North Korea

Nasher said:
Russia always seems to be the one backing the tinpot dictators.
Click to expand...

I would say the US is guilty of that more than anyone in the world, especially when you throw Africa and South America into the mix. Arguably though, i would say it was just another way to wage war in the 20th century without coming down to nukes. Russia and America raced to divide up the world instead of blow each-other up. Giving military and economic support to a rising power in a small country in trade for allegiance is obviously the more effective option than slowly introducing a stable and fair regime.
 
ubersonic said:
Yes but afterwards the north of Korea and the Korean capital Pyongyang were liberated by the Soviets and the south was liberated by US forces who then partitioned it off as a new country and created a new capital for it (Seoul).



No it was the US, the only mistake the Soviets made was not liberating the whole of Korea thus allowing the US to partition off the south and create a new state.
Click to expand...

As you correctly assert but reach the wrong conclusion on, the mistake the Soviets made was only liberating part of the country. By doing so you naturally create two parts. This parts means a partition! The US just took what was left which had already been rendered separate by the Soviets.
 
North Korea has won, they have developed Nuclear weapons that can be delivered with ICBMs even with the sanctions imposed from the West.

We are now trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted, we have two options:

1. Geo thermal nuclear war (please say this in a 1980's speech synthesized voice AKA War Games)
2. Substantive diplomatic negotiations with North Korea to see what we can offer them to "step back" from the button.

While number 2 is unpalatable it's certainly a lot better than option 1.

Even if they can get off one nuke before they get taken out the EMP caused by a high burst/low yield device would be catastrophic. You can guarantee that if they have a couple of such devices they will use them to to cause the maximum impact and that would be EMP rather the damage caused by the blast
 
France is now saying that NK will soon have missiles capable of hitting Europe.That just makes me think the public are being softened up for military action.
 
HEADRAT said:
North Korea has won, they have developed Nuclear weapons that can be delivered with ICBMs even with the sanctions imposed from the West.
Click to expand...
Detonating a nuke underground isn't the same as miniaturizing one to fit in a missile, they are a long way off that. And many decades away from missiles comparable to our own.
 
People don't forgot, it takes time to make nuclear weapons too, according to reports they can only make a few per year compared to what we could pump out.

We still got time for military action before it really becomes a impossible.
 
Uther said:
Exactly what I was thinking when I heard it. Same rubbish that could end in lots of misery and dead people.
Click to expand...

This is quite different isn't it? As in we kind of know they've got the wmds. Whether they can stick them on a missile or not just yet we don't know but they're close to it and they've proven icbm capability.
I don't think anyone wants a war, there's nothing to be gained in terms of resources unlike the middle east conflicts. This stems purely from national security of our own countries and that of close allies. They will literally be at the mercy of one man of questionable intelligence and mental stability (ignoring the easy trump joke).

Can the world afford to do absolutely nothing? It's a difficult question. They aren't developing these as a result of sanctions, the sanctions are because of the wmd work. The more years pass the more they'll refine their processes, the bigger the weapons and the more they miniaturise them meaning nothing can be done.

What diplomatic incentive is there for the regime to get rid of the nukes? Un has them to cement his family's position. Getting rid of them will, in his eyes, throw away his only ace. He really couldn't give a crap about the suffering of his people in the meantime.

ubersonic said:
Detonating a nuke underground isn't the same as miniaturizing one to fit in a missile, they are a long way off that. And many decades away from missiles comparable to our own.
Click to expand...

The thing about a nuke is you don't need to be particularly accurate :(
 
I'd be extremely cautious about potentially sending tens of thousands of your soldiers to be incinerated in a potential scorched earth policy, so the US can't justify an invasion at all really.
 
ubersonic said:
Detonating a nuke underground isn't the same as miniaturizing one to fit in a missile, they are a long way off that. And many decades away from missiles comparable to our own.
Click to expand...

If you're willing to bet millions of lives on that then great, if not then get to the negotiating table.
 
StriderX said:
I'd be extremely cautious about potentially sending tens of thousands of your soldiers to be incinerated in a potential scorched earth policy, so the US can't justify an invasion at all really.
Click to expand...

I suspect they have 0 interest in a large scale deployment/invasion if it came to a conflict. Reckon they'd pin their hopes on letting the NK military know if they stand down they won't be attacked and don't follow through on regime orders. That way country doesn't descend to absolute chaos (which happened in Iraq when their army was disbanded en masse).
Anything near the border that blinks and regime targets to be taken out only. I'd even start aid drops immediately on civilian areas, not bombs. Flower power man.

There's absolutely no way the north will be able to launch a large scale invasion of the south with the air power they'd face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom