North Korea
-
ptown_trojans_1
Yeah, it was a brazen move by the North. They have only done this two other times.
I'm not sure if Japan could have shot it down, but interesting they did not even attempt.
Heavy caveat, but the South is saying the North may be preparing for a nuclear test. They said the same thing in April, and no test occurred.
Trump saying "all options are on the tables" the same language we have been using for 25 years. MAGA baby! -
Spock
so you wont complain when we go in there and bomb them?ptown_trojans_1;1869221 wrote:Yeah, it was a brazen move by the North. They have only done this two other times.
I'm not sure if Japan could have shot it down, but interesting they did not even attempt.
Heavy caveat, but the South is saying the North may be preparing for a nuclear test. They said the same thing in April, and no test occurred.
Trump saying "all options are on the tables" the same language we have been using for 25 years. MAGA baby! -
ptown_trojans_1
That's if we are all still here.....Spock;1869226 wrote:so you wont complain when we go in there and bomb them?
Bombing is not on the table no matter what Trump says.
The risks are too great and plus we do not have a good answer to the important question: What happens next after we bomb?
Anyone that has studying game theory and crisis management involving nuclear powers knows military action could easily lead to nuclear war. The DOD does not want to risk that given the uncertainly of the North regime and response. -
Spock
If we wanted to we could take him out without a war. THe NK army will run like the Iraqi army did.ptown_trojans_1;1869230 wrote:That's if we are all still here.....
Bombing is not on the table no matter what Trump says.
The risks are too great and plus we do not have a good answer to the important question: What happens next after we bomb?
Anyone that has studying game theory and crisis management involving nuclear powers knows military action could easily lead to nuclear war. The DOD does not want to risk that given the uncertainly of the North regime and response. -
ptown_trojans_1
LOL.Spock;1869334 wrote:If we wanted to we could take him out without a war. THe NK army will run like the Iraqi army did.
If so, why haven't we already?
We tried to take Saddam out in 2003 and failed badly...
Also...so what happens to all their nukes and missiles? Who's to say one general does not go rouge and launch a nuclear or chemical strike?
Finally, I wouldn't cite Iraq as an example.... -
like_that
Any reports on why Japan decided not to try and shoot it down? -
Commander of Awesome
I'm wondering this as well, if I had to guess they didn't have the proper procedure in place to implement shoot down quick enough. I think the timing was only like 10 minutes or something.like_that;1869383 wrote:Any reports on why Japan decided not to try and shoot it down?
Should also be noted that even when they know exactly when/where the success rate is extremely low from what I've read. -
Commander of Awesome
Recent article on missile defense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-shootdown-analysi-idUSKCN1BA085 -
majorspark
I don't believe this to be the case. It's likely a calculated risk to not escalate the situation or show their hand. The Nork missiles are not believed to be tipped with warheads at this point. From what I have read by the missiles trajectory the intended target can be quickly ascertained. That said miscalculations spark wars.Commander of Awesome;1869394 wrote:I'm wondering this as well, if I had to guess they didn't have the proper procedure in place to implement shoot down quick enough. I think the timing was only like 10 minutes or something. -
thavoiceNow what? Another test just days after sending a rocket over japan. They truly seem hell bent on starting something and playing a game that could prove deadly.
They must believe no one will do anything about it.
Does the US have the intestinal fortitude for yet another battle front?
At least this one likely would be more conventional than our current conflicts.
I believe it's time to unleash the amazing weapons our arsenal has and rarely able to use in our current operations. -
Spock
They know that nobody is doing anything.thavoice;1869890 wrote:Now what? Another test just days after sending a rocket over japan. They truly seem hell bent on starting something and playing a game that could prove deadly.
They must believe no one will do anything about it.
Does the US have the intestinal fortitude for yet another battle front?
At least this one likely would be more conventional than our current conflicts.
I believe it's time to unleash the amazing weapons our arsenal has and rarely able to use in our current operations.
We probably could take out all of their defenses without stepping foot on their soil. -
ptown_trojans_1
The North have been telling us they were going to test an Hbomb any day. I guess we should listen to them...
Anyone that suggests military force, lay out how it will work?
We bomb, strike, and take out the leadership and most of the missiles.
How do we make sure no rouge general launches a nuclear or chemical attack? How do we know we have taken out all of their missiles, and some are not in some mountain complex?
Also, let's just assume that their military folds like cc says, what then? How does the peace look? How do you solve that problem?
What happens if China military comes in like they did in the 1950s? What then?
I'm not so sure our military wants to open that can of worms. We saw what happened in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan. War is easy, the peace is the hard part. Until someone addressed what peace looks like after a war, it is unrealistic.
Also, Trump current whip-lashing of South Korea is not helping. -
Spock
Good example of nation building gone wrong but those examples arent the best because of the ideology of the religion we were dealing with. NK would gravitate toward Western ideas better.ptown_trojans_1;1869893 wrote:The North have been telling us they were going to test an Hbomb any day. I guess we should listen to them...
Anyone that suggests military force, lay out how it will work?
We bomb, strike, and take out the leadership and most of the missiles.
How do we make sure no rouge general launches a nuclear or chemical attack? How do we know we have taken out all of their missiles, and some are not in some mountain complex?
Also, let's just assume that their military folds like cc says, what then? How does the peace look? How do you solve that problem?
What happens if China military comes in like they did in the 1950s? What then?
I'm not so sure our military wants to open that can of worms. We saw what happened in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan. War is easy, the peace is the hard part. Until someone addressed what peace looks like after a war, it is unrealistic.
Also, Trump current whip-lashing of South Korea is not helping. -
ptown_trojans_1
Based on what evidence?Spock;1869894 wrote:Good example of nation building gone wrong but those examples arent the best because of the ideology of the religion we were dealing with. NK would gravitate toward Western ideas better.
The North has been living under the same regime since the 1950s. What makes you think they will easily take to the West?
Plus, I highly, highly doubt China wants a western friendly country on their border like that.
China also does not want to take any NK refugees to slow down their economy.
China is not going to sit by as the U.S. bombs. How do you make sure they do not enter on the side of the north and risk a larger war? -
like_that
Only difference I can say is NK is a much smaller region than the Middle East obviously, but war time and time again has created more of a mess than fix anything.ptown_trojans_1;1869895 wrote:Based on what evidence?
The North has been living under the same regime since the 1950s. What makes you think they will easily take to the West?
Plus, I highly, highly doubt China wants a western friendly country on their border like that.
China also does not want to take any NK refugees to slow down their economy.
China is not going to sit by as the U.S. bombs. How do you make sure they do not enter on the side of the north and risk a larger war? -
thavoiceptown_trojans_1;1869893 wrote:The North have been telling us they were going to test an Hbomb any day. I guess we should listen to them...
Anyone that suggests military force, lay out how it will work?
We bomb, strike, and take out the leadership and most of the missiles.
How do we make sure no rouge general launches a nuclear or chemical attack? How do we know we have taken out all of their missiles, and some are not in some mountain complex?
Also, let's just assume that their military folds like cc says, what then? How does the peace look? How do you solve that problem?
What happens if China military comes in like they did in the 1950s? What then?
I'm not so sure our military wants to open that can of worms. We saw what happened in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan. War is easy, the peace is the hard part. Until someone addressed what peace looks like after a war, it is unrealistic.
Also, Trump current whip-lashing of South Korea is not helping.
Not sure we would see what we are currently are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen and Somalia, etc....
This would be more like the conventional warfare where it is nations vs nations and not nations vs a religious ideal.
The US wouldn't have to go in and nation build necessarily for NK. Targeted strikes on their military C&C, installations, weapons depots and such and set them back a very long time. Then the ball is in their court. Do they want to escalate it and continue whereas it would get extremely bloody on both sides.
If the current leader would be killed then the next one would have to decide the new fate of NK.
The US military is ready, willing and able to take the fight to them if given the go ahead.
It may not be the best example but it would be more similar to the first Gulf war before Bush Jr wanted to avenge what his father didn't do. Execute a battle plan, get the leader to surrender and cooperate...somewhat. They agree to international sanctions/treaty and what they need to do. That is how wars basically used to be and if the whole WMD wasn't made up (I think there is a 10 percent chance it was legit and they are buried in the desert somewhere) then that whole area likely has Saddam in power and controlling his own people but not much of an outside threat.
Who knows what is going to happen. I wouldn't expect boots on ground in NK for quite awhile. It would be an aerial and bombardment from the sea to send them a message that someone will finally do something. They cannot go on threatening neighbors with their rhetoric and also creating all these tests. If they were a regular nation wanting them for defense.....but man they are creating them and saying they want to use them to wipe out other countries.
Something has to give.... -
BRF
To lighten things up a little bit:
We take away their cosmetics?ptown_trojans_1;1869893 wrote: How do we make sure no rouge general launches a nuclear or chemical attack?
-
thavoice
That woild be a vogue GeneralBRF;1869903 wrote:To lighten things up a little bit:
We take away their cosmetics?
-
salto
Only if willing to sacrifice all of Seoul and possibly Guam.Spock;1869892 wrote:They know that nobody is doing anything.
We probably could take out all of their defenses without stepping foot on their soil. -
ptown_trojans_1
I don't see that happening at all. Why would North Korea play by those traditional rules? They have seen the leaders that decided to plan by normal rules..they are all dead.thavoice;1869901 wrote:Not sure we would see what we are currently are witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen and Somalia, etc....
This would be more like the conventional warfare where it is nations vs nations and not nations vs a religious ideal.
The US wouldn't have to go in and nation build necessarily for NK. Targeted strikes on their military C&C, installations, weapons depots and such and set them back a very long time. Then the ball is in their court. Do they want to escalate it and continue whereas it would get extremely bloody on both sides.
If the current leader would be killed then the next one would have to decide the new fate of NK.
The US military is ready, willing and able to take the fight to them if given the go ahead.
It may not be the best example but it would be more similar to the first Gulf war before Bush Jr wanted to avenge what his father didn't do. Execute a battle plan, get the leader to surrender and cooperate...somewhat. They agree to international sanctions/treaty and what they need to do. That is how wars basically used to be and if the whole WMD wasn't made up (I think there is a 10 percent chance it was legit and they are buried in the desert somewhere) then that whole area likely has Saddam in power and controlling his own people but not much of an outside threat.
Who knows what is going to happen. I wouldn't expect boots on ground in NK for quite awhile. It would be an aerial and bombardment from the sea to send them a message that someone will finally do something. They cannot go on threatening neighbors with their rhetoric and also creating all these tests. If they were a regular nation wanting them for defense.....but man they are creating them and saying they want to use them to wipe out other countries.
Something has to give....
As soon as bombs start dropping who's to say they do not unleash a massive artillery and missile barrage against Seoul? We can't get everything in one strike. The north has too many mobile missiles. They will probably unleash all of those to their various targets, Guam, Japan, etc.
Also, we have a shitty track record at taking out leaders during initial war operations. Other than Bin Laden, we have failed to take out any recently in first strikes. The intel is all bad. And, North Korea is shitty on getting actual intel.
Why would they not also have missiles and WMD stored away in mountain complexes? We already do not have great visibility into the caves, who's to say they do not have weapons there and a plan to retreat there? Once the first wave of bombs is done, they then launch a nuclear or chemical strike.
The North Korean people have also been brainwashed into thinking the U.S. would topple the regime. If that happens, what makes it so sure the population will flip on them so easily? I could see the North rallying around Kim and the generals, not giving up, and fighting tooth and nail against the U.S.
I don't doubt the U.S. military's readiness. We are the best. But, North Korea won't play by our rules and will try and inflict as much damage as possible once shit hits the fan.
Finally, I would be careful to assume they play by the same rules of engagement in terms of warning shots and escalation theory. We may take out something just as a warning shot, and they may see it as all out war.
Oh, and that is still not even mentioning again, the China factor.
LOL. D'oh! Rogue...BRF;1869903 wrote:To lighten things up a little bit:
We take away their cosmetics?
-
ptown_trojans_1
I guess that is my point.like_that;1869896 wrote:Only difference I can say is NK is a much smaller region than the Middle East obviously, but war time and time again has created more of a mess than fix anything.
We seem to think oh, this will be easy, bomb here, take out a Kim, and everything will ok. Sign a treaty and peace out. But, the reality is way more complicated and harder than we are willing to accept. -
thavoice
The so called warning shots in this situation would be verbal. I can envision possiblyone more warning of this nature.ptown_trojans_1;1869915 wrote:I don't see that happening at all. Why would North Korea play by those traditional rules? They have seen the leaders that decided to plan by normal rules..they are all dead.
As soon as bombs start dropping who's to say they do not unleash a massive artillery and missile barrage against Seoul? We can't get everything in one strike. The north has too many mobile missiles. They will probably unleash all of those to their various targets, Guam, Japan, etc.
Also, we have a shitty track record at taking out leaders during initial war operations. Other than Bin Laden, we have failed to take out any recently in first strikes. The intel is all bad. And, North Korea is shitty on getting actual intel.
Why would they not also have missiles and WMD stored away in mountain complexes? We already do not have great visibility into the caves, who's to say they do not have weapons there and a plan to retreat there? Once the first wave of bombs is done, they then launch a nuclear or chemical strike.
The North Korean people have also been brainwashed into thinking the U.S. would topple the regime. If that happens, what makes it so sure the population will flip on them so easily? I could see the North rallying around Kim and the generals, not giving up, and fighting tooth and nail against the U.S.
I don't doubt the U.S. military's readiness. We are the best. But, North Korea won't play by our rules and will try and inflict as much damage as possible once shit hits the fan.
Finally, I would be careful to assume they play by the same rules of engagement in terms of warning shots and escalation theory. We may take out something just as a warning shot, and they may see it as all out war.
Oh, and that is still not even mentioning again, the China factor.
LOL. D'oh! Rogue...
The rest would come by force to their military installations with SoKo likely also taking part and ready for a possible escalation of force.
It really is a difficult and tough decision to make for our President and south korea. This is the first time in quite awhile where the enemy is ready and able to strike outside its boundaries if action should be taken. SOKO well take the brunt of the response so they must be on board and participate as well.
It will not be an easy decision by any means.
In the past it was easy to dismiss his ramblings but what he has done recently is extremely difficult to just ignore. It's almost impossible to isolate them any more than they already are.
Over the years the govt has psyop'd their own people enough to indoctrinate them against the world.
One major thing they dont have is the benefit of......lessons learned. All they have done is tested and trained but not used their weapons, tactics, decision making and soldiering skills in a true fight.
They say the battle plan changes when that first shot is fired. The US has been fighting for a long time and have tens of thousands of folks who have been in battles and know how to fight.
One of the reasons no one has been able to totally conquer Afghanistan is because they have been fighting and fending off invaders for decades plus. They grow up and know how to fight.
Many contend that Russia's involvement and weapons they had used in Syria was as much to do with training their fighting force and testing their weapons systems than anything else. They would use weapons systems that were not needed but wanted a real life proving ground form their revamped military. They saw the US technology in the first gulf war and realized how antiquated their arsenal was and tried to catch up. They took Krimea without a fight so Syria was the next test.
The ramifications are huge in this situation. China won't stand up to them as they build their fleet worldwide. They just opened their first overseas base in East Africa and could see NoKo as a proving ground as well.
No matter the decision that is made I believe it will be the wrong one. -
salto
Stick to kickball strategy, General.Spock;1869334 wrote:If we wanted to we could take him out without a war. THe NK army will run like the Iraqi army did. -
CenterBHSFan
I was talking to one of my ex co-workers last night who immigrated here from China and we started talking about a hypothetical future NK without their crazy leader. He brought up an interesting problem that I don't think has been brought up in this thread yet.
One of the problems with an intergration issue would be racism. And he went on to explain the variables involved including finances, education and son on, but the idea of racism was a new concept to me. -
GOONx19
Huh? There isn't a country in the world that doesn't struggle with racism. Why would NK be any different?CenterBHSFan;1870164 wrote:but the idea of racism was a new concept to me.