“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
Challenge Mode : Play WoW like my disability has me play:
You will need two people, Brian MUST use the mouse for movement/looking and John MUST use the keyboard for casting, attacking, healing etc.
Briand and John share the same goal, same intentions - but they can't talk to each other, however they can react to each other's in game activities.
Now see how far Brian and John get in WoW.
If we take the preemptive strike against them, that opens the doors for a war with China. I don't think anyone wants that.
Wait until the DPRK fires an ICBM at us, shoot it down. Then we can worry about taking out that fat fuck.
Until that happens this is a nonissue. Fatboy over there is just doing some saber rattling, as usual.
Artillery at those ranges is extremely foolish to disregard at any possible confrontation with NK even in modern times. They're within range to shell a major city with millions of people who've nothing to do with NK. Many thousands of innocents would die if NK went on the offensive from there.
But let's be clear why it's nuclear: the US would have to "cleanse" a very wide swath of North Korean territory of artillery in a very short amount of time. It's not like it could do some kind of methodical survellience / drone strike / bomb as they pop up thing over a period of days or weeks. Time would be the enemy, and North Korea's success rate would be rather low. If even 1% of North Korea's artillery managed to fire, and it included chemical weapons in the shells, it would be the largest chemical warfare attack since probably the First World War.
There is just no replacing the speed + efficiency in which a nuclear weapon would destroy several square miles of potential hardened North Korean artillery bunkers.
This is why the US is putting THAAD near Seoul (it's not there yet). But what South Korea could use is what Israel has to defend against cheap rockets, artillery and mortars from Hamas / Hezbollah - Iron Dome. THAAD would defend against a ballistic missile, but what would destroy Seoul would be something much smaller.
Of course they didn't want to do it: They didn't want to intervene in Libya, they didn't want to intervene in Syria even in 2013 and I'm fairly certain they played an important role in ensuring that Obama's red line would not be enforced because the result of enforcement would have been worse.
But that's the issue. Hillary was told of this by Chris Wallace in the third debate and asked what she'd do: She maintained her stance of wanting do it.
Doing it would have been a disaster: Russia knows the US public sure as hell doesn't want another Middle Eastern intervention and they know the US military isn't to keen on it so they wouldn't have backed off so easily. I am fairly certain it would have sparked a major international crisis that could have escalated to a full blown war. That's because Putin has both the Russian military and public on his side. Hillary wouldn't have.
"Life is one long series of problems to solve. The more you solve, the better a man you become.... Tribulations spawn in life and over and over again we must stand our ground and face them."
The only military action you can take against NK is no-flag special forces missions, where you hope they buy your plausible deniability story or bribe them if it goes south.
Anything more overt then that just has to many risks involved.
im sorry but do you think a arty peice from the 40s cant fire on a fixed allready ranged position with effect? If you think this your fooling yourself, it doesnt take much if you allready have the range and position of your target, and they would just be going for max damage with w/e they can strap onto the end of a shell. And its not hard to conceal them as the barrel just needs to be exposed when fired. Just because they have aging artillery peices doesnt mean that cant fuck up that entire city.
- - - Updated - - -
If they drop chemical agents with no notice then those bunkers will be a inch to far.
yeah, it's totally feasible to evacuate 10 million people from a densely populated area in under thirty minutes.
dude. this isn't some episode of 24, or an action movie where some daring hero gets the codes and knocks the missiles out of the sky(also doesn't happen) these are artillery shells. You fire it, it's out and someone on the other end is about to die. takes about 10 seconds to fire the old style ww2 pieces twice. and they have 10,000 of unknown make and model. aimed at a major population center. loaded with chemical agents, high explosives, incendiary shells, whatever they can get their hands on that will cause the most damage.
you miss even 1%(an appallingly high success rate on taking them out) and that's 100 shells, every 10 seconds. faster if they've gotten any new toys from china.
The literal point is that you cannot possibly, with 100% certainty take all of them out within the time frame without collapsing the whole peninsula into the sea.
I know you're so far away that you can't even begin to think of the consequences. so let's put it in terms you can understand. your quaint little town in "Jolly 'ol England" yeah? oops, local shoe shop's gone. public transit just got hit with nerve gas, little suzie is choking her last breaths out while papa desperately tries to claw his way over because he's missing a leg and bleeding out fast. Oh, there goes your favorite pub, and all your day-drinking chums. The lucky ones died from the explosive and/or shrapnel wounds. the rest are being crushed to death by the rubble. those apartments the old timers were all pissed about being put up because it ruins the picturesque quaintness? They took some incendiary shells. People are running, screaming, trying to save who or what they can. Jokes on them because almost every road now has holes the size of a small pond so good luck getting out by car or getting help in. And there's the reload. adjust a little to the left or right for greater collateral damage, fire volley two.
I know you like to think the world is a place where the hero will win when the chips are down, but the reality is that there was never a hero in the first place.
You know this is the only real military action that I would support the US with.
North Korea is the only country in the world that has blatantly stated its intent to wage war on the west even going so far as to damage its people mentally, potentially destroying an entire generation of secular thinkers.
Yeah I would support military action against North Korea. I'm surprised and angered that nothing has been done about it yet.
It's like America is terrified to pit its army against actual modern tech, instead of penniless sand people.
A much better approach than a full scale war is the one which South Korea planned to implement back in 70-s-to-90-s, when they were training suicide squads for infiltrating the North Korean military and assassinating the leader and the key governmental officials at the convenient moment. Do that and then, using the chaos, start an aggressive information war: radio broadcasts, jamming of the governmental information sources, dropping informational papers and books from the sky... Turn the people themselves against the government.
That's really the only way of permanently dealing with such regimes without rivers of blood: win an information war and make the oppressed people see the reality of their situation. And without a functioning government for a period able to resist that war, you can succeed. And then you will reap the benefits of such victory, as people, unlike what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, will actually understand why they were in that mess to begin with and rebuild their society in a better, modern way.