 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
There will be no war.
What I'd frankly prefer is if we (USA) just said "fine, you want to build nukes while your people starve? Go ahead. But you will get nothing from us. Not a goddamned thing. Not a drop of oil. Not one bag of grain. Not a single penny."
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle/pandora's box is open. I think we ought to have the CIA/NSA/FBI/whatever agencies are responsible for it keep tabs on the possibility of proliferation to non-governmental organizations (Al-Quaida, etc.), and fund them well, but other than that, screw it. This whole blackmail situation is ridiculous.
North Korea has 1 trump card: nukes. That regime will never surrender them. Ever. It makes no sense for them to do so. Given that, I have no interest whatsoever in helping prop them up (food aid, fuel oil, money, whatever goodies they will demand this time - after that whole non-agression bit is dealt with). I say we just ignore them.
-Arrian |
they have more cards than the idea of them surrendering or using nukes. they also have the idea of them selling nukes OR missile technology. and of course, thousands of artillery pieces trained on seoul
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
The arty pieces, like the nukes, have an element of MAD to them. If they actually USE them, they will get obliterated. Therefore they won't. The regime wants to survive and be able to run it's little loony bin with cloned cheerleaders (see DanS's thread, it's ****ing scary), not get itself flattened by SK & the US.
It's the selling missle/nuke tech that's the worry. I agree it's a problem. Other states getting nukes? Not great, but not disasterous, because states will have the principle of MAD to deal with. It's the terror groups that worry me. The best way to keep them from getting nukes, IMO, is serious intelligence/law enforcement work, on a world-wide level. Cooperation between us and our allies, or even between non-allies whose interests happen to align in this area.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
The arty pieces, like the nukes, have an element of MAD to them. If they actually USE them, they will get obliterated. Therefore they won't. The regime wants to survive and be able to run it's little loony bin with cloned cheerleaders (see DanS's thread, it's ****ing scary), not get itself flattened by SK & the US.
It's the selling missle/nuke tech that's the worry. I agree it's a problem. Other states getting nukes? Not great, but not disasterous, because states will have the principle of MAD to deal with. It's the terror groups that worry me. The best way to keep them from getting nukes, IMO, is serious intelligence/law enforcement work, on a world-wide level. Cooperation between us and our allies, or even between non-allies whose interests happen to align in this area.
-Arrian |
not really. the arty can only hit seoul. liberals like to think threats are everything. but if u can escalate it enuff then u could arty seoul and not be in MAD territory. like say if u could hit LA w/ 5-10 nukes the US isn't gna trade pyongyang for LA. In which case its not MAD u just have a war between north and south.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The element of MAD in the arty peices is that they can reduce Seoul to rubble, killing hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, within a few hours. Thus, the US and the RoK cannot launch an attack on the DPRK.
However, if the DPRK does so, it wil be bombed back before the stone age, thus it will be destroyed also.
Mutualy assured desutrcution. |
the US wont neccessarily "bomb north korea to the stone age" if NK can send nukes at LA. which is kind of the whole point. if NK can escalate it high enuff then arty is no longer MAD to them. sure south korea will bomb NK hard, and we might start funding it. but its not assured, its not that instant and its not that mutual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
also. if u decide to treat conventional weapons suchas artillery as MAD then u r inviting North Korea to use nukes(once in a MAD scenario holding back becomes moot). so unless ur willing to turn the korean continent glowing in the dark cuz north korea lobbed shells at seoul then u r entering extraordinarily bizarre waters. u've escalated conventional warfare to the equal of a nuclear weapon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In that case the nukes become the MAD weapons.
MAD still applies. |
well if a nuclear weapon hits Los Angeles then i certainly agree MAD applies. and the korean continent will glow in the dark in all likelihood. I thot we were talking about arty raining down on seoul tho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The principle of mutually assured destruction is simply this:
You may get me, but I'll get you too. Since neither of us will survive, let's not fight.
Nukes and H-bombs are not the only weapons that can do this. Germ warfare certainly can, and the massed firepower of the DPRK can threaten enough casualties to make an attack against it not worth the reward. We may get them, but they'll leave us with so many dead Koreans it will have been a pyrrhic victory. |
who is protecting seoul again? the US? south korea has no nukes. or artillery pieces aimed at pyongyang. it seems they'd win a conventional war. but wut if north lobbed nukes? would the US lob nukes at North korea JUST to protect the south? are we willing to lose LA just to respond to seoul? I think u r taking the concept of the threat too much for granted. remember this is only a derivative of MAD. South has no nukes and the North certainly can't destroy america.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The fact that the DPRK now has both nukes and massed arty doesn't mean that the latter is now no longer a serious threat. Missiles can be destroyed on the ground or even shot down by a plane based laser (one of the few anti-missile systems which does work, IIRC). You still have to worry about Seoul being powdered. |
its all well and good to threatan NK when they just had artillery on seoul(artillery seoul and we nuke u). but if they use the artillery on seoul BUT NOT the nukes on LA then do we STILL nuke them? do you want to make that decision? South would probably nuke them, BUT THEY HAVE NO NUKES.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
No, we bomb the everlivingshit out of them. Primary targets would be any nuke facilities US intel knows about.
-Arrian |
as it has been presupposed many times by both sides. Kim just wants to keep his power. If u enter a regime changing bombing campaign, what would stop him from using nukes? I don't see the big guarentee that he'll see our b-52's and think "well since they're fighting fair i guess they can have my country."
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-08-2003 20:27
|