Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if NK believes that they can launch a first strike and survive the retaliation. A few posters here mention WWII, but NK remembers the Korean war more. We almost literally bombed them back to the stone age yet they rose again.
I wonder if they think, well it worked once....
Trump was making his bellicose, empty threats against NK back on the campaign trail and now Kim Il Jong has called his bluff, as he knows Trump is a loudmouth who is all talk, no action. Thanks for escalating things you idiot.
I wonder if NK believes that they can launch a first strike and survive the retaliation. A few posters here mention WWII, but NK remembers the Korean war more. We almost literally bombed them back to the stone age yet they rose again.
I wonder if they think, well it worked once....
NK knows very well that if they launched anything towards the US they'd be reduced to radioactive ash within hours. Even a goof ball like Kim has no illusions about that.
He also knows that no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded.
We don't have to worry much about NK having a small nuclear capability. It makes for sensational over hyped media headlines, though. So, we'll hear about it ad nauseum.
If we attack North Korea, Seoul will be obliterated. North Korea has thousands of missiles aimed at Seoul. Hundreds of thousands will die. We have 40 thousand Americans near there. They will likely die too.
Not only would there be massive loss of life, it will wreck the global economy since South Korea is one of the world's top economies.
And this is the big sticking point for me. It's easy to say "better them than us," as one poster did. But it's personal to me. I have dear friends in Seoul, and the thought of them dying in a hail of missiles is, to put it mildly, deeply distressing to me.
And yet, if we do nothing, the problem will only get worse. Today, Seoul is at risk. Tomorrow, Tokyo is in the crosshairs. Next week, Honolulu is endangered. And next month, Los Angeles is the target. We can't just let North Korea getting away with more and more provocations.
I'm convinced that there are only two solutions. One, we make it worth China's while to stop supporting the Kim regime. How, I don't know. But if they withdraw their support, North Korea's tottering economy will completely collapse. The other solution is a preemptive strike that is so sudden, so by surprise, and so massively overpowering that Pyongyang would be a smoldering pile of rubble before they had time to push the "launch" button on their missiles.
Or three, we continuously give in to more and more blackmail, as the detestable Kim holds the Sword of Damocles over my friends in Seoul.
Pay me now or pay me later... And better Seoul than L.A. or Honolulu. Once Kim gets his nukes and ICBMs, Seoul and South Korea will be on borrowed time. The US will not be able/willing to stop them if the North decides to finish the war.
If we initiate war with North Korea to prevent the possibility of Kim Jong Un developing ICBMs, we will crush the global economy. We might even cause another Great Depression. South Korea will be devastated. Japan will certainly be negatively affected. The US would directly be the cause of this. But you think that's okay, because "better them than us?"
NK knows very well that if they launched anything towards the US they'd be reduced to radioactive ash within hours. Even a goof ball like Kim has no illusions about that.
He also knows that no nuclear armed nation has ever been invaded.
We don't have to worry much about NK having a small nuclear capability. It makes for sensational over hyped media headlines, though. So, we'll hear about it ad nauseum.
There is a distinct possibility that Kim thinks he can toss a nuke into SK or Japan and not face nuclear retaliation. NK using a nuke and the US using one are 2 different things. There may actually be a lot of worldwide pressure for the US not to use nukes in retaliation because that would be an escalation that might be hard to slow down.
I've read a lot of briefs on war game scenarios and unlike the movies where there is a large multi megaton exchange, the most likely scenarios are limited, even tactical, exchanges that get out of hand.
Kim may be running whole different scenario in his head which makes him dangerous.
And this is the big sticking point for me. It's easy to say "better them than us," as one poster did. But it's personal to me. I have dear friends in Seoul, and the thought of them dying in a hail of missiles is, to put it mildly, deeply distressing to me.
And yet, if we do nothing, the problem will only get worse. Today, Seoul is at risk. Tomorrow, Tokyo is in the crosshairs. Next week, Honolulu is endangered. And next month, Los Angeles is the target. We can't just let North Korea getting away with more and more provocations.
I'm convinced that there are only two solutions. One, we make it worth China's while to stop supporting the Kim regime. How, I don't know. But if they withdraw their support, North Korea's tottering economy will completely collapse. The other solution is a preemptive strike that is so sudden, so by surprise, and so massively overpowering that Pyongyang would be a smoldering pile of rubble before they had time to push the "launch" button on their missiles.
Or three, we continuously give in to more and more blackmail, as the detestable Kim holds the Sword of Damocles over my friends in Seoul.
There is no easy answer to the situation. Some posters are under-thinking the problem. An attack on Pyongyang would be a massive gamble. Maybe it would work. Or it could end up destroying both Koreas.
South Korea wouldn't support a strike because the risk is too great. It's doubtful Japan would want to get behind a preemptive strike either. So if we attack, we put the physical and economic consequences on two of our close allies. Whether this leads to full-scale war or not, it would severely hurt our ties with these nations.
There is no easy answer to the situation. Some posters are under-thinking the problem. An attack on Pyongyang would be a massive gamble. Maybe it would work. Or it could end up destroying both Koreas.
South Korea wouldn't support a strike because the risk is too great. It's doubtful Japan would want to get behind a preemptive strike either. So if we attack, we put the physical and economic consequences on two of our close allies. Whether this leads to full-scale war or not, it would severely hurt our ties with these nations.
Very true. NK has some 12,000 artillery tubes and 2300 MLRS and one has to figure most of that is or could quickly be pointed south. I just saw and interview with a US general in SK who estimated that we could degrade their capability at about 1% per hour. That is a long time to be living under that rain of hell fire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
