What to do about the Wars ?

[GarfieldtheCat]

Just throwing them out there, not a lot of thought given. Welcome critiques or other proposals.

Obviously for North Korea.

You have no idea of the devastation a war would bring to Korea.

Leave them alone....sooner or later, someone will come along and get rid of the Dear Leader, or a son or someone will take over and move away from his insanity. Let nature take it's course, it will happen sooner or later.Until then, for the most part, leave them isolated and alone.

 

[Tom]

Obviously for North Korea.

You have no idea of the devastation a war would bring to Korea.

Leave them alone....sooner or later, someone will come along and get rid of the Dear Leader, or a son or someone will take over and move away from his insanity. Let nature take it's course, it will happen sooner or later.Until then, for the most part, leave them isolated and alone.

Yea, history proves waiting works out really well..

 

[nick1985]

No, Im talking about taking out some of his conventional weapons, like we did in Libya.

What? It doesn't matter what you target. Targeting anything in NK with tomahawks is a piss-poor idea and could result in a nuclear retaliation.

Like I said, it's just a thought, there might be some things I overlooked.

That's an understatement...

So the consensus is, it's smarter to let them continue to perfect and increase their stock of nuclear weapons and kill a few dozen S Koreans when he feels like it ?

That's the plan ?

The plan is to keep them isolated and let them rot. They already have a nuclear arsenal, striking them now is just foolish.

 

[nick1985]

Yea, history proves waiting works out really well..

What are you referring to? Hopefully not Hitler, as you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[nick1985]

Obviously for North Korea.

You have no idea of the devastation a war would bring to Korea.

Leave them alone....sooner or later, someone will come along and get rid of the Dear Leader, or a son or someone will take over and move away from his insanity. Let nature take it's course, it will happen sooner or later.Until then, for the most part, leave them isolated and alone.

This x10000000

 

[fskimospy]

Yea, history proves waiting works out really well..

It actually does. The Soviet Union for example.

The only question here is if fighting a war with North Korea would cost us more or less than doing what we're doing now. It's really hard for me to see how it would cost us less.

 

[Tom]

What? It doesn't matter what you target. Targeting anything in NK with tomahawks is a piss-poor idea and could result in a nuclear retaliation.



That's an understatement...





The plan is to keep them isolated and let them rot. They already have a nuclear arsenal, striking them now is just foolish.

The isolate and rot has been in effect for 50 years. During that time, they've become a minor nuclear power. All that's going to happen in the future is, they'll become more of a nuclear power.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Yea, history proves waiting works out really well..

Just to point out one glaringly obvious point that refutes your statement, you do remember the Cold War with the USSR, don't you?

I'll just note that the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, a standing army, an air force that shot down a fair amount of US military airplanes killing US military.

Throughout this time period, we never invaded, nuked, or attacked them, and guess what? They never started a war, and the USSR actually fell apart and had a regime change from the inside.

Shocking!

edit: damn, beaten by eskimospy!

 

[nick1985]

The isolate and rot has been in effect for 50 years. During that time, they've become a minor nuclear power. All that's going to happen in the future is, they'll become more of a nuclear power.

It took a while for the USSR to collapse as well.

 

[Tom]

It actually does. The Soviet Union for example.

The only question here is if fighting a war with North Korea would cost us more or less than doing what we're doing now. It's really hard for me to see how it would cost us less.

The Soviets weren't crazy. They had good reason to be paranoid. And they were hella strong, just ultimately their economic ideas weren't as sound as ours.

And we weren't just waiting in that case. The competition was good for us in terms of science advancements, keeping our focus. I don't see any positve byproducts of waiting for N Korea to fail.

Can you think of any ?

 

[nick1985]

You didn't make a lick of sense. Try again

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The Soviets weren't crazy. They had good reason to be paranoid. And they were hella strong, just ultimately their economic ideas weren't as sound as ours.

And we weren't just waiting in that case. The competition was good for us in terms of science advancements, keeping our focus. I don't see any positve byproducts of waiting for N Korea to fail.

Can you think of any ?

Gee, I don't know....let's see:

1. Billions/Trillions of $$ not spent on a war
2. Millions of people not being dead from starting a war
3. Major economic devastation to Korea, with unknown affects to the world economy

Sounds like good reasons to me and any other logical person....perhaps you think different?

 

[Tom]

You didn't make a lick of sense. Try again

We didn't "wait" for the Soviet Union to collapse so that's not an example of why waiting for N Korea to collapse will work.

Haven't you heard of the Cold War ?

 

[fskimospy]

The Soviets weren't crazy. They had good reason to be paranoid. And they were hella strong, just ultimately their economic ideas weren't as sound as ours.

And we weren't just waiting in that case. The competition was good for us in terms of science advancements, keeping our focus. I don't see any positve byproducts of waiting for N Korea to fail.

Can you think of any ?

North Korea isn't crazy either. The positive byproduct of waiting for North Korea to fail is not having a war with North Korea.

 

[Tom]

Gee, I don't know....let's see:

1. Billions/Trillions of $$ not spent on a war
2. Millions of people not being dead from starting a war
3. Major economic devastation to Korea, with unknown affects to the world economy

Sounds like good reasons to me and any other logical person....perhaps you think different?

I said byproducts, those are direct effects..

What are some byproducts ?

correction, the first 2 are direct, the 3rd could be a byproduct I guess. I was looking for positive byproducts of waiting, not negative byproducts of not waiting..

 

[Tom]

North Korea isn't crazy either. The positive byproduct of waiting for North Korea to fail is not having a war with North Korea.

That isn't a byproduct, it's a direct effect.

Before you get all hostile, I tried to make it clear in my OP I wanted to discuss this stuff, not present a workable solution.

Apparently, everybody here thinks the current situation vis a vi N Korea is just super, and there's nothing to discuss.

OK, fine.

 

[MotF Bane]

You'd be right if they were our nukes, or Russian nukes. Fusion weapons.

Is that what N Korea has ? I dont think so. I doubt they have any means to deliver a sizable nuke with any accuracy. If they do try, they know they will die.

Like I said, I'm not saying I've thought this through. I guess the most salient point is I think we are in a better position now, than we will be in the future. And the other thing is I think the present situation is very stupid and not really acceptable.

Their leader is totally insane, I wouldn't put much past him.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I said byproducts, those are direct effects..

What are some byproducts ?

correction, the first 2 are direct, the 3rd could be a byproduct I guess. I was looking for positive byproducts of waiting, not negative byproducts of not waiting..

You want to attack them, starting a full-scale war. I listed the consequences of a full scale war. Seems to me that not having millions dead is a positive byproduct, or whatever you want to call it, of not starting a war.

And no one here has said that the NK situation is "super", just that the status quo is much better then your alternative. Big difference.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe after using up every tomahawk missle we had available on some rebels we never talked to, it is time to get rid of O-Bummer Man.

Here is a novel idea. Lets just announce that the job is done and withdraw all the troops.

 

[Tom]

You want to attack them, starting a full-scale war. I listed the consequences of a full scale war. Seems to me that not having millions dead is a positive byproduct, or whatever you want to call it, of not starting a war.

And no one here has said that the NK situation is "super", just that the status quo is much better then your alternative. Big difference.

First of all, I don't want to attack them. On the other hand, I don't think 40k Americans died so S Korean youth can sit on their asses playing SC2 or beating up figure skaters. I'm not convinced that waiting is working. There might need to be some sacrifice to make the world safer.

Secondly, I asked for byproducts of waiting. People not dying in a war isn't a byproduct, it's a direct result of not having a war.

I gave examples of byproducts of the Cold War, which btw, was not "waiting". Waiting is doing nothing, that doesn't describe the Cold War at all.

Thirdly, I asked for discussion and alternatives, I haven't seen any ? Not that I think that means my proposal is sound, but I'd like to think people can expound on why waiting has some merit, apart from being better than my plan, other than being the easiest thing to do ?

 

[nick1985]

We didn't "wait" for the Soviet Union to collapse so that's not an example of why waiting for N Korea to collapse will work.

Haven't you heard of the Cold War ?

Yep, you really don't know what you are talking about...yet again. Just stop man

 

[fskimospy]

That isn't a byproduct, it's a direct effect.

Before you get all hostile, I tried to make it clear in my OP I wanted to discuss this stuff, not present a workable solution.

Apparently, everybody here thinks the current situation vis a vi N Korea is just super, and there's nothing to discuss.

OK, fine.

I'm not hostile in any way, but I do think that your ideas on North Korea are bad.

 

[Infohawk]

1. Iraq. Leave. We never should have been there.
2. Afghanistan. Defend a couple air bases from which air attacks can be launched against the Taliban et al. No nation-building. 9/11 gives us the right to be there for some time. No offensive ground combat.
3. Libya. Support the Europeans diplomatically but let them spend the money. They can handle it.
4. North Korea. We're not at war. Keep up what we're doing but stop giving into the NK blackmail. If SK wants to pay NK not to attack them, that's their decision. And if SK wants us out that's fine too.

 

[Fern]

No, Im talking about taking out some of his conventional weapons, like we did in Libya.

Like I said, it's just a thought, there might be some things I overlooked.

So the consensus is, it's smarter to let them continue to perfect and increase their stock of nuclear weapons and kill a few dozen S Koreans when he feels like it ?

That's the plan ?

I don't claim to know much about military matters. But this matter of attacking NK has been discusses here many times. Those who know about military matters have spoken of the hardened defenses of NK. The big artillary dug into the stone atop mountains and facing Seoul. According to the military type peeps around here, there are so many of those big guns, capable of pulled back into tunnels/caves, that even we couldn't take them out with our precision weapons before Seoul was pounded causing an enormous amount deaths and destruction.

Seoul is a huge city with a population of over 10 million and is noted for its population density, which is almost twice as concentrated as New York. It's only about 100 miles away from the NK border. Given the target (Seoul) is that large and that close, to speak of NK needing "precison" to bomb it with a nuke is seriously misleading I think.

You seem to ignore some very serious geopolitical realities too. To think we can just up and attack NK without first gaining the cooperation of SK is naive. We can't just go start a war with their neighbor, resulting in danger and destruction to them. I don't see SK having any appetite for such an attack and the resulting consequences. And who is going to take care of impoverished and straving horde of North Koreans? You think SK wants that burden? I highly doubt it. I sure as heck don't want the USA doing it either.

IMO, you dismiss China faaaaar too easily. If nothing else (and I doubt nothing else would happen), they could move directly to take Taiwan. You think Taiwan wants us to put them in jepeordy?

And what, pray tell, good would it do for us "to do the same thing we're doing in Libya"? We're gonna fly over and hit a few targets and hope we don't get shot down by them or China. What country would allow us to base these flights on their soil? Would we use a carrier? If so, what's to say NK or China wouldn't take it out?

An insane idea. Welcome to WWIII.

Fern

 

[Fern]

1. Iraq. leave. We should have never gone, or we should have gotten rid of Saddam, then left. We're wasting our time staying there.

No need to talk about we whether should or shouldn't have started tha war. It's water under the bridge now.

When thinking about what to do there I think it's important to consider the geopolitical importance of Iraq. They are the barrier between Iran (Persians) and the Arabs. They are the barrier between the Shia gov of Iran and the Sunni govs of the Arab oil producing states. We need Iraq to continue to be that traditional barrier or that region could destabilize:

In your book you write that war within Islam “will shape the future”. What do you mean?

I mean that the Shia-Sunni conflict, in some ways, is becoming like what the Protestant-Catholic conflict was for Europe, during the medieval period or recently in Northern Ireland. It’s about religion and identity, but also about politics and power. Shiism and Sunnism are like the major division in Christianity between Protestants and Catholics. For a very long time there was a Sunni domination over the Arab world, but now, because of what happened in Iraq, we have the very first case of that balance being disturbed by power-sharing in favour of Shias.

Are Sunni countries worried by Iran’s leadership and by this “Shia Crescent”?

Yes, they are. And that’s why the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt and the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia keep talking about it. It is not the Shia’s who talk about the “Shia Crescent”, it’s the Sunni’s who talk about it. We saw this very clearly when the Hezbollah war started. It was the Arab countries who very quickly said that this was a Shia alliance going to war with Israel, and they criticised it. It was not the Shia’s who said that this was a Shia alliance. Sunni countries have two worries. There are some Sunni countries that have Shia populations, like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, but there are some Sunni countries, like Jordan or Egypt, who don’t have Shia population but worry more about the balance of power-sharing in Iran

http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000000104

I'm not quite sure where we stand in Iraq. How many troops we still have there, how much we are spending, and I've forgotten what our withdrawal timetable was (established by GWB before leaving office and embraced by Obama), but I'm concerned about the potential negative consequences of 'just pulling out now and not looking back'.

2. Afghanistan. leave. Make it clear that until the Taliban/Al Kaida surrenders, they can expect a cruise missile on their doorstep at anytime. If we have to, we'll go back, but with much more force, for much shorter time. Also make it easy for any woman, or child, who wants to come to America, to do so.

I do not support nation building there; I don't think it's achievable. But no, hell NO, to a mass immigration of Afgani's (or anyone else).

3. Libya. keep doing what we're doing. Arm the rebels.

Arm the rebels? Again, hell no. We don't know who they are (LIFG/AQ maybe). If we arm them, then we have to send in people to train them. No thanks. And we have to worry about those arms falling into the hands of those who may use them against us.

Bad idea, really bad IMO.

Fern