Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
Onward
11345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1858258 4-Sep-2017 16:09
Send private message

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 




957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1858264 4-Sep-2017 16:19
Send private message

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?


 
 
 
 


Onward
11345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1858270 4-Sep-2017 16:29
Send private message

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


4030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1609

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1858341 4-Sep-2017 18:09
Send private message

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 Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

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


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Trusted

  Reply # 1858343 4-Sep-2017 18:25
Send private message

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.


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Trusted

  Reply # 1858345 4-Sep-2017 18:29
Send private message

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.




957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1858395 4-Sep-2017 19:58
Send private message

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.


5052 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2320


  Reply # 1858409 4-Sep-2017 20:21
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.


Onward
11345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1858472 4-Sep-2017 20:55
Send private message

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





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


5052 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2320


  Reply # 1858490 4-Sep-2017 21:08
One person supports this post
Send private message

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

9146 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1858491 4-Sep-2017 21:08
Send private message

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.

Onward
11345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5059

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1858493 4-Sep-2017 21:22
Send private message

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





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Trusted

  Reply # 1858525 4-Sep-2017 22:11
Send private message

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. 




957 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1858526 4-Sep-2017 22:17
Send private message

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.

 

 


10033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582

Trusted

  Reply # 1858527 4-Sep-2017 22:19
Send private message

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 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Air New Zealand experiments with blockchain technology
Posted 23-Nov-2017 15:39


Symantec selects Amazon Web Services to deliver cloud security
Posted 23-Nov-2017 10:40


New Zealand Ministry of Education chooses Unisys for cloud-based education resourcing management system
Posted 22-Nov-2017 22:00


Business analytics software powers profits for NZ wine producers
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:52


Pyrios strikes up alliance with Microsoft integrator UC Logiq
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:51


The New Zealand IT services ecosystem - it's all digital down here
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:49


Volvo to supply tens of thousands of autonomous drive compatible cars to Uber
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:46


From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26


UFB killer app: Speed
Posted 17-Nov-2017 17:01


The case for RSS — MacSparky
Posted 13-Nov-2017 14:35



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.