First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Should U.S stop North Korea's nuke? Wow, I can't even fathom the thought not to stop it
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:


riverjustice wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.


Unless you have top-secret clearance.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. has countermeasures besides THAAD. And I'm not talking about missile system. We are going off the construct of what we think the military has. You and I are working with our limited knowledge of their strategic plan. This is at best, bounded rationality.


Agreed.
At this time, though, I'd like to loop back to the original trap/comment about how this is a leftist perception of the situation (this being the article).
Given the idea (or potentially a fact) that the reporter is working with a similarly limited knowledge of what the military has up its sleeve, would you argue that his opinions are totally baseless?
As you said, it's bounded rationality (at best).
The reporter never stated that his comments/opinions were die-hard facts (despite, in the public domain, many statements he made were - we just do not have all of the pieces of the data due to access to information).

Eric Talmadge, for the record, is one of the few reporters that have spent a significant amount of time in North Korea.
It appears he was basically attempting to illustrate his opinion that was formed between what he knew of North Korea (and its overall perspective on things that he could gather) and the public information he currently has regarding the United States and its military.
Other than your conflicting opinion of his undertone (which, as another user mentioned, wasn't exactly implied either way), does this sound like he was entirely irrational in his approach to the pros and cons of the subject?


He's arguing, "If the U.S. were to pursue this strategy, it would have to be hugely confident of success. And it would definitely want its allies fully on board."

That's not true. Would you want your allies fully on board? As it was stated on the news, it takes around 14 minutes to reach to Guam. The amount of time it takes to learn about the situation, contact the president to make a decision and then firing off a THAAD missile.

Come on.

One of the principles of war is "surprise plays a much greater role in tactics than in strategy."

Secondly, when during the trajectory of the ICBM, will we know when the missile will not land on Guam? And how much time do we have to switch decisions?

I think the reporter did not go through the dynamics of war. It is constantly changing and evolving.

Also, imagine if North Korea launches it during bad atmospheric conditions and now you have an ICBM that can change flight paths due to pressure differences.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

descloud wrote:

I am normally one to say we shouldn't intervene in other countries affairs. But this time, I think we need to do something about this problem while we still have a chance.


This is more than a problem. It's an international issue.
15090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

iriomote wrote:


riverjustice wrote:

Okay, that's still immoral to sacrifice someone for the greater good. I don't agree with utilitarianism.

Sacrifice who, precisely? The N. Korea missile test they're talking about would be aimed at the waters off Guam's coast. Per the article:

If U.S. territory is threatened, countermeasures are a no-brainer. But if the missiles aren’t expected to hit the island — the stated goal is to have them hit waters well offshore — should it? Could it?

The article is questioning whether we should intercept (and potentially give the N. Korean's intel on our defensive capabilities) if we know the missiles aren't going to actually hit anything.


Why is everyone ignoring this? The article makes it clear that they are only talking about the pros and cons on the assumption that no human lives will be lost.
31054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Massachusetts, Un...
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17
I don't think NK even mentioned that they were actually going to use a nuclear missile, they just mentioned a missile. They have no evidence that they can even launch and have a nuclear missile reenter the atmosphere on a missile without blowing up reentering yet.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

sundin13 wrote:


iriomote wrote:


riverjustice wrote:

Okay, that's still immoral to sacrifice someone for the greater good. I don't agree with utilitarianism.

Sacrifice who, precisely? The N. Korea missile test they're talking about would be aimed at the waters off Guam's coast. Per the article:

If U.S. territory is threatened, countermeasures are a no-brainer. But if the missiles aren’t expected to hit the island — the stated goal is to have them hit waters well offshore — should it? Could it?

The article is questioning whether we should intercept (and potentially give the N. Korean's intel on our defensive capabilities) if we know the missiles aren't going to actually hit anything.


Why is everyone ignoring this? The article makes it clear that they are only talking about the pros and cons on the assumption that no human lives will be lost.


I said already the author has little information of the dynamics of war to make that assumption.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

Evilshadowx wrote:

I don't think NK even mentioned that they were actually going to use a nuclear missile, they just mentioned a missile. They have no evidence that they can even launch and have a nuclear missile reenter the atmosphere on a missile without blowing up reentering yet.


Because you need a nuclear middle to kill people? Probably want to reread what your wrote.

15090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
Why is everyone ignoring this? The article makes it clear that they are only talking about the pros and cons on the assumption that no human lives will be lost.


I said already the author has little information of the dynamics of war to make that assumption.


That's why it is stated as a conditional. The author made it clear that the points he was discussing were contingent on that fact. He is not saying that if NK launched a missle, it wouldn't risk lives, he is saying if we were to know that no lives were at risk, these would be the pros and cons.


riverjustice wrote:


Evilshadowx wrote:

I don't think NK even mentioned that they were actually going to use a nuclear missile, they just mentioned a missile. They have no evidence that they can even launch and have a nuclear missile reenter the atmosphere on a missile without blowing up reentering yet.


Because you need a nuclear middle to kill people? Probably want to reread what your wrote.



Nobody said that. Maybe you are the one who should be rereading what they wrote.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

sundin13 wrote:


riverjustice wrote:


sundin13 wrote:
Why is everyone ignoring this? The article makes it clear that they are only talking about the pros and cons on the assumption that no human lives will be lost.


I said already the author has little information of the dynamics of war to make that assumption.


That's why it is stated as a conditional. The author made it clear that the points he was discussing were contingent on that fact. He is not saying that if NK launched a missle, it wouldn't risk lives, he is saying if we were to know that no lives were at risk, these would be the pros and cons.


riverjustice wrote:


Evilshadowx wrote:

I don't think NK even mentioned that they were actually going to use a nuclear missile, they just mentioned a missile. They have no evidence that they can even launch and have a nuclear missile reenter the atmosphere on a missile without blowing up reentering yet.


Because you need a nuclear middle to kill people? Probably want to reread what your wrote.



Nobody said that. Maybe you are the one who should be rereading what they wrote.


Yea risking lives? And I've already mentioned it was immoral? And I said the conditional was bullshit considering the limited time it takes to make the decision.

No you need to actually read the thread before posting.
19383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17
fyi-
Alaska based missile defense THAAD systems went five for five, in latest tests.
15090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:


Yea risking lives? And I've already mentioned it was immoral? And I said the conditional was bullshit considering the limited time it takes to make the decision.

No you need to actually read the thread before posting.




You...really don't understand what a conditional is, do you?
33106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17
If North Korea and US enter a nuclear war which I hope to every God known throughout man these idiots are not dumb enough to do. I'm going to Mexico... Mexico will be building a wall to keep the Americans out. It's news probably blowing things out of proportion again or some propaganda to make us hate the North Korean's but if it happens. Hasta Lavista baby, I'd rather get dissentary than be a part of countries that want to kill themselves.

Just off topic sorta.
9073 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22
Offline
Posted 8/11/17
Guam is a U.S. territory. The territory of Guam doesn't just include Guam's land, but also some of the sea around it. If North Korea were to fire test missiles into Guam's territorial waters, then I don't really see how North Korea or other countries would be justified in complaining if the U.S. were to attempt to or succeed in shooting down Kim's missile. While it's true that a failed attempt to shoot down the missile might make the U.S. look unreliable, so would a choice to do nothing when North Korea is threatening territories that are under U.S. protection.
lawdog 
44903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17
Lots of conditions here.

NK has not mentioned sending nuclear armed missiles against Guam. They've simply talked of sending a salvo of missiles towards Guam. If they launch at a target range just outside Guam's (and therefore USA) territorial waters, that's the only time to wonder whether to intercept or not. If the missiles are headed directly to Guam, or the territorial waters around it, intercept, whether they're armed with nukes or not.
31054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Massachusetts, Un...
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:


Evilshadowx wrote:

I don't think NK even mentioned that they were actually going to use a nuclear missile, they just mentioned a missile. They have no evidence that they can even launch and have a nuclear missile reenter the atmosphere on a missile without blowing up reentering yet.


Because you need a nuclear middle to kill people? Probably want to reread what your wrote.



Don't need to. Read the title of the thread. The answer to stop a Nuke is obvious. But they didn't say they were going to launch a nuke so this is pointless banter. However if you said "missiles" then this would be different.
13115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 8/11/17
for some reason the AP website is not working for me (maybe it's deleted?).
i'm pretty sure people living in Guam would not feel any more comfortable with the notion of being hit by regular missiles as opposed to nuclear ones, though N korea never claimed they would attack Guam itself (which is what AP seems to be hypothesizing)..at least not yet afaik.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.