Anyone else think we should go to war with North Korea?

Survivor Charlie

Survivor Charlie

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
So the UN gave North Korea a stern warning to not launch a missile this weekend, and they did anyway.

Today they celebrated the launch, which by all accounts wasn't even successful.

"The reclusive state has threatened to boycott six-nation nuclear disarmament talks and restart a plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium. It also warned on Wednesday of military action if anyone tried to retrieve debris from the rocket."

We attacked Iraq for a lot less then this shit. By all accounts, the North Koreans about forty years behind every other nation in the world in terms of weapon technology and have been so isolated for so long that any military strategy they would have likely would not work. And unlike Iraq a lot of other countries would love to get a piece of them. We've been gunshy because things didn't go so great in the fifties, but isn't now the right time to really stick it to them? Even China isn't against it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You and what army?[/QUOTE]
Heh, it looks like we had a similar reaction.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Heh, it looks like we had a similar reaction.[/quote]

North Korea needs a good asskicking, but the US doesn't have the army to do it.

We go bombing North Korea, they invade South Korea. China will make sure North Korea doesn't run out of bullets.
 
Korea knows if they pull any really stupid shit they'll be bombed faster than they can say "oops". It makes no sense for us to invade North Korea.
 
[quote name='Survivor Charlie']We attacked Iraq for a lot less then this shit.[/quote]

Obviously that turned out so well, we must start more wars! Most Americans think Iraq was a mistake.

By all accounts, the North Koreans about forty years behind every other nation in the world in terms of weapon technology and have been so isolated for so long that any military strategy they would have likely would not work. And unlike Iraq a lot of other countries would love to get a piece of them. We've been gunshy because things didn't go so great in the fifties, but isn't now the right time to really stick it to them? Even China isn't against it.
Click to expand...

"By all accounts"? What accounts do you speak of? Every account I've ready describes thousands of missiles and artillery in place that target Seoul, a city of millions of people. I'm sure that combined U.S./South Korean military might could defeat North Korea, even if they do have the second-largest standing army in the world (to our army), but there would be MASSIVE civilian casualties in South Korea alone.

And I also don't know where you get the "China isn't against it" line. I haven't seen any indication that China would be happy to sit by and watch North Korea get annihilated. If that were the case, China could forego all the wars and destruction on its borders by simply stopping energy supplies to North Korea. China could easily bring North Korea to its knees economically, yet they do not.

The bottom line is that, much like with Iran, things are not so simple with North Korea. Military action, especially anything more than a targeted strike, has enormous complications.
 
[quote name='Survivor Charlie']So the UN gave North Korea a stern warning to not launch a missile this weekend, and they did anyway.

Today they celebrated the launch, which by all accounts wasn't even successful.

"The reclusive state has threatened to boycott six-nation nuclear disarmament talks and restart a plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium. It also warned on Wednesday of military action if anyone tried to retrieve debris from the rocket."

We attacked Iraq for a lot less then this shit. By all accounts, the North Koreans about forty years behind every other nation in the world in terms of weapon technology and have been so isolated for so long that any military strategy they would have likely would not work. And unlike Iraq a lot of other countries would love to get a piece of them. We've been gunshy because things didn't go so great in the fifties, but isn't now the right time to really stick it to them? Even China isn't against it.[/quote]


In general I think things in life should be proactive, with the exception of war. There is just too much that can go wrong when you try to force change in another country in ths day and age. This isn't WWII or even WWI. The only way change will really take place is when/if the people of North Korea overthrow the "Great Leader" themselves. The only way we should go after North Korea is if they actually do something in regards to an attack IMO. We are spread too thin right now to go in for anything less than that.

Kim realizes if he fucks up, North Korea will be bombed and invaded and then he won't have his underage pleasure girls, his total rule over millions of people, his cars, and whatever other bullshit he lavishes on himself. He saw what happened to Saddam for less. The difference is that South Korea is adjacent to NK and Japan is close by, and they would be directly affected by a US led inavsion and that isn't desirable unless absolutely necessary. Those are two major economies and democracies in the world and destabilization of the area would be catastrophic for the entire world, especially in the current economy.

I know the Prime Directive is fiction, but in all seriousness it's probably the best course of action to leave other countires alone, and utlitize containment until they do something. We can't invade the entire world, and trying to prevent the procurement of nukes is impossible. If anyone thinks that these countries won't figure out how to make them over time they are fools. The only question is when will they do it.

That being said, the UN is a joke and Kim knows it. For us to ask the UN to do anything in regards to NK is absurd.
 
Seoul has a population of over 10 million and is within artillery range of North Korea. They don't even need advanced weaponry to level the city and kill millions (if not tens of millions) of people. We couldn't drop bombs fast enough to stop the artillery that is already in place and hardened against attack.

China will not accept an American presence that is so close to so many of their strategic points. That fact hasn't changed in the 60 years since the first war. Nor should it.

The South Koreans will do absolutely everything in their power to prevent war with North Korea. They see them as family and the government as corrupt, but innocent death is unacceptable, even to remove the government. They value the lives of North Koreans. Crazy, I know.

Dumbfuck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would love to revisit say the 15th centruy where nations would send over colonies and take over...

We keep doing the peace wars and supporting other nations....

I'd say if we're going to war, we should be leveling the damn thing and planting our flag there.

If we don't have the fucking balls to do that, then there isn't any other reason to go to war to just start one.

Korea is too far away to care.... I'd worry if Canada or Mexico ever go crazy...

I think we need to say fuck it to the rest of the world... be more selfish and worry about our own problems....

Can't we like do what we did in WW 1 and 2.... wait till either someone asks us for help or till they are stupid enough to pull some shit with us?
 
Don't they have nukes? If yes, then a whole lot of US soldiers are likely to get killed as I don't think Kim would hesitate to use them, even on his own soil. If not, what speedracer said about the artillery is still reason enough not to. I think we should just have Hans Brix write them a letter saying how angry we are with them. Maybe we will luck out and Kim will die laughing.

And then there's China, who could probably kick our asses if they just armed everyone with pitchforks.
 
[quote name='xycury']Korea is too far away to care....[/QUOTE]

Only fools think this way. North Korea is testing longer and longer range missiles, ones capable of hitting the continental United States. I think we care if a crazed despot has nuclear-tipped ICBMs at his disposal that target Seattle (we might even go to DEFCON 5!). Oh yeah, and Afghanistan was too far away to care about as well. That turned out well...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Only fools think this way. North Korea is testing longer and longer range missiles, ones capable of hitting the continental United States. I think we care if a crazed despot has nuclear-tipped ICBMs at his disposal that target Seattle (we might even go to DEFCON 5!). Oh yeah, and Afghanistan was too far away to care about as well. That turned out well...[/QUOTE]

Mounting evidence of any kind is irrelevant now, because there is not enough political will left in our nation to preemptively do anything to any country now, without first having a nuke go off in an American city (or something equally horrifying).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Mounting evidence of any kind is irrelevant now, because there is not enough political will left in our nation to preemptively do anything to any country now, without first having a nuke go off in an American city (or something equally horrifying).[/QUOTE]

You're probably right. Iraq has poisoned that well. Let us all hope that Obama is less incompetent than he seems as regards national security matters.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Only fools think this way. North Korea is testing longer and longer range missiles, ones capable of hitting the continental United States. I think we care if a crazed despot has nuclear-tipped ICBMs at his disposal that target Seattle (we might even go to DEFCON 5!). Oh yeah, and Afghanistan was too far away to care about as well. That turned out well...[/QUOTE]

Don't we have a missle defense system?

And what about controlling areas beyond state of Washington? Can't we see it and take out a missle before it's remotely close?

Some wars are needed, but we've been having way too many that involves mainly us vs the world...

Seems like we need to stop firing our paltry guns and figure out the tech of the future to better safeguard this nation.
 
I'll also add that I don't think most people, myself included, against preemptive military actions are against preemptive actions.

There are just better things that can be done. Sanctions, diplomacy, not meddling in affairs in other parts of the world and creating anti-US sentiment. Things like Obama's trip, and having town halls in Turkey etc. can go along way towards repairing the US's image, reducing animosity and lowering the probability of attacks.

Premptive military strikes just increase anti-US sentiment and make attacks more likely, yeah maybe we deal with the threat in one country, but you just raised ire in another and make it that much more easier for terrorist groups to recruit, etc. etc.

And yeah, maybe sometimes military strikes are required. But they should be an absolute last resort and with the support of the UN/our allies who understand that all diplomatic options have been exhausted and North Korea or whoever has gone to far with their weapons program, poses too great a thread and must be dealt with.
 
[quote name='xycury']Don't we have a missle defense system?[/quote]

Not officially.

Given how much money can be made from the war North Korea can start and lose, I doubt a missile defense system would be used to prevent that war.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Do you think the OP will admit he believed everything he posted initially?[/QUOTE]
Not after the pummeling he received here. :lol:
 
[quote name='xycury']Don't we have a missle defense system?

And what about controlling areas beyond state of Washington? Can't we see it and take out a missle before it's remotely close?

Some wars are needed, but we've been having way too many that involves mainly us vs the world...

Seems like we need to stop firing our paltry guns and figure out the tech of the future to better safeguard this nation.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we have a missile defense system. Deployed even. But it's hardly foolproof. And there is no way our missile defense system could cope with thousands of artillery shells fired at a city, even if it were deployed in Seoul beforehand. Obviously we're working on bettering our system, although Democrats have tried since Reagan to kill the program, but it's not something we want to rely on at this time to prevent a nuclear attack. It's more of a last resort at this point. I think we should keep working on it, but Obama is sure to want to cut funding (as do Democrats in Congress).

Yes, some wars are needed. Especially if we're attacked. But initiating a war with North Korea has a lot of negatives that you have failed to address, including literally millions of civilian casualties being virtually guaranteed.
 
yea uh huh...lets go to war for launching (or trying to) launch a satellite into outer space (which the US thinks belongs to us anyways). If they (NK) would have said they were launching a communications satellite and asked for help, then the US would have said ok.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']yea uh huh...lets go to war for launching (or trying to) launch a satellite into outer space (which the US thinks belongs to us anyways). If they (NK) would have said they were launching a communications satellite and asked for help, then the US would have said ok.[/QUOTE]

1. When did the U.S. ever say outer space belonged to us?

2. It wasn't a satellite launch, it was an ICBM test. North Korean propaganda attempted to paint it as a satellite launch. Don't be naive.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
Yes, some wars are needed. Especially if we're attacked. But initiating a war with North Korea has a lot of negatives that you have failed to address, including literally millions of civilian casualties being virtually guaranteed.[/QUOTE]

Was this directed at me?

I never was interested in going to war period.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Sure, what's one more war.[/quote]

exactly...paid for by the Obama economy recovery package.

[quote name='elprincipe']1. When did the U.S. ever say outer space belonged to us?

2. It wasn't a satellite launch, it was an ICBM test. North Korean propaganda attempted to paint it as a satellite launch. Don't be naive.[/quote]


1. The US has more shit up there than any country in the world.. I bet you there is a sat up there to monitor everyone else's shit. Of course they will take a claim the space around the planet. Heck why do you think we have a space station up there in the first place? Peaceful purposes? Scientific research? uh huh. Wait til a military space base is built. Sure that's gonna piss off more countries.

2. It would be easier for NK to buy an ICBM rather than build one. It's not like they built it using scrap metal and a car engine. As crazy as they are, they would not be stupid to launch one ICBM at a nuclear power. They don't need an ICBM to hit China or South Korea. They aren't gonna hit the Russians because we all know the big bear will come down on them hard.

I still think it was a sat they were trying to launch, just the US does not want another commie sat in orbit that's why they are claiming it was not for peaceful purposes.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']1. The US has more shit up there than any country in the world.. I bet you there is a sat up there to monitor everyone else's shit. Of course they will take a claim the space around the planet. Heck why do you think we have a space station up there in the first place? Peaceful purposes? Scientific research? uh huh. Wait til a military space base is built. Sure that's gonna piss off more countries.[/quote]

I can't tell whether you're joking or just being incredibly stupid.

2. It would be easier for NK to buy an ICBM rather than build one. It's not like they built it using scrap metal and a car engine. As crazy as they are, they would not be stupid to launch one ICBM at a nuclear power. They don't need an ICBM to hit China or South Korea. They aren't gonna hit the Russians because we all know the big bear will come down on them hard.
Click to expand...

They're working together with Iran on ICBMs. Yes, they would be crazy to launch one at us, but it's a great bargaining chip with the U.S. and way to threaten South Korea and Japan. Anyway, who is going to attack North Korea if they can fire a nuclear missile, even one, at the attacking country? Or maybe they use it for blackmail; we have a record of appeasing them since the Clinton administration.

I still think it was a sat they were trying to launch, just the US does not want another commie sat in orbit that's why they are claiming it was not for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and good, but don't expect the rest of us to put our fingers in our ears and repeat "la la la la la" with you.
 
Putting aside the fact that it would be a major provocation of China...

Seoul is only about 100 miles away, North Korea has a large quantity of missiles, including chemical weapons and poison gas. In addition, North Korea's army is not the most advanced, but it is very large, well equipped, and is based on the Soviet model. It would not be easy or quick, and it would require virtually every military resource we have. They do possess nukes, but not the ability to deliver them very far (think about trying to launch a bus). They could use them as suicide bombs once they've been defeated, they could be trucked or shipped south, or they could use the radioactive material as a "dirty bomb". It doesn't really matter that they likely can't nuke Seoul directly since they've already killed those people with conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and gas. They'd still have the ability to at least kill all of our troops inside the border.

Now, should you still want to attack North Korea, you're left with two options. You could launch a conventional attack, which would leave millions of South Koreans dead and cost us vast amounts of casualties. Or, we could launch a nuclear first strike, which would kill millions of North Koreans but spare us until China decides to retaliate. Shock and awe with conventional weapons would not be quick enough to prevent their ability to retaliate on Seoul.

No, what must be done is largely what has already been in the works. Pressure on China to tighten the reigns on their proxy, and using subterfuge to undermine their government. I don't think the US sees North Korea's situation as sustainable, their people are literally starving to death, their leader is likely dying, and China would never allow them to launch an attack. Kim Jong Il is the product of a cult of personality, if he were not essential to controlling the population their military leadership would not have propped him up after the stroke. Once he's gone, there will be a power vacuum and an opportunity for regime change.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Only fools think this way. North Korea is testing longer and longer range missiles, ones capable of hitting the continental United States. I think we care if a crazed despot has nuclear-tipped ICBMs at his disposal that target Seattle (we might even go to DEFCON 5!). Oh yeah, and Afghanistan was too far away to care about as well. That turned out well...[/quote]

DEFCON 5 is for peace time. DEFCON 1 is the highest defense readiness rating.
 
War should be the last resort. I wish we could get every country in the world to disarm completely (including the U.S.), but I guess that's impossible. As long as people are suffering or are thirsty for power, there will be violence. I can say that I do not envy the political leaders who have to deal with the U.S./Japan/China/Korea situation.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']War should be the last resort. I wish we could get every country in the world to disarm completely (including the U.S.), but I guess that's impossible. As long as people are suffering or are thirsty for power, there will be violence. I can say that I do not envy the political leaders who have to deal with the U.S./Japan/China/Korea situation.[/quote]

and then we can all hug and dance and hold hands in a big giant circle!
 
If they hit Japan or another allied country, then yes. Otherwise, no. But I don't think the current President has the balls to do it if it came to it.
 
[quote name='Anexanhume']DEFCON 5 is for peace time. DEFCON 1 is the highest defense readiness rating.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, thanks, forgot my War Games there.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']But I don't think the current President has the balls to do it if it came to it.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I don't see Obama having any problem bombing the shit out of a country if he feels like it.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I disagree. I don't see Obama having any problem bombing the shit out of a country if he feels like it.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

Obama has done several 180's on campaign promises that dealt with foreign policy and the patriot act in just three months. This means that either he is a liar and never meant what he said, or the more likely; his nativity has been eliminated by being given the full montey security briefings every day.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I disagree. I don't see Obama having any problem bombing the shit out of a country if he feels like it.[/quote]

I agree, although I would say if his bosses feel like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top