North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

Forums › Politics › North Korea Launches Missile Through Japanese Airspace

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 26

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856082 31-Aug-2017 17:39

MikeB4:

Don't get me wrong I believe that Kim Jung-Un is very dangerous and the path taken by North Korea is very dangerous and worrying. I just don't believe that military action is the answer for both sides. All possible diplomatic avenues need to be pursued included taking the US out of the diplomacy and replacing them with someone North Korea is prepared to listen to and maybe compromise If NK does fire first the US will with good reason retaliate in force and the outcome is going to be horrific with a very high regional death toll.

Id be fully ok with that

But I feel NK has been running on far too long a reign for too long. They say they will talk, the US say they will talk, but the new bottom line now is, no nukes is non negotiable from NK, and keeping nukes is non negotiable from the US. While this is a NK vs SK/Japan issue, the extent that NK has developed a nuclear capability makes it everyones business. Advising that we will fire 4 missiles to hit 25 miles from Guam now makes this a US direct issue.

I cant say what China thinks as they also did little to stem NK, although being friends makes that quite easy, and being anti US. Had NK kept up with their fairytale commentary and bitched at SK and Japan, that would have been one thing, but they made the mistake of stinging the dog, the US. They are now fully in this problem, not just a supporter of SK and Japan. They could take action based solely on the NK direct threats to the US, so thats IMHO a new can of worms. The US is not near the region, China is, China's mistake as well by letting it go this far.

Fred99

9011 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856083 31-Aug-2017 17:43

Wiggum:

Fred99:

The USA has an appalling history of "dealing with" potentially aggressive dictatorships.

I don't know of any alternatives? Offering free candy maybe?

At least that would be better than sacrificing potentially millions of lives (in SK) for the sake of "face saving" by the idiot POTUS.

Fortunately - some of Trump's advisors do seem to have a clue.

Perhaps Trump's inane hollow threats will be treated with the contempt they deserve for the next 3 1/2 years until someone sane can deal with the issue.

US posturing hasn't saved the world from a nuclear armed Israel, India, and Pakistan. I'm not sure that given some set of circumstances, I'm any happier that they're nuclear armed and with the ability to deliver WMD than I am with DPRK.

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856084 31-Aug-2017 17:48

SaltyNZ: I wouldn't be overly concerned about their MiG-29s or their submarines. Only a couple of the planes have been observed flying lately so it is unlikely that more than a handful are airworthy and even those are going to be flown by pilots who get an hour in the air every week or two if they're lucky. (See here: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/should-the-world-fear-north-koreas-air-force-20315)

A similar situation with the submarines. In theory they have 70 but most are barely floating and none other than a single experimental prototype for SLBM forces can fire anything but torpedoes. Nominally dangerous to surface ships but wouldn't last long in reality and useless against civilian targets.

Their artillery and tanks are more of a worry. Also museum pieces but the artillery in particular is still deadly. I don't know how many of their 5000 tanks actually work but to the extent they can roll them over the DMZ they could still cause problems for civilians until they are destroyed.

Im not sure those weapons matter terribly much. If NK fires at Guam, and the US retaliates, it would probably be a relatively small token effort. Maybe level some small but notable facility in Pyongyang. NK could unleash on SK, in that case US will level Pyongyang and the known nuclear sites and military stores. Its a case off fire 1 you get 1 bigger one back, fire another and 1000 will come back. A horrific outcome. Whatever happens it would be quick if it went full on, it wont be an ongoing war and it will change everything. The US wont want to be seen to start this. I cant see any other way to bring peace to be honest. Once the NK regime is gone, SK and China will then argue over NK, maybe they might cooperate. Maybe not. But should it continue as it is now, NK's citizens will continue in poverty, and welcome NK who will continue to buildup up a supply of capable nuclear warheads. We will still be over a barrel to a young punk and still allow him act any way he wants.

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856086 31-Aug-2017 17:52

One person supports this post

Fred99:

Wiggum:

Fred99:

The USA has an appalling history of "dealing with" potentially aggressive dictatorships.

I don't know of any alternatives? Offering free candy maybe?

At least that would be better than sacrificing potentially millions of lives (in SK) for the sake of "face saving" by the idiot POTUS.

Fortunately - some of Trump's advisors do seem to have a clue.

Perhaps Trump's inane hollow threats will be treated with the contempt they deserve for the next 3 1/2 years until someone sane can deal with the issue.

US posturing hasn't saved the world from a nuclear armed Israel, India, and Pakistan. I'm not sure that given some set of circumstances, I'm any happier that they're nuclear armed and with the ability to deliver WMD than I am with DPRK.

This is all Trumps doing? He is the unlucky loser to be occupying a seat while the real idiot who plays with real guns is allowed to do what he likes. if you need to blame anyone, blames all leaders of major western countries since 1953.

No one will deal with the issue as no one has dealt with it yet. We now have a nuclear NK who China itself has commented, we may have to accept that

Too much emphasis on Trump and too little on the last 60 odd years IMHO

MikeB4

14578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1856088 31-Aug-2017 17:58

It's the not too small missile arsenal that I'd the biggest worry and the hardest to deal with. I wouldn't take many of them to hit targets to cause a considerable death toll

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

There is no planet B

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856093 31-Aug-2017 18:37

MikeB4: It's the not too small missile arsenal that I'd the biggest worry and the hardest to deal with. I wouldn't take many of them to hit targets to cause a considerable death toll

Agree, and quick. We are talking kilometres. I assume thats KJU's trump card. Use his fellow Koreans as a human shield

Fred99

9011 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856100 31-Aug-2017 18:55

tdgeek:

Fred99:

Wiggum:

Fred99:

The USA has an appalling history of "dealing with" potentially aggressive dictatorships.

I don't know of any alternatives? Offering free candy maybe?

At least that would be better than sacrificing potentially millions of lives (in SK) for the sake of "face saving" by the idiot POTUS.

Fortunately - some of Trump's advisors do seem to have a clue.

Perhaps Trump's inane hollow threats will be treated with the contempt they deserve for the next 3 1/2 years until someone sane can deal with the issue.

US posturing hasn't saved the world from a nuclear armed Israel, India, and Pakistan. I'm not sure that given some set of circumstances, I'm any happier that they're nuclear armed and with the ability to deliver WMD than I am with DPRK.

This is all Trumps doing? He is the unlucky loser to be occupying a seat while the real idiot who plays with real guns is allowed to do what he likes. if you need to blame anyone, blames all leaders of major western countries since 1953.

No one will deal with the issue as no one has dealt with it yet. We now have a nuclear NK who China itself has commented, we may have to accept that

Too much emphasis on Trump and too little on the last 60 odd years IMHO

It's not all Trump's doing - but in light of the apparent acceleration of DPRK's nuclear programme - he's Johnny on the spot.

Yes it should have been foreseen blah blah.

It's a delicate diplomatic issue, someone sane should be handling it. Trump isn't - he's only concerned about how he looks in the eyes of his supporters.

He can't carry out his wild west threats - I hope he realises that.

gzt

11025 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856115 31-Aug-2017 19:24

SaltyNZ: [snip] The US needs to stay out of it. However, China bears a large part of the blame for this situation. Their desire to not have US bases on their doorstep is somewhat understandable, but allowing the Kim family to run things the way they wanted has caused the situation to fester. Not that the Chinese Communist government is a paradise of transparency and fairness, but things would be both much better for the people of North Korea and for global stability if the Chinese had kicked out the Kims and installed a more normal government instead at the end of the Korean War.

USA has bases in South Korea and influence in south Korean politics. It was not the choice of south Korea to have missile defence systems for instance. They were installed, south korea objected and as is usual eventually accepted the policy direction.

It is likely that China does not have nearly as much influence in North Korean politics. There are no China troops stationed in North Korea. The common idea that China controls North Korea is basically a complete fantasy.

gzt

11025 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856126 31-Aug-2017 19:51

One person supports this post

Wiggum:
MikeB4:

I disagree, military action will result in very large loss of life this has to be the very last resort. Both sides need to back off and allow North and South Korea to get into talks.

The problem is that even if the US backs off, a missile with nuclear warheads will still be heading their way.

The only option really is to disarm NK. There has been lots of time for talks, its proved fruitless and has just allowed NK to grow their nuclear program in the meantime.

That's not the problem. People like yourself advocating a military solution are completely unrealistic.

gzt

11025 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856129 31-Aug-2017 20:14

tdgeek:
Id like to hear what talks could provide, to me that's a long time proven failure, and that has cost us big time. NK played us like fools, now they are a nuclear nation who can tell us to pour face that they will send 4 missiles to Guam, and thats just taken a rhetoric, but the US cannot talk about that as its their fault for aggravating the situation.

Talks can provide a lot to people on both sides. Security for both north Korea and south korea. Talks were in fact very successful in largely halting nuclear development for a long time.

There were some debatable non-nuclear breaches and at that point USA entirely walked away.

North Korea said if you are going to do that, forget about debatable breaches related to satellite launches we will now walk away from the nuclear part of the agreement. USA said ok fine we are not talking to you. Fast forward to today Now there is 8 years of additional nuclear development. Was that smart? No it was dumb and short term thinking.

The smart and sensible option is the multiparty talks.

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856130 31-Aug-2017 20:18

Fred99:

It's not all Trump's doing - but in light of the apparent acceleration of DPRK's nuclear programme - he's Johnny on the spot.

Yes it should have been foreseen blah blah.

It's a delicate diplomatic issue, someone sane should be handling it. Trump isn't - he's only concerned about how he looks in the eyes of his supporters.

He can't carry out his wild west threats - I hope he realises that.

To put it mildly he isn't helping. But he is Johnny on the spot. I am unsure how diplomacy can help now as NK wont give up nuclear, thats off the table.

As I mentioned earlier I cant see the US firing first shot, but my issue is that its all gone too far in the last few short years, NK have done a good job, and thats opened the stable door

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856133 31-Aug-2017 20:24

gzt:
tdgeek:

Id like to hear what talks could provide, to me that's a long time proven failure, and that has cost us big time. NK played us like fools, now they are a nuclear nation who can tell us to pour face that they will send 4 missiles to Guam, and thats just taken a rhetoric, but the US cannot talk about that as its their fault for aggravating the situation.

Talks can provide a lot to people on both sides. Security for both north Korea and south korea. Talks were in fact very successful in largely halting nuclear development for a long time.

There were some debatable non-nuclear breaches and at that point USA entirely walked away.

North Korea said if you are going to do that, forget about debatable breaches related to satellite launches we will now walk away from the nuclear part of the agreement. USA said ok fine we are not talking to you. Fast forward to today Now there is 8 years of additional nuclear development. Was that smart? No it was dumb and short term thinking.

I'd be interested to read the history you mention in some detail, I can Google that. But what your suggesting is that all of this is the fault of the US?

If talks were to be held, they will be on the basis of welcome North Korea and your nuclear weapons, and development continuing. Thats their policy, its non negotiable.

And we will be back where NK can target anyone from SFO to AKL

gzt

11025 posts

Uber Geek

# 1856178 31-Aug-2017 22:24

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?

tdgeek

18724 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1856226 1-Sep-2017 07:06

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. 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. 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

MikeB4

14578 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1856283 1-Sep-2017 07:30

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. 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. 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

..... or Donald Trump nukes.

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

There is no planet B

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 26