US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't consider the massive trade deficit of the US versus China being a factor? Or that the US allowed China to break trademark, copyright, and WTO rules regularly? Or allowing the theft of products & businesses that were brought into being in China by foreign companies? I could go on with many more examples.

Obama pandered to the PRC as long the PRC loaned him money to pay for his idiotic agenda. He avoided any chance of annoying them and on more than one occasion, withdrew support from US allies allowing the PRC to expand regardless of international laws.

And China's economic growth is a series of mistruths. I lived in China for the last seven years... and while you can definitely see the growth in the primary Tier 1 cities, and even some of the Tier 2 cities, China is severely diminished in other areas.

It's economic growth is more of a propaganda drive and puts money into the hands of the rich/corrupt rather than seriously improving the state of the nation. It's having major issues producing enough food with its existing land, population controls have been removed (a 2nd child baby boom is underway), pollution is a major issue across virtually every city tier 1-3 and it's facing social unrest due to the differences in wealth for the poor/uneducated vs those in the cities. It's recent scandals about insider trading where the government encouraged the poor to invest in the stock exchange.. and then, encouraged insider trading scams to occur, so that the poor lost everything and the rich got richer. Yay! Go team China. And where is all of this money going? Yup. To buy football teams in Europe, amusement parks in the US, and real estate in other Asian countries. Oh, and the major investment in upgrading their military... purely for defensive purposes.. and the major rise in TV shows/movies replaying Japanese aggression in China, and replaying news reports of the US/UN interfering with their foreign policy...

You have just described America! :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have just described America! :pac:

Gatling

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Why do the Americans stage massive military exercises so close to Korea? It really doesn't help matters antagonising Kim. Kim needs to show strength in response.

The Pacific is a massive ocean, can America find somewhere else to play their war games? Idiots.

Simple North Korea keeps Threatening south Korea ,

Do you know anything about korea

Manic Moran

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

Will you be joining up to fight? Will you encourage family and friends to go fight?

Well, I wear a uniform which says "US Army", so I would expect to be going that direction if the balloon went up, so I think I can dispense with that silly argument. And, yes, war with North Korea genuinely scares me, far more so than my other deployments. I kind of like living. It also has no relevance to whether or not I think risking a war is the correct idea.

It does not discount the cold reality of his logic. There is a balancing act, in which we are betting that by avoiding a disaster now, we will not be suffering a catastrophe in the future. One can certainly argue the probability of that catastrophe, but the mere fact that the idea of a conventional war now will be a tragedy nobody wants does not automatically preclude it from being the best of a bad set of choices.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

It does not discount the cold reality of his logic. There is a balancing act, in which we are betting that by avoiding a disaster now, we will not be suffering a catastrophe in the future. One can certainly argue the probability of that catastrophe, but the mere fact that the idea of a conventional war now will be a tragedy nobody wants does not automatically preclude it from being the best of a bad set of choices.

A conventional war would be the best answer to the problem considering the host of worse options on the table but it's not going to happen. N.Korea has nuclear, and chemical weapons. Probably has some biological weapons too. They're going to use everything they have against any invader. Western populations don't really understand the mindset of Asian people... they've been culturally, politically, and morally indoctrinated in one form or another for centuries.

One thing to note is that the S.Korean regime isnt perfect either.. it's just got much better propaganda machine with their US allies. A unified Korea would be just as much a danger in the Region as China.. but hey, it seems like the ability to consider situations in the long term has disappeared and everyone looks to short term answers.

Nettle Soup

Gatling wrote: »

Simple North Korea keeps Threatening south Korea ,

Do you know anything about korea

They are 70 year old threats!

Ignore a barking dog.

josip

Deleted User wrote: »

...They're going to use everything they have against any invader...

What happens if there are no invaders?

ilkhanid

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Their track record after that isn't so great.
Vietnam and Korea didn't benefit and Iraq, Pakistan and Libya certainly are hell holes.

The USA never "liberated" Vietnam. It was the French who dragged them into that imbroglio. Iraq and Pakistan have been hell-holes for several decades now (depending on whom you're talking to)

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

In fact the present situation came about because of meddling by the US.
Anyone still advocating US military intervention in any country to bring them freedom, hamburgers and apple pie is an utter moron and a troll and should be prevented from breeding.

Wasn't it Russian meddling that brought about this situation in the first place. There probably would have been no war had not the USSR gave Kim il-Sung the go-ahead to invade the South back in 1950.

Discodog wrote: »

It's more likely that, if we continue to allow him to develop nukes, he will launch conventional missiles against Japan or threaten the south.

this is the real danger, not that Kim will use a nuclear weapon, but that believing himself to be invincible, he will try to use the bombs as leverage: either using them as a backup for demands for aid and trade-exortion in plainpeaking; or that, emboldened by the weapons, he might launch attacks on the South, just short of full-scale war, defying South Korea and the US to strike back. His Father had form in that area, as we know.

ilkhanid

ilkhanid wrote: »

Wasn't it Russian meddling that brought about this situation in the first place. There probably would have been no war had not the USSR gave Kim il-Sung the go-ahead to invade the South back in 1950.

In the years immediately after WWII, the allies split between capitalists & communists and both sides went on a global quest to "recruit" nations to their side. NATO and Warsaw Pact being two of the biggest "clubs" that resulted from this quest.

There were many others in the rest of the world, but most of these are less well known, both the US and USSR were active in promoting regime change in many countries.

Dictatorships were tolerated because the dictator was supportive of either the USA or USSR and often brutally put down any attempt by local rebels that could be supported by the other main player.

josip

josip wrote: »

What happens if there are no invaders?

Honestly, I suspect they'll keep developing their military, make expansive gestures and wait until China has its war with the US.. Then they'll step in to take S.Korea.

But I don't think they'll do anything without Chinese support. So.. I'd give it 3-5 years.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, I suspect they'll keep developing their military, make expansive gestures and wait until China has its war with the US.

China will never go to war with the US. It would be mutually destructive. Lose Lose. They are already winning the Economic "war" hands down.

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

China will never go to war with the US. It would be mutually destructive. Lose Lose. They are already winning the Economic "war" hands down.

Lose lose..? only if Nuclear weapons are used and if China doesn't launch them at the US, then it's highly unlikely that the US will use them against China. Which means a conventional war. And US military power is not what it used to be. A decade of high use has reduced their capabilities along with the reluctance to sustain casualties. Whereas China has not had a war since WW2, and has a rather strong ambition to prove themselves the worlds superpower. I could give loads of details/reasons about China's desires in the region, but there's little point. I would suggest checking what Mao said about Nuclear war... that mentality hasn't changed much in other Chinese leaders.

I won't bother repeating what I said about the Chinese economy or adding other info. It's obvious that you've bought into the mainstream idea of Chinese development.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

Lose lose..? only if Nuclear weapons are used and if China doesn't launch them at the US, then it's highly unlikely that the US will use them against China. Which means a conventional war.

I think you are completely wrong. Times have changed. There will be no conventional war either. The USA will not enter into a conventional war if they know they are outgunned. And the USA will use their nuclear weapons if there is any risk of a Chinese takeover or invasion. The nuclear deterrent is exactly the reason why there has been no major conventional war between the superpowers since WW2. Do you think Trump would hesitate if losing a war?

War with the USA is a lose lose for China and vice versa. They are too clever for that. They are already taking over the world economically.

ok. I don't particularly feel like going around in circles. Agree to disagree.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't consider the massive trade deficit of the US versus China being a factor? Or that the US allowed China to break trademark, copyright, and WTO rules regularly? Or allowing the theft of products & businesses that were brought into being in China by foreign companies? I could go on with many more examples.

Obama pandered to the PRC as long the PRC loaned him money to pay for his idiotic agenda. He avoided any chance of annoying them and on more than one occasion, withdrew support from US allies allowing the PRC to expand regardless of international laws.

And China's economic growth is a series of mistruths. I lived in China for the last seven years... and while you can definitely see the growth in the primary Tier 1 cities, and even some of the Tier 2 cities, China is severely diminished in other areas.

It's economic growth is more of a propaganda drive and puts money into the hands of the rich/corrupt rather than seriously improving the state of the nation. It's having major issues producing enough food with its existing land, population controls have been removed (a 2nd child baby boom is underway), pollution is a major issue across virtually every city tier 1-3 and it's facing social unrest due to the differences in wealth for the poor/uneducated vs those in the cities. It's recent scandals about insider trading where the government encouraged the poor to invest in the stock exchange.. and then, encouraged insider trading scams to occur, so that the poor lost everything and the rich got richer. Yay! Go team China. And where is all of this money going? Yup. To buy football teams in Europe, amusement parks in the US, and real estate in other Asian countries. Oh, and the major investment in upgrading their military... purely for defensive purposes.. and the major rise in TV shows/movies replaying Japanese aggression in China, and replaying news reports of the US/UN interfering with their foreign policy...

You have a lot of points here ranging from trade deficits, copyright infringements, sovereign debt, wealth inequality, propaganda, pollution, football treams etc etc.

However I asked you what tangible things could Obama have done to stop China's economic growth and would they have worked?

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

You have a lot of points here ranging from trade deficits, copyright infringements, sovereign debt, wealth inequality, propaganda etc etc.

However I asked you what tangible things could Obama have done to stop China's economic growth and would they have worked?

You do realise that those things I listed are directly connected to China's economic growth? You seriously don't see the connection?

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise that those things I listed are directly connected to China's economic growth? You seriously don't see the connection?

No not at all, I think you just did a complete brain dump without answering the question. I don't think you know the point you are making anymore. You're just bringing up other topics.

Since Xiaoping's first economic reform policies in 1978, China have enjoyed approx 10% of GDP growth annually. China's poverty levels declined from 41% of the population to 5% from 1978 to 2001. (whereas you said "It's economic growth is more of a propaganda drive and puts money into the hands of the rich/corrupt rather than seriously improving the state of the nation"). Are you really in China?

Obama was president for 8 years so tell me how he could have prevented it...

OK, forgetting about NK and their predicament with the US for the moment....
China can trace the roots of their economic boom back to when western business leaders started to offer employment to "break the stranglehold" that unions had on manufacturing in many western countries. Thatcher and Reagan saw China as a great place to do business and manufacture whatever was needed without having to deal with those pesky unions.
China grabbed the opportunity with both hands, and the rest is history.

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

No not at all, I think you just did a complete brain dump without answering the question.

Since Xiaoping's first economic reform policies in 1978, China have enjoyed approx 10% of GDP growth annually. China's poverty levels declined from 41% of the population to 5% from 1978 to 2001. (whereas you said "It's economic growth is more of a propaganda drive and puts money into the hands of the rich/corrupt rather than seriously improving the state of the nation"). Are you really in China?

Obama was president for 8 years so tell me how he could have prevented it...

Honestly, I didn't feel like hunting down links and statistics for pretty common information related to China's economy over the last decade and a bit. Still don't.

Nope. I'm currently in Ireland. I did live in China in a tier 2 city for almost 8 years.. So I have seen the actual effects of their economic development in both the cities and the countryside...

Don't have the time to really argue this. Seems reasonable logical to me, and the statistics are available if you look at China's currect economic analysis for the next 3-5 years. But no worries. I have no issue with you believing otherwise.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, forgetting about NK and their predicament with the US for the moment....
China can trace the roots of their economic boom back to when western business leaders started to offer employment to "break the stranglehold" that unions had on manufacturing in many western countries. Thatcher and Reagan saw China as a great place to do business and manufacture whatever was needed without having to deal with those pesky unions.
China grabbed the opportunity with both hands, and the rest is history.

Correct and China wont be giving up it's status as the largest manufacturing nation any time soon.

Eyes Down Field

The biggest problem with invading NK would be the inevitable backlash they would inflict on SK. American could pretty easily take over NK in the space of a couple weeks first with air strikes and eventually a ground sweep to clear the way. But this is impossible to do without casualties in the millions

4068ac1elhodqr

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

The biggest problem with invading NK would be the inevitable backlash they would inflict on SK. American could pretty easily take over NK in the space of a couple weeks first with air strikes and eventually a ground sweep to clear the way. But this is impossible to do without casualties in the millions

All this talk of 'millions' and 'global-world war' and someone even mentioned 'poison air in Europe' is a pure nonsense. They wouldn't need to 'invade' just take out all nk major strategic positions initially, and using only conventional methods. If nk can't put anything up in the air, they're stuffed.

They also won't need to sweep all those rural areas, where the only danger is pitchforks and famine. The nearest tv/radio broadcast stations would suffice, in this information age.

The catch22 is the coalition (us-jap-sk) can't take any action unless deemed at immediate and severe risk, and nk (might) not do anything to cause this reaction, if it means the can continue to quadruple their arsenal year on year.

MickDoyle1979

Eyes Down Field wrote: »

The biggest problem with invading NK would be the inevitable backlash they would inflict on SK. American could pretty easily take over NK in the space of a couple weeks first with air strikes and eventually a ground sweep to clear the way. But this is impossible to do without casualties in the millions

And?

It's worth doing regardless.

MadYaker

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

And?

It's worth doing regardless.

Can you explain to us why you think war is inevitable? Who wants it? Who's going to start it? Do you think Kim intends to fire nuclear weapons or start a conventional war? If so why?

You do realise (and Kim knows this too) That to start a war would result in his death and the destruction of his regime.

Do you not think it's more likely that Kim is simply sabre rattling and developing nuclear weapons so that he will have more bargaining ability to get more foreign aid to keep his regime afloat?

I just don't understand why you think he is determined to destroy himself and his regime.

Manic Moran

I just don't understand why you think he is determined to destroy himself and his regime.

It doesn't require a determination, only a mis-judgement as to what other folks will tolerate. Few people ever -want- a war. History is, however, replete with instances of incorrectly estimating reactions and motivations. Just because Kim thinks he can do something without engaging a larger war doesn't mean that his actions won't have that result.

MickDoyle1979

MadYaker wrote: »

Can you explain to us why you think war is inevitable? Who wants it? Who's going to start it? Do you think Kim intends to fire nuclear weapons or start a conventional war? If so why?

You do realise (and Kim knows this too) That to start a war would result in his death and the destruction of his regime.

Do you not think it's more likely that Kim is simply sabre rattling and developing nuclear weapons so that he will have more bargaining ability to get more foreign aid to keep his regime afloat?

I just don't understand why you think he is determined to destroy himself and his regime.

Are you seriously trying to say the world should tolerate a nuclear armed Kim Jong Un? That a tyrant of such monstrous proportions can be allowed to shake down the civilized world is intolerable. It sets a precedent for every other dictator who wants to disturb global order. It undermines America's largely benevolent hegemony that has created the greatest flowering of freedom and prosperity globally in all of human history.
He must be stopped and stopped soon.
Once he crosses the threshold of being able to lob thermonuclear warhead at any point on Earth it is not just America but everywhere else on Earth that will be in danger.
Kim is a reckless and dangerous psychopath.
He dreams of one day unifying Korea under his rule.
He hopes that the world powers will not risk nuclear war if he sends his forces over the frontier.
He is crazy enough to make that gamble.
We are not dealing with a bargain basement dictator.
We are talking about a ruthless meglomaniac who has defied the world and is close to being able to hold it to random.

tiger55

In 2000, Donald Rumsfeld was the Director of a Company that sold N. Korea Nuclear Reactors
[font=YouTube Noto, Roboto, arial, sans-serif]He was the US defence secretary at the time.[/font]
[font=YouTube Noto, Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Why would they do that?[/font]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSmXnNnE9Wc

Eyes Down Field

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

All this talk of 'millions' and 'global-world war' and someone even mentioned 'poison air in Europe' is a pure nonsense. They wouldn't need to 'invade' just take out all nk major strategic positions initially, and using only conventional methods. If nk can't put anything up in the air, they're stuffed.

They also won't need to sweep all those rural areas, where the only danger is pitchforks and famine. The nearest tv/radio broadcast stations would suffice, in this information age.

The catch22 is the coalition (us-jap-sk) can't take any action unless deemed at immediate and severe risk, and nk (might) not do anything to cause this reaction, if it means the can continue to quadruple their arsenal year on year.

You do realize that the north has thousands of artillery rounds pointed at the South, ready to go as soon as one of their attacked. Sure they would be defeated in time, but not without going out in a massive blaze of glory, firing everything they have at the south.

An invasion, ground sweep is absolutely necessary from the DMZ to the Dangong river. Once the resisters are dead, There will be a humanitarian crisis the likes of which the world has never seen.

Kermit.de.frog

tiger55 wrote: »

In 2000, Donald Rumsfeld was the Director of a Company that sold N. Korea Nuclear Reactors
[font=YouTube Noto, Roboto, arial, sans-serif]He was the US defence secretary at the time.[/font]
[font=YouTube Noto, Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Why would they do that?[/font]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSmXnNnE9Wc

Is the person in the video an authority on the issue?

fxotoole

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Not a bad post but contains various errors, 'conventional' is indeed the way to go, but this would not mean millions are injured, just thousands and the county would still be re-operational afterwards.

MOAB and other large amounts of 'steel rain' all within a very short span at all threatening locations (not population centers). Shortly afterwards a unilateral liberation force to secure and bring food and aid to the NK's who have suffered the most in this charade.

Yes he/the situation needs to go (as every sensible world leader would agree). But ideally in the most 'elegant method' possible. There are various methods, one of the last methods available, and most dramatic, need not be the first choice.

Someone mentioned 'the air here being severely affected', in the 'last case scenario', very, very doubtful that would be the case.

What makes you think the average North Korean will view your forces as liberators, not invaders? The population are brainwashed to give their lives for the Kim's. You could be facing a massive nationwide insurgency of fanatics who will fight to the death, a la World War II Japan.