North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

[Craterloads]

Whilst this is usually the case, I think you need to read the thread title.

Oh i have, and the title doesn’t exactly encapsulate the whole story/history now does it...

 

[Duff-Man]

Oh i have, and the title doesn’t exactly encapsulate the whole story/history now does it...

Do enlighten us...

 

[Craterloads]

Do enlighten us...

How about your do us all a favour and enlighten yourself?

If you cant see the is more to the story than "North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike." then you might as well leave now.

 

[Duff-Man]

How about your do us all a favour and enlighten yourself?

If you cant see the is more to the story than "North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike." then you might as well leave now.

If you read my posts in the thread you'll see that I have discussed the viewpoints of both sides, and the reasons for the escalating tensions, in quite a lot of detail.

You come in here with a claim, that the US is largely to blame for the current situation. All I ask is that you expand your viewpoint and back up your claim. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I politely suggest that a discussion thread is not the place for you.

 

[woppy101]

So let me get this right you agree that China would attack North Korea and annex it to effectively make it part of China to prevent a US controlled country from having a border with China? So you propose they would extend their border by annexation to border .... South Korea. Now you'll have to excuse me but I think I've just found a big flaw in that.

No they would install there own puppet government, North Korea wouldn't be annexed into china

 

[Craterloads]

If you read my posts in the thread you'll see that I have discussed the viewpoints of both sides, and the reasons for the escalating tensions, in quite a lot of detail.

You come in here with a claim, that the US is largely to blame for the current situation. All I ask is that you expand your viewpoint and back up your claim. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I politely suggest that a discussion thread is not the place for you.

I never said the US was largely or entirely to blame for this particular situation, i made a general comment regarding the US's involment in pretty much all "situations" all over the world.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

How about your do us all a favour and enlighten yourself?

The generic response when you have no idea yourself.

I never said the US was largely or entirely to blame for this particular situation, i made a general comment regarding the US's involment in pretty much all "situations" all over the world.

Which has little to do with this thread, good job.

 

[Duff-Man]

I never said the US was largely or entirely to blame for this particular situation, i made a general comment regarding the US's involment in pretty much all "situations" all over the world.

As the most powerful nation on Earth, the US naturally has economic and political interests globally. And so too, increasingly, does China. In the days of the Soviet superpower, they too had such global interests. In the days of the British Empire, the same could be said of us.

The US being so heavily involved in global affairs is a property of them being a superpower first and foremost. For better or for worse, other nations rely on the US and other powerful nations for trade, security, and political stability. As they increasingly do with China.

Note that I'm not saying that everything the US does is "for the greater good" or even vaguely justified (I don't think that at all). But in this circumstance it's hard to paint the US as an aggressor. They have taken a 'hands off' approach to NK for a long time now, and NK has responded with direct threats (including the use of nuclear weapons) against the US, Japan and South Korea. Even their greatest ally (China) is beginning to turn their back on North Korea as a result of their aggressive and destabilising actions.

 

[Craterloads]

The generic response when you have no idea yourself.

Well no not really, especially given the reply was in regard to your generic reponse of "read the thread title" which was as about as useful as looking at the cover art of a book.

Which has little to do with this thread, good job.

Well clearly it does given it is another US confrontation with yet another country.

 

[hola_adios]

Right, this is a bit of twist to the on-going story, Anonymous threatens war on South Korea:

http://bgr.com/2013/04/02/anonymous-north-korea-cyber-warefare-410854/

Reports say the two computer users in NK are in a state of shock ...

 

[Craterloads]

As the most powerful nation on Earth, the US naturally has economic and political interests globally. And so too, increasingly, does China. In the days of the Soviet superpower, they too had such global interests. In the days of the British Empire, the same could be said of us.

The US being so heavily involved in global affairs is a property of them being a superpower first and foremost. For better or for worse, other nations rely on the US and other powerful nations for trade, security, and political stability. As they increasingly do with China.

Note that I'm not saying that everything the US does is "for the greater good" or even vaguely justified (I don't think that at all). But in this circumstance it's hard to paint the US as an aggressor. They have taken a 'hands off' approach to NK for a long time now, and NK has responded with direct threats (including the use of nuclear weapons) against the US, Japan and South Korea. Even their greatest ally (China) is beginning to turn their back on North Korea as a result of their aggressive and destabilising actions.

True to some extent but wasn’t the NK reaction as a result of the US flying B52 stealth bombers over South Korea, the position of radars in the sea near North Korea and military exercises? Not to mention all the sanctions spear headed by the US as a backdrop.

 

[Devlish]

True to some extent but wasn’t the NK reaction as a result of the US flying B52 stealth bombers over South Korea, the position of radars in the sea near North Korea and military exercises? Not to mention all the sanctions spear headed by the US as a backdrop.

...as a result of their nuclear test. Plus SK/US relations were established at the same time as the NK/China relations... The Korean war. Military exercises have been regular occurences and they unsurprisingly involve military equipment. What exactly is your point?

 

[Craterloads]

...as a result of their nuclear test. Plus SK/US relations were established at the same time as the NK/China relations... The Korean war. Military exercises have been regular occurences and they unsurprisingly involve military equipment. What exactly is your point?

That North Korea aren’t being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, like it is made out to be in the press. There is provocation from the US for the N Koreans to react too.

 

[Duff-Man]

That North Korea aren’t being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, like it is made out to be in the press. There is provocation from the US for the N Koreans to react too.

North Korea's goal in "being aggressive" is to gain aid and financial support from the US. This isn't a new thing - it has effectively been their policy for engaging the West for the past 25 years. They have simply stepped up the volume for various reasons:


North Korea have, in the past, used the threat of conflict and instability in the region to extort aid from the US. Past agreements saw the US provide food aid and financial support in exchange for NK agreeing to abandon its nuclear program. This worked well for North Korea in the 90s and early 00s. However, by 2007 it became clear that NK had not abandoned their nuclear program, leading to the US to withdraw from the deal. As a result, NK began to 'show their hand' by instigating small skirmishes in the region (sinking a South Korean ship, shelling a South Korean island etc).

Now, North Korea are once again using the threat of violence and instability to try and force further concessions from the US. The major difference is that their ballistic missile development, and their nuclear weapons, make their threats more potent. As a result, China is starting to turn their back on them and allow further sanctions, as the threat of conflict grows more realistic. China cannot afford to openly support them in physical a conflict with the West (though they have in the past been willing to support their 'war of words').

With the US refusing to "bend to their demands" this time, and provide aid to North Korea, the NK are increasing the volume and intensity of their threats, hoping the threat of imminent war will change the mind of the US. So far it is not working.

The fear is that NK will now need to resort to physical violence (presumably small skirmishes at first) in order to get the US 'back to the table'. This could spiral out of control into full scale conflict.

 

[bitslice]

As the saying goes when you point your finger at somebody else, four fingers are pointing back at you.

Nuclear mutant!
I only have three pointing back at me (eww, dirty fingernails...)



Sorry, I brought the debate down to my level again didn't I?

 

[Craterloads]

North Korea's goal in "being aggressive" is to gain aid and financial support from the US. This isn't a new thing - it has effectively been their policy for engaging the West for the past 25 years. They have simply stepped up the volume for various reasons:


North Korea have, in the past, used the threat of conflict and instability in the region to extort aid from the US. Past agreements saw the US provide food aid and financial support in exchange for NK agreeing to abandon its nuclear program. This worked well for North Korea in the 90s and early 00s. However, by 2007 it became clear that NK had not abandoned their nuclear program, leading to the US to withdraw from the deal. As a result, NK began to 'show their hand' by instigating small skirmishes in the region (sinking a South Korean ship, shelling a South Korean island etc).

Now, North Korea are once again using the threat of violence and instability to try and force further concessions from the US. The major difference is that their ballistic missile development, and their nuclear weapons, make their threats more potent. As a result, China is starting to turn their back on them and allow further sanctions, as the threat of conflict grows more realistic. China cannot afford to openly support them in physical a conflict with the West (though they have in the past been willing to support their 'war of words').

With the US refusing to "bend to their demands" this time, and provide aid to North Korea, the NK are increasing the volume and intensity of their threats, hoping the threat of imminent war will change the mind of the US. So far it is not working.

The fear is that NK will now need to resort to physical violence (presumably small skirmishes at first) in order to get the US 'back to the table'. This could spiral out of control into full scale conflict.

Nicely put.

North Korea shouldn’t have to beg for Aid though, if it wasn't for hypocritical demands from the US and US led sanctions. NK for all we know may have had a thriving economy like the South, all right maybe not like the South but self-sufficient at least.

It's like straving a tiger then laying fault on it when it lashes out due to hunger.

 

[Duff-Man]

Nicely put.

North Korea shouldn’t have to beg for Aid though, if it wasn't for hypocritical demands from the US and US led sanctions. NK for all we know may have had a thriving economy like the South, all right maybe not like the South but self-sufficient at least.

It's like straving a tiger then laying fault on it when it lashes out due to hunger.

I don't see how the US has been "starving" North Korea out... The sanctions are a very new thing, as a result of NKs nuclear tests. The mass famine in the 90s, for example, had nothing to do with US sanctions, and the US provided as much food aid to the North Korean people as the NK government would allow (the NK government were very reluctant to admit there was a problem, despite millions dying of starvation).

I would argue that North Korea is in a bad state because of their autocratic dictatorship, their complete lack of communication with the West, and their "military first" social policy which sees millions starve and live in the most poverty-stricken environments, while the central government spends Billions on nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and upkeep of their army.


After the Korean war both North and South Korea were pretty much on a level footing. The South chose a path of international integration, and democracy. The North formed a brutal communist dictatorship that existed purely to serve the agenda of the country's elite. You can see for yourself how these two different philosophies have worked out.

 

[GAC]

well the comedy writers are at it for the ap news wire. just seen this flashing across the bottom of sky news.

break news afp: north korea approves "merciless" nuclear strike on america involving possible use of cutting edge technology.

that is all hahahaha.

 

[Craterloads]

I don't see how the US has been "starving" North Korea out... The sanctions are a very new thing, as a result of NKs nuclear tests. The mass famine in the 90s, for example, had nothing to do with US sanctions, and the US provided as much food aid to the North Korean people as the NK government would allow (the NK government were very reluctant to admit there was a problem, despite millions dying of starvation).

I would argue that North Korea is in a bad state because of their autocratic dictatorship, their complete lack of communication with the West, and their "military first" social policy which sees millions starve and live in the most poverty-stricken environments, while the central government spends Billions on nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and upkeep of their army.


After the Korean war both North and South Korea were pretty much on a level footing. The South chose a path of international integration, and democracy. The North formed a brutal communist dictatorship that existed purely to serve the agenda of the country's elite. You can see for yourself how these two different philosophies have worked out.

Sanctions have been in place since the 50s.

North Korea only started efforts to procure nuclear weapons after the United States stationed over 900 nuclear warheads in South Korea to use on North Korea. Given that the US actually used NWs on Japan and clearly wasn’t shy about using them again, surely NK had a legitimate reason to develop a deterrent.

 

[doodah]

Sanctions have been in place since the 50s.

North Korea only started efforts to procure nuclear weapons after the United States stationed over 900 nuclear warheads in South Korea to use on North Korea.

I smell a rat..........................................

?????

Don't the US have around 2-3000 warheads in total and you are saying 900 (between 1/3-1/2) are in SK!?