Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Sep 2017, 11:41 am

Rickyp
But you know exactly how NK will react?Based on what? You projections?


answer from
Freeman and Fate
nada


If either of you can come up with something other than your own projections about how North Korea would react to an aggressive act ... have at it.
Otherwise I'll accept your wise cracking as admissions that all you've got is your own projections.
Which are worthless.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Sep 2017, 12:13 pm

Here's what I think. China has the absolute power to stop what NK is doing. But they will not do that unless they are absolutely forced to do something. And I suspect they will not be convinced we will do something until we actually use military force. Shooting down a missile or hitting a missile base will show our resolve. And that is when China can intervene and do two things: (1) reassure Kim that they will not allow him to be deposed, and (2) threaten to cut off fuel and food if he threatens to do something major. Some kind of face-saving response is expected but not a major war.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Sep 2017, 12:56 pm

rickyp wrote:Rickyp
But you know exactly how NK will react?Based on what? You projections?


answer from
Freeman and Fate
nada


If either of you can come up with something other than your own projections about how North Korea would react to an aggressive act ... have at it.
Otherwise I'll accept your wise cracking as admissions that all you've got is your own projections.
Which are worthless.


Just as worthless: propaganda spewed by the Minister of Defense for the Kim regime. Then again, your own projection isn't all that valuable either.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Sep 2017, 3:24 pm

freeman3
Shooting down a missile or hitting a missile base will show our resolve


Chinese state-owned paper says China will intervene and stop America if it attacks North Korea first - and will only stay neutral if Kim attacks the States first

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4s81KRPtN

All a first strike might do is cause North Korea to launch ALL of its missiles, and send its army south..... And perhaps draw China into the fight. A state owned newspaper is a pretty good indication of the Chinese intentions...

What evidence, from any source, do you have to support "what you think".
Any pronouncement or statement from a North Korea or Chinese official? Anything that isn't just created out of your imagination about how things would go?

Fate
Just as worthless: propaganda spewed by the Minister of Defense for the Kim regime.

Explain why a statement like this is not an indication of Kim's frame of mind?
Explain why your vague meanderings have more import or offer more insight than what a high ranking NK official says ?
You guys seem to think you know exactly how NK would react...but offer nothing but your own unanchored deductions.
If China says they will go to aid of NK if US attacks - its best to believe them.
If NK says they will launch nukes and their army in retaliation for any aggression.... it is incredibly dangerous NOT to believe them.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Sep 2017, 6:00 pm

It's so simple, even you ought to understand it. Anyone employed by the NK regime is a liar. Liars lie.

China will not go to war with the US IF our first move effectively removes Un. If we attacked and a protracted war was the result, I believe they would engage.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Sep 2017, 6:45 pm

Actually, Ricky that Chinese newspaper says China will intervene if US launches strikes AND attempts regime change. In other words, it doesn't say they will intervene if only strikes are launched without an concomitant attempt at regime change.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Sep 2017, 8:17 am

Freeman3
Actually, Ricky that Chinese newspaper says China will intervene if US launches strikes AND attempts regime change. In other words, it doesn't say they will intervene if only strikes are launched without an concomitant attempt at regime change


You may be right that a pre-meditated strike could be coordinated with China. But if you don't warn China a strike is coming, and describe for them the parameters of the strike how would they interpret a strike as anything but an attempt at regime change and destabilization?
And if you do communicate the parameters of the operation you have to trust the Chinese not to warn the NK regime...

And even if you finesse this with the Chinese, then you're still left with the NK response which is likely to be nuclear strikes, artillery bombardment of Seoul and an attempted invasion by the NK army ... Why do we know they would do this? Because they've said they would do this....
And there is no evidence to support the notion that they would react in any other fashion. Just wishful thinking.


Fate
It's so simple, even you ought to understand it. Anyone employed by the NK regime is a liar. Liars lie.

You should be easily able to point to evidence that he is lieing then...
When Baghdad Bob lied about how well the war was going in Iraq, correspondents could point to observable events that showed he was lying.
When your President constantly lies about easily observable facts, he is easy to prove as a liar.
What this NK Minister has said is
“Should the US pounce upon the DPRK with military force at last, the DPRK is ready to teach the US a severe lesson with its strategic nuclear force


Where are the easily observable facts that PROVE he is lying?

You have none.As per usual for you, its all your unsupported deductions and assumptions .
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Sep 2017, 9:17 am

rickyp wrote:Where are the easily observable facts that PROVE he is lying?

You have none.As per usual for you, its all your unsupported deductions and assumptions .


Again, I'll make it easy for you, even though you'll play the role of Pyongyang Patty: so far, we've no evidence they can hit the US with a nuclear weapon. So, when he says:

Should the US pounce upon the DPRK with military force at last, the DPRK is ready to teach the US a severe lesson with its strategic nuclear force


He's lying.

When someone makes a threat they cannot carry out, they're lying. See? Not difficult.
Last edited by Doctor Fate on 11 Sep 2017, 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Sep 2017, 11:28 am

There always a certain level of uncertainly in war and in diplomacy. You don't know how Kim Jong Un would react to us shooting down a missile or attacking a missile base any more than I do. The best we can do is to try to figure out what he will do.

We know that he wants to stay in power. We also know that China could undermine his regime by cutting off fuel and food supplies. I believe if he is reacting rationally both he and China would not view a single strike designed to stop a missile test as being part of regime change. Because if we were going to do that we would be making numerous strikes and probably try to target him. So both he and China would presumably see a single strike for what it is. So how would China and Kim react?

I would think that China would put extreme pressure on Kim to not escalate the situation. I would imagine he would not want to escalate, given that he is not likely to survive a war. On the other hand, both he and China want to save face and he probabltly still wants to continue development of an ICBM. So perhaps there would be some kind of limited attack on SK to save face. I am not sure what would happen there. But it does not make sense that he would choose an irrational option--starting a general war--especially under extreme pressure from the Chinese.

So it's not wishful thinking. It's trying to game plan what would likely happen factoring in that he has uncertainty about our intentions. But if he's rational he would not start a general war because we are interfering with his missile testing. If he's irrational...why the heck would we allow him to develop ICBM so he could hit us with nukes?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Sep 2017, 5:16 pm

freeman3
But if he's rational he would not start a general war because we are interfering with his missile testing
.
And of course there's absolutely no risk that NK might not react like the aggressive act against them was limited?
The risk reward you contemplate is based only upon the most optimistic outcomes of dangerous gambles.
At the same time the action that offers the greatest reward is NOT to be the first aggressor. There is a potential for a peaceful coexistence and even a peaceful settlement if patient diplomacy is followed.
And the risk is virtually the same as if the US and SK are the aggressors.


fate
When someone makes a threat they cannot carry out, they're lying. See? Not difficult.

And the evidence that they absolutely cannot launch a nuke into South Korea, Japan or Guam?
Is already assumed that NK artillery would kill millions in South Korea before they were neutralized. If at all.

Or perhaps you don't care about the lives of millions of South Koreans or Japanese?

Here's some insight from North Korea's past actions.

"If you follow North Korean media you constantly see bellicose language directed against the US and South Korea and occasionally Japan is thrown in there, and it's hard to know what to take seriously. But then when you look at occasions where something really did happen, such as the artillery attack on a South Korean island in 2010, you see there were very clear warnings," Professor John Delury at South Korea's Yonsei university told the BBC.
The North consistently warned that military exercises being conducted in the area would spark a retaliation.
Mr Delury argues that misreading Pyongyang's intentions and misunderstanding its capabilities has kept the US and South Korea stuck in a North Korean quagmire.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21710644
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Sep 2017, 8:13 pm

Yes, yes...very incisive points. Now I see the light...

Comrade Rickovitch...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Sep 2017, 3:39 pm

freeman3
Now I see the light..


I doubt it.
You don't even see how the language you use in your arguement demonstrates how flimsy your position is...

freemans
I would think that
I would imagine
and he probably still wants
So perhaps
. I am not sure what would happen there.
it does not make sense that he would choose an irrational option


You communicate uncertainty with your language, and readily admit to an uncertain outcome.
BUT, Uncertainty is not a prod to action, especially when it could have the kind of potential damage that war with NK would cause.
Uncertainty is the most important reason to be patient and careful.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Sep 2017, 10:16 pm

Your position would allow an NK with ICBMs, an NK that would likely start to destabilize SK, and raise the risks of nuclear proliferation. That is unacceptable to me. Your position comes down to that if we something NK will go crazy and start a huge war. You minimize the risks of doing nothing. I think there is a way to manage the risks so that they are acceptable as long as all actors are rational. And if NK is that crazy to start a war when we do any military action...then better to deal with him now than later. Later..he could launch nuclear strikes against us.

The problem with appeasement in the 30s is that they tried to kick the risk down the road. They did not want to go to war...and so they avoided confronting Hitler, did not challenge him when he marched troops into the Rhineland and he could have been defeated and then made a deal with him that sold out Czechoslovakia--a country with extensive fortifications, a potent army with good tanks, and a a major arms factory that could have been a good ally against German aggression.

Here...we are dealing with a somewhat unstable, paranoid dictator who is doing his best to be able to launch nuclear strikes against us. Again...we are being asked to kick the risk down the road and hope that nothing bad happens.

The time for challenging him...is now.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Sep 2017, 10:04 am

rickyp wrote:fate
When someone makes a threat they cannot carry out, they're lying. See? Not difficult.

And the evidence that they absolutely cannot launch a nuke into South Korea, Japan or Guam?
Is already assumed that NK artillery would kill millions in South Korea before they were neutralized. If at all.

Or perhaps you don't care about the lives of millions of South Koreans or Japanese?


Here's what you quoted from NK's defense minister:

“Should the US pounce upon the DPRK with military force at last, the DPRK is ready to teach the US a severe lesson with its strategic nuclear force,” Ri said, using the acronym for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s formal name.


I take "teach the US" literally, since I'm supposed to believe what he says (according to you).

They can't hit the US yet.

For the record, I do value the lives of South Koreans and Japanese. I value them so much, I don't think we should let them be held hostage.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Sep 2017, 12:21 pm

Freeman3
You minimize the risks of doing nothing

I acknowledge that there is a risk in doing nothing.
NK might act first.
If Kim Jong Un is irrational.

The damage to the Korean Pennisula if Jong Un acts first, would be just about the same if he retaliates to a aggressive act. However China would not intervene whilst NK is being destroyed (as they have said through state media) and the war would not become a global conflict.