North Korea

Rilot said:
The thing is though, what else can they do? No one is going to invade NK because of the number of casualties this would cause in SK.
Click to expand...

But this is where Trump will back himself into a corner with his rhetoric, a bit like Obama did with his 'red line' to Assad. Trump said to NK if you keep doing this we will bring fire and fury like the world has never seen down on you.....well, they have kept doing it...
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
I did some research around the NK artillery threat.

The thing is SK is better prepared for an artillery attack that you think.
There are gas masks all over the vast network of shelters and tunnels that are under the capitol.
I genuinely believe they would be able to go to ground and ride out the storm for a few days.

I believe they have been neglected as of recent times in terms of food and water supplies, but there are over 3000 in Seoul alone that could be geared up in a few days
Click to expand...

This is where recent developments with stuff like kn-09 makes things complex as they can launch an attack with minimal signs leading up (none the least easier to disguise than towed guns or self propelled artillery with their support vehicles) to an attack have a volley of rockets in flight and find cover in short order leaving a potentially very short period of time to detect them and start evacuating. Unlike the older artillery platforms where there would be more noticeable signs of a build up.
 
MooMoo444 said:
Fire and fury like the world has never seen before. Over twitter.
Click to expand...

Saw some speculation that the medication, including likely steroids, Kim is probably taking for a couple of ailments is possibly causing him to act somewhat erratically and possibly belligerent. By all accounts not far off the same story for Trump :s
 
As originally said by Ronald Regan.

...every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender.
 
I'd just like to say how I strongly condemn these actions. I'll be meeting with my work colleagues to discuss the latest incident. Then we'll go all back to our day jobs.

Rinse and repeat.
 
I don't think anyone other than China is in a position to do anything.

I don't think an effective military option (other than all-out full on invasion) will work, lets face it - other than sanctions we're all pretty much powerless, against stopping NK from developing their nuclear weapons, no matter how uncomfortable it is.

The best we can do, is keep them isolated, let them do their thing and sit behind the notion, that if he does anything silly, he gets deleted.

I honestly don't see any other options
 
norm said:
It's inaccurate and sensationalist reporting by the BBC.

missile - "a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive."

Until they can accurately identify it as a missile, it should be referred to as a rocket. Sloppy reporting from the BBC, only too keen to heighten the perceived threat from NK, as any sort of conflict gives them ample content to report on. Much the same way they approached the Iraq invasion of 2003, peddling Tony Blair's lies.
Click to expand...

Pedantry is strong in this one. I doubt you'd be so blasé about the semantics of what type of projectile it is if they were firing them over the UK. "It's a rocket!" he says, until it's not.
 
norm said:
America fires something into orbit/space it's a rocket.

North Korea fires essentially the same thing it's a missile.

I think you'll find unless it's armed with a warhead it's not a missile.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. The United States of America is a permanent member of the UN Security council, the UN Security Council is tasked with restricting the proliferation of nuclear weapons to maintain world peace. North Korea is banned from testing missiles and is under heavy sanctions. This is how international law works. They aren't allowed to launch rockets or missiles, period. North Korea could have course disarm their missiles, allow weapons inspectors in, come to peaceful terms with the South, and sanctions would be removed and their country could prosper like other countries in SE Asia are.

They are also, of course, literally testing intercontinental ballistic missiles, with the goal of being able to launch nuclear warheads.
 
Last edited:
norm said:
It's inaccurate and sensationalist reporting by the BBC.

missile - "a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive."

Until they can accurately identify it as a missile, it should be referred to as a rocket. Sloppy reporting from the BBC, only too keen to heighten the perceived threat from NK, as any sort of conflict gives them ample content to report on. Much the same way they approached the Iraq invasion of 2003, peddling Tony Blair's lies.
Click to expand...

I just want to stick my oar in here and mention that BBC are not alone in the missile/rocket naming, yet you seem to have an axe to grind. If you're going to slate the reporting due to the terminology of the object then you can add many (if not all) other media sources to the list.
 
Norm is just posting nonsense. It is designed to be a missile and that is exactly what NK has stated its purpose is, its not even being disguised as a space launch rocket.
 
Glaucus said:
Norm is just posting nonsense. It is designed to be a missile and that is exactly what NK has stated its purpose is, its not even being disguised as a space launch rocket.
Click to expand...

The BBC could call it a Thunderbird and it'd still be illegal for North Korea to launch it.
 
The US/Japanese and South Koreans know the next step will invoke a war so you can guess why they aren't jumping straight in and kicking off although Japan has every right to if you ask me

could you imagine if say France was firing missile/rockets/paper planes over the UK to land in the Atlantic, that most of the UK wouldn't be up in arms when those nightmarish nuke alarms start to sound and being told to find a shelter. Obviously we would have an import ban on stripy tops but that wouldn't cut it after a second missile launch
 
Have we reached the point where not reacting is going to have far greater consequences than reacting? He's simply going to keep pushing and pushing until it is felt we have no choice.
 
ethan said:
Have we reached the point where not reacting is going to have far greater consequences than reacting? He's simply going to keep pushing and pushing until we do.
Click to expand...

There are reactions through sanctions against NK, recently oil import and textile export. Nothing has occurred to warrant a full military reaction, it would be deemed an invasion. NK are baiting the UN, Japan and US. That's the gist anyway.
China and Russia also complicate things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom