Support NeoGAF

[ponpo]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

Just in case some of you guys want to read up on a more scholarly approach to all this.

"Every option the United States has for dealing with North Korea is bad. But accepting it as a nuclear power may be the least bad."

Well that's debatable.

 

[Raylan Targaryen]

Guys, NK threaten SK every year. This is them using the same strategy they have been for decades except now they get to threaten more people.

I know people are a little hesitant due to the orange blob in charge. But there's no way he can start a war in this current climate. People are sick of wars, and doing so would lose him the next election.

People are also sick of being poor but they keep voting for the party that believes in Reaganomics

So people are tired of war? Big deal. All Fox News has to do is 24 hours of coverage about how it's a good thing and they win next election

 

[Late Flag]

We've been overestimating the military's ability to successfully pull off a decapitation strike for at least 15 years, so at this point I'd be very skeptical that they would be able to do so in NK.

That's not true. The US is really, really good at completely obliterating a regime. See the Iraq invasion. You're confusing the attempt to rebuild Iraq (a failure) with the decapitation strike (an easy and resounding success).

 

[tkscz]

I was just told in a previous thread that Kim was rational.

 

[The Argus]

Even if the US can take out all launch sites and mobile launchers (highly unlikely).

NK still has SLBMs they can launch from below the surface out of danger of the Air Force.

They have been practicing exactly that in the recent months.

Have they? All the recent missile test were launched with liquid fuel missiles moved around on trucks. They are not launched from a launcher but instead put directly on the ground and then fueled. This exposes the target for a lot longer than a drive and fire system like the Patriot.

NK SLBMs really aren't as scary. No test has been successful and their antique diesel subs won't get too far before having to stop and run their noisy generators.

 

[Raven117]

This should be mandatory for everyone posting some BS about military action

Should just be mandatory reading to anyone following this story.

 

[SuperSah]

It's not happening.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Is it really so hard to understand that the DPRK gains nothing from actually striking a target (unless and until it faces an existential threat)?

This is rhetoric.

North Korea isn't the dangerous party here.

We should all be -- and doubtless the international community is -- more concerned with Trump's reaction.

The most likely end-state here is: (1) more posturing by the DPRK, including more weapons launches into the Pacific Ocean; (2) joint exercises between Japan, the U.S., and South Korea; and (3) a fucking Twitter war between Pyongyang state media and Trump.

It's the third prong that's the real wildcard.

There are informal protocols in place here. Just like when the Russians violate U.S. airspace every so often and our fighters from JBER intercept them (and they tilt wings at each other to say hello, because that's actually a thing), this is the Kim regime's usual way of saying "Hello, we want food and/or fewer sanctions."

The danger isn't a nuke in the ocean or Twitter threats. The danger is Trump not understanding the complex history, including the informal protocols in play, and doing something fucking stupid.

this is true except for the severity of it. they have been threatening to turn the US into a nuclear wasteland for years and finally will have the capabilities to. how is that the same as normal geopolitical grandstanding (the word youre looking for)? it's not.

this is not normal, and having countries with nuclear capabilities threaten and promise others with absolute destruction through nuke threats and else cannot become the new normal or the world will absolutely eventually be lost.

NK having nukes will not get them a chair at the big kids table because they will not suddenly become a level headed (in the sense of trade and coexisting) nation (maybe eventually but not fast enough for the rest of the world). and what happens when they aren't respected or given a seat? more threats of nukes? more close fires? maps of specific targets they are actively promising to nuke?

and at the end of the day, another country is threatening the united states with nuclear holocaust, period. comparing this to any other grandstanding is undermining the severity of the situation greatly, especially if you look at the nations involved with wink-nudge threats in the past and today, and their specific histories. NK stands on its own in that regard

 

[Izuna]

Imagine that. Imagine nukes flying because of Guam.
A place I didn't know existed until today

Don't be proud of such a thing

 

[ThatStupidLion]

South Dakota B-1Bs just arrived in Guam for some joint exercised with JSDF. Calm down NK.

damn, im not a military fanatic, but those jets look sexy. great industrial design.

 

[Chittagong]

 

[diablos991]

"Every option the United States has for dealing with North Korea is bad. But accepting it as a nuclear power may be the least bad."

Well that's debatable.

Yeah I'm not exactly fine with NK having ICBMs.
They haven't shown the world stage they are disciplined enough to use them with any sort of rule set.

Being OK with NK as a nuclear superpower is like being ok that the school bully is holding a loaded assault rifle on the playground.

What exactly makes you think millions of dead will be less worse than NK being a nuclear power?

Because NK being a nuclear power would lead to millions of deaths. Only this time NK chooses who dies.

 

[Xando]

"Every option the United States has for dealing with North Korea is bad. But accepting it as a nuclear power may be the least bad."

Well that's debatable.

What exactly makes you think millions of dead will be less worse than NK being a nuclear power?

 

[SDCowboy]

He's saying this wouldn't result in a decapitation strike. It would end up in NK being a pile of rubble and yes, that's what the outcome would be.

This. We're not talking a "strike" if NK attacks anyone. We're talking NK getting hammered into obliteration.

 

[Servbot #42]

I used to think the NK leadership was just a bunch loons but they are actually quite sane in their methods for ensuring their survival. This guam thing is probably just a warning to the US that they should not fuck with NK.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

Just in case some of you guys want to read up on a more scholarly approach to all this.

Everyone should read this article and learn why NK has been an unsolvable problems for decades and why every possible solution would probably make things worse.

 

[Future]

I'm curious how Clinton would have handles a threat like this

 

[Xando]

This. We're not talking a "strike" if NK attacks anyone. We're talking NK getting hammered into obliteration.

No offense but this is nonsense.
No military on earth has the capability to carpet bomb a terrain the size of NK without giving them a reaction time to launch their missiles. Not without using nuclear weapons.

 

[ponpo]

What exactly makes you think millions of dead will be less worse than NK being a nuclear power?

Nothing, but the assumption here is that NK becomes a nuclear power and decides to never strike anyone.

I know that's probably the reasonable assumption but it's not the only possibility. Attacking NK is a bad option but attacking NK after they strike something with or without nuclear weapons is maybe a worse one, if casualties are the measurement of good or bad.

Assuming they become a nuclear power and then keep doing literally nothing besides firing missiles near Japan then I guess that's the best-worst option.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

South Dakota B-1Bs just arrived in Guam for some joint exercised with JSDF. Calm down NK.

I never get tired of that blue JSDF camo.

 

[Kusagari]

Nothing, but the assumption here is that NK becomes a nuclear power and decides to never strike anyone.

I know that's probably the reasonable assumption but it's not the only possibility. Attacking NK is a bad option but attacking NK after they strike something with or without nuclear weapons is maybe a worse one, if casualties are the measurement of good or bad.

Assuming they become a nuclear power and then keep doing literally nothing besides firing missiles near Japan then I guess that's the best-worst option.

There is zero chance we could take out everything in NK before they fire missiles at South Korea. They WILL fire something off before they're annihilated.

Mattis himself has testified to this numerous times.

 

[Woorloog]

Nothing, but the assumption here is that NK becomes a nuclear power and decides to never strike anyone.

I know that's probably the reasonable assumption but it's not the only possibility. Attacking NK is a bad option but attacking NK after they strike something with or without nuclear weapons is maybe a worse one, if casualties are the measurement of good or bad.

Assuming they become a nuclear power and then keep doing literally nothing besides firing missiles near Japan then I guess that's the best-worst option.

One major issue with the NK being a nuclear power is its instability (all dictatorships are inherently unstable, at least far more so than democracies). Should the system collapse, what happens to the nukes?

 

[Cuburt]

Given that NK seems to not only be ramping up testing but also showing off their capability that not only seems to be beyond what I've seen many analysts and intelligence agencies assume they'd be capable of at this moment (ICBMs and miniaturizing a nuclear warhead) I'm finding it hard to believe that the end game is just saber rattling and not an eventual military move, especially since all I typically tend to see is people claim how NK's "self-destruction" by inviting war by making a military move isn't Kim Jong-Un's end goal when I've yet to see it explained what his end goal is. It seems he wants to taunt the U.S. into making the first move, and now that he has a U.S President that is willing to play the game, he's raising the stakes more, even more publicly, not shrinking out of the news for a few months before he launches another missile test that doesn't mean anything.

I just think the people that are panicking are closer to the right reaction than the people who claim this is exactly the same empty threats as has always been, especially since a lot of that attitude was that their science and tech was all run down and old and that they wouldn't be able to launch a nuke. Now they are knocking on that door and people still want to treat it like it's a joke. I'm not laughing right now.

 

[kmfdmpig]

That's not true. The US is really, really good at completely obliterating a regime. See the Iraq invasion. You're confusing the attempt to rebuild Iraq (a failure) with the decapitation strike (an easy and resounding success).

Decapitation strike means killing the leadership - decapitating the enemy without having to fight the main force (the body), and that's something we tried in Iraq and failed at.

I thought that the other poster was saying the US could do that, but it appears I interpreted his/her post wrong.

 

[Raven117]

For all these reasons, acceptance is how the current crisis should and will most likely play out. No one is going to announce this policy. No president is going to openly acquiesce to Kim’s ownership of a nuclear-tipped ICBM, but just as George W. Bush quietly swallowed Pyongyang’s successful explosion of an atom bomb, and just as Barack Obama met North Korea’s subsequent nuclear tests and missile launches with strategic patience, Trump may well find himself living with something similar.

More from the article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

Long story short. Acceptance is exactly what is going to happen here. I hate Trump with the fury of a 1000 suns, but even that lunatic (and more importantly his advisers) just wont be able to condemn that part of the world to that much blood.

 

[Ashhong]

I've now booked my winter holiday to Guam. Since I have already been in North Korea, it seemed logical. The scuba is supposedly amazing.

EDIT: in case there was any doubt, here it is. Guam will be there and the world can chill the fuck out while I dive.

 

[ponpo]

There is zero chance we could take out everything in NK before they fire missiles at South Korea. They WILL fire something off before they're annihilated.

Mattis himself has testified to this numerous times.

I know, what I'm saying is that the article linked is saying accepting North Korea as a nuclear power is the best option out of a series of bad ones because it is assuming the outcome remains that NK just maintains nuclear weapons and no one ever attacks anyone. If the alternative to that specifically is attacking North Korea, then yes it is the best option.

I was just saying that if the assumption is wrong and that there ends up being a conflict at some point, North Korea being a nuclear power is suddenly worse than the other options.

 

[CalamityPixel]

I've now booked my winter holiday to Guam. Since I have already been in North Korea, it seemed logical. The scuba is supposedly amazing.

EDIT: in case there was any doubt, here it is. Guam will be there and the world can chill the fuck out while I dive.

I hope the mods tag you with the biggest iron balls on GAF.

 

[Acorn]

Decapitation strike means killing the leadership - decapitating the enemy without having to fight the main force (the body), and that's something we tried in Iraq and failed at.

I thought that the other poster was saying the US could do that, but it appears I interpreted his/her post wrong.

He doesn't listen to his advisers unless they already agree with his thinking or are related to him.

 

[Tangled Up in Blue]

One major issue with the NK being a nuclear power is its instability (all dictatorships are inherently unstable, at least far more so than democracies). Should the system collapse, what happens to the nukes?

Even better: What if Kim Jong-un faces a successful (or, at least, potentially successful) internal coup, which would certainly lead to his death, and he decides to launch his nuclear arsenal because he literally has nothing to lose?

 

[Xando]

I know, what I'm saying is that the article linked is saying accepting North Korea as a nuclear power is the best option out of a series of bad ones because it is assuming the outcome remains that NK just maintains nuclear weapons and no one ever attacks anyone. If the alternative to that specifically is attacking North Korea, then yes it is the best option.

I was just saying that if the assumption is wrong and that there ends up being a conflict at some point, North Korea being a nuclear power is suddenly worse than the other options.

Who is NK going to attack?
China? Nuclear power and ally.
Russia? Nuclear power and semi ally.
SK & Japan? Under a nuclear umbrella.

So unless the US abandons it’s allies NK literally has no one to attack.

 

[JordanN]

That's not true. The US is really, really good at completely obliterating a regime. See the Iraq invasion. You're confusing the attempt to rebuild Iraq (a failure) with the decapitation strike (an easy and resounding success).

While Iraq got defeated, was it really that impressive?

It was a month long battle, the U.S had the help of the UK ,Australia, Poland and yet Saddam still got away.

Also consider Iraq was hit hard by sanctions and politically isolated. North Korea has millions of brainwashed soldiers who are going to die for Kimmy, the U.S would need to work much faster than Iraq.

 

[Jag]

I'm curious how Clinton would have handles a threat like this

Diplomatic pressure. Bringing in other interests to exert even more pressure on NK.

Trump basically lost the entire State Department in a mass exodus. People that served under Bush and Obama.

We will pay for Trump fucking that up for years.

 

[Kusagari]

I know, what I'm saying is that the article linked is saying accepting North Korea as a nuclear power is the best option out of a series of bad ones because it is assuming the outcome remains that NK just maintains nuclear weapons and no one ever attacks anyone. If the alternative to that specifically is attacking North Korea, then yes it is the best option.

I was just saying that if the assumption is wrong and that there ends up being a conflict at some point, North Korea being a nuclear power is suddenly worse than the other options.

It's the best option because any other option guarantees millions will die.

Accepting North Korea as a nuclear power doesn't, as uncomfortable a reality as it is.

 

[DrForester]

That's not true. The US is really, really good at completely obliterating a regime. See the Iraq invasion. You're confusing the attempt to rebuild Iraq (a failure) with the decapitation strike (an easy and resounding success).

I don't fear for Guam, America, or even Japan.

But I do fear that any attack on North Korea will lead to massive, massive damage to South Korea.

 

[Woorloog]

Even better: What if Kim Jong-un faces a successful (or, at least, potentially successful) internal coup, which would certainly lead to his death, and he decides to launch his nuclear arsenal because he literally has nothing to lose?

Mmhmm. Didn't think of that. But i figure the attackers would make sure Kim Jong-un can't order a strike. Control of nukes would allow them to force Kim Jong-un to surrender power.

 

[Davide]

No one show this to Trump

 

[FeenixRising]

Oh great, just when my brother in law gets stationed out there with my sister and my nieces NK decides to do this.

 

[lastplayed]

I never get tired of that blue JSDF camo.

The F-2s are so awesome.

 

[Shadow Broker]

Decapitation strike means killing the leadership - decapitating the enemy without having to fight the main force (the body), and that's something we tried in Iraq and failed at.

I thought that the other poster was saying the US could do that, but it appears I interpreted his/her post wrong.

It really depends on how heartless and inhumane the United States wants to be. The United States and countries like maybe Russia and maybe China can easily start and end a war in their favor quickly. The problem is that when the US invades they only try to kill only those necessary to accomplish their goals.

During my deployment I've learnt alot of what the US was capable of offensively wise and I learnt why the United States would never use its full force.

To do what you described it would take a leader like Khangas Khan with the power of the United States.


*I said maybe for China and Russia because while I know they have powerful militaries I don't know how capable they are compared to the United States.

 

[Saganator]

 

[ponpo]

damn, im not a military fanatic, but those jets look sexy. great industrial design.

Correct

Who is NK going to attack?
China? Nuclear power and ally.
Russia? Nuclear power and semi ally.
SK & Japan? Under a nuclear umbrella.

So unless the US abandons it’s allies NK literally has no one to attack.

I don't know, maybe no one. If "North Korea will never attack anyone ever" is what people who are knowledgeable about this situation believe then these news stories are given way too much attention.

It's the best option because any other option guarantees millions will die.

Accepting North Korea as a nuclear power doesn't, as uncomfortable a reality as it is.

Again, this is correct, assuming that North Korea becoming a nuclear power automatically eliminates any possibility of any future conflict. If not then the outcome is worse, but again I don't know if people who know about this stuff think that is a possible outcome.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

While Iraq got defeated, was it really that impressive?

It was a month long battle, the U.S had the help of the UK ,Australia, Poland and yet Saddam still got away.

Also consider Iraq was hit hard by sanctions and politically isolated.

Yes? The last 3 weeks was essentially a siege on Bagdad, American troops cut quickly from Kuwait to Bagdad (Brits secured the south around Basra. This was coordinated with an paratrooper invasion in the north and a massive air campaign.

US lost no battles and defeated a regional power with ease.

 

[Armadilo]

People on Facebook suck, comment section from a local newspaper discussing it and some lady writes-

Yeah, cause they are going to tell us their plans.. any news is crap regarding this situation. Let's go all out protecting Guam so they can attack the US.... 🙄

Jesus these people

 

[ghostofsparta]

needs more nukes in the sky

 

[Tangled Up in Blue]

Mmhmm. Didn't think of that. But i figure the attackers would make sure Kim Jong-un can't order a strike. Control of nukes would allow them to force Kim Jong-un to surrender power.

I hope to hell you're right, but the idea of rolling the dice on millions of lives makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[fluffydelusions]

Can't wait to see what the cheeto tweets out. Watch it be another wrestling gif like that cnn one lol

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

If N. Korea shot a nuke at Guam but it missed because they are incompetent, would the US be justified (in the eyes of the international community) of retaliating as if it had hit?

 

[Davide]

If N. Korea shot a nuke at Guam but it missed because they are incompetent, would the US be justified (in the eyes of the international community) of retaliating as if it had hit?

Yes

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If N. Korea shot a nuke at Guam but it missed because they are incompetent, would the US be justified (in the eyes of the international community) of retaliating as if it had hit?

Yes, it would still be considered an act of war

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I'm curious how Clinton would have handles a threat like this

We'd actually have a staffed State Department and Ambassadors in the region to start with.