- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Give it up, warhawks. NOKO war ain't happening.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:22 am to Wtodd
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:22 am to Wtodd
quote:When nukes are in the discussion, there is a greater need for restraint because of the consequences. You don't drop "the bomb" and then turn around and say "oops!" later. If we do it, we have to be all-in on it and have no doubt that it is the right thing to do.
Even at the height of the Cold War, there were always a couple of smart guys in the rooms (our rooms & their rooms) to prevent someone from actually launching; we also had 'back channels'. With NK we have no back channels and I'm pretty sure NK doesn't have any smart guys in the room and no matter how much any of us think Un is just talking shite, we just can't take that chance bc there may be no recovering from a mistake that big.
I don't think capability alone justifies a preemptive nuclear strike by the US. We need to have solid (and I mean 100%) information that they are not just talking trash but are planning an attack with actions behind it before taking military action first.
2
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:23 am to Bard
quote:
I agree but I really don't think he's delusional enough to fire first. I think he still gets free and unfiltered information (unlike everyone else in NK) and by doing so he can see the vast discrepancies in forces.
oh, he knows he will lose. He is very aware of that. I doubt you could get to be leader of NK, and not be aware of that.
But the thing is we have no insight into the power dynamics of what is going on in NK. We have no clue about his grip on power, what generals control, what their sanity level is, popular support.
So we can't do much more than guess at what he will do. He will probably not strike first, but the reality is that he might. And bluster can escalate this, and we don't know how he will react to say we are going to destroy you. Will that force his hand? What would he do?
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 11:24 am
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:26 am to Wtodd
quote:
When it comes to NK we SHOULD NOT be reactive but proactive
Or we may end up radioactive!
Meh.Was there somewhere. Couldn't put it together.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:29 am to FooManChoo
quote:
When nukes are in the discussion, there is a greater need for restraint because of the consequences. You don't drop "the bomb" and then turn around and say "oops!" later. If we do it, we have to be all-in on it and have no doubt that it is the right thing to do.
I agree
quote:
I don't think capability alone justifies a preemptive nuclear strike by the US. We need to have solid (and I mean 100%) information that they are not just talking trash but are planning an attack with actions behind it before taking military action first.
Here's the dilemma; what if waiting was the wrong strategy? That's why you can't let that psycho frick have the capability to the hit the US in the first place.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:31 am to Hawkeye95
I don't think anyone knows what the NK will do. But this is a unique opportunity for us to strike while the global community would be on our side.
Then we can use territory we get in NK as a base to launch attacks on China or parts of it to try to turn over their regime into one that is more to our liking.
This is a unique opportunity to project force to achieve objectives.
Then we can use territory we get in NK as a base to launch attacks on China or parts of it to try to turn over their regime into one that is more to our liking.
This is a unique opportunity to project force to achieve objectives.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:39 am to Eurocat
quote:
But this is a unique opportunity for us to strike while the global community would be on our side.
Then we can use territory we get in NK as a base to launch attacks on China or parts of it to try to turn over their regime into one that is more to our liking.
This is a unique opportunity to project force to achieve objectives.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:41 am to Wtodd
quote:What is attacking first is the wrong strategy?
Here's the dilemma; what if waiting was the wrong strategy? That's why you can't let that psycho frick have the capability to the hit the US in the first place
We have enemies on our side in regards to NK. We have the moral high ground and we can't risk escalating a trifle with NK into a third world war by acting rashly like I now believe we did with Iraq. It would be worse, since we're talking about nuclear weapons with possible (probably likely) casualties to our allies and other innocents even if we attack first.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 11:44 am to Bard
Remember reading on here that "the Syrian invasion is underway"?
I do
I do
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:03 pm to Bard
Yes he spent time in the West, but it was behind a wall of minders and security personnel. In addition, he has been built up since childhood as the heir to an almost Godlike dynasty. NK ideology is that the Kims were actually sent from heaven, and that they will lead NK to its rightful place as a leader among nations.
Does he really believe that, or is he a cynical pragmatist using this propaganda to maintain control? Nobody knows. If the latter, he is a petty tyrant like any number of other petty tyrants who we know how to deal with and we will be able to manage this nonviolently. If the former, there's going to be an eventual war no matter what we do or dont do.
Does he really believe that, or is he a cynical pragmatist using this propaganda to maintain control? Nobody knows. If the latter, he is a petty tyrant like any number of other petty tyrants who we know how to deal with and we will be able to manage this nonviolently. If the former, there's going to be an eventual war no matter what we do or dont do.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:05 pm to FooManChoo
Im not so sure the US govt wouldn't wait till a strike is made on us before going after NK. If that's the case, nothing will happen any time soon. That gives Lil Kim all the motivation, and time to perfect an attack and make sure he does it right. Even if it's 10-20 years from now
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It would be suicide for them to attack us.
You fail to realize that they do not value human life, even their own, the way we do. Same as with Muslim terrorists.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:06 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Yes he spent time in the West, but it was behind a wall of minders and security personnel.
From everything I've read he had one bodyguard. He was described by his classmates as shy but friendly, and awkward around girls. He also loved the NBA (Jordan being his favorite player) and wasn't half bad at basketball himself.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:11 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:They don't care about the lives of the people but they care about their own lives and attaining and keeping power. They aren't like their Muslim counterparts who are willing to die (and kill) for their faith. For these people, it's all about power and suicide defeats that goal.
You fail to realize that they do not value human life, even their own, the way we do. Same as with Muslim terrorists.
This ordeal is about NK being seen as a legitimate power in the world and they are flexing in our direction because we are the top dog.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:17 pm to Bard
He will never strike first because he knows it will lead to his immediate death, and he doesn't want to die. He wants to continue admiring himself and starving his people.
He's the equivalent of a short man at the gym puffing out his chest, extending his arms away from his body (invisible lat Syndrome), and strutting around looking at himself in the mirror.
He's the equivalent of a short man at the gym puffing out his chest, extending his arms away from his body (invisible lat Syndrome), and strutting around looking at himself in the mirror.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:17 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This ordeal is about NK being seen as a legitimate power in the world and they are flexing in our direction because we are the top dog.
No, they are flexing in our direction because we allow them too.
That is precisely why allowing the moron to have nuclear weapons is so dangerous.
A normal a-hole dictator acts up , we bomb one of his Army bases or something and he goes back into his hidey hole while the dust settles. This fricker would launch a nuke if we bombed one of his facilities even with conventional weapons.
The obvious solution is to threaten to give South Korea nukes. China will take him out for us. They certainly do not want a pro US nuclear armed country near them.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:20 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We need to have solid (and I mean 100%) information that they are not just talking trash but are planning an attack with actions behind it before taking military action first.
If they have (2 big Ifs)
1. a legit ICBM
2. a legit miniaturized nuclear payload
Then given their rhetoric about shooting missiles at South Korea, Japan, and America, shouldn't we treat *any* launch as a possible attack?
If someone tries to rob me with a super soaker and a note, I take one action.
If someone tries to rob me with a loaded shotgun, I would react differently, no?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What is attacking first is the wrong strategy?
I'm not necessarily saying it couldn't be BUT are you willing for potentially millions to die JUST to say we didn't shoot first when we could have prevented it? Like I said before that's the dilemma. No matter what Trump does or doesn't do or when he does it, a lot of people will bitch about it.
quote:
We have the moral high ground and we can't risk escalating a trifle with NK into a third world war by acting rashly like I now believe we did with Iraq
I agree Iraq was a mistake but not for all the reasons other do but having nukes is in a different league than chem weapons.
quote:
casualties to our allies and other innocents even if we attack first.
And casualties could be 10 fold if we let them fire first.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:25 pm to Bard
The POTUS is perceived as being weakened by the current Coup to unseat him. Naturally, the USA's enemies are emboldened.
China wants to annex the Spratley Island areas. China is benefits if world attention is focused elsewhere.
NK has carte blance from China to be as bellicose as they wish at this point in time. China has nothing to lose because China knows that the Democrats and Republicans would blame Trump for any war or skirmish.
China wants to annex the Spratley Island areas. China is benefits if world attention is focused elsewhere.
NK has carte blance from China to be as bellicose as they wish at this point in time. China has nothing to lose because China knows that the Democrats and Republicans would blame Trump for any war or skirmish.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 12:25 pm to Muthsera
quote:Testing ICBMs isn't an attack by itself. Testing warheads isn't an attack by itself. Context and discretion is needed to determine what is and isn't an attack against the US.
shouldn't we treat *any* launch as a possible attack?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News