The difficulty of having either reform or revolt in North Korea.

[THE Bigzoman]

to the people citing costs as a reason to not interevene: I never want to see you advocate for any kind of domestic welfare policy ever again.


I'd expect it from the sino and japs. When it comes to Korea, china, and Japanese relations, they e always been petchulent children to each other.

[Kaleredar]

I continue to be amazed that people think Best Korea is a threat to the US army. The last time they fought in a war was when? The last time they fought us? They have no experience, inferior equipment, inferior strategy, and inferior moral standing. They are only a threat to their neighbors while we land.

Yeah and that's what the US thought about Vietnam and insurgents in the middle east.


While I do agree that North Korea bears practically no threat to the US proper, the US aren't the ones that would be suffering the blowback. Acting unilaterally reeks of the worst of the US' knee-jerk foreign policy decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, option three: Kick their asses, piss on their graves, then go home. We need to stop feeling guilty for winning wars. Just sayin...

In the absence of even the smallest amount of stability pre-war, you can't do any worse, and at least you remove the bad actor.

Who says they don't get replaced with something worse?

Deposing dictators in the middle east just opened the path for zealots to take over. And it's really easy for zealots to gain foothold when all they have to do is point at the trail of charred corpses left behind.

Remember the last time the US was supposed to be welcomed "As liberators?" That the US would have "the hearts and minds of the people?"


It's strange how many people you can turn against you when you're dropping bombs on their heads.

[NED funded]

If this is the plan, why invade in the first place? To replace North Korea by China?

I thought the fear was that if given enough time NK could possibly launch nukes against us or our allies. The only reason I see for rebuilding is to limit China, but IMO it's not worth the cost.

[sarahtasher]

Or, option three: Kick their asses, piss on their graves, then go home. We need to stop feeling guilty for winning wars. Just sayin...

In the absence of even the smallest amount of stability pre-war, you can't do any worse, and at least you remove the bad actor.

Again, no one doubt for a split second that the US would ''win'' against North Korea. (I sure hope so, considering the US spend around 100 times more than North Korea on defence...). However, not having any well thought plan for ''what we do after'' is what led to the disaster in Irak.

I know it's a baffling concept, but the idea is not to prove who is the more virile by invading a country (especially one that have minuscule means compared to the US). Invading and killing everyone does not work

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the fear was that if given enough time NK could possibly launch nukes against us or our allies. The only reason I see for rebuilding is to limit China, but IMO it's not worth the cost.

Then it's not worth the cost either to invade, isn'it ?

[Tijuana]

He's not entirely wrong. During the Vietnam War, where a large number of soldiers were DRAFTED into fighting. When those soldiers were finally able to come home they came home to a country that hated them, and they were ostracised for years.

As for North Korea, assuming there is a "war" and Kim gets outed. Would the rest of the Northerners know what to do with their sudden "freedom"? This is always the problem in these kind of situations. We have a country that is built on generations of following the orders, regardless of how crazy they are, of their leader. Now you tell them they can make their own choices...not an easy thing.

He could not be more wrong, because there was only ONE war, where the troops were treated poorly. He is ignoring all the other wars since WWII to fit his bizarre narrative.

[sarahtasher]

Or, option three: Kick their asses, piss on their graves, then go home. We need to stop feeling guilty for winning wars. Just sayin...

In the absence of even the smallest amount of stability pre-war, you can't do any worse, and at least you remove the bad actor.

Hello ISIS !

- - - Updated - - -

He could not be more wrong, because there was only ONE war, where the troops were treated poorly. He is ignoring all the other wars since WWII to fit his bizarre narrative.

Again, for the fourth time this thread, the US would win against North Korea relatively easily. That's not the issue. The issue is this would work or just cause yet another quagmire.

[Tijuana]

Hello ISIS !

- - - Updated - - -



Again, for the fourth time this thread, the US would win against North Korea relatively easily. That's not the issue. The issue is this would work or just cause yet another quagmire.

Is ISIS a bigger threat to the world, or is the Kim family? ISIS is a pest, no doubt. But, they have no capability to end the world as we know it.


Your second reply has NOTHING to do with my quote. What are you on about? We were speaking of how troops were treated post-war.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier, and it not being worth the time...

- - - Updated - - -

Again, no one doubt for a split second that the US would ''win'' against North Korea. (I sure hope so, considering the US spend around 100 times more than North Korea on defence...). However, not having any well thought plan for ''what we do after'' is what led to the disaster in Irak.

I know it's a baffling concept, but the idea is not to prove who is the more virile by invading a country (especially one that have minuscule means compared to the US). Invading and killing everyone does not work

- - - Updated - - -



Then it's not worth the cost either to invade, isn'it ?

You are quoting me without reading what I said. That is strange behavior to me. You seemed to have missed the last sentence....again.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah and that's what the US thought about Vietnam and insurgents in the middle east.


While I do agree that North Korea bears practically no threat to the US proper, the US aren't the ones that would be suffering the blowback. Acting unilaterally reeks of the worst of the US' knee-jerk foreign policy decisions.

- - - Updated - - -



Who says they don't get replaced with something worse?

Deposing dictators in the middle east just opened the path for zealots to take over. And it's really easy for zealots to gain foothold when all they have to do is point at the trail of charred corpses left behind.

Remember the last time the US was supposed to be welcomed "As liberators?" That the US would have "the hearts and minds of the people?"


It's strange how many people you can turn against you when you're dropping bombs on their heads.

Logic would dictate that you can do no worse than a crazy person who wants to destroy the world with nuclear weapons. Anything post war, that involves NOT ending the world with nuclear weapons, is an improvement. Even ISIS, since they don't have the ability to end the world, even if they would like to. Also, let's not pretend like ISIS is a result of the war, not a result of Obama policy. Furthermore, we DID REBUILD Iraq, and we still got ISIS. So...there is that.

[sarahtasher]

Is ISIS a bigger threat to the world, or is the Kim family? ISIS is a pest, no doubt. But, they have no capability to end the world as we know it.


Your second reply has NOTHING to do with my quote. What are you on about? We were speaking of how troops were treated post-war.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier, and it not being worth the time...

- - - Updated - - -



You are quoting me without reading what I said. That is strange behavior to me. You seemed to have missed the last sentence....again.

- - - Updated - - -



Logic would dictate that you can do no worse than a crazy person who wants to destroy the world with nuclear weapons. Anything post war, that involves NOT ending the world with nuclear weapons, is an improvement. Even ISIS, since they don't have the ability to end the world, even if they would like to. Also, let's not pretend like ISIS is a result of the war, not a result of Obama policy. Furthermore, we DID REBUILD Iraq, and we still got ISIS. So...there is that.

Surprisingly, rebuilding countries is way harder than destroying them. I would also say that bloodthirsty agressivity toward Arabs is incredibly inadequate in soldiers and officers tasked to rebuild a given country.

(That problem is not American : French found over and over that their soldiers that were good at killing ''insurgents'' (and countless civilians with them) tended to be the best recruiters for the insurgents too. So they had gung-ho regiments with prestige and respect doing combat and rear-guard regiments tasked with local security and helping civilians. Needless to say, the second type of outfits were widely mocked as ''social workers'' and ''nannies'', but the victories of the former were completely useless without the later.

[Tijuana]

Surprisingly, rebuilding countries is way harder than destroying them. I would also say that bloodthirsty agressivity toward Arabs is incredibly inadequate in soldiers and officers tasked to rebuild a given country.

(That problem is not American : French found over and over that their soldiers that were good at killing ''insurgents'' (and countless civilians with them) tended to be the best recruiters for the insurgents too. So they had gung-ho regiments with prestige and respect doing combat and rear-guard regiments tasked with local security and helping civilians. Needless to say, the second type of outfits were widely mocked as ''social workers'' and ''nannies'', but the victories of the former were completely useless without the later.

I don't know what you are on about. My point is fuck rebuilding them. Can anyone honestly say, that the world is a better place because we rebuilt Iraq? What was the point? I hope we never do it again. My stance is, don't go in unless they really deserve it, and then leave and let them sort it out. Maybe they will hate you forever, but they will think twice about acting up again. I just have zero faith ANYTHING is gained by rebuilding a nation bloodthirsty killers. The Iraqi people have no good will towards us. You cannot walk down their streets at night in a US military uniform, unarmed and alone. Fuck these people. They are not worth our blood and treasure.

[Spiffums]

Pretty sure we are out of that business for good. If we have to blow you up, it's on you to rebuild. Most of the places we would go to war these days, not much could be worse that what is now, so the power vacuum isn't as relevant as it was in Iraq. Take Syria for example. What's the worst that could happen? That a murderous dictator takes over and kills his own people with chemical weapons?

- - - Updated - - -



Can we get that whole thing started please? lol

Nope! They have to create the augments and have that war before WW3.....unless that got messed up in the movie reboot......then maybe we can lol

[Kaleredar]

I
Logic would dictate that you can do no worse than a crazy person who wants to destroy the world with nuclear weapons. Anything post war, that involves NOT ending the world with nuclear weapons, is an improvement. Even ISIS, since they don't have the ability to end the world, even if they would like to. Also, let's not pretend like ISIS is a result of the war, not a result of Obama policy. Furthermore, we DID REBUILD Iraq, and we still got ISIS. So...there is that.

And yet what aggression has North Korea ACTUALLY engaged in?

They talk a lot of big game but lack the capacity, or really, the reason, to act on it. They posture for their own people while keeping their noses clean enough to be allowed to run their own little 1984 society. I'm not saying they wont flare up if poked, but again... that "flare up" will be launched directly at South Korea. They'll bear the brunt of whatever aggression the US causes. Their current pursuit of long-range nuclear arms is basically a deterrent. They want to be a big kid on the world stage and what fancy nuclear weapons to make other countries take them seriously.

Meanwhile, ISIS causes strife both within the middle east and abroad, as did the Taliban and Al'Qaeda before them. Why? Because they're an ideology, not a country. Which is why they're also extremely hard to defeat, and why you can't force them to "capitulate" by just bombing the crap out of whatever location they're near.

I mean, talk about history repeating itself. What happened when the US last went in to a country to "liberate it" because it posed the threat of having WMDs? Was the US greeted as "liberators?" Has the US successfully washed its hands of that, or is it still embroiled in an extension of the fight tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and more than a decade, later?

So why in the hell would trying that exact same thing again suddenly "land the US in the free and clear?"

[Tijuana]

And yet what aggression has North Korea ACTUALLY engaged in?

They talk a lot of big game but lack the capacity, or really, the reason, to act on it. They posture for their own people while keeping their noses clean enough to be allowed to run their own little 1984 society. I'm not saying they wont flare up if poked, but again... that "flare up" will be launched directly at South Korea. They'll bear the brunt of whatever aggression the US causes. Their current pursuit of long-range nuclear arms is basically a deterrent. They want to be a big kid on the world stage and what fancy nuclear weapons to make other countries take them seriously.

Meanwhile, ISIS causes strife both within the middle east and abroad, as did the Taliban and Al'Qaeda before them. Why? Because they're an ideology, not a country. Which is why they're also extremely hard to defeat, and why you can't force them to "capitulate" by just bombing the crap out of whatever location they're near.

I mean, talk about history repeating itself. What happened when the US last went in to a country to "liberate it" because it posed the threat of having WMDs? Was the US greeted as "liberators?" Has the US successfully washed its hands of that, or is it still embroiled in an extension of the fight tens of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and more than a decade, later?

So why in the hell would trying that exact same thing again suddenly "land the US in the free and clear?"

It's my understanding they have 10 nuclear weapons. They may lack an ICBM, but anyone can put a bomb in a shipping crate. I sort of doubt an ISIS type regime would rise up after the fall of Best Korea. That ideology isn't really present there.

[Kaleredar]

It's my understanding they have 10 nuclear weapons. They may lack an ICBM, but anyone can put a bomb in a shipping crate.

But again, why would they do that?

Like I said, north Korea talks a big game, and they may lie through their teeth to their people, but I don't believe for a second that the people in charge in North Korea are dumb enough to think they're anything on the world stage. That's why they want the ability to project power. Basically, as a deterrent to be left alone and to be able to levy other countries to take them seriously.

An actual nuclear strike on another country would result in them basically ceding the fact that their country would be turned into a parking lot. They (the people in charge) know this.

I sort of doubt an ISIS type regime would rise up after the fall of Best Korea. That ideology isn't really present there.

All it takes is scudding a couple dozen schools and villages in accidental collateral and suddenly you have a lot of pissed off people. The people of North Korea might be starving and oppressed, but you know what the North korean government can always say to people who lost their homes and families to a drone strike? "At least you weren't dead. These invaders are killing you without thought or remorse." That kind of sentiment doesn't die easily, even after the resident government falls.

I mean, Vietnam didn't have a religious dogmatic sect like the middle east, but they sure as hell didn't just roll over when the United States came in guns blazing.

[Violent]

Nope, a few hundred casualties are not grievous costs. Trillions of dollars for the operation, however, are.

Sooo, let's not with NK, because of money.. But then what happens when a REAL power wants to go?? You say trillions for NK, Which, no, no it wouldn't be NEARLY that much. So what would that make the cost of say, China? Quadrillions?

You people should stop trying to scare others with big numbers and telling them it'll come out of their wallets.

And people wonder why they call Americans greedy...

Dude doesn't care about people. Just the bottom line.

[Tijuana]

But again, why would they do that?

Like I said, north Korea talks a big game, and they may lie through their teeth to their people, but I don't believe for a second that the people in charge in North Korea are dumb enough to think they're anything on the world stage. That's why they want the ability to project power. Basically, as a deterrent to be left alone and to be able to levy other countries to take them seriously.

An actual nuclear strike on another country would result in them basically ceding the fact that their country would be turned into a parking lot. They (the people in charge) know this.





All it takes is scudding a couple dozen schools and villages in accidental collateral and suddenly you have a lot of pissed off people. The people of North Korea might be starving and oppressed, but you know what the North korean government can always say to people who lost their homes and families to a drone strike? "At least you weren't dead. These invaders are killing you without thought or remorse." That kind of sentiment doesn't die easily, even after the resident government falls.

I mean, Vietnam didn't have a religious dogmatic sect like the middle east, but they sure as hell didn't just roll over when the United States came in guns blazing.

I completely reject the notion that Jihad ideology was created by anyone other than Muslims. It's a logical fallacy to blame the actions of one group on another. If we are responsible for their actions, then who would be responsible for ours?

[Gaaz]

Unless someone is willing to pay a very heavy human casualty toll, nothing can be done to NK. If you have access to nuclear weapons, even as primitive as is in their case (20% efficiency tops), making large strips of land uninhabitable is extremely easy. Like loading several kilos of cobalt into a nuclear missile levels of easy. MAS is definitely within North Korea's capability. Making South Korea a live Fallout 4 simulator is a question of around 100g of Cobalt 60. Granted, this way they are committing suicide as well, but that is what MAS is all about isn't it?
IMHO of course.

[Macaquerie]

Or, option three: Kick their asses, piss on their graves, then go home. We need to stop feeling guilty for winning wars. Just sayin...

In the absence of even the smallest amount of stability pre-war, you can't do any worse, and at least you remove the bad actor.

Ah, the good old Roman-style punitive campaign. Funny though, how they seemed to keep fighting those wars against the same enemies, despite "winning" all of them, and how each time they'd come back with a bloodier nose than the last.

[Tijuana]

Ah, the good old Roman-style punitive campaign. Funny though, how they seemed to keep fighting those wars against the same enemies, despite "winning" all of them, and how each time they'd come back with a bloodier nose than the last.

Comparing us to Rome is pretty silly, in that regard. We have never conquered anyone, except maybe the Native Americans. And even then, we have spent all the time since trying to make it up to them. Rome would have just hung them.

[Kaleredar]

I completely reject the notion that Jihad ideology was created by anyone other than Muslims. It's a logical fallacy to blame the actions of one group on another. If we are responsible for their actions, then who would be responsible for ours?

I'm not saying Jihadist ideologies didn't exist previously, but a bunch of people didn't one day go "you know what'd be great? To go kill ourselves trying to take out the US for no reason."

As far as Jihadists are concerned, it's pretty easy to sell their ideology of "the west hates you and Islam, and indiscriminately kill you and your family" when they can point to people from the west hating on Islam and indiscriminately killing people. It doesn't even matter if the Jihadists are doing more killing of innocent people than "western forces" are so long as they can sell their narrative to enough people to keep their numbers going.

Taking wide, sweeping scorched-earth action to fight rebellions and uprisings usually only serves to create more rebels. It's completely foolish to think the US can "roll in and stomp them out" when that sort of thing hasn't worked once in the past 70 years. Hell it didn't even work in Korea the first time.

[Nehezbegar]

Only if China and Russia decides to support the US in the removing Kim rule over NK. And that will never happen, since instantly China and Russia, in obvious case of US winning the battle, will have American bases near their borders, so they can not allow it at any cost. I tend to assume that China and Russia will again fight back Americans to protect NK and it will have very bad consequences.

But as always, i believe its just a talk and dick weaving to the world. But if its opposite, god bless the dead in South Korea, since the Seoul will be completly destroyed in this war, those couple of Thaad vehicles will not protect anything.

Sadly, always when the US tries to be the police of the world, and drop some democracy on other countries, not only the countries that felt the love of democracy demself suffers, but other countries too, for instance removing dictators from the middle east caused the Europe to take millions of immigrants from those areas. Same will be with the NK, the only nation that will suffer the most other than NK will be SK. NK cant do shiet to the US, but they can hurt a lot South Koreans.