The Forthcoming War With North Korea

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
I don't understand this pre-emptive strike zero sum game thinking. Wasn't this tried with the Soviet Union in the Cold War? Wasn't the conclusion that pre-emptively striking someone just causes that person to lash out and not the desired effect of pushing back from the table and honourably negotiating a truce and accepting a loss?

Mike Pence is in Seoul this coming weekend so I doubt they'd want to start their pre-emptive strike before that.

I remember in a 60 Minutes episode a month or two ago they showed some general that transferred over from the Iraq or Afghanistan front getting the US troops ready. He said they had all the targets in North Korea sighted so it's just a matter of pressing a button. Of course, the North Koreans have their artillery and rockets all aimed too including the urban centres of South Korea.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
"On display for the first time were what appeared to be the Pukkuksong submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), which have a range of more than 1,000 km (600 miles)."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39604361

They have submarines or they just have submarine launched missiles? I didn't know they had submarines.
 

QuandoDio

Well-Known Member
Messages
719
Ratings
1,275
I don't understand this pre-emptive strike zero sum game thinking. Wasn't this tried with the Soviet Union in the Cold War? Wasn't the conclusion that pre-emptively striking someone just causes that person to lash out and not the desired effect of pushing back from the table and honourably negotiating a truce and accepting a loss?

Mike Pence is in Seoul this coming weekend so I doubt they'd want to start their pre-emptive strike before that.

I remember in a 60 Minutes episode a month or two ago they showed some general that transferred over from the Iraq or Afghanistan front getting the US troops ready. He said they had all the targets in North Korea sighted so it's just a matter of pressing a button. Of course, the North Koreans have their artillery and rockets all aimed too including the urban centres of South Korea.
Pretty much this. Trump and his advisors seem to be wilfully ignorant.

Bannon is a kook but doesn't chime in with his brand of economic nationalism and anti-islam schtick.
 

Lord Buckley

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,940
Ratings
966
Pre-emptive strikes are completely rational against an irrational foe, particularly one led by a sociopath/mad man or one taking orders from a supernatural deity with an insatiable appetite.
 

QuandoDio

Well-Known Member
Messages
719
Ratings
1,275
Pre-emptive strikes are completely rational against an irrational foe, particularly one led by a sociopath/mad man or one taking orders from a supernatural deity with an insatiable appetite.
Yeah, that has worked well in Iraq.

Foe? Really ? Axis of evil claptrap here.

Oh, and what if the one doing the striking is guilty of aforementioned: Blair/Bush/ Trump (No child of God nonsense...)
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,916
Ratings
9,428
President Chimp and his acolytes are running face first into the reality there are no bilateral relations in the world. Its always a laugh to hear how these people are going to make these great bilateral trade deals. The reality is there are always many interested parties and there will be a reaction from several other nations. If anyone thinks that we are just gonna bomb North Korea and China will stand by and say whatevs, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

That said, I'd support a pre-emptive strike on the Westboro Baptist Church, much like I support above ground nuclear testing at Myrtle Beach.
 

Lord Buckley

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,940
Ratings
966
Yeah, that has worked well in Iraq.

Foe? Really ? Axis of evil claptrap here.

Oh, and what if the one doing the striking is guilty of aforementioned: Blair/Bush/ Trump (No child of God nonsense...)
Iraq was an illegal war for the benefit of war profiteers. End of story.

What I am talking about is hot pursuit, against the same enemy then as now. What else would I be promoting?
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
Profiteering? What is there to profit from a war with North Korea? Aren't they broke? With Iraq there was the allure of oil. Afghanistan offered opium. Libya - oil, Gaddafi's women and his golden gun, but North Korea would offer the US and its coalition of the willing...? More coal that most of us are trying to stop using?

The only profiteering I can see is we fired off 1000 cruise missiles, used our missile shield, 50 tactical nuclear weapons, and burnt 1m litres of jet fuel so Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Exxon please process the next purchase order. Perhaps in the collateral fallout, the Samsung headquarters will be damaged so Apple can sell more iPhones because the Galaxy S8 isn't hitting the market in force. America First.
 

viaattovannucci

No Custom Title
Messages
1,375
Ratings
2,128
Profiteering? What is there to profit from a war with North Korea? Aren't they broke? With Iraq there was the allure of oil. Afghanistan offered opium. Libya - oil, Gaddafi's women and his golden gun, but North Korea would offer the US and its coalition of the willing...? More coal that most of us are trying to stop using?

The only profiteering I can see is we fired off 1000 cruise missiles, used our missile shield, 50 tactical nuclear weapons, and burnt 1m litres of jet fuel so Raytheon, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Exxon please process the next purchase order. Perhaps in the collateral fallout, the Samsung headquarters will be damaged so Apple can sell more iPhones because the Galaxy S8 isn't hitting the market in force. America First.
It is not necessarily the spoils of an ultimate conquest, but the perpetual activity of global war that rakes in the profits. That is the definition of war profiteering LelandJ LelandJ had in mind, I believe.
 

prince nez

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
2,723
Ratings
7,978
Also - the "forthcoming" war with North Korea is terminologically incorrect as we are already technically at war with them. The current state of affairs is a truce - there was no armistice signed after the Korean War.

So I guess Trump doesn't need Congressional approval to "declare" war on the Norks - he can just resume hostilities?
 

doghouse

King Of The Elite Idiots
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
9,916
Ratings
9,428
Also - the "forthcoming" war with North Korea is terminologically incorrect as we are already technically at war with them. The current state of affairs is a truce - there was no armistice signed after the Korean War.

So I guess Trump doesn't need Congressional approval to "declare" war on the Norks - he can just resume hostilities?
Well, the South is at war with them. We are just allies.
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,963
Ratings
4,534
Pre-emptive strikes are completely rational against an irrational foe, particularly one led by a sociopath/mad man or one taking orders from a supernatural deity with an insatiable appetite.
If you are advocating we bomb the globalist Vatican on Easter, I gotta say, you've got style.
 

Lord Buckley

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,940
Ratings
966
Looks like Kimmy's ICM capability is literally powered by sparklers and blow football straws. I suppose the question is this: is it acceptable for North Korea to have a nuclear warhead that can hit the Hawaiian islands or the West Coast of the USA? The answer to that will tell you what to do next.

Probably the best way, would be a precise strike against him and his entourage. Get him when he's having his bi-weekly purge and he has some poor bureaucrats lined-up so he can test his latest gatling gun. Then you still have to deal with the brain washed people of the North, but with them screaming and crying like professional Egyptian mourners whose Pharaoh has just died, you will likely get them at their weakest point.
 

fxh

OG Party Suit Wearer
Supporter
Messages
6,039
Ratings
5,847
Trump is on a winner here.

North Korea with bomb the shit out of Seoul killing millions of pro USA and relatively progressive South Koreans.

South Koreans will invade North. China will send a few rockets over Taiwan. North Korea will send suicide troops into South and cause havoc. North will have a pop at Japan outer islands with few ICBMs. Russia will think they have to strut their stuff otherwise been seen as non macho. Should be a good chance for ISIS to step up their game in a few places - shit - anywhere really - as usual.
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,388
Ratings
3,928
It seems the real reason (other than still remembering what happened in the Korea war) why North Korea wants a nuclear bomb is to save money and fence off the annual threat of US/ South Korean manoeuvres during harvesting time, when everyone is needed on the fields (NK has a military service).
NK and China have offered (repeatedly) to reduce NK weapons in return for SK and US stopping their annual exercises (which are also a threat to China, I guess, an offer that was turned down again and again).
Also, there is very little known about the country, all the info we get are from our trusted leaders and their MSM.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
"H.R. McMaster indicated that Trump was not considering military action for now.

'It's time for us to undertake all actions we can, short of a military option, to try to resolve this peacefully,' he said on ABC's This Week.

He said the president has asked the national security council to integrate the efforts of the Defence and State departments and U.S. intelligence agencies to develop options..."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/pence-south-korea-1.4072222

Should we pin our hopes on Manton to take us back from nuclear brink?
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,989
Ratings
13,859
what other options are there? aren't they already under a ton of sanctions? is he talking about pressuring the chinese into stopping their tacit support for them?
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,989
Ratings
13,859
American Media Are Getting People at Home Ready for War With North Korea


Remember what it felt like a couple of months ago when you, as an American, didn’t give much thought to North Korea? I’d like you to try and remember that feeling over the next couple of weeks, because the US government wants that to change. The past month has shown a tremendous shift in news coverage about North Korea. And that’s no accident.


President Donald Trump continues to beat the drums of war, and the media are going along with him. Trump doesn’t have any particular incentive to bomb North Korea or advocate for regime change in the country. It’s not even clear that Trump knows the leader of North Korea’s name. But Trump is above all a man who likes to be liked. And so far, the actions that have won him the most praise have been when he dropped a bunch of bombs on Syria.

Some talking heads on American TV will insist that we don’t want war. But with a subtle shift in narrative, there comes a sense that “we,” as the world’s police, have no other choice. Once the media talking heads get far enough down that road, constructive criticism of potential war (both at the dinner table and the water cooler) become loaded with questions of “well, if you love North Korea so much, why don’t you move there?”


And just as we saw in the lead up to the second Iraq War in 2003, American military action will begin to feel inevitable. Talks about diplomatic options will be brushed away with “we tried that” and there will be no other course but war.

Then come the slogans: These colors don’t run. Love it or leave it. Liberate Iraq. Or, in this case, Liberate North Korea. And no matter how many times you insist that while you would love to see Kim Jong-un ousted yet don’t want to see war, you will be called a naive traitor—maybe even that greatest of insults, unAmerican—who doesn’t understand how the real world works.

Can North Korea strike the US?
All you need to do is open up the New York Times to see the shift in how Americans now talk about the North Korean threat. In a story published last night, we’re told that there’s a growing sense of urgency, with the headline, “As North Korea Speeds Its Nuclear Program, U.S. Fears Time Will Run Out.”

Behind the Trump administration’s sudden urgency in dealing with the North Korean nuclear crisis lies a stark calculus: a growing body of expert studies and classified intelligence reports that conclude the country is capable of producing a nuclear bomb every six or seven weeks.

By the third paragraph the story is already imagining a hypothetical strike against a US city, in a scenario that we’ve heard off and on since the late 1990s whenever it’s politically expedient:


Now those step-by-step advances have resulted in North Korean warheads that in a few years could reach Seattle. “They’ve learned a lot,” said Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, from 1986 to 1997, and whom the North Koreans have let into their facilities seven times.

And it wouldn’t be the last time that the article cites this outrageous hypothetical that North Korea could strike US cities. The New York Times even drops in the possibility of North Korea hitting New York “one day.”

Unless something changes, North Korea’s arsenal may well hit 50 weapons by the end of Mr. Trump’s term, about half the size of Pakistan’s. American officials say the North already knows how to shrink those weapons so they can fit atop one of its short- to medium-range missiles — putting South Korea and Japan, and the thousands of American troops deployed in those two nations, within range. The best estimates are that North Korea has roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles in eight or so varieties.

But fulfilling Mr. Kim’s dream — putting a nuclear weapon atop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach Seattle or Los Angeles, or one day New York — remains a more complex problem.

Again, this might be a good time to pause and think about your feelings on North Korea a few months ago. Was the country an existential threat to you then? If you’re feeling more inclined to support a preemptive war against North Korea, as Trump has said is now a very real possibility, what changed? Was it reading an article that said North Korea could one day, possibly, maybe hit the United States with a nuclear weapon?

An easy win against an inferior enemy?
Or, take this story from Fox News published yesterday. We’re told that military victory in North Korea would be easy, according to “experts.”


If tensions between the U.S. and North Korea reach the point where America uses its mighty air power against the rogue nation, it won’t be much of a battle, experts told Fox News.

In recent weeks, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has warned that all options “are on the table” should the communist dictatorship continue to threaten its neighbors and the U.S. Vice President Mike Pence echoed that sentiment, saying “North Korea would do well not to test [President Trump’s] resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”

If that strength includes U.S. airpower, North Korea’s antiquated Korean People’s Army Air Force (KPAAF) wouldn’t be able to put up much of a fight.

If you’re old enough to remember the invasion of Iraq in 2003, you’ll recall that Americans were also sold on the idea that victory would be easy. Notably, the piece never mentions or considers what happens after you “defeat” an enemy like Iraq or North Korea.


Number of mentions of civilian casualties in the Fox News article? Zero. Number of mentions of the inevitable humanitarian crisis? Zero. Number of mentions of the likely counterinsurgency campaign that could last untold numbers of years? Zero.

North Korean men and women walk along a residential area in Pyongyang, North Korea on April 25, 2017 (AP Photo/Eric Talmadge)
At least we haven’t gotten to the part yet where Americans are being told that North Koreans will welcome us as liberators. They said that about Iraq, and it turned out to not be the case—in a very major way.


In North Korea, every person is taught from childhood that the United States and Japan are the most evil countries on the planet. Something tells me that North Korea’s standing army of 1.3 million troops won’t greet American or Japanese forces as liberators. Even if North Korea’s elite dictatorship were wiped away with a magic wand tomorrow, it’s difficult to predict how the populace would react.

Selling the war
In order for the United States to strike North Korea, the Trump regime hypothetically needs buy-in from three places: the international community, Congress, and the American people.

When it comes to the international community, Trump has more or less gotten permission to do whatever he wants from allies like Australia and Japan. In fact, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is expected to meet face-to-face with Donald Trump for the first time as early as next week. The temporary caretaker government in South Korea doesn’t want war, but it’s easier than ever for Trump to push them around, at least until elections are held on May 9th. And State Department Secretary Tillerson is reportedly charing a special meeting of the UN Security Council on Friday.


“The meeting will give Security Council members an opportunity to discuss ways to maximize the impact of existing Security Council measures and show their resolve to respond to further provocations with appropriate new measures,” a State Department spokesperson said yesterday.

As for Congress, they’re going to get the hard-nosed sales pitch from the Trump regime this week. All one hundred US Senators are meeting at the White House on Wednesday morning for a classified briefing by Defense Secretary Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford, State Department Secretary Rex Tillerson, and the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. A similar briefing is being planned for members of the House.


And lastly, there’s the American public, who need to be persuaded that North Korea is a threat to the American way of life through the media. Again, we’re seeing that happening in real time as news stories that are eerily reminiscent of past wars rear their ugly head.

I don’t know the future. I have no idea if the United States is going to invade North Korea or drop bombs on Kim Jong-un’s brutal regime. But the stars are aligning this week for a slick sales job, just as we saw in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. And that should scare the hell out of anyone who believes that the US and its allies have very little to gain and a lot to lose by starting a war (nuclear or otherwise) on the Korean peninsula.


The next time you read a story about North Korea or see something about the country on TV, simply ask yourself what changed? Did North Korea become a tangible threat to the safety and security of the United States in just a few short months? Or are you being sold on the idea of a war?

If it’s the latter, and you were duped into believing that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a good idea, maybe take a moment to reflect on what we’re being sold today. The lives of a lot of people in South Korea, Japan, North Korea and maybe even the US and China depend on what we decide to do next.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
2003 Iraq? Does North Korea want to tempt that? Shock and awe baby, shock and awe.

That said I'm still not sure why the Australians are in the story. Honestly, isn't the distance for a missile with a nuclear warhead to Alaska and Seattle shorter than to the eastern part of the Australian continent?
 

fxh

OG Party Suit Wearer
Supporter
Messages
6,039
Ratings
5,847
2003 Iraq? Does North Korea want to tempt that? Shock and awe baby, shock and awe.

That said I'm still not sure why the Australians are in the story. Honestly, isn't the distance for a missile with a nuclear warhead to Alaska and Seattle shorter than to the eastern part of the Australian continent?
We like to feel important on the international stage - even though no one even knows where we are.
 

mrapp89

New Member
Messages
4
Ratings
2
There's a lot I don't know about that region, but NK's DMZ is supposedly the greatest concentration of a military on this our Earth. That includes a big, big minefield. Also, Kim keeps his daddy's tinydong missiles and big guns out in the open to impress his peasants and instill "readiness."

This is called Operation: taking advantage of a severely retarded child living a fairy tale. Sure, if Kim wanted first-strike, or to meet one in glorious battle, massing your munitions and millions of shittily equipped peasants at the river is good - in 1817. I don't see this becoming a Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq 2. Instead, this war is actually stacked in our favor to finish.

Now, China? I don't know. I don't suspect they'll interfere, but they may protest. The only reasons I say so are 1) this isn't Mao's China, they have no ideological kinship with NK anymore 2) China actually wants some regional stability, and it will throw NK to the wolves, just to achieve this. I'm also willing to bet SK is currently China's favored trade partner of the two, seeing as all they get from NK is coal and liability.

If SK takes the north, all the better, as they'll be the ones with a refugee crisis on their hands, and who knows if the peasants could actually be fed? Not to mention, you have all these medieval, stupid, unskilled masses - now what? It'd make shit lots easier for SK, if Kim orders his people be shot as he vainly tries to withdraw. It'll hurt SK to unite the peninsula, even if its for the best they do, so I think President Xi and his government in Bejing will be pleased.

I've only read article four:
https://www.stratfor.com/article/assessing-north-korean-hazard
 
Last edited:

OfficePants

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
9,933
Ratings
4,317
There's a lot I don't know about that region, but NK's DMZ is supposedly the greatest concentration of a military on this our Earth. That includes a big, big minefield. Also, Kim keeps his daddy's tinydong missiles and big guns out in the open to impress his peasants and instill "readiness."

This is called Operation: taking advantage of a severely retarded child living a fairy tale. Sure, if Kim wanted first-strike, or to meet one in glorious battle, massing your munitions and millions of shittily equipped peasants at the river is good - in 1817. I don't see this becoming a Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq 2. Instead, this war is actually stacked in our favor to finish.

Now, China? I don't know. I don't suspect they'll interfere, but they may protest. The only reasons I say so are 1) this isn't Mao's China, they have no ideological kinship with NK anymore 2) China actually wants some regional stability, and it will throw NK to the wolves, just to achieve this. I'm also willing to bet SK is currently China's favored trade partner of the two, seeing as all they get from NK is coal and liability.

If SK takes the north, all the better, as they'll be the ones with a refugee crisis on their hands, and who knows if the peasants could actually be fed? Not to mention, you have all these medieval, stupid, unskilled masses - now what? It'd make shit lots easier for SK, if Kim orders his people be shot as he vainly tries to withdraw. It'll hurt SK to unite the peninsula, even if its for the best they do, so I think President Xi and his government in Bejing will be pleased.

I've only read article four:
https://www.stratfor.com/article/assessing-north-korean-hazard
Unless there is massive carnage, it won't be much different than E and W Germany. I understand that there were many families split up, it's not as simple as 2 different populations, they are the same population.
 

InstaHate

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,963
Ratings
4,534
An additional 30 years apart, much greater ideological, economic, and social divides, and a lot more tension than what E and W Germany ever experienced.

Most South Koreans don't want reunification because of the massive economic headache which would ensue.

Whatever happens, I don't think a reunified Korea will be the outcome.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,839
Ratings
1,969
Uh oh..he's a smart cookie.

President Trump, asked what he made of the North Korean leader, answered:

"People are saying: 'Is he sane?' I have no idea.... but he was a young man of 26 or 27... when his father died. He's dealing with obviously very tough people, in particular the generals and others.

"And at a very young age, he was able to assume power. A lot of people, I'm sure, tried to take that power away, whether it was his uncle or anybody else. And he was able to do it. So obviously, he's a pretty smart cookie."
 
Top Bottom