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 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 26

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858106 4-Sep-2017 13:41

tdgeek:

What absolute rubbish. Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

So please explain all the tension with India and South Africa then.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858107 4-Sep-2017 13:42

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

They want bargaining power. and there is no way in hell we pay more demands. They have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, always tension. If we attack thats a multi nation war, if they attack the US levels the place. The latter is a better option if it came to that. Nuclear is a deterrent, that may have tiobe what we accept

Thats nonsense. Many countries have nuclear and are not seen as a threat.

I'm sure if nuclear countries like South Africa/China/India started making nuclear threats to its neighbors, and/or the US. It would be met with a similar reaction.

South Africa is not a nuclear armed nation

Exactly. But according to @tdgeek, nuclear nations can never have peace.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858108 4-Sep-2017 13:48

Rikkitic:

There is no ‘answer’ to the North Korean situation. There are options. Some are less awful than others.

One option is to stop trying to face Kim down. Quit threatening him. Quit pushing him into a corner. This only makes him react in kind, and as he has shown, he is not exactly defenceless. It is the same way you deal with an aggressive dog. You don’t bark at it. You back slowly away.

Another option is engagement. This has worked in the past. The North Koreans are convinced America is their enemy. This is what their propaganda tells them. So give them aid. Not in the form of hand-outs, but in the form of knowledge. There are many opportunities for university exchanges and research cooperation in non-threatening areas like agriculture and medicine.

Stimulate cultural interactions. American orchestras have visited North Korea in the past. The arts are a great way to show that Americans do other things than just invade with guns.

Sports are a big area of opportunity. Kim is a basketball fan. Why not build on that?

The North Korean leader rightly thinks the world is out to get him. He is already paranoid. He also happens to be a psychopath lacking the restraints of normal human values. So what do the Americans do? With their usual finesse, they have decided to feed his paranoia by poking him with a stick. They hold military exercises on his border, they utter threats, they do everything possible to pull his triggers. Gee, that really makes sense. Let’s make the armed to the teeth paranoic even more paranoid.

There is a human tendency to want to ‘punish’ transgressors. Those who break the rules should not be allowed to get away with it. If someone wrongs you, at least you can derive satisfaction from tit for tat. Never mind trying to find out why they did what they did, or if something might be done to prevent others from doing the same. It is all about retribution and punishment and getting even. It doesn’t matter if this is shown over and over again not to work. Victims want their pound of flesh.

Something of the same has governed the American relationship with North Korea and it continues to pollute current thinking. There is a reluctance to ‘reward’ unacceptable North Korean behaviour by going back to the negotiation table. But the reality is that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, they have an unstable leader, and they have the west over a barrel. This is what now has to be worked with.

There are really only two possibilities from this point. One is a truly terrible war, with many, many victims and unthinkable devastation. There can be no such thing as a ‘surgical strike’ here. It will be all or nothing.

The other is to accept that Kim and his nukes are part of today’s reality and to try to find a way to work with that. The way is to engage, to constantly reassure him that his position is secure and no-one wants to threaten it, to avoid confrontation. That does not have to mean abandoning allies or giving in to his every whim. But there are ways of communicating bottom lines without holding a gun to someone’s head.

That is what diplomacy is all about.

That all makes sense but I struggle with it. he is the one doing the prodding, the west responds. He cant even have a late delivery of his aid to be an act of war.

Has he got us over a barrel? Or he has got himself over a barrel? he has backed himself into a corner where negotiations so he can extort more aid is lost. It wa s lost when Obama cancelled that option. He cannot be reasoned with, so IMHO, forget about him, he has nukes, let him whine, but the US needs to never react, let KJU whine in the corner. What they all want, the US to leave, they have all ruined that. There will never be peace there now, and KJU can never be trusted. So leave him be. The US now lives in Korea thanks to him, China and Russia. Will he attack? Doubt it. The US wont, so its a nuclear deterrent age now, and that will have to be ok.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858113 4-Sep-2017 13:51

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

They want bargaining power. and there is no way in hell we pay more demands. They have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, always tension. If we attack thats a multi nation war, if they attack the US levels the place. The latter is a better option if it came to that. Nuclear is a deterrent, that may have tiobe what we accept

Thats nonsense. Many countries have nuclear and are not seen as a threat.

I'm sure if nuclear countries like South Africa/China/India started making nuclear threats to its neighbors, and/or the US. It would be met with a similar reaction.

South Africa is not a nuclear armed nation

Exactly. But according to @tdgeek, nuclear nations can never have peace.

Learn to read

They have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, always tension

We are discussing NK. What does "they" mean?? Guess what "the region" means?? What does "always tension" mean?

Take your argumentative hat off once in a while.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858126 4-Sep-2017 13:53

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

What absolute rubbish. Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

So please explain all the tension with India and South Africa then.

You are unreal, you cannot read, nor comprehend

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858127 4-Sep-2017 13:56

Rikkitic:

One option is to stop trying to face Kim down. Quit threatening him. Quit pushing him into a corner. This only makes him react in kind, and as he has shown, he is not exactly defenceless. It is the same way you deal with an aggressive dog. You don’t bark at it. You back slowly away.

This assumes Kim is not the aggressor. But his threats have shown that he is. Who is to say he won't attack anyway? An aggressive dog does not only attack when it feels threatened. It attacks anyway, and will even bite the hand that feeds it.

Rikkitic:

Another option is engagement. This has worked in the past. The North Koreans are convinced America is their enemy. This is what their propaganda tells them. So give them aid. Not in the form of hand-outs, but in the form of knowledge. There are many opportunities for university exchanges and research cooperation in non-threatening areas like agriculture and medicine.

Stimulate cultural interactions. American orchestras have visited North Korea in the past. The arts are a great way to show that Americans do other things than just invade with guns.

North Koreans are convinced America is their enemy because of Kim's propaganda machine. You are not going to get through to the North Koreans, or change that without upsetting the regime. I don't know how you propose to stimulate cultural interactions when its off limits (you do know this right?). Playing basketball with the guy. Now thats a first.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858145 4-Sep-2017 14:01

tdgeek:

You are unreal, you cannot read, nor comprehend

You said countries with nuclear will never be at peace, always tension. I pointed out that nuclear countries like South Africa and India also have nuclear, but dont have much tension. Care to elaborate on your point.

tdgeek:

They want bargaining power. and there is no way in hell we pay more demands. They have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, always tension. If we attack thats a multi nation war, if they attack the US levels the place. The latter is a better option if it came to that. Nuclear is a deterrent, that may have tiobe what we accept

Perhaps the problem is not the nuclear itself, but rather the aggressor, and a combination of both.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858165 4-Sep-2017 14:12

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

What absolute rubbish. Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

So please explain all the tension with India and South Africa then.

You are unreal, you cannot read, nor comprehend

You said countries with nuclear will always have tension. I pointed out that nuclear countries like South Africa and India also have nuclear, but dont have much tension. Care to elaborate then on your point.

Perhaps the problem is not the nuclear itself, but rather the aggressor, and a combination of both.

Whats up with you? Are you resorting to lying?

Where did I say that nuclear nations have tension? I will alter the bold so you arent so confused

Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858168 4-Sep-2017 14:13

tdgeek:

Whats up with you? Are you resorting to lying?

Where did I say that nuclear nations have tension? I will alter the bold so you arent so confused

Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

Where did you say it?

Right here:

tdgeek:

They want bargaining power. and there is no way in hell we pay more demands. They have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, always tension. If we attack thats a multi nation war, if they attack the US levels the place. The latter is a better option if it came to that. Nuclear is a deterrent, that may have tiobe what we accept

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858191 4-Sep-2017 14:39

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Whats up with you? Are you resorting to lying?

Where did I say that nuclear nations have tension? I will alter the bold so you arent so confused

Compare the nuclear armed countries in the world, and look at NK. That's one bad rotten ugly apple. So, it is quite obvious, that when that country has nuclear there will be tension.

Where did you say it?

Right here:
tdgeek:

They want bargaining power. and there is no way in hell we pay more demands. They (Thats North Korea, the one at the top) have nuclear thats the way it is, so there will never be peace in the region, (thats the Asian region where NK, SK, Japan, China, etc live, if that helps) always tension. If we attack thats a multi nation war, if they attack the US levels the place. The latter is a better option if it came to that. Nuclear is a deterrent, that may have tiobe what we accept

And I'm over your posts as many here have stated. (that means I'm not happy with your forum comments, as other forum commenters have also stated (said) )

gzt

15197 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1858203 4-Sep-2017 15:00

gzt:
Wiggum:
Its time to send in the troops and put an end to it.

That will only be a beginning. War is not the best solution to this issue. How many Americans, South Koreans, North Koreans, and very likely Chinese also, do you want to see killed?

Better Do you want to go yourself? Do you want to send your children?

@Wiggum You didn't answer, but this is not a question simply to achieve emotional effect. It is a very serious question. You are advocating war, and an invasion in particular.

I'm asking how high do you see that causalities on various sides from your proposed course of action and how you expect that war to play out? What do you see as the likely human and financial costs and impact. Are you particularly optimistic about it for example, or do you consider that no matter the cost it is worth it?

MikeB4

18125 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1858212 4-Sep-2017 15:18

gzt:
gzt:
Wiggum:

Its time to send in the troops and put an end to it.

That will only be a beginning. War is not the best solution to this issue. How many Americans, South Koreans, North Koreans, and very likely Chinese also, do you want to see killed?

Better Do you want to go yourself? Do you want to send your children?

@Wiggum You didn't answer, but this is not a question simply to achieve emotional effect. It is a very serious question. You are advocating war, and an invasion in particular.

I'm asking how high do you see that causalities on various sides from your proposed course of action and how you expect that war to play out? What do you see as the likely human and financial costs and impact. Are you particularly optimistic about it for example, or do you consider that no matter the cost it is worth it?

I believe it is seen as a game.

tdgeek

28596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1858213 4-Sep-2017 15:24

MikeB4:

gzt:
gzt:
Wiggum:

Its time to send in the troops and put an end to it.

That will only be a beginning. War is not the best solution to this issue. How many Americans, South Koreans, North Koreans, and very likely Chinese also, do you want to see killed?

Better Do you want to go yourself? Do you want to send your children?

@Wiggum You didn't answer, but this is not a question simply to achieve emotional effect. It is a very serious question. You are advocating war, and an invasion in particular.

I'm asking how high do you see that causalities on various sides from your proposed course of action and how you expect that war to play out? What do you see as the likely human and financial costs and impact. Are you particularly optimistic about it for example, or do you consider that no matter the cost it is worth it?

I believe it is seen as a game.

Yes. Its serious. I've changed some of my stance over the course of the discussion. Its not a board game or a movie

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858223 4-Sep-2017 15:37

gzt:
gzt:
Wiggum:

Its time to send in the troops and put an end to it.

That will only be a beginning. War is not the best solution to this issue. How many Americans, South Koreans, North Koreans, and very likely Chinese also, do you want to see killed?

Better Do you want to go yourself? Do you want to send your children?

@Wiggum You didn't answer, but this is not a question simply to achieve emotional effect. It is a very serious question. You are advocating war, and an invasion in particular.

I'm asking how high do you see that causalities on various sides from your proposed course of action and how you expect that war to play out? What do you see as the likely human and financial costs and impact. Are you particularly optimistic about it for example, or do you consider that no matter the cost it is worth it?

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.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1858257 4-Sep-2017 16:05

tdgeek:

Yes. Its serious. I've changed some of my stance over the course of the discussion. Its not a board game or a movie

I have often wondered if a 21st century invasion into Europe to liberate Europe would today be deemed acceptable.

1 | ... | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ... | 26