Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one.

If we knew everything that was going to happen, all the time, the Secretary of State would have an easy job. Generals too.

He's got much more to worry about than a coup if he attempts even an unsuccessful nuclear strike against a remote US territory.

 

I believe he has no intention of actually doing something. Its all BS.

But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like.

 

Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field.

Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field.

 

Yeah, totally agree. Truman PII. Even more justified. There would be no screwing around and reason to not is well documented for over 50 yrs.

 

Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field.

 

I think it was Balta who said that NK is holding SK hostage. Best analogy.

 

We can't make the first move without sacrificing a lot of lives, but we can't wait around either.

 

Best way for this to end is some James Bond s*** going down.

But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like.

Not to mention the millions of Korean lives.

Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one.

It's not your ass on the line here,sk doesn't seem as gung-ho for war as some Americans do.

Edited April 4, 201313 yr by StrangeSox

Even if numbnuts actually did unleash a non-nuke bomb or two, I doubt we would get to a land invasion, we'd bomb them into the stone age. I'd be shocked if the regime survived that. If he did shoot a nuke, we wouldn't see a land invasion for sure, as NK would be a glowing glass field.

Can't really complete an operation like this without ground troops

BTW unlike Iraq in this case the IC isn't pretending like it knows anything, and there's no officials in the administration right now trying to get them to bulls*** like they do. We know almost nothing except what can be seen from above and never have. Dennis Rodman knows more about Jong Un than the entire IC.

Sure, let's piss them off some more...

 

North Korea's Twitter and Flickr accounts hacked by Anonymous

Looks like they are/were planning on either a strike or another test, according to intercepted communication:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/k....html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Communications intercepts in recent days indicated that Pyongyang could be planning to launch a mobile ballistic missile in the coming days or weeks, the official said. It's unknown whether it would be a test or a strike.

The news emerged as South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin told a parliamentary committee in Seoul that the North has moved a medium-range missile to its east coast for an imminent test firing or military drill.

The missile doesn't appear to be aimed at the U.S. mainland, Kim said, according to the semi-official South Korean news agency Yonhap.

Looks like they are/were planning on either a strike or another test, according to intercepted communication:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/world/asia/k....html?hpt=hp_t1

This could be really interesting, the US might well be in position to shoot down whatever they test (or, alternatively, have the interceptor fail).

Can't really complete an operation like this without ground troops

Can't really send ground troops into a radioactive hole in the ground.

I believe he has no intention of actually doing something. Its all BS.

That's what everyone in the media seems to be saying, this is him blustering to try to strengthen his regime...but the worry everyone keeps saying is that he might not know where the red line is.

And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade.

And, like in any MAD situation, it's more likely that hostilities will break out due to one side miscalculating or misinterpreting the other and making a move for first-strike than because one side made a deliberate decision to invade.

Unless NK has hundreds of nukes and the capability to deliver them across the ocean, this isn't a MAD scenario. This is more like a "oooo look at the pretty glowing mountains" scenario.

Unless NK has hundreds of nukes and the capability to deliver them across the ocean, this isn't a MAD scenario. This is more like a "oooo look at the pretty glowing mountains" scenario.

A single one fired as Seoul or Tokyo is enough.

Yeah, MAD for Seoul, not the US.

Oh, if you mean Seoul, yeah that's different. They can't possibly do as much damage to the US as the US could do to them (within a couple of hours, if they wanted to)

Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line.

The problem with realpolitik is it assumes rational action on all parts -- I don't think the NK regime has credibility as a rational actor.

Which is exactly why I couldn't give two s***s about any American outrage and desire to bomb NK, because it's not really our asses on the line.

It should be a requirement that if you want the US to go to another war, you are obligated to permit, say, 5% more in income taxes to pay for it.

It should be a requirement that if you want the US to go to another war, you are obligated to permit, say, 5% more in income taxes to pay for it.

This one's fairly cheap. The price is a few missiles that we've already bought. There wouldn't be anything left on that peninsula to occupy.

I dont know how accurate this is...

 

Maybe they'll screw with everyone and launch something at Beijing. You know, something totally out of the blue.