US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

cnocbui

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I'm skeptical about their nuclear capability. Nuclear weapons are very hard to build, yet they cannot even get their missiles right?

Surely a medium to long range missile with GPS accuracy is easier to build that a nuclear warhead?

I believe there is a strong suspicion that a lot of their missile trouble is due to sabotage by the US via hacking, so their missiles may not be as bad as they seem.

Cheerful Spring

CoolHandBandit wrote: »

Breaking now is a story of a failed ICBM launch from inside NK.

Edit: It's an intermediate ballistic missile

The North Koreans could have blown this missile up themselves? They well aware of the danger's of flying a missile outside North Korea will be. This may be just a warning shot?

LordSutch

Just to clarify, so this is the 2nd missile test which has exploded on (or shortly after) take off, right?

Zebra3

Judging by reports in the media, NK must be the only country in the world to carry out military tests. :rolleyes:

cnocbui

Zebra3 wrote: »

Judging by reports in the media, NK must be the only country in the world to carry out military tests. :rolleyes:

They aren't, but they are the only country in the world developing nuclear weapons with the express purpose of actually using them against the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and have now even threatened China.

Kim Jong Un in is not sane. He has had his Uncle executed, his brother assassinated and 338 others killed. If he gets launchable nuclear weapons he will use them when he has one of his attacks of paranoia that he is being threatened.

He's as dangerously socio-pathological as Pol Pot and as paranoid as Stalin.

If the US have a stealth drone, and If I were them, I would have, now is the time to use it to assassinate this idiot, rather than take on the whole country.

CoolHandBandit

cnocbui wrote: »

They aren't, but they are the only country in the world developing nuclear weapons with the express purpose of actually using them against the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and have now even threatened China.

Kim Jong Un in is not sane. He has had his Uncle executed, his brother assassinated and 338 others killed. If he gets launchable nuclear weapons he will use them when he has one of his attacks of paranoia that he is being threatened.

He's as dangerously socio-pathologicla as Pol Pot and as paranoid as Stalin.

If the US have a stealth drone, and If I were them, I would have, now is the time to use it to assassinate this idiot, rather than take on the whole country.

Enough about Trump what do you think they should do about Kim?

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

He's as dangerously socio-pathologicla as Pol Pot and as paranoid as Stalin.

If the US have a stealth drone, and If I were them, I would have, now is the time to use it to assassinate this idiot, rather than take on the whole country.

That begs the question, Would the country go into "headless chicken mode" and what will happen then?

Could a group of unknown generals take control and either make peace or go for all out war.

Gatling

LordSutch wrote: »

Just to clarify, so this is the 2nd missile test which has exploded on (or shortly after) take off, right?

I believe it's a around the 13th or 14th that exploded on launch over the last number of years

Feckoffcup

cnocbui wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

Judging by reports in the media, NK must be the only country in the world to carry out military tests. :rolleyes:

They aren't, but they are the only country in the world developing nuclear weapons with the express purpose of actually using them against the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and have now even threatened China.

Kim Jong Un in is not sane.  He has had his Uncle executed, his brother assassinated and 338 others killed.  If he gets launchable nuclear weapons he will use them when he has one of his attacks of paranoia that he is being threatened.

He's as dangerously socio-pathologicla as Pol Pot and as paranoid as Stalin.

If the US have a stealth drone, and If I were them, I would have, now is the time to use it to assassinate this idiot, rather than take on the whole country.

How did you get to know Kim so well cnocbui?
I would question how many people Kim ordered to be executed (im not saying he didnt), we cant get into the country so how on earth would  they know 338 were killed? Alot of military analysts (not your sky news chump) reckon that kim is the head of things in the public eye but in reality its the experienced heads behind him calling the shots.

SEPT 23 1989

another pile of scrap falls to the earth as the world looks on and laughs at the fat clown

cnocbui

Feckoffcup wrote: »

How did you get to know Kim so well?cnocbui?
I would question how many people Kim ordered to be executed (im not saying he didnt), we cant get into the country so how on earth would ?they know 338 were killed? Alot of military analysts (not your sky news chump) reckon that kim is the head of things in the public eye but in reality its the experienced heads behind him calling the shots.

Spies and defectors.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/13/asia/north-korea-executes-defense-chief/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/17/friends-of-north-korean-defectors-son-speak-of-their-worries

One of the most senior defectors to escape North Korea in recent years has told CNN that the spate of top-level executions has created a climate of fear among regime insiders.
North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un out within 3 years

North Korean defector: Kim Jong Un out within 3 years 02:47
"During his first three years in power, hundreds of the elite have been executed," said Park, who CNN has agreed not to identify to protect his friends and relatives still in Pyongyang. Much of what Park tells us cannot be independently verified, as North Korea is one of the most closed and repressive countries on Earth.

If you read the CNN link, you will see this:

A new report claims North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ordered 340 people to be executed since he came to power in 2011.
The Institute for National Security Strategy, a South Korean think tank, released "The misgoverning of Kim Jong Un's five years in power" on Thursday, detailing how the North Korean leader uses executions to tighten his hold on power.

Of those killed, about 140 were senior officers in the country's government, military and ruling Korean Worker's Party.

Ah, you trollishly say, but how do we know this think tank isn't making it all up?

Do some more research into the Think Tank and you find one of their senior analysts is a North Korean. But how would a former North Korean spy know anything about what goes on in North Korea you say?, at which point I tell you to go and bleep, bleep.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/world/asia/northern-spy-lifts-cloak-on-koreas-deadly-rivalry.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

That begs the question, Would the country go into "headless chicken mode" and what will happen then?

Could a group of unknown generals take control and either make peace or go for all out war.

It's hard to say, the regime resembles a cult. I know people joke about 'God Emperor Trump', but that's exactly what the Kim dynasty is in North Korea.
Is enough known about the shadowy generals behind the throne to know which way the wind would blow if the head was cut off?
Things could go full Waco. Certiantly I feel like those in charge could not roll over, autocrats rule through fear and absolute dominance so any sign of weakness on their part makes their rule untenable.

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

That begs the question, Would the country go into "headless chicken mode" and what will happen then?

Could a group of unknown generals take control and either make peace or go for all out war.

So basically the same situation as we have now?

Knock off Kim, offer the generals an overseas tour, the Cote d'azure, Paris, New York Tokyo, Sydney. Offer them $2 Million each every year of their 'retirement' and a mansion of their choice anywhere they want. Join north and south and have the US placate China by getting out of South Korea completely and Japan, possibly so no more US troops on the doorstep to worry about.

Gatling

cnocbui wrote: »

Join north and south and have the US placate China by getting out of South Korea completely and Japan, possibly so no more US troops on the doorstep to worry about.

China won't be placated at all ,not unless they drop their cliams to the whole south China sea well there perceived claim to the south China sea ,
But even if the Korea is completely unified the american will have to stay to help maintain security in the region

SeanW

Zebra3 wrote: »

It's not an impression, it's a fact. The US is hell bent on global hegemony. If that means leaving half a million kids to die in Iraq so be it.

Remind us who killed most of the civilians in Iraq? the U.S? Or Islamic terrorists?

If it means dropping chemical weapons on kids in Asia, so be it.

Remind us who started the Vietnam war. Was it the U.S? Or was it communists who did not accept the concept of a free South Vietnam?

Go ask the victims of US chemical weapons attacks in Vietnam. Might be difficult for you looking at a baby born with three heads and wondering why nobody has ever been held accountable for such evil war crimes.

Communists started the Vietnam war. The Post-WWII accords called for a Communist North Vietnam and a free/US aligned South Vietnam.

The U.S. and the South Vietnamese accepted this agreement. The Communists did not.

The same is true in Korea. The U.S. and the South Koreans accept a peaceful free South and a Communist North. The Communists did not. That's why the Korean war began.

Zebra3 wrote: »

NK won't have forgotten what the US did to their country, hence now it wants to protect itself. Just look at what the US did to Libya.

North Korea and other Communists started the Korean war. If they wanted to avoid being attacked in response they had a very easy way of preventing that - don't invade and try to annex democratic/non-aggressive countries.

They chose to invade a free and democratic country they had no business being in, so they deserved everything they got - and more.

Gatling wrote: »

It should look at what Soviet Russia and China did by turning the country into a basket case compared with the peaceful , diverse ,and technological advanced south ,

You should save the fauxrage to something you have a bit more cop on about

One suspects that this list is not particularly long.

cnocbui

Gatling wrote: »

China won't be placated at all ,not unless they drop their cliams to the whole south China sea well there perceived claim to the south China sea ,
But even if the Korea is completely unified the american will have to stay to help maintain security in the region

Rather than the prospect of having to nuke a lot of sites in NK and the blow-back from that, I think it would be well worth the US making a bargain and say it's not going to be involved in the South China sea argument any more - in exchange for China's cooperating in expanding a US-free South Korea - and that Asian nations can just deal with it and China themselves through ASEAN or whatever.

Why does the US need to stay in a NK free Asia? Personally I don't see China doing a Japan and running amuck. The US can pull back and save a huge expense.

Zebra3

cnocbui wrote: »

They aren't, but they are the only country in the world developing nuclear weapons with the express purpose of actually using them against the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia and have now even threatened China.

Kim Jong Un in is not sane. He has had his Uncle executed, his brother assassinated and 338 others killed. If he gets launchable nuclear weapons he will use them when he has one of his attacks of paranoia that he is being threatened.

He's as dangerously socio-pathological as Pol Pot and as paranoid as Stalin.

If the US have a stealth drone, and If I were them, I would have, now is the time to use it to assassinate this idiot, rather than take on the whole country.

Strange that.

Britain only a few days ago said it might launch a nuclear strike at some country if it feels like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html

No big uproar.

Is Theresa May as bad as Kim? Shall we compare Fallon to Pol Pot?

Does some outside country need to bring about regime change at Westminster?

Zebra3

SeanW wrote: »

Remind us who killed most of the civilians in Iraq? the U.S? Or Islamic terrorists?

Remind us who started the Vietnam war. Was it the U.S? Or was it communists who did not accept the concept of a free South Vietnam?

Communists started the Vietnam war. The Post-WWII accords called for a Communist North Vietnam and a free/US aligned South Vietnam.

The U.S. and the South Vietnamese accepted this agreement. The Communists did not.

The same is true in Korea. The U.S. and the South Koreans accept a peaceful free South and a Communist North. The Communists did not. That's why the Korean war began.

North Korea and other Communists started the Korean war. If they wanted to avoid being attacked in response they had a very easy way of preventing that - don't invade and try to annex democratic/non-aggressive countries.

They chose to invade a free and democratic country they had no business being in, so they deserved everything they got - and more.

One suspects that this list is not particularly long.

Who killed the most civilians in Iraq is irrelevant. The US war on Iraq was a war crime. The US had no right to kill even one human being in Iraq. But as usual whichever blood thirsty maniac running the US attacks another country gets to avoid war crimes charges and much to the delight of extremists in this country.

I'm not ever gonna defend one country attacking another (unlike plenty of war crimes supporters on here) but again you conveniently seem to be ignoring US war crimes. Dropping chemical weapons on civilians. Pure evil.

And neither South Korea nor South Vietnam were free, democratic countries back then.

ilkhanid

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who killed the most civilians in Iraq is irrelevant.

I'm not going to say yes or no to that, context is important. However I have little doubt that were the argument reversed, some here would be declaring that it was very relevant.

Zebra3 wrote: »

And neither South Korea nor South Vietnam were free, democratic countries back then.

That is correct. However it is remarkable the strides that South Korea made over the years in turning itself into a prosperous, democratic country notwithstanding the constant threats from the Kim regime to the North....whereas North Korea has done the opposite. Which goes some way towards refuting the nonsense that North Korea is the way it is because it is under threat from the South.

Gatling

Zebra3 wrote: »

Strange that.

Britain only a few days ago said it might launch a nuclear strike at some country if it feels like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html

No big uproar.

Michael Fallon said the Prime Minister was prepared to launch Trident in “the Most Extreme Circumstances”,

Key phrase -

Most Extreme Circumstances

Don't suppose you happen to know what the Most Extreme Circumstances are by any chance at all

aloyisious

It'll be only a passing point in this "what Don does next" thread. Japan began the Vietnam war in 1941 when it invaded French Indochina (Vietnam) and defeated the French. The French tried to regain its empire there after the defeat of the Japanese in 1945 but the locals they used against the Japanese in WW2 (the Viet Minh - who wanted freedom) rebelled against them. After the French lost again and pulled out, The British, the Australians and the U.S. got involved in fighting the Viet Minh (later aka the Viet Cong) because of Russian and Chinese involvement in the war next door (Korea).

Incidentally the split in Vietnam, decided upon by the Allies in 1945, allowed China occupy one part and let the French back into the other part. There's a potted history in the link below.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg56zAv8rTAhXrB8AKHfqUAlQQFggpMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Funitedstates%2Fvietnam%2Findex-1945.html&usg=AFQjCNHmk0mmxSwgVzP88Zj8buNu6IFNrw

cnocbui

Zebra3 wrote: »

Strange that.

Britain only a few days ago said it might launch a nuclear strike at some country if it feels like.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html

No big uproar.

Is Theresa May as bad as Kim? Shall we compare Fallon to Pol Pot?

Does some outside country need to bring about regime change at Westminster?

Another proud little soldier in the fifth column, brandishing your false equivalence with pride.

SeanW

cnocbui wrote: »

Rather than the prospect of having to nuke a lot of sites in NK and the blow-back from that, I think it would be well worth the US making a bargain and say it's not going to be involved in the South China sea argument any more - in exchange for China's cooperating in expanding a US-free South Korea - and that Asian nations can just deal with it and China themselves through ASEAN or whatever.

I'm skeptical if China would accept a non-aligned but democratic Korea. I hope I'm wrong on that though.

Why does the US need to stay in a NK free Asia? Personally I don't see China doing a Japan and running amuck. The US can pull back and save a huge expense.

They already are, they've effectively annexed the maritime territory of all of their Southern neighbors in the South China Sea, and only the U.S. agreement to protect Japan has stopped them from stealing the Senkaku islands from that nation as well. Likewise one suspects that threats, whether subtle or otherwise, from the U.S. have prevented them from annexing Taiwan.

Though you may have a point in that it may be worth arming the South Asian nations, Taiwan and Japan to the teeth and then withdrawing.

China has already invaded and annexed two nations that were not rightly theirs (Tibet and East Turkestan) and are directly responsible for the existence of North Korea as well as loss of South Vietnam.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Is Theresa May as bad as Kim? Shall we compare Fallon to Pol Pot?

The very fact that you are posing this question suggests that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Does some outside country need to bring about regime change at Westminster?

The people of the United Kingdom will have the chance to answer this very question this coming June in an election called by that nation's Parliament. Remind me ... when are the next elections in North Korea, China, Vietnam?

Zebra3 wrote: »

Who killed the most civilians in Iraq is irrelevant.

"Half a million dead children in Iraq" ... you brought it up.

The US war on Iraq was a war crime.

IANAL but I understand that under international law, countries do have the right to wage pre-emptive war if they have genuine reason to believe that an attack from another entity is imminent. It remains disputed whether or not the U.S. genuinely believe some of the nonsense that preceded the Iraq war (which would be unfortunate), or if those who planned it knew that it was not real (which would indeed be a war crime).

Doesn't change the fact that the slaughter of civilians was caused by sectarian bigots, not the U.S.

It also does not change the fact that the United States was explicitly provoked in virtually all of the conflicts that it was involved in during the last 100 years.

1. World War I: started by Europeans. The U.S. stayed out of it until a number of American civilians were murdered by German Empire on the RMS Lusitania.
2. World War II: started by Europeans and the Empire of Japan. The U.S. remained neutral until they were attacked - without warning or provocation - by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 7 Dec 1941.
3. The Cold War: Communists sought to enslave all mankind under the Red banner of the Hammer and Sickle. The U.S. and others did what they could to limit this enslavement.
4. Vietnam: Communists sought to enslave all Vietnam under Communism. Alas, in this case, they succeeded.
5. Korea: Communists sought to enslave all of Korea under Communism. Had they succeeded, all of Korea today would be like North Korea (but North Korea would not have existed at all but for the intervention of Red China).
6. Iraq I. Saddam Hussein started this by invading Kuwait.
7. Afghanistan: Started by the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The US had no right to kill even one human being in Iraq. But as usual whichever blood thirsty maniac running the US attacks another country gets to avoid war crimes charges and much to the delight of extremists in this country.

The U.S. has made some mistakes, some of them quite serious, but there is nothing to suggest that it has been led by a succession of bloodthirsty maniacs. The only psycho maniac in this case is the Kim dynasty of North Korea, the worlds largest prison and among the worst abusers of human rights. And which regularly commits acts of aggression against its neighbors.

I'm not ever gonna defend one country attacking another (unlike plenty of war crimes supporters on here) but again you conveniently seem to be ignoring US war crimes. Dropping chemical weapons on civilians. Pure evil.

Funny that, you seem to leave out of your pitiful analysis, that the U.S. was either an non-aggressive victim, or came to the aid of an non-aggressive victim, in virtually every war it has been involved in for the past century.

And neither South Korea nor South Vietnam were free, democratic countries back then.

Both South Korea and South Vietnam had referenda and presidential elections before they were attacked without cause by Communists.

Infini

One thing to be said is Soviet Russia was the prime bankroller of NK till it all crashed in the 90's, China supported as well but alot of the Korean issue is a leftover from the cold war.

As things go the way things are now its not a question of if but WHEN a second korean war breaks out. China regularly goes on about talks and denuclearnisation but as things go its only getting worse as time goes on. Unlike most other nations that have nuclear weapons NK is the only one that regularly goes on threating people with them. Even Pakistan and India 2 nations that really had bad blood between one another never have threatened to outright nuke one another. North Korea is the only one that does it and its also one of the last Stalinist Dictatorships on the planet.

As things go there needs to be serious actions taken on the whole issue, they need to enforce realistic and effective sanctions against NK until it stops threatening people and starts being actually diplomatic instead of belligerent, the only problem is since the start of the year they've become more aggressive with missile tests and a 5th nuke test. They arent that stupid the missiles seem to be a cute hoor game atm and they've made shows of force like parades but what will really change things is if they decide to do another nuke test. That seems to be the game changer, they seem for now to be doing as much provoking short of that but even word from china is another nuke test would provoke far more serious retaliation from china as well as a possible military strike from the US.

The irony of course is they developed nukes because they supposedly want to ensure their survival but its a double edged sword as it draws more enemies to them and their threats are only ironically making them a deliberate target. All it could take is one wrong move most likely by North Korea and the situation could escalate drastically expecially if Japan and South Korea were to agree with the US on a military responce.

China is the big key here, ultimately in any military conflict I would honestly see CHINA be the one to invade first NOT the US they got the troops and military hardware in the region that could respond the fastest and are the ones to take the most collateral damage from NK going off the deep end and would want to contain the refugees from spilling over into their country. If anything I could honestly see China agreeing to a reunification of Korea under the south in return for a full US withdrawal from the peninsula expecially since they primarily want trade as well (not to mention that rebuilding the north and bringing it closer to the living standards of the south would translate into a massive cash cow of investiment and consumerism).

This whole situation came about from historical and political disagreements, for years NK has flouted the UN they dont give a damn what they say and are probably the only regime thats worse than the Nazi and Stalin regimes from the last century while getting cover from china but its getting to a stage now that theyre becoming a serious liability and even the chinese are getting tired of it (reports say they refer to Kim as Kim Fatty the 3rd heh) the only thing is how long before the whole issue goes nuclear and how damaging will it be.

My own gut feeling is this will ONLY end militarily in the end as I seriously doubt the US will sit around and let the mainland be threatened by them. The only question is who will ultimately end if if and when Kim goes too far: The US blasting the place into the ground or the chinese moving in to put down a rabid dog before it does too much damage?

Pac1Man

I wonder who cuts Kim's hair.

jimmycrackcorm

Gatling wrote:

They are using for most part china made missles of less than reputable quality going by their failure rates ,

I'd bet that China is supplying parts that are deliberately nobled. I doubt they trust NK.

Elmer Blooker

Zebra3 wrote: »

Strange that.

Britain only a few days ago said it might launch a nuclear strike at some country if it feels like.

No big uproar.

Is Theresa May as bad as Kim? Shall we compare Fallon to Pol Pot?

Does some outside country need to bring about regime change at Westminster?

Lets hope "some country" isn't our little island.
It seems these British Tridents might not go to where they are meant to go!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4144200/Trident-fiasco-covered-No10.html

The former head of the Royal Navy blasted No10 today over its 'bizarre and stupid' decision to 'cover up' a major malfunction in the UK's Trident nuclear missile deterrent and said it made Britain look like North Korea.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Lets hope "some country" isn't our little island.
It seems these British Tridents might not go to where they are meant to go!

Ah sure didn't​ putin order cruise missles to target rebel groups in Syria but when they were launched from sea at least 4 out of nine hit Iran ,

And they were live fired not a weapon test

Zebra3

Gatling wrote: »

Michael Fallon said the Prime Minister was prepared to launch Trident in ?the Most Extreme Circumstances?,

Key phrase -

Most Extreme Circumstances

Don't suppose you happen to know what the Most Extreme Circumstances are by any chance at all

Key phrase -

First strike.

A war crime.

Again one of our extremists on here out defending possible war crimes that would wipe out millions.

I'd like to say I'm surprised.......

Zebra3

cnocbui wrote: »

Another proud little soldier in the fifth column, brandishing your false equivalence with pride.

Great jibberish. :rolleyes: