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
riem2k 
11158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

OneEyedDragon wrote:

And how many nukes will you allow North Korea to continue to proliferate? Let's make sure we postpone and just wait and see.And then 50 years later, North Korea has every inconceivable type of missiles consisting from chemical to nuclear heads. And will and can fuck the world.

And now what?

Just because you are concerned about our current situation. This situation is just going to get worse and worse. No more fucking band-aids. FFS, this shit has been going for too long.



Seems like he just got empowered to continue doing so....



"If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," it said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/china-should-be-neutral-if-north-korea-fires-first-on-us-global-times.html




51477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

riverjustice wrote:

Let's say we don't intercept their missiles because it lands outside the coastal waters. We just set a precedence around the world that any of our enemies are able to conduct missile operations around any of our coastal waters because we decided we rather not look like fools if our anti- missile system fails.


Well, sure. But better to keep everyone guessing than know a system does not work in real life conditions.

But, more to the point, the reverse is also true. Any sort of missile defense is a defensive system. There are valid reasons for not using defensive systems if you do not absolutely have to. Starting with, anytime you use it, your enemies (and frenemies and friends) will get hard data to work with in order to develop their own counter measures to stop said defensive measure. Sure they are doing that anyway, but hard data is valuable. It is as simple as knowing "Oh hey, it can stop 3 but not 4 missiles at the same time, when we do it for reals, we need to send 10." And more complex as being able to add radar jamming and all to your missiles if you know the frequencies to jam.

All in all not doing anything at all if the missiles do not pose an actual threat is a good idea. Again, it keeps everyone guessing. That is a good thing from a military perspective.

And, oddly, it gains respect in places like Asia. Because they do respect restraint in situations like this. It demonstrates you are dangerous. Because you do not fear everything, or at least can control your fear. It shows that your equipment is good enough to even tell you that the missiles were not going to pose a threat before hand. Sure, it plays less well in the South of the USA because we all miss a chance to fire up the BBQ and chant USA! USA! for a night. But them's the breaks.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/12/17 , edited 8/12/17

Cellory wrote:

Let's say we don't intercept their missiles because it lands outside the coastal waters. We just set a precedence around the world that any of our enemies are able to conduct missile operations around any of our coastal waters because we decided we rather not look like fools if our anti- missile system fails.


Alright, I'll tell you why it's advantageous for the U.S. to use their defensive system.

First, yes the enemy knows what your defensive system is capable of. But, what's actually more important is the U.S. KNOWS what their defensive system is capable of. Like you mention how do we know the system is capable in real life conditions.

What if the defensive system fails during real life conditions? Especially when the U.S. had an opportunity to use it against legitimately against North Korea. And now you have Los Angeles city decimated because the U.S. failed to improve their defensive system.



All in all not doing anything at all if the missiles do not pose an actual threat is a good idea. Again, it keeps everyone guessing. That is a good thing from a military perspective. And, oddly, it gains respect in places like Asia. Because they do respect restraint in situations like this. It demonstrates you are dangerous. Because you do not fear everything, or at least can control your fear.



No country should test to see if the U.S. will retaliate if they hit near its coastal waters. Here's why it hurts our nation's security. One of the principles of war is Security:

Never permit the enemy to acquire an unexpected advantage. Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.

When you allow North Korea to test near Guam's coastal waters, you are telling them, "we won't retaliate since you didn't actually hit us".

And then you allow free reign for North Korea to test near California's coastal waters or Hawaii's. You have North Korea gaining more information with their nuclear missiles and at the same time, they know they can set off missiles near our coastal water anywhere because that's the foreign policy you wanted to implement it.

You are literally giving North Korea the advantages of freedom of action and now you reduced the U.S.'s influence against all enemies.


Here's the worse case scenario. Our defensive system is a flop. Guess what? Now the U.S. is going to scramble to create a better defensive system that will work. The atomic bomb, Space Shuttle, the Turing machine was created because of the pressure to survive.

Surviving will create the pressure for scientists to create a defensive system that will work.

North Korea doesn't have the resources or the technology to compete with U.S. when it comes to innovation and improvement.

467 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

riem2k wrote:


"If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," it said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/china-should-be-neutral-if-north-korea-fires-first-on-us-global-times.html




Really you are sending me an opinion piece and not the actual official statement from China...
riem2k 
11158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

OneEyedDragon wrote:


riem2k wrote:


"If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," it said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/11/china-should-be-neutral-if-north-korea-fires-first-on-us-global-times.html




Really you are sending me an opinion piece and not the actual official statement from China...



http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1060791.shtml
******************************************************************
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/11/china-pledges-neutrality-unless-us-strikes-north-korea-first.html
https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/china-pledges-neutrality-unless-us-strikes-north-korea-first/ar-AApR3VE?li=BBr8Cnr
44472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / East Coast
Offline
Posted 8/12/17
Choose a letter / but we ( and or Pacific allies may receive the same

J JDAM ( Joint Direct Attack Munition )
M MOAB ( Massive Ordnance Air Blast )
S SNW ( Strategic nuclear weapon ) Targets away from Battlefield
R (R)TCM ( Regular Ordiance TOMAHAWK Cruise Missle )
T TNW (Tactical nuclear weapon ) Battlefield






71134 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Seattle
Offline
Posted 8/12/17
Well, somebody has to stop their nukes, otherwise this could be the spark that starts WWIII if the worst case scenario is realized. While the USA should stay out of problems in other countries that have nothing to do with the USA like in Syria, this is definitely an international problem that could lead to some severe consequences worldwide should Kim Jong-un create the WMD that could destroy any place from North Korea. While it is imperative that North Korea is stopped before it reaches that stage, the question is when to stop as striking too soon will lead to all sorts of diplomatic problems, and you know exactly what happens if it is too late to stop them as by then North Korea would be armed and dangerous that it's going to require a lot more manpower to stop.
3143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 8/12/17
it's an act of war if Trump or any country bothers NK without probable cause, we don't know what he really has and other countries have proven they have faked/lied about what they got in order to stay in power. so, to destroy NK without them attacking first, is a no-no. countries have to follow laws/rules as well. those who don't they become the enemy eventually.
13428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

niotabunny wrote:

it's an act of war if Trump or any country bothers NK without probable cause, we don't know what he really has and other countries have proven they have faked/lied about what they got in order to stay in power. so, to destroy NK without them attacking first, is a no-no.

in the hypothetical scenario described by the article (N Korea striking missiles headed towards Guam)...there's enough probably cause for the US to defend itself. (notice that this is different from launching an attack towards N Korea as a response).


niotabunny wrote:
countries have to follow laws/rules as well. those who don't they become the enemy eventually.


like N Korea repeatedly making missile tests despite being reprimanded by the international community, including their closes ally China.
51477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

riverjustice wrote:



I would point out that the US really cannot retaliate against North Korea unless they hit us. So really any threat by North Korea is moot because threat alone is not enough for the US to be able to retaliate. South Korea is not going to authorize an attack by the US except in the case of an unambiguous attack. All we are doing is responding to something that we do not have to. So there is no security benefit because we cannot do anything about it other than give away our capabilities.

Now I do not fully disagree here. An intercept out through the Contiguous Zone about 24 Nautical Miles offshore is appropriate. But outside of that using any intercept system just gives away more than it protects.

We are not secure in any event. We live in a free society. There are a half dozen better ways of getting a nuke to a US city than relying on an ICBM. That is for sex appeal and politics, it is not a military threat because of how few there are. With how few of them they have, we do not enhance our security by taking them out

Simply shooting down anything that might come down by us simply gives a false sense of security. Again the other side (which may include China and Russia) can learn a lot of watching the intercept process. It would also be optimistic to believe that information and even technology would not be leaked to North Korea.

And actually the worst case scenario is not that the system is a flop. That is just embarrassing. Embarrassment passes. The worst case scenario is that our enemies learn enough of the system to create countermeasures to them. And countering defenses is almost always easier than the creation of those defenses in the first place. Right now we have a good read on most country's missiles. But if they start putting on countermeasures we might not know until they are inbound and that is not the time you want to start developing new ways to counter the counters. Even if we learn of them beforehand, it is still generally easier to come up with counters to active defenses.

I am not saying that this is the best choice always. Just in the case of North Korea. If China were doing it or Russia it might make a lot more sense to intercept regardless. And you can do that in politics. It does not have to be a one policy fits all sort of thing. You can simply say we will let North Korea yap as much as it wants and ignore it unless it proves to be an actual threat, but China and Russia are different.

All I am saying here is that we are starting to blow the whole situation in North Korea out of proportion.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/12/17

Cellory wrote:

I would point out that the US really cannot retaliate against North Korea unless they hit us. So really any threat by North Korea is moot because threat alone is not enough for the US to be able to retaliate. South Korea is not going to authorize an attack by the US except in the case of an unambiguous attack. All we are doing is responding to something that we do not have to. So there is no security benefit because we cannot do anything about it other than give away our capabilities.

Now I do not fully disagree here. An intercept out through the Contiguous Zone about 24 Nautical Miles offshore is appropriate. But outside of that using any intercept system just gives away more than it protects.

We are not secure in any event. We live in a free society. There are a half dozen better ways of getting a nuke to a US city than relying on an ICBM. That is for sex appeal and politics, it is not a military threat because of how few there are. With how few of them they have, we do not enhance our security by taking them out

Simply shooting down anything that might come down by us simply gives a false sense of security. Again the other side (which may include China and Russia) can learn a lot of watching the intercept process. It would also be optimistic to believe that information and even technology would not be leaked to North Korea.

And actually the worst case scenario is not that the system is a flop. That is just embarrassing. Embarrassment passes. The worst case scenario is that our enemies learn enough of the system to create countermeasures to them. And countering defenses is almost always easier than the creation of those defenses in the first place. Right now we have a good read on most country's missiles. But if they start putting on countermeasures we might not know until they are inbound and that is not the time you want to start developing new ways to counter the counters. Even if we learn of them beforehand, it is still generally easier to come up with counters to active defenses.

I am not saying that this is the best choice always. Just in the case of North Korea. If China were doing it or Russia it might make a lot more sense to intercept regardless. And you can do that in politics. It does not have to be a one policy fits all sort of thing. You can simply say we will let North Korea yap as much as it wants and ignore it unless it proves to be an actual threat, but China and Russia are different.

All I am saying here is that we are starting to blow the whole situation in North Korea out of proportion.


Yes, the U.S. can retaliate if North Korea's missile goes through international airspace and ocean.

Look having North Korea shoot out missiles anywhere they want is very dangerous for air travel and ships. So do you want the entire airliners to stop their flights because Kimmy boy wants to test out their nukes in international waters as he damn well pleased?

Do you want ships to stop transporting goods around the world?

There needs to be a red line that North Korea can not cross. And testing out their weapon systems anywhere they want on international waters is menacing and it's high risk for any travel just so we hide our technology against our enemies.

It just not infringes the freedom of the U.S., but it infringes freedom around the world.

25770 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/13/17
Right, if NK is just shooting test missiles, then attempting to shoot them down only reveals our exact capabilities.

I don't really agree with the fears of heightening tensions, or failure making us look bad. Even if they're only test missiles, it's a big deal if they're targeting us and seeing if we can shoot them down. I don't think we can tell if they have warheads or not. We can't avoid heightened tensions at that point - it would probably become direct conflict.

The difference between a successful intercept and a failed intercept probably doesn't matter. I expect it will get a lot more funding, either way.
47839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 8/13/17
imma bounce those missiles right off my belly
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/13/17

Kavalion wrote:

Right, if NK is just shooting test missiles, then attempting to shoot them down only reveals our exact capabilities.

I don't really agree with the fears of heightening tensions, or failure making us look bad. Even if they're only test missiles, it's a big deal if they're targeting us and seeing if we can shoot them down. I don't think we can tell if they have warheads or not. We can't avoid heightened tensions at that point - it would probably become direct conflict.

The difference between a successful intercept and a failed intercept probably doesn't matter. I expect it will get a lot more funding, either way.


So if Kim tested a missile in international waters and a ship got destroyed because they didn't know Kim wanted to pop one whenever he wanted. What do we tell the families? Hey sorry your husband died because we decided letting Kim endanger international waters were far more important than securing safe water passageway.
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 8/13/17

riverjustice wrote:


Kavalion wrote:

Right, if NK is just shooting test missiles, then attempting to shoot them down only reveals our exact capabilities.

I don't really agree with the fears of heightening tensions, or failure making us look bad. Even if they're only test missiles, it's a big deal if they're targeting us and seeing if we can shoot them down. I don't think we can tell if they have warheads or not. We can't avoid heightened tensions at that point - it would probably become direct conflict.

The difference between a successful intercept and a failed intercept probably doesn't matter. I expect it will get a lot more funding, either way.


So if Kim tested a missile in international waters and a ship got destroyed because they didn't know Kim wanted to pop one whenever he wanted. What do we tell the families? Hey sorry your husband died because we decided letting Kim endanger international waters were far more important than securing safe water passageway.


Or we intercept and the debris falls on a ship and sinks it to the bottom, now we are the bad guys for shooting down the "harmless" test missile.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.