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 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 26

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856818 1-Sep-2017 16:46

Rikkitic:

A show of force! Oh! Oh! Oh god! Yes! YESSS!

Mmmmmm, warfare...

Look at it like a nuclear deterrent. You have it, I have it, we both know we wont use it. And it never was. I exclude Japan as I feel that reason differs from the long cold war that took place between USSR and USA

Theoretically the US and SK could respond in kind to what NK is doing. Even then, that is nit unreasonable. But they dont. As someone stated earlier there are skirmishes from NK at the DMZ, NK vessels have hit things. Despite the USA hate here, there is tolerance to what is a really really dangerous person. There have been instances that NK has done at sea and at the DMZ that war rules wise, could be taken as an act of war, allowing a full blown response. But that hasn't happened.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#1856819 1-Sep-2017 16:47

NK is following through on its promises. The things it says it is going to do..it does.

Trump on the other hand is a liar.

Not sure whats going to happen next, but something is for sure. NK will fire missiles close to Guam.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856824 1-Sep-2017 16:53

Pumpedd:

NK is following through on its promises. The things it says it is going to do..it does.

Trump on the other hand is a liar.

Not sure whats going to happen next, but something is for sure. NK will fire missiles close to Guam.

I agree, he is getting more and more daring. We have encouraged and fostered that as we have signed agreements, seen them reneged on, and in the link I gave earlier, fired stuff literally days later.

If he fired those missiles thats a problem. Let them hit the sea 25 miles out and follow up with " We denounce this missile launch" means he can do what he likes.

@MikeB4 says the Hwasong 12 are unreliable. So they might land on target 25 miles offshore, or 75 offshore, or 25 miles past Guam, or onshore.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856825 1-Sep-2017 16:54

I guess if the US shoots them down, thats an act of war. Quite similar to when aid was promised and it was late, that was also an act of war.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1856828 1-Sep-2017 16:58

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

This is as stupid as NK's missile stunt

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/us-bombers-korean-peninsula/index.html

No laws were broken here.

Say what now?????? That makes no sense what so ever

It makes plenty of sense. Just a bit of a show of force!

Rubbish, NK or anyone with the internet or TV or a library card can determine the force the US, South Korea, New Zealand(doesn't have) has, it doesn't need risky muscle flexing. What it does need is dialling down the risk and de-escalation of the tensions by BOTH sides.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856836 1-Sep-2017 17:07

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

This is as stupid as NK's missile stunt

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/us-bombers-korean-peninsula/index.html

No laws were broken here.

Say what now?????? That makes no sense what so ever

It makes plenty of sense. Just a bit of a show of force!

Rubbish, NK or anyone with the internet or TV or a library card can determine the force the US, South Korea, New Zealand(doesn't have) has, it doesn't need risky muscle flexing. What it does need is dialling down the risk and de-escalation of the tensions by BOTH sides.

We cant ask KJU to do anything as he wont comply.

Here is another strategy. Cease all news reports on KJU, NK and the tensions. Nothing. As if there was no issue. If he fired a missile that the US took out, news article reads

NK fired a missile over Japan, it was destroyed by US/SK armaments.

Thats it. Give him no news no nothing. Silence him that way. Make his utterings not heard here. Get all reporters out of NK, everybody.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1856839 1-Sep-2017 17:09

tdgeek:

We cant ask KJU to do anything as he wont comply.

Here is another strategy. Cease all news reports on KJU, NK and the tensions. Nothing. As if there was no issue. If he fired a missile that the US took out, news article reads

NK fired a missile over Japan, it was destroyed by US/SK armaments.

Thats it. Give him no news no nothing. Silence him that way. Make his utterings not heard here. Get all reporters out of NK, everybody.

There is no revenue in that unfortunately.

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856865 1-Sep-2017 17:22

MikeB4:

tdgeek:

We cant ask KJU to do anything as he wont comply.

Here is another strategy. Cease all news reports on KJU, NK and the tensions. Nothing. As if there was no issue. If he fired a missile that the US took out, news article reads

NK fired a missile over Japan, it was destroyed by US/SK armaments.

Thats it. Give him no news no nothing. Silence him that way. Make his utterings not heard here. Get all reporters out of NK, everybody.

There is no revenue in that unfortunately.

True and a pity, as while it would be hard to manage globally, he lives on his words and actions, so to silence him must take the sting out.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1856882 1-Sep-2017 18:09

tdgeek:
gzt: Wikipedia article on the 2009 satellite launch probably covers it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2

No I'm not suggesting the entire situation and everything in it is the fault of the USA. It is somewhat irrelevant whose fault it is anyway. For example I got it wrong according to wikipedia, NK walked away from the talks after USA said there would be "punishment" for the satellite launch. Not a good move USA. What is the best way forward? War? Definitely not. Maybe for some in the USA war is popular but not for anyone in Seoul, South Korea. Ask South Korea. The answer is talk.

The fact is North Korea has many strategic advantages. It is stupid to start or advocate war. Many countries have missiles and nuclear weapons. Negotiations to reduce tensions and increase peaceful economic development is the best way to deal with that. What other sane choice is there?

I dont disagree, the sane choice is talks, to stabilise the situation.

Yep definitely.

The breaking point is nuclear warheads being held in NK and that we are all happy with that. To give NK food and oil as well. Thats a great reward for them, they have full power to do what they like.

The thing that the vast majority of people in this thread fail to appreciate is the concept of a nation state. Any nation state. Nothing is binding on a nation state except the agreements they choose voluntarily. That is the same for any country.

If you want a nation state to do something or not do something they must agree to that voluntarily in negotiation. If you want a nation state to give something up in negotiation. The previous halt to nuclear weapons development for approx US$100m a year in oil and food and a slight relaxation of some sanctions was cheap. And it worked largely successfully for a long time until a disputed satellite launch attempt.

Given the decades old rhetoric and lies to the people to justify as the US is about to attack, it seems a great risk to grant them full nuclear weapon status. Its like giving Adolf, or Idi Amin or Gadaffi a nuclear arsenal

The situation has been genuinely tense for a long time.

As for granting nuclear weapons status, as I explained above this is something that individual states decide for themselves. There is no international body which gets together and decides which states are recognised as 'full nuclear weapon status' or 'approved nuclear weapons holder'.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856894 1-Sep-2017 18:37

gzt:
As for granting nuclear weapons status, as I explained above this is something that individual states decide for themselves. There is no international body which gets together and decides which states are recognised as 'full nuclear weapon status' or 'approved nuclear weapons holder'.

Makes a lot of sense.

So from here, no one can and should stop NK from developing a nuclear arsenal, I get that, and I do agree.

Talks. Its now hard to see why talks are needed. We could talk to them to ask them to cease nuclear, but thats their business. We could ask them to cease military actions across other nations sea boundaries and airspace. That should be an international issue? Assuming no nation is allowed to fire weapons in other nations boundaries, there should be a reaction to that?

An article I read today that had a few commentators in that region, suggest that these missiles are due to racheting up his bargaining power for when talks occur, basically for aid. IMO, that where we need to draw the line, we dont give aid to stop a nation breaking international law. Im sure everyone will agree that if NK wants to be an isolation state that they can do that if they choose to.But they say they are as we cut them off with sanctions, sanctions that were given based on agreements, that they broke and broke and broke. And if they wish to flex their muscles there is no issue if the others who they threaten, flex back. Thats where the never ending circle is, who started it. The satellite issue, that was condemned by anyone and everyone, it wasn't the US being stubborn.

In some ways, leave it as it is. Someone needs to decide what events will require a military response. Missile goes into a nations airspace, it gets shot down? No need to talk about it later? Essentially just wait till they make a bad decision. But there is no way I can accept aid as a reward for breaking international law via missile incursions.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1856908 1-Sep-2017 19:22

tdgeek:
gzt:
As for granting nuclear weapons status, as I explained above this is something that individual states decide for themselves. There is no international body which gets together and decides which states are recognised as 'full nuclear weapon status' or 'approved nuclear weapons holder'.

Makes a lot of sense.

So from here, no one can and should stop NK from developing a nuclear arsenal, I get that, and I do agree.

No, I'm saying it's not something other states decide. That's the reality of international law.

Talks. Its now hard to see why talks are needed. We could talk to them to ask them to cease nuclear, but thats their business.

There's nothing wrong with asking them to stop development of nuclear weapons. That is exactly what is needed.

We could ask them to cease military actions across other nations sea boundaries and airspace. That should be an international issue? Assuming no nation is allowed to fire weapons in other nations boundaries, there should be a reaction to that?

First of all you need to know how international law applies to airspace and if NK was in contravention.

An article I read today that had a few commentators in that region, suggest that these missiles are due to racheting up his bargaining power for when talks occur, basically for aid. IMO, that where we need to draw the line, we dont give aid to stop a nation breaking international law.

You have the wrong idea. It is not 'aid' they were getting, it was something in return for giving up a sovereign right which every nation currently has.

Im sure everyone will agree that if NK wants to be an isolation state that they can do that if they choose to.But they say they are as we cut them off with sanctions, sanctions that were given based on agreements, that they broke and broke and broke.

We covered that in an earlier exchange.

And if they wish to flex their muscles there is no issue if the others who they threaten, flex back. Thats where the never ending circle is, who started it.

As we already both said doesn't matter who started it. Climb down.

The satellite issue, that was condemned by anyone and everyone, it wasn't the US being stubborn.

Incorrect. Many nations wanted to study the issue to understand if a breach had taken place.

In some ways, leave it as it is. Someone needs to decide what events will require a military response. Missile goes into a nations airspace, it gets shot down? No need to talk about it later? Essentially just wait till they make a bad decision. But there is no way I can accept aid as a reward for breaking international law via missile incursions.

There you go again. Military solutions. Yeah aid again. See above.

Apple TV

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

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1856918 1-Sep-2017 19:49

Every effort should be made to reduce nuclear proliferation. No country on the security council wants nuclear proliferation and neither do the people of the world. The division of Korea is something that was unilaterally decided by the great powers at the close of World War Two and mostly for the benefit of the great powers.

This is why North Korea and many in South Korea insist on six party talks to achieve a stable situation and achieving all the major stakeholders in agreement on how that looks to guarantee security. North, South, China, USA, Russia, Japan.

Yes it should be up to North and South alone, but the reality is that it has never been that way.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1856929 1-Sep-2017 20:15

Iraq complied with inspections. International inspectors agreed with that. USA bombed it and invaded. Libya. Complied with inspections. USA bombed it. North Korea sees that over a long period and makes strategic contingency plans to advertise the price of invasion. They know they can't stop it if USA decides, but they can cause the price to be higher than any sane democracy is willing to pay. With conventional weapons alone NK can do that. You don't like it, I dont like it, but that's the reality.

No claims of anti-americanism please. I love USA but the fact is many times they have followed the wrong policies. USA really needs to move towards better representation in their democracy to achieve a stable government that serves the people.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1856942 1-Sep-2017 20:27

gzt:
tdgeek:

gzt:
As for granting nuclear weapons status, as I explained above this is something that individual states decide for themselves. There is no international body which gets together and decides which states are recognised as 'full nuclear weapon status' or 'approved nuclear weapons holder'.

Makes a lot of sense.

So from here, no one can and should stop NK from developing a nuclear arsenal, I get that, and I do agree.

No, I'm saying it's not something other states decide. That's the reality of international law.

Thats what Im saying. No one can and should stop NK going nuclear as its their right

Talks. Its now hard to see why talks are needed. We could talk to them to ask them to cease nuclear, but thats their business.

There's nothing wrong with asking them to stop development of nuclear weapons. That is exactly what is needed.

That has happened before, many times, they reneged. But we can ask, although they have stated no nukes is non negotiable

We could ask them to cease military actions across other nations sea boundaries and airspace. That should be an international issue? Assuming no nation is allowed to fire weapons in other nations boundaries, there should be a reaction to that?

First of all you need to know how international law applies to airspace and if NK was in contravention.

Tell me then! :-) There is likely an issue with altitude.

An article I read today that had a few commentators in that region, suggest that these missiles are due to racheting up his bargaining power for when talks occur, basically for aid. IMO, that where we need to draw the line, we dont give aid to stop a nation breaking international law.

You have the wrong idea. It is not 'aid' they were getting, it was something in return for giving up a sovereign right which every nation currently has.

Everyone calls it aid. To feed the starving, I'd call that aid. But yeah, its the reward they want for foregoing their right. Pity the reward cannot be refunded WHEN they reneg

Im sure everyone will agree that if NK wants to be an isolation state that they can do that if they choose to.But they say they are as we cut them off with sanctions, sanctions that were given based on agreements, that they broke and broke and broke.

We covered that in an earlier exchange.

And if they wish to flex their muscles there is no issue if the others who they threaten, flex back. Thats where the never ending circle is, who started it.

As we already both said doesn't matter who started it. Climb down.

Actually it does, as here the US is the cause

The satellite issue, that was condemned by anyone and everyone, it wasn't the US being stubborn.

Incorrect. Many nations wanted to study the issue to understand if a breach had taken place.

The link you gave listed all the countries that condemned it, including EU and McCully for NZ

In some ways, leave it as it is. Someone needs to decide what events will require a military response. Missile goes into a nations airspace, it gets shot down? No need to talk about it later? Essentially just wait till they make a bad decision. But there is no way I can accept aid as a reward for breaking international law via missile incursions.

There you go again. Military solutions. Yeah aid again. See above.

???

Now I dont get your point. You want to have talks to ask them to stop nuclear. What has changed that will arrive at an agreement that they will stop nuclear, given that this has never worked before? They appear to comply, get their reward, and reneg. Whats changed?

You seem to take my comments as lets go to war, yet your comments give so much trust in them to have talks. Im not sure how much proof over how many decades of lies and deceit it takes to realise that they cannot be trusted.

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7830

Lifetime subscriber

#1856944 1-Sep-2017 20:42

Ah well. That's enough of that. As I posted previously talks were very effective at halting nuclear development for a long time and reducing tension. That is what produced results.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 26