Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > PRK

PRK
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:33 PM
 
Rule 8: I have infracted for Dakar's sins.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:47 PM
 
Never mind Dakar, what were you going to say about Korea (the dPRK)?

I suspect the 2nd missile launch is the same model as the first missile, just with an empty payload so it would go farther. That explains both the greater range, and why the 2nd payload broke up upon re-entry. If true, their target range remains just a few hundred miles/kms. The speculation that they can reach parts of the US today is just that.

Rocket science isn't so easy. I doubt their stooges can make big missile advances in a short time. Even their photoshop skills are a joke.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, who's down with Trump creating a red line to NK over threats and implying atomic retribution?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did the generals tell him to do that or was it his own idea?
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Puh-lease.
Totally serious question.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:50 PM
 
I see NK already called his bluff.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2017, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I see NK already called his bluff.
That happened so quickly I wonder if it was actually related.

Tinfoil hat is wondering whether the Bilderbergs or whomever got the pages in the world domination script out of order, and Kim was supposed to go first.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Never mind Dakar, what were you going to say about Korea (the dPRK)?

I suspect the 2nd missile launch is the same model as the first missile, just with an empty payload so it would go farther. That explains both the greater range, and why the 2nd payload broke up upon re-entry. If true, their target range remains just a few hundred miles/kms. The speculation that they can reach parts of the US today is just that.

Rocket science isn't so easy. I doubt their stooges can make big missile advances in a short time. Even their photoshop skills are a joke.
It's possible they could hit Alaska. This is their major problem...

     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Puh-lease.
To put it another way, I have no idea whether you are claiming it's preposterous the generals told him to do it, or it's preposterous he came up with the idea on his own.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 01:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
dPRK
Fake news!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Never mind Dakar, what were you going to say about Korea (the dPRK)?

I suspect the 2nd missile launch is the same model as the first missile, just with an empty payload so it would go farther. That explains both the greater range, and why the 2nd payload broke up upon re-entry. If true, their target range remains just a few hundred miles/kms. The speculation that they can reach parts of the US today is just that.

Rocket science isn't so easy. I doubt their stooges can make big missile advances in a short time. Even their photoshop skills are a joke.
Trying to be serious, if the story they've miniatureized a nuke is true, they probably had help from either Iran or Pakistan (or both).

They have actual rocket scientists.

For Photoshop they should hit up China. Bonus: all the free copies you want.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trying to be serious, if the story they've miniatureized a nuke is true, they probably had help from either Iran or Pakistan (or both).

They have actual rocket scientists.

For Photoshop they should hit up China. Bonus: all the free copies you want.
When I looked into this, I heard a podcast, an episode of Worldly in fact, on that topic. And they claimed that experts in the past have consistently underestimated the Chinese nuclear program and now think that North Korea might have miniaturized a “small” nuke with the payload of roughly the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 06:02 AM
 
We won't nuke. Word on the street around the Pentagon is that they have 100s FAE devices that make MOAB look like a party favor, and the detonation in Afghanistan was a combat test (they've been live testing the bigger ones over the last year). Wouldn't surprise me if they carpet bomb the PRK with those when things get worse, turning all of N Korea's military installations and nuke bases into ash. If that happens, and if it works as intended, perceptions will change readically from where they are now.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Aug 9, 2017 at 03:54 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put it another way, I have no idea whether you are claiming it's preposterous the generals told him to do it, or it's preposterous he came up with the idea on his own.
It's preposterous that generals told him to threaten nuclear war.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Trying to be serious, if the story they've miniatureized a nuke is true, they probably had help from either Iran or Pakistan (or both).

They have actual rocket scientists.

For Photoshop they should hit up China. Bonus: all the free copies you want.
Didn't Trump confirm the intel was true by retweeting it? And that confirmation was confirmed when Nikki Haley said she couldn't talk about it?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's preposterous that generals told him to threaten nuclear war.
I've yet to see a statement where he specifically threatened the PRK w/ nukes. I've seen where people assumed that's what he was talking about, without asking him to clarify what "Fire and Fury" means. This seems particularly "problematic" since he's already demonstrated that he's more than willing to unleash MOAB-type weaponry which, on a conventional scale, can be just as physically destructive as nukes.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Aug 9, 2017 at 03:54 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's preposterous that generals told him to threaten nuclear war.
What I mean is perhaps the generals feel front channel communications need to rattle Kim's cage.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've yet to see a statement where he specifically threatened the DRK w/ nukes. I've seen where people assumed that's what he was talking about, without asking him to clarify what "Fire and Fury" means. This seems particularly "problematic" since he's already demonstrated that he's more than willing to unleash MOAB-type weaponry which, on a conventional scale, can be just as physically destructive as nukes.
They were both intentionally ambiguous words.

I got more of a "holy retribution" vibe than specifically nukes.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I mean is perhaps the generals feel front channel communications need to rattle Kim's cage.
Well I certainly can't say. My read is with that body language he got put into a situation he didn't want to deal with. My guess is he saw the option of not responding to the Korea question as losing face.

That's some hardcore reading into it though.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They were both intentionally ambiguous words.

I got more of a "holy retribution" vibe than specifically nukes.
Context, people. He even talked about how we upgraded our nukes less than 24 hours later.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well I certainly can't say. My read is with that body language he got put into a situation he didn't want to deal with. My guess is he saw the option of not responding to the Korea question as losing face.

That's some hardcore reading into it though.
Is it possible, since he's the president, he had already heard about the Guam story?

And the generals, who probably passed it along, correctly said "he's just escalated, we have to respond, and it can't be kidding around anymore".
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Context, people. He even talked about how we upgraded our nukes less than 24 hours later.
But, there's this reality where there is simply no scenario wherein we'd ever nuke NK.

Even if they snuck one into New York and detonated it. It's just not necessary for an effective retaliation. Us killing everybody in the country would be enough to demonstrate the folly. We wouldn't need to irradiate their corpses.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They were both intentionally ambiguous words.

I got more of a "holy retribution" vibe than specifically nukes.
Me too. More "wrath of God" than "nuke and pave".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Context, people. He even talked about how we upgraded our nukes less than 24 hours later.
Because a reporter asked him about them, he didn't just bring them up. Apparently the reporter assumed he meant nukes and then jumped to that conclusion and asked him about our nuclear program. Not a good trait in a reporter, honestly.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
Oh... I misread and thought he mentioned nukes earlier.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But, there's this reality where there is simply no scenario wherein we'd ever nuke NK.

Even if they snuck one into New York and detonated it. It's just not necessary for an effective retaliation. Us killing everybody in the country would be enough to demonstrate the folly. We wouldn't need to irradiate their corpses.
^^ Exactly. We have enough conventional weapons to easily level all of NK w/o risking SK and the rest of the Pacific basin. We have enough in FAE to destroy the PRK 100x over, ASAP.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Aug 9, 2017 at 03:53 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Oh... I misread and thought he mentioned nukes earlier.
The reporters did. "Fire and Fury" can mean more than hydrogen bombs, but they jumped to that conclusion.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The reporters did. "Fire and Fury" can mean more than hydrogen bombs, but they jumped to that conclusion.
If he had discussed nukes first, and talked "fire and fury" the next day, then I could see arguments it's meant to be related.

However I'd also note it's equally plausible he's just a careless mother****er who doesn't concern himself with optics.

The day after, I feel it's a stretch.


All this said, I think he was aware nukes was a possible interpretation, and didn't mind.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But, there's this reality where there is simply no scenario wherein we'd ever nuke NK.

Even if they snuck one into New York and detonated it. It's just not necessary for an effective retaliation. Us killing everybody in the country would be enough to demonstrate the folly. We wouldn't need to irradiate their corpses.
You're changing the discussion. This was about what Trump meant.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're changing the discussion. This was about what Trump meant.
I think Trump knows we won't nuke them, which will have affected what he meant.

The meaning he was going for was "ambiguity".

I agree he doesn't have a problem with people thinking that's what he meant, otherwise he'd clarify it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All this said, I think he was aware nukes was a possible interpretation, and didn't mind.
or, they saw the opportunity to make it seem he was talking about nukes and decided to take the opportunity to **** him over again? A little of both, I think. He thought they might believe he was talking about nuclear weapons, an ultimate threat w/o ever saying the words, and they were more than happy to go down that route for another chance to make him look crazier. It's empty, however, he won't nuke anyone.

Turn the PRK into blasted ash? Yeah. Make it glow in the dark? No.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Turn the PRK into blasted ash? Yeah. Make it glow in the dark? No.
The thing is, from a military standpoint, the radiation part with nukes significantly devalues it as a weapon.

It's value is the yield to size ratio.

Size is an issue when the payload is limited. Unlike in a more equally matched conflict, for all intents and purposes, we have unlimited payload.

If size isn't a concern, a nuke is worse than useless.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
or, they saw the opportunity to make it seem he was talking about nukes and decided to take the opportunity to **** him over again? A little of both, I think. He thought they might believe he was talking about nuclear weapons, an ultimate threat w/o ever saying the words, and they were more than happy to go down that route for another chance to make him look crazier. It's empty, however, he won't nuke anyone.
I've definitely noted he's finally pivoting a bit, but the press is still on the same heading.

The obvious issue is this pivot is probably delicate, and smashing it to pieces may not really be in the best interests of the country.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think Trump knows we won't nuke them, which will have affected what he meant.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trum...h-reports.html
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt again, I see. This guy is terrible off the cuff.

When he says "power the likes of which this world has never seen before" tell me, what is the most powerful weapon we have?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
^^ Exactly. We have enough conventional weapons to easily level all of NK w/o risking SK and the rest of the Pacific basin. We have enough in FAE to destroy the PRK 100x over, ASAP.
Yeah, but at what insane cost?
There'd be at least hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dead on the South Korean side (North Korea has about 13,000 artillery pieces aimed at the Seoul metropolitan area with its 25 million inhabitants) and at least that many on the North Korean side. Add to that any victims from a potential attack with nuclear missiles. You'd have millions of refugees flocking to China in the North and South Korea in the South, and the US would own that refugee crisis. This chest beating is not just pointless, it is dangerous. What was the old adage attributed to Teddy Rosevelt? Speak easy and carry a big stick.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think Trump knows we won't nuke them, which will have affected what he meant.
If it were anyone but Trump, I'd agree with you. But I don't think Trump will feel bound by that, I don't think he likes the feeling of not being able to do anything. I think the probability of Trump attacking North Korea is higher than North Korea attacking South Korea, Japan or the US.

I also don't think this whole panic is particularly useful to find rational solutions. North Korea wants nuclear weapons in order to be safe from attack and be taken seriously. But it isn't suicidal or “crazy”, they follow an obvious internal logic. No matter your ideology, survival is at the top of the hierarchy of needs, and if the US and its allies decide to take out North Korea, the regime is gone. South Korea and Japan have been under the threat that the US suddenly feels for years now.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trum...h-reports.html


Giving him the benefit of the doubt again, I see. This guy is terrible off the cuff.

When he says "power the likes of which this world has never seen before" tell me, what is the most powerful weapon we have?
Does flattening an entire country over the course of a few hours have a precedent?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yeah, but at what insane cost?
There'd be at least hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dead on the South Korean side (North Korea has about 13,000 artillery pieces aimed at the Seoul metropolitan area with its 25 million inhabitants) and at least that many on the North Korean side. Add to that any victims from a potential attack with nuclear missiles. You'd have millions of refugees flocking to China in the North and South Korea in the South, and the US would own that refugee crisis. This chest beating is not just pointless, it is dangerous. What was the old adage attributed to Teddy Rosevelt? Speak easy and carry a big stick.

If it were anyone but Trump, I'd agree with you. But I don't think Trump will feel bound by that, I don't think he likes the feeling of not being able to do anything. I think the probability of Trump attacking North Korea is higher than North Korea attacking South Korea, Japan or the US.

I also don't think this whole panic is particularly useful to find rational solutions. North Korea wants nuclear weapons in order to be safe from attack and be taken seriously. But it isn't suicidal or “crazy”, they follow an obvious internal logic. No matter your ideology, survival is at the top of the hierarchy of needs, and if the US and its allies decide to take out North Korea, the regime is gone. South Korea and Japan have been under the threat that the US suddenly feels for years now.
This is specifically about nukes being used.

Trump might level NK. He won't nuke it.

Kim isn't crazy for wanting nukes. If he wants to use them he's next level batshit crazy.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2017, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is specifically about nukes being used.
Yes, what I wrote was in the event of a non-nuclear war, the casualties would number in the hundreds of thousands (the Nautilus Institute estimates 60,000 South Korean dead on the first day, an estimated 33,000 dead for just the initial barrage!). A North Korean nuke would be the cherry on top. The US won't be able to take out North Korea's artillery in a day or even a week. And the US would have to defeat North Korea's large military, and it would leave behind a crippled South and a completely destroyed North Korea.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Kim isn't crazy for wanting nukes. If he wants to use them he's next level batshit crazy.
That has been a question that's been discussed since nuclear weapons have been invented: Should you say you won't strike first? Should you leave the option open to strike first (France has a first strike policy)? How do you distinguish posture from actual intent? How do you deal with red lines? Nothing here is a new question.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 01:05 AM
 
I'm not sure where this is supposed to be going.

I'm trying to answer the nuke question. How is a non-nuclear conflict relevant to this question?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How is a non-nuclear conflict relevant to this question?
I am talking about the consequences a pre-emptive military strike by the US and its allies has, that is aimed to eliminate the nuclear threat from North Korea. That is at the core of our discussion. Apart from all out war, the only other violent option I see is the assassination of Kim Jong Un — which would have unpredictable consequences as well, in that situation North Korea would see itself under attack and likely retaliate (with the same consequences for South Korea).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 03:58 AM
 
I agree that the biggest loser would be South Korea. If we do anything, protecting SK in general and Seoul in particular should be a top priority.

What I'm not clear on is how we could take out nearly all those artillery pieces fast enough. Presumably many are hidden in cities near the DMZ. Using human shields is a long tradition for villains. Perhaps a focused EMP to take out their communications, so the order to fire never arrives. (Can we do a focused EMP?) But - how do you stop all the couriers who back up the comm systems?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:21 AM
 
@reader
I don't see a way to avoid that. According to the article I have linked the estimated casualties for the first salvo are 33,000 — roughly half of the number of victims who died in Nagasaki from the blast of the atomic bomb. I am certain that it'll take at least days to neutralize all those artillery pieces. I am not sure what kind of considerations went into this estimate, but I am sure they must have assumed something about the number of failures. Even if the victims in the Seoul metropolitan area are of the order of a few hundred thousand, that means for the next few years the world's 11th-largest economy will lie in ruins. There are public shelters (to my knowledge the subway stations are also designed as bomb shelters, but there would still be a huge number of victims.

That's why there are no good military options, and that leaves diplomacy — which is also not a great option. Nor is there an obvious solution either, hawks have tried, doves have tried, Republicans, Democrats, and none has worked particularly well. We will probably have to accept a nuclear North Korea and deal with it. In my experience Koreans themselves take a long-term view. One of them told me that Korea has a 5,000-year history, even if this separation between North and South lasts another 50 years, it will just be a blip on the historical radar. Since it is the Koreans that will have to bear the brunt of an attack, I would say that they should take the lead — after all, they can speak easy and because they carry a big stick.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I am talking about the consequences a pre-emptive military strike by the US and its allies has, that is aimed to eliminate the nuclear threat from North Korea. That is at the core of our discussion. Apart from all out war, the only other violent option I see is the assassination of Kim Jong Un — which would have unpredictable consequences as well, in that situation North Korea would see itself under attack and likely retaliate (with the same consequences for South Korea).
Ah... I get what you're saying.

Absolutely. We can't just target their nukes. Our only option is to obliterate the entire peninsula.

This is a failure scenario, so we're trying to avoid it.

Kim knows, so he feels he can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't warrant Old Testament grade retribution.

My guess is our plan is to make him think our threshold is lower than it is.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is specifically about nukes being used.

Trump might level NK. He won't nuke it.

Kim isn't crazy for wanting nukes. If he wants to use them he's next level batshit crazy.
^^What he said.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Ah... I get what you're saying.

Absolutely. We can't just target their nukes. Our only option is to obliterate the entire peninsula.

This is a failure scenario, so we're trying to avoid it.

Kim knows, so he feels he can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't warrant Old Testament grade retribution.

My guess is our plan is to make him think our threshold is lower than it is.
Yep, Trump was saying, "I'm not that wimp Obama. I'm a crazy, old mother****er, you piss me off and I'll unleash the Wrath-of-God down on your shit", and frankly, I can see him firebombing all of N Korea with MOABs 10x the size of what we dropped on Afghanistan. Everything north of the DMZ would be roasting at 3500C within a span of 3 minutes, but everyone will already be dead, due to the air being used up and then the atmosphere crashing back in and crushing everyone. Realistically, it would take just a couple seconds.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Absolutely. We can't just target their nukes. Our only option is to obliterate the entire peninsula.
I would add that it is the only real military option. (I heard also of “limited” strikes, although it is not at all clear what that means, and it is very, very easy that an initially limited strike balloons to an all-out conflict.) The best of the bad options is still diplomatic IMHO.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 06:07 AM
 
Our only option [to target their nukes] is to obliterate the entire peninsula. We can't diplomacy those away.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:57 AM
 
Are we sure this isn't a set-up to have a new M*A*S*H tv program re-boot?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yep, Trump was saying, "I'm not that wimp Obama. I'm a crazy, old mother****er, you piss me off and I'll unleash the Wrath-of-God down on your shit", and frankly, I can see him firebombing all of N Korea with MOABs 10x the size of what we dropped on Afghanistan. Everything north of the DMZ would be roasting at 3500C within a span of 3 minutes, but everyone will already be dead, due to the air being used up and then the atmosphere crashing back in and crushing everyone. Realistically, it would take just a couple seconds.

We should not be encouraging genocide. It's not the citizens of the PRK's fault that they have a horrible, ruthless, unhinged leader they didn't even vote for. Hopefully if Trump does strike it will be in a strategic area with few non-governmental casualties.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does flattening an entire country over the course of a few hours have a precedent?
You didn't acknowledge the quote or answer the question.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:55 AM
 
Sure I did. I'll make it explicit.

Flattening a country in an hour is unprecedented, hence it is "power the likes of which this world has never seen". That's how it relates to the quote. By demonstrating the phrase can mean something other than nukes, it also directly addresses the rhetorical argument the quote can only mean nukes.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I can see him firebombing all of N Korea with MOABs 10x the size of what we dropped on Afghanistan.
You're really specific about referencing that weapon, over and over again in this thread. Any particular reason? Not attacking, just curious.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,