North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 26

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858258 4-Sep-2017 16:09

Wiggum

gzt I agree I may be advocating war talk here. But under what sort of conditions is war ever acceptable?

Unfortunately I have no solution and I can only just offer an opinion like everybody else.

My point is that none of us know how anything is going to play out. Its guesswork for all of us. It is my opinion that doing nothing is the worse possible option. I do suggest that an act of war in certain instances like this may be the only viable option. Besides doing nothing, what other options other than war are really options?

I see high causalities regardless. An invasion may however result in less casualties. If we do nothing, and Kim acts on his threats, there will need to be an invasion anyway (is it then OK to advocate war?). Do we wait for Kim to act or not?

Who knows what the Russians/Chinese are thinking. And why should we believe the Chinese that they will not interfere if Kim strikes first? My bet is that they will get involved anyway.

An invasion on North Korea would be extremely high risk. It cannot be done by stealth and any invasion fleet would have to be huge. North Korea has a fleet of around 70 submarines while they are mostly older types they pose a threat to any surface vessels. They have fast missile boats that could do suicide runs at an invading force. Add to this their Missile arsenal and airforce. If the US managed to land they would be facing a very large Army with at least 2 million regular forces and 5 million reservists, 5,000 tanks and 8,000 artillery pieces. They have been able to spend the best part of 70 years ranging every meter of their territory meaning their artillery would very accurate. It took a long time to amass sufficient forces to defeat Iraq, North Korea would be a totally different kettle of fish. An invasion would have very high casualty rates on both sides both military and civilian. It is not a viable option.

The most viable and most acceptable option is a diplomatic solutions. The diplomatic process is still ongoing and should continue and be the emphasis.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1858264 4-Sep-2017 16:19

MikeB4:

Wiggum

gzt I agree I may be advocating war talk here. But under what sort of conditions is war ever acceptable?

Unfortunately I have no solution and I can only just offer an opinion like everybody else.

My point is that none of us know how anything is going to play out. Its guesswork for all of us. It is my opinion that doing nothing is the worse possible option. I do suggest that an act of war in certain instances like this may be the only viable option. Besides doing nothing, what other options other than war are really options?

I see high causalities regardless. An invasion may however result in less casualties. If we do nothing, and Kim acts on his threats, there will need to be an invasion anyway (is it then OK to advocate war?). Do we wait for Kim to act or not?

Who knows what the Russians/Chinese are thinking. And why should we believe the Chinese that they will not interfere if Kim strikes first? My bet is that they will get involved anyway.

An invasion on North Korea would be extremely high risk. It cannot be done by stealth and any invasion fleet would have to be huge. North Korea has a fleet of around 70 submarines while they are mostly older types they pose a threat to any surface vessels. They have fast missile boats that could do suicide runs at an invading force. Add to this their Missile arsenal and airforce. If the US managed to land they would be facing a very large Army with at least 2 million regular forces and 5 million reservists, 5,000 tanks and 8,000 artillery pieces. They have been able to spend the best part of 70 years ranging every meter of their territory meaning their artillery would very accurate. It took a long time to amass sufficient forces to defeat Iraq, North Korea would be a totally different kettle of fish. An invasion would have very high casualty rates on both sides both military and civilian. It is not a viable option.

The most viable and most acceptable option is a diplomatic solutions. The diplomatic process is still ongoing and should continue and be the emphasis.

I agree with your point Mike, but what if Kim acted on his threat first. Is an invasion then still not a viable option?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858270 4-Sep-2017 16:29

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum

gzt I agree I may be advocating war talk here. But under what sort of conditions is war ever acceptable?

Unfortunately I have no solution and I can only just offer an opinion like everybody else.

My point is that none of us know how anything is going to play out. Its guesswork for all of us. It is my opinion that doing nothing is the worse possible option. I do suggest that an act of war in certain instances like this may be the only viable option. Besides doing nothing, what other options other than war are really options?

I see high causalities regardless. An invasion may however result in less casualties. If we do nothing, and Kim acts on his threats, there will need to be an invasion anyway (is it then OK to advocate war?). Do we wait for Kim to act or not?

Who knows what the Russians/Chinese are thinking. And why should we believe the Chinese that they will not interfere if Kim strikes first? My bet is that they will get involved anyway.

An invasion on North Korea would be extremely high risk. It cannot be done by stealth and any invasion fleet would have to be huge. North Korea has a fleet of around 70 submarines while they are mostly older types they pose a threat to any surface vessels. They have fast missile boats that could do suicide runs at an invading force. Add to this their Missile arsenal and airforce. If the US managed to land they would be facing a very large Army with at least 2 million regular forces and 5 million reservists, 5,000 tanks and 8,000 artillery pieces. They have been able to spend the best part of 70 years ranging every meter of their territory meaning their artillery would very accurate. It took a long time to amass sufficient forces to defeat Iraq, North Korea would be a totally different kettle of fish. An invasion would have very high casualty rates on both sides both military and civilian. It is not a viable option.

The most viable and most acceptable option is a diplomatic solutions. The diplomatic process is still ongoing and should continue and be the emphasis.

I agree with your point Mike, but what if Kim acted on his threat first. Is an invasion then still not a viable option?

If the North launched a pre-emptive strike an invasion is still not an option. Invasions take a very long time to plan and execute. Any response from would have to be fast and surgical targeting command and control centres, communications, energy and key military assets. The US would have to move fast to protect Seoul and Japan.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

SaltyNZ

8867 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9550

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1858341 4-Sep-2017 18:09

By the same token, it would take North Korea some time to plan an invasion, too, and those preparations would be seen on satellites. It would be next to impossible for North Korea to surprise anyone, except with missile strikes.

Likely as not, NK forces would be seen massing near the borders for several days if not weeks before it happened.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858343 4-Sep-2017 18:25

Right now, there is peace. Words and rhetoric dont kill anyone.

But I fail to see now, how diplomacy and talks can gain anything. Aside from 100% lack of trust in NK's ability to honour anything, no nuclear is no option. 4 nations state that. NK, China, Russia, USA. That being the case, the US stays in the region.

It would be a easy fix. In exchange for no nuclear, the US ships out. Sanctions lifted in full. China and Russia can support NK's "apparent" desire to grow its economy. Or actually have an economy. Japan and SK still have their ally, but no need to be next door, if there are no continual threats. China and Russia are NK's ally affording the same protection.

The question is what does NK REALLY want? They dont want the US out as they are doing everything they can to keep them in the region. That does keep KJU solidly in control as his people are protected from the imminent US invasion.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858345 4-Sep-2017 18:29

SaltyNZ: By the same token, it would take North Korea some time to plan an invasion, too, and those preparations would be seen on satellites. It would be next to impossible for North Korea to surprise anyone, except with missile strikes.

Likely as not, NK forces would be seen massing near the borders for several days if not weeks before it happened.

NK could quickly launch a number of missiles to outer Seoul, but not a continual barrage. A "back off, we are not bluffing" show of force. However, that opens the door for the US to attack, probably something quick to begin with. They could also go soft with missiles hitting not much also. Or NK could quickly barrage Seoul with missiles, US can level Pyongyang nuclear facility and power infrastructure. I dint see either side going full on to begin with if the worst happened.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1858395 4-Sep-2017 19:58

SaltyNZ: By the same token, it would take North Korea some time to plan an invasion, too, and those preparations would be seen on satellites. It would be next to impossible for North Korea to surprise anyone, except with missile strikes.

Likely as not, NK forces would be seen massing near the borders for several days if not weeks before it happened.

You seriously not assuming that they are going to launch a ground attack into SK are you? That would be stupid, and there will be no need to.

The immediate risk is that Kim could use a swarm of chemical or biological warheads, unleashed on South Korea (particularly US bases) and/or Japan. This could happen even right now. The medium range Scud er missiles were successfully tested back in March. Nothing would be detected (until they in the air), and it would catch everyone by complete surprise.

The question then would be to fire back or not.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1858409 4-Sep-2017 20:21

DPRK isn't going to be attacking anybody.

They won this round, and do have unofficial/unspoken support from PRC, who faced with a (thermo)nuclear DPRK, or the alternative - a conflict and resultant possible US-proxy "united" Korea sharing a land border, they'll tolerate North Korea.

Think back to "Bay of Pigs" and how thrilled the US was about having Cuba as a USSR ally and a station for nuclear weapons. Russia will side with China - if just to further help squash democracy.

Many views expressed in this thread are US-centic. Not saying that's bad - but there's a need to see the situation from other POV.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858472 4-Sep-2017 20:55

I see China as the positive in all this and the US and North Korea as the reckless nitwits.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1858490 4-Sep-2017 21:08

MikeB4:

I see China as the positive in all this and the US and North Korea as the reckless nitwits.

I can't see any positives in it at all.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1858491 4-Sep-2017 21:08

Wiggum: It is my opinion that doing nothing is the worse possible option. I do suggest that an act of war in certain instances like this may be the only viable option. Besides doing nothing, what other options other than war are really options?

The real question is what is the cost of war vs the cost of peace. War is the worst option here.

I see high causalities regardless. An invasion may however result in less casualties. If we do nothing, and Kim acts on his threats, there will need to be an invasion anyway (is it then OK to advocate war?). Do we wait for Kim to act or not?

The thing about having nuclear weapons is that your opponents must believe you are prepared to use them. President Kennedy demonstrated this reality with his credible threats to nuke the Soviet Union.

Cuba was in a similar situation and wanted Soviet weapons installed as a deterrent to any further US moves to invade Cuba. Irrational threats were made yes, but the resulting deals benefited all parties and largely stabilised the situation with very little further hostility occuring.

There were no further American sponsored attempts to invade Cuba, the Soviet Union did not install the missiles, USA agreed to remove some missiles from somewhere else as quid pro quo. In the American public eye of course, great victory for great country of America, in reality it was a win for all sides.

Security for everyone. Life goes on. North Korea is in fact acting rationally In this regard and that is the kind of stability they are ultimately seeking with these actions.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858493 4-Sep-2017 21:22

Fred99:

MikeB4:

I see China as the positive in all this and the US and North Korea as the reckless nitwits.

I can't see any positives in it at all.

The term positive was probably wrong, more accurately China is the rational influence

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858525 4-Sep-2017 22:11

MikeB4:

I see China as the positive in all this and the US and North Korea as the reckless nitwits.

Harsh. We all know what Trump is like, but his NK counterpart is evil. Absolute evil.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1858526 4-Sep-2017 22:17

gzt:
Cuba was in a similar situation and wanted Soviet weapons installed as a deterrent to any further US moves to invade Cuba. Irrational threats were made yes, but the resulting deals benefited all parties and largely stabilised the situation with very little further hostility occuring.

There were no further American sponsored attempts to invade Cuba, the Soviet Union did not install the missiles, USA agreed to remove some missiles from somewhere else as quid pro quo. In the American public eye of course, great victory for great country of America, in reality it was a win for all sides.

The cubans themselves were the ones that got the worst deal. They were the ones trying to escape Cuba in risky rafts etc to Florida. Cubans who reached Florida were permitted to remain in the US.

The cuban crisis reminds me a bit of communist Germany. Everybody was locked inside and not allowed to leave. There may have been some stability without war, but there certainly was not peace. Especially inside Cuba. Many Cubans would have seen a US invasion as a good thing and as liberty. It never happened, was that really a good thing? It has its similarities with NK I suppose.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858527 4-Sep-2017 22:19

Fred99:

DPRK isn't going to be attacking anybody.

They won this round, and do have unofficial/unspoken support from PRC, who faced with a (thermo)nuclear DPRK, or the alternative - a conflict and resultant possible US-proxy "united" Korea sharing a land border, they'll tolerate North Korea.

Think back to "Bay of Pigs" and how thrilled the US was about having Cuba as a USSR ally and a station for nuclear weapons. Russia will side with China - if just to further help squash democracy.

Many views expressed in this thread are US-centic. Not saying that's bad - but there's a need to see the situation from other POV.

He is pushing PRC. Second recent insult during an important meeting period. The Chinese and Russians want USA out. That could happen with diplomacy and talks, and denuclearisation. NK has ended that, so they are stuck with the US there. Shows KJU only has one friend, himself.

SK has always looked at talks. Their 5 missile show of force and statements that they will respond is a change.

I really dont think KJU wants much to change. Talks are about over, aid is a no go, US isn't leaving. But his people probably love him as he keeps them safe.

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 26