US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

suicide_circus

FOOLS!!!!

YOU CAN NEVER DEFEAT NORTH KOREA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

BillyBobBS

Sanctions are dead. Time for military action to take out this dangerous North Korean fool.

archer22

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Sanctions are dead. Time for military action to take out this dangerous North Korean fool.

Let us know when you are going so we can turn up at the airport to wave you off.

archer22

Gatling wrote: »

Wonder if they will run out of food before they run out of rockets

They won't run out of either.

Gatling

archer22 wrote: »

They won't run out of either.

Did kim tell you that himself

archer22

Gatling wrote: »

Did kim tell you that himself

They have as much food as you have nonsense...in other words an endless supply.

suicide_circus

archer22 wrote: »

They have as much food as you have nonsense...in other words an endless supply.

Would you say it's a glorious supply?

archer22

Anyhow looks like the missiles are working perfect now and they can easily whack the Great Satan if they wish :cool:

Bobeagleburger

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Sanctions are dead. Time for military action to take out this dangerous North Korean fool.

Best of luck. North Korea v Internet military

HairySalmon

HairySalmon wrote: »

Time enough to blast NK off the face of the earth and be done with all this.

They should be anihilated for taking the world by hostage

Now you sound like Trump... taking the world by hostage? Such Drama! (When did S.Korea and Japan become the world..?)

On a side note, Do you think anyone that approves nuking N.Korea would last long before coming up on charges for Mass murder of civilians/innocents?

HairySalmon

HairySalmon wrote: »

Time enough to blast NK off the face of the earth and be done with all this.

They should be anihilated for taking the world by hostage

If I had tens of millions, I'd offer all you war-hungry folk insanely well-paid jobs in Seoul and then track your posts on here.

It would be fascinating to see your balls shrink within a day.

fxotoole

archer22 wrote: »

They have as much food as you have nonsense...in other words an endless supply.

Yes indeed. North Korea is Best Korea.

aloyisious

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes but that is irrelevant.

Do you think Trump was acting responsibly with his "fire and fury" comment?

Never mind the political delinquency of it but the practical implications of what he said with that remark are the most serious any US president has made since WW2.

He talked about "fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen". So he must mean greater than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan then?

The man is suppose to be the President of the United States for goodness sake.

A bit of cop on with language wouldn't go a miss.

That is why he is now in a hole with this. He backed himself in to a corner.

When reading Don's speeches, you've got to delete what seems to be gross exaggeration and keep the rest. Don like verbal exaggeration, like "fire and fury like the world has never seen before", anything to better Storming Norman's quote.

BillyBobBS

Time for the Donald to step up and put this fool in a coffin.

aloyisious

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

South Korea fired two missiles in response, one failed






All you had to do was fire one.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiV4rWL9abWAhWhCcAKHbWZBcMQFgg1MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenglish.yonhapnews.co.kr%2Fnews%2F2017%2F09%2F15%2F0200000000AEN20170915005900315.html&usg=AFQjCNEyWa8dKM8rYw90mbeFhy9wTA93uw

Jayop

aloyisious wrote: »

When reading Don's speeches, you've got to delete what seems to be gross exaggeration and keep the rest. Don like verbal exaggeration, like "fire and fury like the world has never seen before", anything to better Storming Norman's quote.

Unfortunately we have the capability to do that but his speeches plays right into the hands of a dictator like Kim and will have been played over and over on NK TV.

archer22

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Time for the Donald to step up and put this fool in a coffin.

Why do you want Donald to kill you

willmunny1990

So it seems all the talk from the US and others about never accepting a nuclear powered NK is utter bull****.

NK will eventually become capable and it will just be a case of if Kim is actually mad enough to attack or not, that's the only way NK gets dealt with militarily. There is obviously no diplomatic solution here, you need adults for that and unfortunately there are none in this situation.

willmunny1990

willmunny1990 wrote: »

So it seems all the talk from the US and others about never accepting a nuclear powered NK is utter bull****.

NK will eventually become capable and it will just be a case of if Kim is actually mad enough to attack or not, that's the only way NK gets dealt with militarily. There is obviously no diplomatic solution here, you need adults for that and unfortunately there are none in this situation.

Well... lets be realistic.

1) Invading N.Korea with conventional warfare isn't feasible the way the world now looks at casualities/KIA on both sides.. along with massive civilian casualties. An invasion would cost hundreds of thousands in the invasion and occupation afterwards. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan.. and I suspect N.Korea would actually be worse over time.
2) Regime change through covert ops would just put another nutcase in power, with a population that has been conditioned to see the "West" as the enemy.. also a face/respect based culture so they would definitely respond aggressively. (more terrorism brought to European and US shores)
3) Destroying strategic assets and removing nuclear capabilities.. Many of their strategic weapons are based in civilian areas, so huge collateral damage without guarantees of success... and also no reason to believe that China wouldn't just resupply them anyway..
4) Nuking N.Korea isn't an option unless they (NK) use nukes first. Why? Becuase the world has changed since WW2 and anyone who uses nukes to kill millions will be held account for crimes against humanity. However, used in defence, there are "some" justifications (although considering the way that some asians hold grudges I wouldn't want N.Koreans pissed at my country long term)

The only realistic option without Kim going nuts and nuking/attacking S.Korea/Japan is peace with concessions given on both sides. N.Korea are not going to give up their weapons... so they'll look to be treated the same as other nuclear capable nations like Pakhistan, India, Israel or Turkey..

However if Kim does attack someone, then all gloves can come off... although I suspect that China will invade before anyone else in the name of peace but ultimately preventing a US presence in the region and also preventing a united Korea.

willmunny1990

Deleted User wrote: »

Well... lets be realistic.

1) Invading N.Korea with conventional warfare isn't feasible the way the world now looks at casualities/KIA on both sides.. along with massive civilian casualties. An invasion would cost hundreds of thousands in the invasion and occupation afterwards. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan.. and I suspect N.Korea would actually be worse over time.
2) Regime change through covert ops would just put another nutcase in power, with a population that has been conditioned to see the "West" as the enemy.. also a face/respect based culture so they would definitely respond aggressively. (more terrorism brought to European and US shores)
3) Destroying strategic assets and removing nuclear capabilities.. Many of their strategic weapons are based in civilian areas, so huge collateral damage without guarantees of success... and also no reason to believe that China wouldn't just resupply them anyway..
4) Nuking N.Korea isn't an option unless they (NK) use nukes first. Why? Becuase the world has changed since WW2 and anyone who uses nukes to kill millions will be held account for crimes against humanity. However, used in defence, there are "some" justifications (although considering the way that some asians hold grudges I wouldn't want N.Koreans pissed at my country long term)

The only realistic option without Kim going nuts and nuking/attacking S.Korea/Japan is peace with concessions given on both sides. N.Korea are not going to give up their weapons... so they'll look to be treated the same as other nuclear capable nations like Pakhistan, India, Israel or Turkey..

However if Kim does attack someone, then all gloves can come off... although I suspect that China will invade before anyone else in the name of peace but ultimately preventing a US presence in the region and also preventing a united Korea.

Diplomacy and engagement are the only realistic solutions, all be it the chances of talks being in any way productive are slim and none.

I just can't see talks getting anywhere, the likeliest thing to happen will be much of the same, NK will continue on the way they're going with their tests , Trump will keep doing what he does and NK will eventually become nuclear capable and the US/Japan/South Korea will have to accept and live with it and hope for everyones sake Kim doesn't get a rush of blood.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well... lets be realistic.

1) Invading N.Korea with conventional warfare isn't feasible the way the world now looks at casualities/KIA on both sides.. along with massive civilian casualties. An invasion would cost hundreds of thousands in the invasion and occupation afterwards. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan.. and I suspect N.Korea would actually be worse over time.
2) Regime change through covert ops would just put another nutcase in power, with a population that has been conditioned to see the "West" as the enemy.. also a face/respect based culture so they would definitely respond aggressively. (more terrorism brought to European and US shores)
3) Destroying strategic assets and removing nuclear capabilities.. Many of their strategic weapons are based in civilian areas, so huge collateral damage without guarantees of success...

Not necessarily true at all ,
You cannot compare NK to Iraq in any way at all except both ruled by despots the majority of the deaths in the 2nd Iraq war came from sectarianism due to decades of oppression under Saddam ,
NK wouldn't go the same way unless china sends forces to fight under the guise of an insurgency and Carry out atroscities to blame the south ,
Bar the NK artillery and supposed large army I believe they would be dispatched pretty quickly with conventional weapons and means ,

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Not necessarily true at all ,
You cannot compare NK to Iraq in any way at all except both ruled by despots the majority of the deaths in the 2nd Iraq war came from sectarianism due to decades of oppression under Saddam ,

I can compare the wars in that Saddams conventional forces were destroyed quite quickly, and N.Koreas conventional forces will likely fall just as quickly..

I can also compare the pathetic planning regarding what happens after the invasion is completed and occupation occurs.

But hey... at least when the US says N.Korea has WMDs we can actually know they're tellling the truth, unlike with Iraq. :rolleyes:

NK wouldn't go the same way unless china sends forces to fight under the guise of an insurgency and Carry out atroscities to blame the south ,

Explain further? Don't quite understand your meaning...

Bar the NK artillery and supposed large army I believe they would be dispatched pretty quickly with conventional weapons and means ,

I'm not in the least bit worried about the N.Korean conventional forces. They''ll be destroyed relatively quickly simply because that's the way modern warfare has developed.. and S.Korea has the airforce already to take command of the air.

The issue I have is firstly the conditioned/indoctrinated civilian population who will resist the invasion itself, and secondly the terrorism/guerilla warfare that would occur afterwards. Iraq and Afghanistan wrecked the western world. We're seeing terrorism attacks in Europe now and it's continuing to get worse. We don't have (yet) an effective way to counter that terrorism, and an invasion/occupation of N.Korea would just generate more terrorism imported back into Europe.

I've seen firsthand the conditioning that asian populations can have from living in China, and I suspect, that N.Koreans are even more indoctrinated due to the lack of external influences...

Conventional wars are over relatively quickly when we're talking a coalition of nations (with US backing) and a small nation like N.Korea. The war would be finished quickly. But there is no viable exit strategy... and people are fooling themselves of they think N.Koreans will fall over themselves in gratitude for being invaded..

I just find it amazing that people havent learned from Iraq. The invasion of Iraq happened in 2003... it's now 2017 and western forces are still committed there, the region is still incredibly unstable, and perhaps more importantly, there is extremely little goodwill in the region towards the west. 14 years after a quick invasion, and they're still debating on how to leave... but needing to commit extra troops.

You really believe N.Korea will be any different?

4068ac1elhodqr

There is some hyperbole over the last few pages including:

i). Comparing potential inv of NK to other nations: There would be no power vacuum for a tribal land-grab if it falls. Neither any sky fairy gods (and sub-branches thereof) to bother with. Either Chi or the UN would move in, likely China. NK is a fairly backward small authoritarian country with a small population it would be easily controlled by them.

ii). WW3: This would never start that. It's Just Kim against everyone else, and if he starts things off with deliberate action no one would back him up. There's only one country formidable enough to briefly take on the US, and it's not China (currently).

iii). Stalemate: This isn't an option as you would see Jap and SK eventually getting N-armed to the teeth, which wouldn't suit the regional power. Within a decade you may also see Australia, Canada and others feeling the need, thanks solely to Kim. Sitting on hands won't help. Negotiations are the only very-small hope of an alternative solution, and no ones heard back from Dennis Rodman as yet.

iv). N-action, only conventional is needed to topple Kim. That's perhaps the most likely outcome. Another year and its too late. China might complain but there's little they would actually do to stop that, they would only face ruin economically, or otherwise. They'll get ownership anyway, so still can have their cake.

aloyisious

Given how the Chinese and Russians have [apparently] being penned into a corner at the UN Security Council by NK's missile launches to agree with further sanctions and the council pronouncements [without taking any military action or troop movements] I reckon that if NK responds with or launches more missile/s over Japanese territory [land or sea] the UN Council [incl China and Russia] may be put in a situation that it might state publicly that in the present climate that NK firing missiles over the territory of another nation from that time/date on would be seen by the council as an unfriendly or belligerent action towards both the offended-against nation and the UN, if a PC worded proposal was put before, and a deal hammered out, the council to that effect for a vote.

Don's statements are being equalled by Kim's and Kim know's that.

It would then be obvious to NK that the nearest large world power and council member was not going to put up with any further belligerent actions from NK without a response in kind from any quarter which that large world power would NOT be too unhappy with [like a parental slap to an unruly child]. I'd be hopeful that the parental slap be given soonest.

flaneur

The big unknown is China.
I get the impression their main concern is they don't want a war and refugee crisis in their doorstep.

The issue China has with South Korea is more than it's militarily a subset of the United States.

What might actually work is South Korea cutting the apron strings, becoming more independent of the US and also befriending China.

If China and South Korea for example held some kind of joint defence exercises without US involvement that might see a major shift in the situation.

I think the reality is the US needs to accept that it shouldn't really be a major power in that region and that the countries there need to see develop a grown up relationship with China.

I don't really see any evidence of China likely to grow into a belligerent state. The dispute over the islands seems to be more about China telling the US in particular to get its nose out of regional affairs in an area it has no business being in the first place.

I mean can you really imaging the US accepting Chinese military presence in Latin America for example?

The whole thing needs to be dialled down and I agree the Trump ranting is feeding into a cycle. He's playing to a domestic media market and either doesn't understand or doesn't care how that might be interpreted or just used against him by DPRK*

*D is purely decorative.

archer22

flaneur wrote: »

The big unknown is China.
I get the impression their main concern is they don't want a war and refugee crisis in their doorstep.

The issue China has with South Korea is more than it's militarily a subset of the United States.

What might actually work is South Korea cutting the apron strings, becoming more independent of the US and also befriending China.

If China and South Korea for example held some kind of joint defence exercises without US involvement that might see a major shift in the situation.

I think the reality is the US needs to accept that it shouldn't really be a major power in that region and that the countries there need to see develop a grown up relationship with China.

I don't really see any evidence of China likely to grow into a belligerent state. The dispute over the islands seems to be more about China telling the US in particular to get its nose out of regional affairs in an area it has no business being in the first place.

I mean can you really imaging the US accepting Chinese military presence in Latin America for example?

The whole thing needs to be dialled down and I agree the Trump ranting is feeding into a cycle. He's playing to a domestic media market and either doesn't understand or doesn't care how that might be interpreted or just used against him by DPRK*

*D is purely decorative.

The Philippines has started moving in the direction you outline...a case of adjusting to the new reality in the region.

Gatling

flaneur wrote: »

The big unknown is China.
I get the impression their main concern is they don't want a war and refugee crisis in their doorstep.

The issue China has with South Korea is more than it's militarily a subset of the United States.

What might actually work is South Korea cutting the apron strings, becoming more independent of the US and also befriending China.

If China and South Korea for example held some kind of joint defence exercises without US involvement that might see a major shift in the situation.

I think the reality is the US needs to accept that it shouldn't really be a major power in that region and that the countries there need to see develop a grown up relationship with China.

I don't really see any evidence of China likely to grow into a belligerent state. The dispute over the islands seems to be more about China telling the US in particular to get its nose out of regional affairs in an area it has no business being in the first place.

Never going to happen ,

Why would south Korea cosy up to China ,the same country who tried to invade them after pushing NK along with russia to attack and over run the south that had led directly to this current situation ,
The south China sea dispute isn't about islands it's about china laying claim to the whole south China sea and it's sudden military build up in the area , which there was no need for , telling it's neighbours they can't access resources in the area without threats of military intervention from them ,
And there claim to the south China sea based off a map found in a school book features the 99 dash line which provides its claims which even its own histological analysis shows no explanation of what the map is and what the 99 dash line is ,
The Philippines aren't going into Chinese arms either , unfortunately they are looking to update and upgrade their military forces which they couldn't do for fear of upsetting china but what they did do was say we're open for business if you want us to buy the latest military equipment ,
But do you think china and russia will sell them the lastest and greatest weapons and Defence systems ,
Absoblutely not

archer22

Everybody in the region is claiming the South China Sea and contrary to western propaganda China is not the only one who has grabbed what it can there....lots of the islands are in the possession of the smaller powers.

China would have been pretty stupid to sit back and let the others have it all :rolleyes:

archer22

archer22 wrote: »

Everybody in the region is claiming the South China Sea and contrary to western propaganda China is not the only one who has grabbed what it can there....lots of the islands are in the possession of the smaller powers.

China would have been pretty stupid to sit back and let the others have it all :rolleyes:

archer22

Deleted User wrote: »

So?
Britain and France for example claim Islands in the Pacific, Indian Ocean, Carribean, and South Atlantic....hell of a sight further away from them than the South China Sea is from China.