North Korea getting ready for second test?

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
More like I want threats like Kim eliminated, instead of us sitting around doing absolutely nothing for decades.

So to eliminate Kim you want to kill him and the tens of thousands of people who happen to be within the blast radius? You're such a model citizen.

Talk about a straw argument.

We don't need to set of a Nuke to kill Kim. That is just the idea of some idiot.

There are ways to deal with Kim without setting of a Nuke. The most likely is a Chinese backed coup.

I was talking in relation to this comment by Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Personally, their rhetoric and action makes me want us to nuke them first.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
More like I want threats like Kim eliminated, instead of us sitting around doing absolutely nothing for decades.

So to eliminate Kim you want to kill him and the tens of thousands of people who happen to be within the blast radius? You're such a model citizen.

You're trying for another round of "Peace for our time" in the spitting image of Chamberlin. It didn't work in WW2, it will not work to prevent the next war. The only thing you?ll gain by not neutralizing threats before they grow is a greater loss of life.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
More like I want threats like Kim eliminated, instead of us sitting around doing absolutely nothing for decades.

So to eliminate Kim you want to kill him and the tens of thousands of people who happen to be within the blast radius? You're such a model citizen.

You're trying for another round of "Peace for our time" in the spitting image of Chamberlin. It didn't work in WW2, it will not work to prevent the next war. The only thing you?ll gain by not neutralizing threats before they grow is a greater loss of life.

Can you honestly not think of a better solution than using a nuke?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
More like I want threats like Kim eliminated, instead of us sitting around doing absolutely nothing for decades.

So to eliminate Kim you want to kill him and the tens of thousands of people who happen to be within the blast radius? You're such a model citizen.

Talk about a straw argument.

We don't need to set of a Nuke to kill Kim. That is just the idea of some idiot.

There are ways to deal with Kim without setting of a Nuke. The most likely is a Chinese backed coup.

Or one of our many other high explosive weapons that'll get the job done with less collateral damage.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Kirk, I think you mistake why they want "one on one" talks. I believe most people think that Korea wants these talks because it would then elevate them to the level of equal position with the US.
Kim wants the world to see him as being equal in power and bearing as the US. It is like some crazy ego driven strategy by a megalomaniac.

He's a spoiled brat crying for a toy in a store, with nobody to slap him down.

Give him the one shot of recognition, and he'll have played his last card - no aces up his sleeve, and no more trump.
It effectively eviscerates him in the eyes of the world and will begin the downward spiral and colapse of his government.
You just don't want to trigger a premature collapse, it has to be very carefully played out so as to not damage South Korea, China, and Russia
with an overwhelming flood of panicing refugees, the pace has to be so as to China and Russia can selectively replace
that which they want to annex without themselves getting into a border conflict.
Very little of NK would even be of value to South Korea, except for those families that have been separated for nearly 60 years,
and even they don't really know each other anymore.

 

[Lemon law]

To Prof John,

The Chinese are coming into the 21'th century in very good shape---and have already industrialised at the cost of tremendous social instability. They are also in exactly the same
position as the US was in almost a century before---a huge economic power---but not on anyones military radar screen---Teddy Roosevelt changed all that with the great white fleet.
Do we need them to turn to the military option now?

But if the US cuts China off now---it will cause tremendous tempory economic problems for China---but it would leave a very angry at the US China that would get back at us in many ways. Right now our debts make the US very vulnerable. Maybe you dismiss that China problem lightly----but no one ever accused you or GWB of thinking ahead. We need a friendly China---and pissing them off now would be very very foolish.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Prof John,

The Chinese are coming into the 21'th century in very good shape---and have already industrialised at the cost of tremendous social instability. They are also in exactly the same
position as the US was in almost a century before---a huge economic power---but not on anyones military radar screen---Teddy Roosevelt changed all that with the great white fleet.
Do we need them to turn to the military option now?

But if the US cuts China off now---it will cause tremendous tempory economic problems for China---but it would leave a very angry at the US China that would get back at us in many ways. Right now our debts make the US very vulnerable. Maybe you dismiss that China problem lightly----but no one ever accused you or GWB of thinking ahead. We need a friendly China---and pissing them off now would be very very foolish.

Perhaps you don't understand that you don't make foreign policy based on who you own money too.

You make decisions based on what is in the best interest of OUR country, not China.

I am of the believe that Kim will be removed from power either by China via a coup, or through some use of military force.

China would be nicer and neater and less chance of a large scale war, let the do the dirty work and pay the price you might say.
But if we have too we should look into a nice surgical type of strike against Kim. Hopefully taking him out of power would leave a vacuum and leave the people left to busy fighting for power to think about attacking outside the country. But I would rather not risk a Korean war over this.

 

[imported_Tango]

Diplomacy is the only way to go. Not the best. The only.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Tango
Diplomacy is the only way to go. Not the best. The only.

With a side dish of being blackmailed too, such as in 1994? That got a lot accomplished.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The whole "declaration of war" talk is simply talk aimed at scarring the US into thinking that North Korea might use its nukes. Personally I am absolutely not worried about North Koreas nukes. I can think of alot of things that worry me more, like getting hit by a car on my way to school every day (and there arent any roads between my dorm and classes ).

So a rogue nation with nuclear weapons and mentioning war is a-okay?

Personally, their rhetoric and action makes me want us to nuke them first.

You don't have the moral high ground to spit on the sidewalk. Let alone start a war.

That goes for every single nation that has a nuke. Period end of discussion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The whole "declaration of war" talk is simply talk aimed at scarring the US into thinking that North Korea might use its nukes. Personally I am absolutely not worried about North Koreas nukes. I can think of alot of things that worry me more, like getting hit by a car on my way to school every day (and there arent any roads between my dorm and classes ).

So a rogue nation with nuclear weapons and mentioning war is a-okay?

Personally, their rhetoric and action makes me want us to nuke them first.

You don't have the moral high ground to spit on the sidewalk. Let alone start a war.

That goes for every single nation that has a nuke. Period end of discussion.

So you're one who wants nuclear proliferation?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BrownTown
The whole "declaration of war" talk is simply talk aimed at scarring the US into thinking that North Korea might use its nukes. Personally I am absolutely not worried about North Koreas nukes. I can think of alot of things that worry me more, like getting hit by a car on my way to school every day (and there arent any roads between my dorm and classes ).

So a rogue nation with nuclear weapons and mentioning war is a-okay?

Personally, their rhetoric and action makes me want us to nuke them first.

You don't have the moral high ground to spit on the sidewalk. Let alone start a war.

That goes for every single nation that has a nuke. Period end of discussion.

So you're one who wants nuclear proliferation?

Strawman

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Tango
Diplomacy is the only way to go. Not the best. The only.

With a side dish of being blackmailed too, such as in 1994? That got a lot accomplished.

Diplomacy doesn't mean surrender. For some of the less educated people on internet fora it sounds the same, but it is not. It is actually the perfect opposite, obtaining victory without the actual fight.

As far as 1994... just take a look at what exactly happened in North Korea in the past 10 years, when major things happened, and what triggered the latest developements. Most of what the US pledged to do back than was not implemented.

Diplomacy does not equal lie.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There are ways to deal with Kim without setting of a Nuke. The most likely is a Chinese backed coup.

Perhaps, though I find that extremely unlikely.

I think the military option may be necessary in this case.

And beefing up Japan's defenses helps as well.