First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply North Korea
2434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/29/17

MysticGon wrote:

So NK just shit a missile that flew over Japan and landed in the ocean on the other side... kinda thought we could shoot those things down. Guess it was just propaganda. Because seriously, what if it was armed?


If a missile launched by North Korea was deemed not to be a threat to Japan or the US or South Korea, the best choice available to the US and allies would be to simply observe the launch and collect data. Missing a shot at a missile just passing over Japan could have far-reaching political implications, as it would suggest that anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of protecting people in South Korea, Japan, or Guam. And if a shot hit the missile, it could further provoke North Korea into much more dangerous actions. I'd say they're going to be more on the alert after this. I'm curious to see how Trump will handle the situation.
37721 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/29/17 , edited 8/29/17
^ That, too.


MysticGon wrote:

So NK just shit a missile that flew over Japan and landed in the ocean on the other side... kinda thought we could shoot those things down. Guess it was just propaganda. Because seriously, what if it was armed?


It may sound counterintuitive, but sometimes the better option is to not shoot down an incoming missile.

From what I understand the trajectory of the missile was already known to be headed for water, concerns about falling debris had been expressed, and context from two prior cases where the DPRK fired missiles over Japan gave good reason to believe the act of firing this latest one was an act of provocation rather than a genuine attack. As a result a decision was made to simply let the missile hit water rather than put the people of Japan at greater risk by shooting it down.

The key thing to keep in mind here is that this isn't something new. The DPRK has done exactly this before, and the reasons for doing it seem to be essentially the same. They want to demonstrate that they still pose a significant regional threat (and therefore should be taken seriously), they want to show that they still definitively oppose US/ROK drilling, they want to show that they're capable of launching attacks from a variety of locations, and they want to show that some of those locations are so close to major population centres in the DPRK that preemptive elimination of their launch sites and missiles isn't a particularly palatable option. They've done all of that, so what now?

There's no good military option in the Korean peninsula at present (unless you don't mind millions of civilian deaths and possible war with China, anyway), and while the past diplomatic approach of sanctioning the DPRK into desperation and extracting concessions in exchange for either loosening those sanctions or provisions of foreign aid hasn't proven especially effective an alternative approach definitely shouldn't include threats of "fire and fury". That simultaneously cuts a lot of the USA's breathing room and escalates the situation (which is kinda sorta what diplomacy is supposed to be trying to avoid). Rather, I think any novel diplomatic approach is going to have to find a way to balance the diplomatic objectives of the ROK, Japan, and US with those of the DPRK, with both sides offering genuine concessions to the other.

No one is going to walk away from that process happy, but if war can be avoided and the DPRK's nuclear weapons development could even just be put on hold it may well be worth it.
7286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 8/29/17 , edited 8/29/17

BlueOni wrote:

^ That, too.


MysticGon wrote:

So NK just shit a missile that flew over Japan and landed in the ocean on the other side... kinda thought we could shoot those things down. Guess it was just propaganda. Because seriously, what if it was armed?


It may sound counterintuitive, but sometimes the better option is to not shoot down an incoming missile.

From what I understand the trajectory of the missile was already known to be headed for water, concerns about falling debris had been expressed, and context from two prior cases where the DPRK fired missiles over Japan gave good reason to believe the act of firing this latest one was an act of provocation rather than a genuine attack. As a result a decision was made to simply let the missile hit water rather than put the people of Japan at greater risk by shooting it down.

The key thing to keep in mind here is that this isn't something new. The DPRK has done exactly this before, and the reasons for doing it seem to be essentially the same. They want to demonstrate that they still pose a significant regional threat (and therefore should be taken seriously), they want to show that they still definitively oppose US/ROK drilling, they want to show that they're capable of launching attacks from a variety of locations, and they want to show that some of those locations are so close to major population centres in the DPRK that preemptive elimination of their launch sites and missiles isn't a particularly palatable option. They've done all of that, so what now?

There's no good military option in the Korean peninsula at present (unless you don't mind millions of civilian deaths and possible war with China, anyway), and while the past diplomatic approach of sanctioning the DPRK into desperation and extracting concessions in exchange for either loosening those sanctions or provisions of foreign aid hasn't proven especially effective an alternative approach definitely shouldn't include threats of "fire and fury". That simultaneously cuts a lot of the USA's breathing room and escalates the situation (which is kinda sorta what diplomacy is supposed to be trying to avoid). Rather, I think any novel diplomatic approach is going to have to find a way to balance the diplomatic objectives of the ROK, Japan, and US with those of the DPRK, with both sides offering genuine concessions to the other.

No one is going to walk away from that process happy, but if war can be avoided and the DPRK's nuclear weapons development could even just be put on hold it may well be worth it.


All very valid points. However we must also realize we are dealing with a dictatorship that is not known for using logic, reason, or diplomacy. The current regime is ran by what equates to a playground bully who will have his way or burn the world. Add to the fact the current regime is so paranoid that they honestly believe the US is planning to invade(because taking over a country with a starving/dying population with almost no natural resources makes sense) their country. Fortunately this time around its the UN security council and not necessarily just the US screaming bloody murder. As of the last nuclear test by NK China's big brother stance on NK seems to be waning. I suspect China will either sit the DPRK at the diplomacy table or possibly aid a UN sanctioned strike on nuclear capable military sites(while demanding regime change be taken off the table). THe DRPK has intentionally put these silos in populated areas(a geneva convention violation btw) to avoid destruction. However in the face of nuclear threat and possibly hundreds of millions of civilian casualties(should they launch a nuke) I would be willing to be the UN will be willing to accept atleast a minimal amount of civilian casualties. Keep in mind China is also on the security council and this latest emergency meeting saw no resistance from Chinese representatives.
8512 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / a pop tart
Offline
Posted 8/29/17
Poor North Koreans.
Posted 8/29/17
I was thinking the same thing..
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Online
Posted 8/29/17 , edited 8/29/17
Regarding North Korea, here is an article arguing against opening talks, which have never worked in the past twenty years. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/29/north-korea-missile-trump-215551


What the president should do is simple, if radical. He should admit the failure of America's North Korea policy since the 1990s and abandon the fantasy of "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization." Instead, he should acknowledge that North Korea is a nuclear weapons-capable state, and that the United States will treat it as such. That means revamping U.S. policy toward explicit containment and deterrence of a nuclear North Korea. That is the only realistic policy toward a problem that has no good solution.
26548 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / FL
Offline
Posted 8/30/17 , edited 9/3/17
North Korea is my city
Posted 8/30/17
I'm very concerned about the latest news. North Korea might be attacking Guam.
43000 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/30/17
North korea is fucking shit. His citizen are fucking dying of hunger. Funny compared to South korea, one of the richest country.
Posted 8/30/17

cuthysmalz2 wrote:

North korea is fucking shit. His citizen are fucking dying of hunger. Funny compared to South korea, one of the richest country.


Noone is questioning this, however news is breaking on their media they may be aiming for guam. All i can say is well fuck, its about to get real or they are full of shit.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 8/31/17
Good points Dear_1nsanity and BlueOni. The status wou is good for everyone except the North Korean citizens and I don't think anyone wants to be seen as causing the conflict. The war games are right around the corner so we'll see what Kim has up his sleeve then.
18 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/31/17
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4361741/us-nuke-capable-jets-drop-bombs-near-north-korea-border-after-donald-trump-warned-talking-was-not-the-answer/
So Trump isn't all talk. This is pretty big. I bet fat boy is sweating right now. Would he really sacrifice his comfort and country to save face? I doubt it.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 9/2/17
They just conducted a sixth nuclear test, creating a 6.3 magnitude earthquake.
378 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Gladstone, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

Dear_1nsanity wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

So NK just shit a missile that flew over Japan and landed in the ocean on the other side... kinda thought we could shoot those things down. Guess it was just propaganda. Because seriously, what if it was armed?


If a missile launched by North Korea was deemed not to be a threat to Japan or the US or South Korea, the best choice available to the US and allies would be to simply observe the launch and collect data. Missing a shot at a missile just passing over Japan could have far-reaching political implications, as it would suggest that anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of protecting people in South Korea, Japan, or Guam. And if a shot hit the missile, it could further provoke North Korea into much more dangerous actions. I'd say they're going to be more on the alert after this. I'm curious to see how Trump will handle the situation.



And if a shot hit the missile, it could further provoke North Korea into much more dangerous actions.


......... are you fucking serious? shooting down the missile could be considered self defense and rightfully so, and by doing absolutely nothing shows cowardice or an inability to defend against missile attacks, which could embolden the country that performed such an action. Shooting down the missile proves the anti-missile capabilities of the defending country, which could dissuade further military action.
9808 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Behind you!
Online
Posted 9/3/17

Jecht67
......... are you fucking serious? shooting down the missile could be considered self defense and rightfully so, and by doing absolutely nothing shows cowardice or an inability to defend against missile attacks, which could embolden the country that performed such an action. Shooting down the missile proves the anti-missile capabilities of the defending country, which could dissuade further military action.

Good, quote a post from 5 days ago about not shooting down a missile to show that NK should back down; the forums telling me I am responding about 10 hours after you.

NK just detonated another bomb in a test maybe 12 hours ago, curious if you where even up to date about that fact. That fat nerd in charge of the DPRK doesn't give one shit about the world, either he gets his way or he takes the world down with him. Slap another sanction, more missile launches....I just see this going in a bad direction unless that guy is not put down.

Recap: How much posturing of who is top dog do you think has worked in the past year? Multiple missile launches by NK, US responds with bombers flying near the border. And now the big bomb. Shootind down the missile wouldn't do anything, just give them one more minor problem they have to deal with and work around, while NK still has the intent to use the weapons or keep launching missiles cause Kim is a chihuahua with the mentality of a pitbull.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.