North Korea - Page 2

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I doubt we would nuke them even if they did level Seoul. IIRC, the non-proliferation treaty also says that signatories shall not be the first side to use nukes. Only if biochem or nuke weapons were used would you have enough support to use the weapons.

yes and since the US is the MAD umbrella for seoul. using artillery on seoul is no longer MAD.

chequita guevara · August 29, 2003, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
as it has been presupposed many times by both sides. Kim just wants to keep his power. If u enter a regime changing bombing campaign, what would stop him from using nukes? I don't see the big guarentee that he'll see our b-52's and think "well since they're fighting fair i guess they can have my country."

That's the point, isn't it. As long as he has nukes, we won't attack. The DPRK is an aggressive little ****, but it is deeply frightened of being attacked by the US. It's a national paranoia. They really believe an American assault is just around the corner.

chequita guevara · August 29, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
yes and since the US is the MAD umbrella for seoul. using artillery on seoul is no longer MAD.

We still have more than enugh conventional firepower to destroy every DPRK city. MAD still applies.

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

That's the point, isn't it. As long as he has nukes, we won't attack. The DPRK is an aggressive little ****, but it is deeply frightened of being attacked by the US. It's a national paranoia. They really believe an American assault is just around the corner.

maybe u r just arguing w/ me out of habit. I first responded to the idea that arty on seoul is in MAD territory.

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

We still have more than enugh conventional firepower to destroy every DPRK city. MAD still applies.

will we use it though? like I said in an earlier post. will Kim say "well since they're fighting fair i wont use my nukes on LA." after seeing our b52's.

chequita guevara · August 29, 2003, 13:59

You're saying that if he has nukes, we won't respond at all. That's simply not true. We were prepared t destroy the world over Berlin when the wall went up and again when Cuba was putting up missiles.

A hand full of North Korean nukes will not deter the US from defending the RoK if it is attacked. Our nuke threat is, you use those things and we'll glass you.

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're saying that if he has nukes, we won't respond at all. That's simply not true. We were prepared t destroy the world over Berlin when the wall went up and again when Cuba was putting up missiles.

A hand full of North Korean nukes will not deter the US from defending the RoK if it is attacked. Our nuke threat is, you use those things and we'll glass you.

I'm perfectly aware of what our threat is. politicians make threats ALL THE TIME they live up to about 3% of them. I am in serious doubt that we would endanger LA for seoul. u may hold a more noble view that we actually would simply absorb losing los angeles as the price to pay. I somehow doubt it. when the threat was RUSSIA the stakes were much higher, the enemy much larger and the idealogies much more influential. this is a crazy korean **** that seoul should be responsible for.

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 14:15

We would defend SK.

-Arrian

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
We would defend SK.

-Arrian

at what price?

Arrian · August 29, 2003, 14:19

The stakes are pretty damn high. If NK attacks SK and we fail to defend our ally, any other nation allied with us will figure we'll leave them hanging if the **** ever hits the fan. Our "security umbrella" will be shot full of holes. That has really, really bad implications for our position in the world.

We're a superpower, and we wish to remain a superpower. Superpowers don't run away if a nutbag like Kim attacks an ally. Even if he says he has nukes than can hit the West Coast.

-Arrian

yavoon · August 29, 2003, 14:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
The stakes are pretty damn high. If NK attacks SK and we fail to defend our ally, any other nation allied with us will figure we'll leave them hanging if the **** ever hits the fan. Our "security umbrella" will be shot full of holes. That has really, really bad implications for our position in the world.

We're a superpower, and we wish to remain a superpower. Superpowers don't run away if a nutbag like Kim attacks an ally. Even if he says he has nukes than can hit the West Coast.

-Arrian

we won't run away. but we won't try to overthrow kim either. we might defend seoul. fund them, sponsor inssurections. bomb the artillery positions. politically/economically rape north korea internationally. any # of things that dont involve making them glow in the dark or carpet bombing them to the "stone age."

I mean we're not the UN w/ our threats. we're still a political entity and inherently are going to try and balk when a threat goes too far.

Nubclear · August 29, 2003, 15:01

Pyongyang nukes Seoul
Washington nukes Pyongyang
Pyongyang nukes LA
OMFG Pyongyang has no more nukes!!!
North Korea turns to glass
Yay!

LDiCesare · August 29, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

sponsor inssurections.

In North Korea? Do you have any idea what it's like over there? The brainwashing all these people suffer?
I am unsure NK would or can strike LA. They probably would nuke Japan first to show what they can do in hope of avoiding destruction if they struck LA.

Kuciwalker · August 29, 2003, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Pyongyang nukes Seoul
Washington nukes Pyongyang
Pyongyang nukes LA
OMFG Pyongyang has no more nukes!!!
North Korea turns to glass
Yay!

who needs LA anyways?

Whaleboy · August 29, 2003, 19:46

What right does anyone have to nukes?

What makes the USA different to NK in that respect. Who is to say that there is a difference (the USA?

)?

Joseph · August 29, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
There will be no war.

What I'd frankly prefer is if we (USA) just said "fine, you want to build nukes while your people starve? Go ahead. But you will get nothing from us. Not a goddamned thing. Not a drop of oil. Not one bag of grain. Not a single penny."

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle/pandora's box is open. I think we ought to have the CIA/NSA/FBI/whatever agencies are responsible for it keep tabs on the possibility of proliferation to non-governmental organizations (Al-Quaida, etc.), and fund them well, but other than that, screw it. This whole blackmail situation is ridiculous.

North Korea has 1 trump card: nukes. That regime will never surrender them. Ever. It makes no sense for them to do so. Given that, I have no interest whatsoever in helping prop them up (food aid, fuel oil, money, whatever goodies they will demand this time - after that whole non-agression bit is dealt with). I say we just ignore them.

-Arrian

I agree with one little extra, tell them we are parking an "OHIO" class boat with all 20 tubes aim at them somewhere in the Pacific. If they make one small step to start trouble all 20 tubs will be headed their way.