8
   

Is There A Good Reason to NOT Obliterate Pyongyang With Nukes Right Now?

 
 
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 05:45 am
@izzythepush,
I find that both easy to believe and saddening.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 05:53 am
@FBM,
Some people are worth engaging with, others are not. You fall into the latter category.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 05:56 am
@izzythepush,
The 'reasoning' part too much for you? I can understand and sympathize. Logic ain't easy. :console:
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 06:07 am
@FBM,
If you show any evidence of reasoning I'll let you know.

Don't hold your breath.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 06:10 am
@izzythepush,
Never got around to that "argumentum ad hominem" thing yet, I see. I wonder why all those philosophers spent all that time coming up with that long list of logical fallacies?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 07:52 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the idiots have restarted the war, we would end a 80 year old problem, and it would be a shot across the bow to China...ie win/win/win.

what is there a counter argument?

I think the argument against this type of preemptive strike is overwhelming. What is your argument for using a nuclear strike instead of other options like continued international pressure, cooperation with China, conventional weapons, etc?

If your argument is a preemptive strike prevents N. Korea from launching nucs, I think that fails because if you failed to destroy all of N. Korea's nucs, they would certainly retaliate, even if it was just a backpack nuc in Seoul. Getting the leadership would not be enough. Plus, in an interconnected economy, the ramifications of losing S. Korea and an active cold war between the US and China would devastate the world economy in general and the US economy in particular. Even if there was no negative impact on S. Korea, they would not view the deaths of their fellow Koreans as simply the cost of peace. There is no way the US comes out ahead in world opinion, no way the US economy isn't thrown into a massive tailspin and likely very little benefit. The calculus in N. Korea is pretty clear: sabre rattle all you want, maybe cause a border incident or two, no problems. Bomb anyone and the days of the current regime is limited. Nuc someone and N. Korea will cease to exist within the week with all the world's countries in complete agreement. N. Korea is not going to use a nuc and everyone knows it.

It seems the optimal strategy for the western world is to follow S. Korea's and Japan's lead in diplomacy and let N. Korea continue to piss off the Chinese. If we don't provide some reason for China to strengthen its ties to N. Korea, it will continue to deteriorate and further isolate Pyongyang.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 10:29 am
@engineer,
Quote:
If your argument is a preemptive strike ...
we are a war, and we have been screwing around with these bastards for more than half a century .....this would be ending a long running conflict.

Quote:
It seems the optimal strategy for the western world is to follow S. Korea's and Japan's lead in diplomacy....

this has been and will continue to be as effective as trying to correct the bad behavior of a three year old with logic based lectures. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Quote:
it will continue to deteriorate and further isolate Pyongyang.

there by assuring that they will place their energy into upping their terrorism game.....great plan.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 1 Apr, 2013 11:12 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
If your argument is a preemptive strike ...
we are a war, and we have been screwing around with these bastards for more than half a century .....this would be ending a long running conflict.

We aren't at war with N. Korea in anything but name.

hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
It seems the optimal strategy for the western world is to follow S. Korea's and Japan's lead in diplomacy....

this has been and will continue to be as effective as trying to correct the bad behavior of a three year old with logic based lectures. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

I am happy with the results so far. 50+ years of relative peace on the Korean peninsula works for me. When the S. Koreans complain let me know. They are the ones with all the stakes in the game. The US doesn't have an interest here other than to support Japan and S. Korea. If they are happy with how relations are going, why would we ignore their wishes?

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
it will continue to deteriorate and further isolate Pyongyang.

there by assuring that they will place their energy into upping their terrorism game.....great plan.

Their "terrorism game" is pretty lame and they also have China to please. In the big picture, we (the rest of the world) are winning our conflict with N. Korea. They are alienating their friends and improverishing their country without any victories to show for it. Your proposal turns them into sympathetic victims and puts them back into the game. That doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 02:43 pm
@izzythepush,
Well, which is it? Devil's Advocate or representative of Chinese and Russian opinion?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 02:57 pm
There is no good reason at all to use nukes to obliterate Pyongyang.

The "good" reasons not to can make a long list.

Now, the question of whether or not we should use conventional weapons to obliterate Pyongyang is something else.

Alas, I still come down on the side of "NO."

What we should do, if at all possible, is to fund the assassination of the Lard Leader and as many of his cronies as possible.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 03:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
A vision of possible consequences.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Apr, 2013 03:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
What we should do, if at all possible, is to fund the assassination of the Lard Leader and as many of his cronies as possible.


Lard leader is surrounded by generals who want to make the military even more possible. One of them will step in and have to react with a show of force. Maybe a suitcase nuke.

The best action is pretty much what's happening now.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 02:31 am
I can't tell from this article whether the Chinese army is massing along the NK border to help NK or to defend itself against a mass exodus:

Quote:
Chinese Troops Mass Along Border with N.Korea

The Chinese Army has been on standby since March for an emergency by massing troops and fighter jets at the border with North Korea, the Washington Times quoted a U.S. government official.

China's official Global Times carried the story prominently on Wednesday.

Chinese warships conducted live-firing drills in the West Sea, where South Korean and U.S. forces were engaged in a joint annual exercise, the daily said.

But Chinese military activities were concentrated in Jilin Province, which shares the longest border with the North. Forces were reportedly ordered to raise the alert status to the highest level on March 19.

"Large groups of soldiers were seen on the streets in Ji'an, a city in Jilin, amid reports that the [Army] had been ordered to combat readiness status," the daily added. "Heavy armored vehicles, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, were reported moving near the Yalu [Apnok] River that separates China from North Korea."

A diplomatic source in Beijing said, "Whenever the crisis deepened on the Korean Peninsula, since the North's second nuclear test in 2009, China has reinforced its troops along the border. Amid escalating threats from North Korea, it's highly likely that Army has moved troops from the Shenyang Military Region," which is in charge of the border.


http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/04/04/2013040401314.html
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:04 am
@FBM,
On the BBC last night there was a report from S. Korea. They all seemed pretty relaxed, this is nothing they haven't heard before.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:12 am
@izzythepush,
Yeah, not many people get very worked up over NK's rhetoric. On the other hand, my students usually avoid the topic because it's too boring, but this week students brought it up without my inquiring. One said she had nightmares about it and the other said she thinks SK women should be prepared to do support services like cooking and nursing in the event of war. I was surprised. In the past 15 years, I can't recall students ever bringing up the topic on their own.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:14 am
@FBM,
Do you think what's happening now is the best response?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:17 am
I get the feeling that this is not about attacking America/S Korea, but deterring an incursion and making him look tough and decisive at home.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:18 am
@izzythepush,
Tough one, man. I'm not confident in either the news I've been getting or any government in general. At this particular moment, I can't think of anything better.


That said, I think one or another POTUS should have agreed to a summit with the head Kim at the time. NK is mostly after international recognition by the global powers that be. They would be willing to do a lot towards solving their human rights abuses in order to get that. I don't think any Western power is really so fervently anti-communist these days that they would refuse to do business with NK just because of their political system. We do business with China, after all. And you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:24 am
@FBM,
I think you're right.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Apr, 2013 04:29 am
@izzythepush,
It's this stupid system in the US. If a prez sits down with a NK Kim, his political opponents are going to rake him over the coals for negotiating with terrorists or some such rhetoric. Any US prez could sit down with a NK Kim and lead him by the hand to get rid of the concentration camps, which in my opinion, is highest priority. Nuclear disarmament would naturally follow from the increased security achieved through the nurturing of a collaborative relationship, rather than a combative one. Freed of the expense of supporting a million-strong military, the people could be fed.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 03:35:34