of North Korea and its leadership will really all that will be left stopping the North from using these weapons. Missile Defense is a band aid because any missile defense can be overwhelmed. That is until and if directed energy weapons, lasers, become developed enough to provide easy, cost effective, destruction of missiles of any range and at any altitude. But that could be a long way off.

Lifting sanctions on North Korea will only strengthen the regime, a peace treaty would likely just be treated as a piece of paper by the North, and the removal of U.S. troops would weaken South Korean defenses but more importantly weaken overall deterrence making war more likely. The North is never going to give up its missile program and still desires to re-unite the Korean Peninsula, but only under its control.

 

[forkup]

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?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

Yes there is a reason to believe they would behave. Certainty of death usually focuses the mind wonderfully.. As to him striking Japan with a single nuclear weapon. What happens you think when someone attacks a member of NATO with nukes? That nations lifespan is measured in minutes, that simple. Thinking anything else is silly.

Japan is not a member of NATO.

What happens if we respond to an attack on Japan when NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal capable to reaching the U.S.?

You are right I was confused they have the status of MNNA. It doesn't mean mutual defense automatically but it is very likely.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So far the anti-war people seem to believe that letting NoKo develop a Nuclear arsenal will not have a significant consequences - they're happy to let Noko fully develop the ability to incinerate the U.S.

Wouldn't Russia and China just love that situation? NoKo & the U.S. can destroy each other while they sit and watch - no consequences for them.

Keep in mind only the U.S has used such kind of Nuclear weapons on a civilian population.

The history of the U.S.A is not a clean one, not even in recent years.

 

[Lewdog]

Fire a shit ton of missiles all at once and take out as many artillery as possible. Then bomb every one of his missile sites and nuclear testing sites... and finally bomb whatever palace Fat Boy Kim is at. Game over.

You people are funny as hell, Apparently you know nothing whatsoever of the actual systems in play in the event of a nuclear launch by any nation in the world. instant tracking and instant target impact result probability. The FACT is there Is already a programmed plan for every possible launch that can be used to target any spot on earth, and an automatic instantaneous retaliation plan for each possible. They are upgraded daily and only subject to the input of a completed launch initiation string. ONCE the Input is received there is NO way to reverse the action as the entire program is closed and the directions are run in a completely local system that is protected from any outside breach. When you initiate an attack against on of the sites it goes offline and retaliates with the last programmed initiating string and unless it is manned at the time of the attack and stopped from initiating a launch it will carry out it's last instructions. That is a short simple explanation that does not include all of the systems in play for failsafe operation. After all it is designed to try to inform liberals of a worldwide system that they could not possibly begun to understand.

WTF are you talking about? Did I say at any time for the U.S. to use a nuclear weapon?

 

[forkup]

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?

Why do you keep insisting there will be consequences? There are 8 other countries with nuclear weapons capability India and Pakistan are mortal enemies, they haven't nuked one another. Why not? Answer, they don't want to bear the cost of it. The same applies to N-Korea. Do you honestly believe that Kim Jung Un doesn't know that the US would interfere in case of attack on S-Korea? Or that he would be willing to take the risk if he would doubt it?

So far Kim Jung Un seems to be hell bent on pushing everything as far as he can He seems to be secure in believing that we will not strike because he can destroy Seoul. What would stop him from a single nuclear strike against a city in Japan to get what he wants? He'd still hold Seoul hostage against any U.S. response.

Peace at any price does NOT work. There's no reason to believe that Un would behave.

Yes there is a reason to believe they would behave. Certainty of death usually focuses the mind wonderfully.. As to him striking Japan with a single nuclear weapon. What happens you think when someone attacks a member of NATO with nukes? That nations lifespan is measured in minutes, that simple. Thinking anything else is silly.

Japan is not a member of NATO.

What happens if we respond to an attack on Japan when NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal capable to reaching the U.S.?

What happens if we respond to an attack on Japan when NoKo has a full nuclear arsenal capable to reaching the U.S.?

Both countries die. Just like what would have happened during the cold war between the US and the USSR It didn't which is my point for the tenth time.

 

[MaryL]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

The only problem with your statement, is that the U.S is the one who has invaded many lands, rather than North Korea.

The problem with your post is you implied I said that. What does that have to do with this? You aren't DEFENDING Kim Jong-il, are you?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

The only problem with your statement, is that the U.S is the one who has invaded many lands, rather than North Korea.

The problem with your post is you implied I said that. What does that have to do with this? You aren't DEFENDING Kim Jong-il, are you?

I certainly don't defend Kim Jung Un.

 

[MaryL]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

The only problem with your statement, is that the U.S is the one who has invaded many lands, rather than North Korea.

The problem with your post is you implied I said that. What does that have to do with this? You aren't DEFENDING Kim Jong-il, are you?

I certainly don't defend Kim Jung Un.

OK, as long as we are on the same page, then. It sure sounds like you are trying to enable a dictator engaged with nuclear saber rattling. That saber cost billions that could have just as well went to feeding the poor and starving North Koreans instead. I hope you aren't defending such a villain.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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?

Well, good question. We did that with Hitler's Germany. Then he invaded his neighbors, which led to a major war. We could have well had just shut them (Hitler of Jung) down before they got to that point. You hear that? It's the sound of history repeating itself.

The only problem with your statement, is that the U.S is the one who has invaded many lands, rather than North Korea.

The problem with your post is you implied I said that. What does that have to do with this? You aren't DEFENDING Kim Jong-il, are you?

I certainly don't defend Kim Jung Un.

OK, as long as we are on the same page, then. It sure sounds like you are trying to enable a dictator engaged with nuclear saber rattling. That saber cost billions that could have just as well went to feeding the poor and starving North Koreans instead. I hope you aren't defending such a villain.

Communist authorities are typically paranoid tyrants, in this aspect they're actually rather similar to the American authorities.

 

[my2¢]

Korea isn't in any position to take on anybody in terms of an offensive. Fat Boy over there is just playing defense and making sure nobody messes with him so not to end up like Saddam and Gaddafi.