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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 6:37 am

dag
It seems pretty clear that you are willing to simply live with a nuked up NK. Is that a fair assessment of what you've argued so far? That it would be better to live on the edge than to guarantee suffering and destruction?


The issue is, what is the alternative on offer? If NK does not respond to increased sanctions or diplomacy ... then the only option you seem to offer is military intervention.
Which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Korean peninsula. Perhaps much of Japan and even more...
If the alternative to living with a nuclear NK is that level of death and destruction....
Is it really the preferred alternative?

Put it this way, I believe, and from what I've read most military leaders in the US believe, that you cannot eliminate the threat of the destruction of the Korean peninsula militarily. No matter what level of strike is attempted, NK will still be able to retaliate and probably with nukes...

So what would a first strike by the US accomplish? To destroy the Korean peninsula in order to save it .... is illogical. (VietNam anyone?)
On the other hand I think that NK is as likely to use their nukes as a first strike option as any other nuclear nation. That is, NOT. I do think that having nuclear might embolden NK to attempt another type of military strike on SK .... but then it is important he understand that the response will be the same as if he uses nukes . The deterrence of total destruction seems to have worked with everyone else so far...
Why abandon the tried and true for virtually guaranteed results that mirror the outcome you are trying to avoid in the first place>?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20584
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 7:09 am

rickyp wrote:dag
It seems pretty clear that you are willing to simply live with a nuked up NK. Is that a fair assessment of what you've argued so far? That it would be better to live on the edge than to guarantee suffering and destruction?


The issue is, what is the alternative on offer? If NK does not respond to increased sanctions or diplomacy ... then the only option you seem to offer is military intervention.
Which will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Korean peninsula. Perhaps much of Japan and even more...
If the alternative to living with a nuclear NK is that level of death and destruction....
Is it really the preferred alternative?

Put it this way, I believe, and from what I've read most military leaders in the US believe, that you cannot eliminate the threat of the destruction of the Korean peninsula militarily. No matter what level of strike is attempted, NK will still be able to retaliate and probably with nukes...

So what would a first strike by the US accomplish? To destroy the Korean peninsula in order to save it .... is illogical. (VietNam anyone?)
On the other hand I think that NK is as likely to use their nukes as a first strike option as any other nuclear nation. That is, NOT. I do think that having nuclear might embolden NK to attempt another type of military strike on SK .... but then it is important he understand that the response will be the same as if he uses nukes . The deterrence of total destruction seems to have worked with everyone else so far...
Why abandon the tried and true for virtually guaranteed results that mirror the outcome you are trying to avoid in the first place>?


Round and round you go. It's simple:

If NK does not respond to sanctions, then there are two options:

1. Engage militarily. That *may* result in the massive consequences you cite, but it may not. We may be so successful that the damage is contained to mostly NK.

2. Live with it. That *may* result in portions of the US being wiped off the map. I'd suggest that an American President has to be primarily concerned with this and work to minimize the risk of it, even if the risk to our allies increases. That's his/her job.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 27 Sep 2017, 12:07 pm

Rickyp wrote:

So what would a first strike by the US accomplish?


My initial post was attempting to examine the morality of taking out Kim, not striking the nation necessarily. I'm curious as to what happens if he is removed. It's impossible for you to tell me what will happen based on your own arguments.

Rickyp wrote:

Why abandon the tried and true for virtually guaranteed results that mirror the outcome you are trying to avoid in the first place>?


You missed the point of my last post. Here's the answer to your question..

CRAZY QUOTIENT

That's the one ingredient you haven't dealt with in your arguments, though I've tried to underscore its importance to the calculus.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:10 pm

dag
My initial post was attempting to examine the morality of taking out Kim, not striking the nation necessarily


I don't know that, if Kim were some how assassinated ... that the reaction would be any different then if the nation were struck.
I think that assassinating him is largely a pipe dream. And that, in the incredibly unlikely event that it did occur, the consequences of doing so are more than likely the same as an invasion.Retaliation with the entire arsenal available to whomever takes over...
Morality? Killing him would be a good thing.... He is, if there is anything that can be described as such, evil.
However, The consequences? Probably terrible. (Unless he's done in by his own people ......)

Fate
1. Engage militarily. That *may* result in the massive consequences you cite, but it may not. We may be so successful that the damage is contained to mostly NK.

well, I've previously pointed to military analysts who say the pennisula would be destroyed. You engage in wishful thinking.

Fate
2. Live with it. That *may* result in portions of the US being wiped off the map. I'd suggest that an American President has to be primarily concerned with this and work to minimize the risk of it, even if the risk to our allies increases. That's his/her job.

First, the threat to the US is tiny. Second the threat to SK and Japan is enormous.
Second: The US has lived for decades under the threat of total destruction (from Russia or China).... You should be used to it. And every President since Kennedy has, I'm certain been primarily concerned with minimizing that risk. (Although I suspect Trump doesn't really comprehend...)
Since Kennedy, they have been successful without starting a war with either country.
That seems to me to be the one demonstrably positive outcome anyone can point to... and it should inform the current and future administrations about the most likely strategy to avoid nuclear conflagration or even a horribly destructive non-nuclear war.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20584
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:22 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
2. Live with it. That *may* result in portions of the US being wiped off the map. I'd suggest that an American President has to be primarily concerned with this and work to minimize the risk of it, even if the risk to our allies increases. That's his/her job.

First, the threat to the US is tiny.

What is the threat to Canada? Oh, none?

I see.

Second the threat to SK and Japan is enormous.


Yes, that's why it needs to be removed.

Second: The US has lived for decades under the threat of total destruction (from Russia or China).... You should be used to it. And every President since Kennedy has, I'm certain been primarily concerned with minimizing that risk. (Although I suspect Trump doesn't really comprehend...)


He's been the only jackass with enough common sense to realize leaving a madman with a nuclear weapon is a bad idea.

You are welcome to your ideas, but they all leave American lives in the hands of a nut--that bothers . . . Americans.

Since Kennedy, they have been successful without starting a war with either country.
That seems to me to be the one demonstrably positive outcome anyone can point to... and it should inform the current and future administrations about the most likely strategy to avoid nuclear conflagration or even a horribly destructive non-nuclear war.


Stop trying to compare normal people with insane ones. Please.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20584
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Sep 2017, 5:24 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
2. Live with it. That *may* result in portions of the US being wiped off the map. I'd suggest that an American President has to be primarily concerned with this and work to minimize the risk of it, even if the risk to our allies increases. That's his/her job.

First, the threat to the US is tiny.


What is the threat to Canada? Oh, none?

I see.

Second the threat to SK and Japan is enormous.


Yes, that's why it needs to be removed.

Second: The US has lived for decades under the threat of total destruction (from Russia or China).... You should be used to it. And every President since Kennedy has, I'm certain been primarily concerned with minimizing that risk. (Although I suspect Trump doesn't really comprehend...)


He's been the only jackass with enough common sense to realize leaving a madman with a nuclear weapon is a bad idea.

You are welcome to your ideas, but they all leave American lives in the hands of a nut--that bothers . . . Americans.

Since Kennedy, they have been successful without starting a war with either country.
That seems to me to be the one demonstrably positive outcome anyone can point to... and it should inform the current and future administrations about the most likely strategy to avoid nuclear conflagration or even a horribly destructive non-nuclear war.


Stop trying to compare normal people with insane ones. Please.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10738
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Sep 2017, 2:28 pm

Fate
You are welcome to your ideas, but they all leave American lives in the hands of a nut--that bothers . . . Americans.


Just to be clear,the nut, your talking about is Trump right?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20584
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Sep 2017, 3:17 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
You are welcome to your ideas, but they all leave American lives in the hands of a nut--that bothers . . . Americans.


Just to be clear,the nut, your talking about is Trump right?


Oh, my sides ache from the laughter.

You really don't get it. If those nukes were pointing at Toronto, you'd take it a little more seriously.

Then again, maybe mental illness is something that you're comfortable with.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1484
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 29 Sep 2017, 5:25 pm

It looks our intelligence community has enough evidence to believe that Bad Hair Cut #1 is planning to test another H Bomb in the Pacific. Probably not enough evidence for Rickyp.

When he does this, I am for taking him out. Not laying the country to waste mind you but taking him out personally. If NK responds after his removal with missiles fired at anyone, then we take those missiles out. If their army attacks SK, we take out their military. We hit them so hard and with such fury they see it's simply not worth it.

Rickyp, your position is flat out wrong.

This man is beyond crazy.