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 8/13/17

MadBovine wrote:


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.


Yes because testing uranium explosives are "harmless".
25778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Online
Posted 8/13/17

riverjustice wrote:
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.


Not sure what you mean. I said I don't think conflict with NK is avoidable if they keep testing missiles.

Also, you would obviously operate under the assumption that NK targeted the ship on purpose if one were struck. It makes no sense that they would do it by accident as if they didn't scout their targets and missile flight paths in any way.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/13/17

Kavalion wrote:


riverjustice wrote:
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.


Not sure what you mean. I said I don't think conflict with NK is avoidable if they keep testing missiles.

Also, you would obviously operate under the assumption that NK targeted the ship on purpose if one were struck. It makes no sense that they would do it by accident as if they didn't scout their targets and missile flight paths in any way.


Under the assumption? Possibly you haven't read the scenario on AP? Probably why my response doesn't make sense to you. The article states if North Korea were to test their missiles outside Guam's coast. You don't need to target any ships when ships come and go from the harbor there frequently. And also the you have to worry about the airplanes that travel from Guam to and fro. The missiles will be impede air space and also potentially hit an airliner.


13287 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Online
Posted 8/14/17
I think it's also important to take into account how the people who actually live in Guam feel about this topic. Here is an article that covers Guam's leader's response to this latest situation with North Korea:

https://www.afp.com/en/news/23/guam-leader-backs-punch-nose-pyongyang
51656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 8/14/17

I was more posting a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario :P

20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/14/17

MadBovine wrote:


I was more posting a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario :P



There are good arguments to both sides. But I do believe there needs to be a red line. I'm curious to know what the radius of the explosion is. And how close proximity is the ICBM testing close to Guam. If they allow it, I would not feel safe living on Guam personally.
37807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/14/17
I don't think we should show our hand unless there is an imminent threat. If we want to flex nuts and prove we can intercept missiles, we can do that any time we want (assuming we are capable). No reason to let North Korea dictate when and how we do it. And if we try and fail? That would be a complete disaster for us and a victory for NK. We have nothing to gain from this.
51506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 8/14/17

riverjustice wrote:

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.


I apologize here, I think I misunderstood your original post to a degree.

Yes, if North Korea shoots a missile with an armed nuke we should shoot it down. But no country even North Korea tests their nukes by putting them on a missile and just shooting them off towards another country, especially one to which you are hostile with or to. To do so is, inherently, an act of war. You simply cannot "test" a weapon of mass destruction in this fashion.

If a missile is shot off, it is a test of the missile system, not the nuke. You do not shoot live nukes at other countries, especially hostile ones, and call it a test. In fact, you do not shoot missiles at all to land within the EEZ generally of other nations. One problem in Asia is that nations are so interspersed that the EEZ is often in dispute. But that is a different issue. Certainly a missile is not ever shot to land within territorial waters of another country. That is, live or not, generally considered an act of aggression.

But North Korea wants to test unarmed missiles into the middle of the Pacific Ocean then that is their call. The US does not own any part of the Pacific outside of it's 12 mile territorial waters. And can only enforce certain things up to the 24 mile contiguous zone. The EEZ is not an enforceable zone, except insofar as the harvesting of resources. But a military ship can hang out 25 miles off the coast as much as they want. So yes, North Korea can test their missiles in international waters.

As long as 1) the missile is not armed and 2) no other country's aircraft or ships are damaged or destroyed in the process. And in the case of an airliner going down, well, I guarantee there will be Chinese citizens on board if a flight is going through the northern pacific. And the last country North Korea wants to piss off that way is China. They will annoy them in other ways, but not in a way that causes China to rethink their tacit agreements.

There is a red line. No one gets to test weapons of mass destruction in international anything. This is one place where the US has been pretty lucky in a sense, The US holds so many possessions in the Pacific it has a lot of targets to choose from that are US owned possessions legally speaking. Or that of an ally. North Korea, not so much. But bottom line, tests are just that. Tests of unarmed missile technology.

Again, to assume a nuke would ever be stuck on there is simply overhyping. North Korea is not going to start a war with the US.
2428 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/14/17
No. The Chinese need to stop NK. If NK is going to listen to anyone, it would be them
Posted 8/14/17
Listen, I am from Seoul and i'm not going to get into politics but if havent been to the peninsula its best not to share opinions on the subject.
28259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 8/15/17

xMononokeSan wrote:

Listen, I am from Seoul and i'm not going to get into politics but if havent been to the peninsula its best not to share opinions on the subject.


Yet we're going to give our opinions anyway. : P

I wanna see some nukes going off, people being eradicated instantly and war breaking out : D
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/15/17

xMononokeSan wrote:

Listen, I am from Seoul and i'm not going to get into politics but if havent been to the peninsula its best not to share opinions on the subject.


I actually have been to Seoul. Beautiful place. Stayed over at an AirBNB. I think it's hokaido that I stayed at. But here we have free speech and I think it should be discussed.
20121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/15/17

Dear_1nsanity wrote:

No. The Chinese need to stop NK. If NK is going to listen to anyone, it would be them


No China can sit on their asses they are useless in this case.. We better in hitting them during their military exercises wiping out most of their army and generals. plus leader. Then Have SK go in and re-civilize the rest of that nation.



win win without even dropping a single American soldier on NK.. Hit it with a few larger payload bombs... Don't need nukes.. NK makes it easy to topple them and they don't even get it.
riem2k 
11464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 8/15/17 , edited 8/15/17

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Dear_1nsanity wrote:

No. The Chinese need to stop NK. If NK is going to listen to anyone, it would be them


No China can sit on their asses they are useless in this case.. We better in hitting them during their military exercises wiping out most of their army and generals. plus leader. Then Have SK go in and re-civilize the rest of that nation.

win win without even dropping a single American soldier on NK.. Hit it with a few larger payload bombs... Don't need nukes.. NK makes it easy to topple them and they don't even get it.


Such scenario would probably trigger another October 19th, 1950
20121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/15/17

riem2k wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


Dear_1nsanity wrote:

No. The Chinese need to stop NK. If NK is going to listen to anyone, it would be them


No China can sit on their asses they are useless in this case.. We better in hitting them during their military exercises wiping out most of their army and generals. plus leader. Then Have SK go in and re-civilize the rest of that nation.

win win without even dropping a single American soldier on NK.. Hit it with a few larger payload bombs... Don't need nukes.. NK makes it easy to topple them and they don't even get it.


Such scenario would probably trigger another October 19th, 1950


'The entire situation would be with NK would be over in 3 days.. that be how long it would take for SK to take full control after NK becomes leader less and army has been put in disarray. Then we have to deal with the beeding heart liberal usless people that would have done nothing to the point of nukes being sent from NK hitting Japan, AMerica and other nations.

Sometimes I think the UK and China wants there to be A world war 3. And they are trying to get someone like NK to start it. Just so they can take the high ground.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.