I Bombed Korea Every Night

[Krylo]

Obligatory Article (http://www.thejournal.ie/south-korea-puzzled-over-motive-for-north-attack-2010-11/)

AUTHORITIES IN SEOUL are attempting to ascertain the motives for North Korea’s attack on a South Korean island near the countries’ disputed maritime border, which left a number of Southern military officers dead and prompted return fire.

President Lee Myung-bak summoned an emergency session of his national security council to an underground bunker at the presidential Blue House, the Los Angeles Times reports, in order to try and direct a response to the Northern aggression, which apparently came without warning.

Local press reported that at least two marines were killed with more seriously injured and ten others hospitalised, while two civilians were also killed when a building struck by a North Korean shell caught fire. Over 200 artillery shells were fired, Reuters adds.

The injured officers were taking part in a routine drill near Yeonpyeong Island – an area operated by the South, with 1300 inhabitants, but over which the North has laid occasional claim – when the attacks occurred at 2:30pm local time (5:30am Irish time).

Lee’s Twitter account issued a statement in which it called the attack an “obvious military provocation”.

Our military provocations against the DPRK’s [North Korea's] strong response was immediate according to the rules of engagement; the North has yet to confirm the injury situation.

North Korea will be resolutely punished for its military provocations. North Korea is accountable for the incident and will be held responsible.

The attack comes just a number of days after North Korea had pressed ahead with the continuation of its nuclear arms programme, and came in the wake of a press statement from the North “denouncing anti-DPRK remarks”.

Remarks made by the South’s reunification minister at the national assembly were “an intolerable mockery of the whole Korean nation, desirous of improved relations between the north and the south, and [a] blatant challenge and provocation against the DPRK” by the official newspaper of the ruling regime, Rodong Sinmun.

Other Asian nations are on high alert; Japan said it had set up an information-gathering team at the Prime Minister’s office, while a professor from a university in Beijing told Reuters that the “unbelievable” attack amounted to ”reckless provocation”.

“If it’s North Korea’s responsibility, Beijing will condemn the act [...] as one that is against peace and stability,” Zhu Feng said.

Apparently, this happened roughly six and a half hours ago as I post this (assuming I got my time zones right).

I'm guessing there won't actually be any real retaliation on either side, which is probably good, because prolonged fighting here could easily lead to World War III with China backing North Korea and the US + Most Everyone Else backing South Korea.

However, I don't think China wants that, and no one wants to fight China, so I'm guessing both sides are going to pushing on their respective pet Koreas pretty hard to chill out, and this whole thing will end with some pointless 'sanctions' on North Korea that don't actually mean anything.

This still seems like the kind of thing the people of this here forum would be interested in knowing/discussing, however.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

There is a live feed of updates here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/nov/23/north-korea-fires-south-korea but I don't think anything will happen. It'll fizzle out.

[Geminex]

Indeed. This seems big, but a few months ago we had the north sinking a southern destroyer, with over 40 dead, and that didn't lead to any escalation. The only difference is that this is significantly less deniable, but even if the north and south were willing to go to war, I very much doubt that their backers would allow it. I don't see the US and China going to proxy-war over 2 south korean dead.

[Wigmund]

North Korea's just showing that they won't be any less batshit insane with the new Kim coming into power.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The only difference is that this is significantly less deniable

Well NK is claiming SK fired first, possibly accidentely as part of their training exercises. NK have a doctorate in denial.

[Pip Boy]

I'm blaming Smarty for this one. Damn commies.

[shiney]

China won't touch this one with a ten foot pole, I am pretty certain of that. They are becoming an economic superpower, slowly but surely, and engaging in a war by backing the obvious losing side would be devastating and crippling tot heir economy as all of a sudden their export market dries up when nobody is buying their products.

Yeah it's not quite as cut and dry as that, but it would not work for them in the long run so I don't see them doing anything more than quietly encouraging NK to knock it off already, again.

[Azisien]

So I just sent off my job application for a position in South Korea last night...

Weeee!

[Wigmund]

Is it in Seoul or down in Busan?

[Aerozord]

China has a symbiotic (arguably parasidic) relationship with the US. US is the last nation China wants to go to war with right now. They will do all they can to not escalate this conflict

[Aldurin]

This looks like a great employment environment for independent mercenaries who specialise in not letting their work be traced to their employers.

Let's just hope South Korea is a higher bidder than North Korea.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

China has a symbiotic (arguably parasidic) relationship with the US. US is the last nation China wants to go to war with right now. They will do all they can to not escalate this conflict

It's not like the US wants a war with China either- they should totally bluff it and see what happens

[Geminex]

they should totally bluff it and see what happens

Y'know, if this had been people's mindset during the cuban missile crisis, then I'm pretty sure nobody would have to shell out 60 bucks for Fallout 3: New Vegas.

Cause they'd be experiencing it live

[Aldurin]

Y'know, if this had been people's mindset during the cuban missile crisis, then I'm pretty sure nobody would have to shell out 60 bucks for Fallout 3: New Vegas.

Cause they'd be experiencing it live

Aaaaaawwwww man, I can't believe they didn't do that.

[Magus]

As a Libertarian, and fervent follower of Arnauld Amalric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric), clearly the greatest of philosophers, I have only one thing to say: bomb them all and let God sort them out.

[Aerozord]

As a Libertarian, and fervent follower of Arnauld Amalric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric), clearly the greatest of philosophers, I have only one thing to say: bomb them all and let God sort them out.

sounds more like nihilism to me

[RobinStarwing]

As a Libertarian, and fervent follower of Arnauld Amalric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric), clearly the greatest of philosophers, I have only one thing to say: bomb them all and let God sort them out.

sounds more like nihilism to me

Sounds like a great idea to me! North Korea needs a good spanking. There is a huge difference between firing on a lone military target and military target with civilians around.

The former you can just brush off.

The latter is going to mean a possible response back.

As Machivelli said in Chapter 3 of The Prince..."The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage."

Short version: "There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."

So yeah, it's about time the ceasefire ended and we finally spanked North Korea hard, preferably nuking Pyongyang with one of our bigger warheads so it is reduced to nuclear wasteland. Meanwhile, slagging the rest of their armed forces the way we did Hussein's military in the first Desert Storm.

Even MacArthur thought we should of used the Nuke in the Korean War. Not too late to take his advice. ^_^

[Marc v4.0]

Yes, because I know I love a slice of mutually assured destruction in the morning with my cup of are you fucking serious god damn

[RobinStarwing]

Yes, because I know I love a slice of mutually assured destruction in the morning with my cup of are you fucking serious god damn

Yes, I am serious. Even my mother agrees with me on this one!:dance:

North Korea is becoming more erratic and crazy day by day as the power structure is either in the hands of the crazyandhadastroke Kim Jung Il or military leaders who want to look strong and make grabs for power and still view the South and the US as the enemy.

China will soon have to stop supporting them and say they are on their own. Bombing Civilians would be enough for me to say to them no more help. You are on your own while signaling the USA, "Do what you want." and have it over with.

[Archbio]

Robin Starwing potentially took up to two satirical writers seriously in post 17, depending on one's interpretation of Machiavelli. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_politic al_satire)

[shiney]

The nuclear option should always be the last possible option and used only if the enemy has either used nuclear weaponry themselves or the only other outcome is total annihilation. Using a nuclear weapon to put a country in its place? That's insane.

[Marc v4.0]

Yeah... show all those brain-washed and oppressed innocent civilians that we're not going to take their dictatorship's shit by killing them and destroying their country! That'll show them and the rest of the world how America deals with people daring to live in a country run by our enemies!

The very idea that this is ok to you is perhaps the most disturbing and absolutely repugnant thing I've ever seen come from another person.

Jesus. Christ.

[RobinStarwing]

Actually, it isn't to put the country in it's place. It is to cut the head off the snake so the rest dies. North Korea would first use Nukes against our forces without any forethought on the matter. Why should we give them the chance to do that? Or am I reading a crazy regime wrong?

[Marc v4.0]

I think you are either seriously missing the issue here, or have no idea for the scale of destruction of a nuclear strike


Or the phrase 'mutually assured destruction'

edit: GOD I keep retyping everything not to froth and go batshit insane from trying to understand how you could possibly think any of this was a good fucking idea so I'm going to bed, and you need to seek help or something if you can so easily ignore the innocent lives this would destroy to kill a few hundred dickheads.

[RobinStarwing]

I think you are either seriously missing the issue here, or have no idea for the scale of destruction of a nuclear strike


Or the phrase 'mutually assured destruction'

Actually, I do have knowledge on the latter too.

As to the former, North Korea is a bully with a very big gun possibly to use. Why give them the chance to use it in a fight we all know is coming if China decides to pull support (or secretly give consent to finish what was started in 1950)? China pulls North Korea's strings but those strings are fraying as the regime in power becomes more desperate for attention and power, and hence, batcrap insane.

[shiney]

You're reading a crazy regime wrong. I mean, you might break the rules, so I should really go ahead and ban you now, right? This is the same thing you are saying.

Now, admittedly, your presence here as compared with the daily stream of dementia spewing forth from NK are apples to oranges, but the point I am trying to make is you don't crank the crazy up to 11 just because they might first. You don't use questionably ethical weaponry because of a fear that a crazy country is going to. Numsayin? Any single step down that road is extremely dangerous for the stability of the entire world. The very symbolism of nuking a country itself is infinitely worse than the actual nuke simply because it opens the floodgates and changes the way the game is played.

[BitVyper]

I think maybe they ought to wait until the situation is advanced enough that their military intelligence starts failing completely (i.e. FAR into an honest-to-god war) before jumping to the nuclear option.

Which isn't too bloody likely to happen here.

[RobinStarwing]

You're reading a crazy regime wrong. I mean, you might break the rules, so I should really go ahead and ban you now, right? This is the same thing you are saying.

Now, admittedly, your presence here as compared with the daily stream of dementia spewing forth from NK are apples to oranges, but the point I am trying to make is you don't crank the crazy up to 11 just because they might first. You don't use questionably ethical weaponry because of a fear that a crazy country is going to. Numsayin? Any single step down that road is extremely dangerous for the stability of the entire world. The very symbolism of nuking a country itself is infinitely worse than the actual nuke simply because it opens the floodgates and changes the way the game is played.

You got good points and I do agree for the most part. I just see something that needs to be dealt with harshly before it can become a problem.

I see in what happened today, the ship sinking last year, and what Russia did in Georgia 1-2 years ago as preludes in the same way that many historians look at the Spanish Civil War of the 1930's as the prelude to the Second World War. Basically, this brushfires might sooner or later turn into a full-scale firestorm with devastating potential to our society.

Besides, can anyone name the last time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA has used a Nuclear Weapon in combat that is on the books? I think we have shown a lot of restraint considering during the Korean War's early moments, MacArthur wanted to use the Nuke. He got fired for that suggestion and replaced. Some Military Historians think we might not have had to fight in Vietnam if we took MacArthur's suggestion.

Would it of done anything? I don't know, that's a different timeline we don't live in.

I live in one where Vietnam got fought and the Cold War is over so I don't have to worry about possibly being nuked by a hostile power unless Iran or North Korea decide to test what they get out on my country.

But why leave a problem to potentially become something worse in the future? It's not from some disturbing need to kill or see destruction or end our civilization, if that's what you think.

[Loyal]

North Korea would first use Nukes against our forces without any forethought on the matter. Why should we give them the chance to do that? Or am I reading a crazy regime wrong? This is a fantastic justification to inflict inconceivable collateral damage on country filled with innocent civilians and doesn't actually pose us a significant threat. And it's not like there'd be any retaliation from other nuclear-capable countries who would most certainly not grow nervous at our careless use of nuclear arms.

Do you have any idea what the Cold War was, Starwing? And why it didn't go "Hot"?

As Machivelli said in Chapter 3 of The Prince..."The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage."
There is a huge difference between a war and a nuclear attack. The two can even be mutually exclusive depending on how and when you use the nuke in the first place.

Your complete ignorance at the potency of a nuclear weapon and your callous disregard for human life is fucking disgusting.

[edit]Besides, can anyone name the last time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA has used a Nuclear Weapon in combat that is on the books?We haven't. And for good reason!

[Fenris]

Besides, can anyone name the last time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA has used a Nuclear Weapon in combat that is on the books?
I honestly don't see how this is even close to a valid point.

Your complete ignorance at the potency of a nuclear weapon and your callous disregard for human life is fucking disgusting.
This could have gone without saying.

[RobinStarwing]

North Korea would first use Nukes against our forces without any forethought on the matter. Why should we give them the chance to do that? Or am I reading a crazy regime wrong?

This is a fantastic justification to inflict inconceivable collateral damage on country filled with innocent civilians and doesn't actually pose us a significant threat. And it's not like there'd be any retaliation from other nuclear-capable countries who would most certainly not grow nervous at our careless use of nuclear arms.



Yes there would be. It may not pose us a threat but it poses a threat to the security of a region where much of our shipping and trade goes through and come in. Yes, I'd rather use the nuke as a last resort myself. My personal plan would be to use F-22 Raptors to sneak in an attack and kill Kim Jong Il as the first strike.



Do you have any idea what the Cold War was, Starwing? And why it didn't go "Hot"?



Yes I do to some degree, I lived through it's closing years as a kid. We had 30 minutes to pack up what we needed to board C-130s while living on or near bases in Western Germany if we got the alert the Russians were going to come up the Fulda Gap.

As to why it didn't grow hot, neither side wanted to pick up the pieces of what would of bean Fallout: Reality Version. No 360 needed. Just walk outside of your bunker and see the world.




As Machivelli said in Chapter 3 of The Prince..."The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage."

There is a huge difference between a war and a nuclear attack. The two can even be mutually exclusive depending on how and when you use the nuke in the first place.



Operation Downfall, look it up and tell me after you read up on it why the US didn't launch a D-day style invasion of Japan? The two Nukes saved more lives than it ended, both Allied and Japanese.



Your complete ignorance at the potency of a nuclear weapon and your callous disregard for human life is fucking disgusting.


If I remember the figures right and these are a few years old...the modern and most common Thermonuclear weapon has a Ground Zero range of 5-10Km, the blast range is about 50Km, and fallout can be and will be regional depending on weather conditions and how the radioactive fallout falls.

As to callous disregard for human life, I'd rather kill a few thousand than see a few million die. But I don't take life like that for granted. Being an Empath and sensitive to things makes events like 9-11 and Katrina REALLY affect me, even at distances. Even Columbia was like a shot in the heart as well as the 35W Bridge Collapse.

So yeah, War and Death are not things I take lightly. I'd rather though stop a fanatically enemy the only way it will understand.

Let the actions of the foe dictate the response. If North Korea wants to talk and make nice and apologetic for this incident, than we don't fry them. If they stay silent, we sanction them some more. If they do more stuff like this, than we need to respond as strongly as we can without making ourselves look like asses.


[edit]

Besides, can anyone name the last time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA has used a Nuclear Weapon in combat that is on the books?


We haven't. And for good reason!

Yeah, considering what Radiation Sickness can do. This I am glad for. I just wonder if other countries even care what they can do.

[Kim]

Oh God this thread just became fantastic in that especially awful kinda way. Everyone huddle up close. I want to take a picture to remember this by.

[RobinStarwing]

Oh God this thread just became fantastic in that especially awful kinda way. Everyone huddle up close. I want to take a picture to remember this by.

Fuzzy Pickles!

Edit: Please tell me someone gets the reference. :(

[Bard The 5th LW]

Robin, you get no points. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew)

[Krylo]

Oh God this thread just became fantastic in that especially awful kinda way. Everyone huddle up close. I want to take a picture to remember this by.

So what part would you rate worse; the mouth foaming incoherent rage over Robin's ridiculous suggestions on how to handle North Korea with nuclear fire, or Robin's ridiculous suggestions that we handle North Korea with nuclear fire?

I'm a little torn. On the one hand, the nuke thing is really showing a short sightedness over what that could do on the international field vis a vis its likeliness to jump start WWIII. Particularly with China still trying to avoid placing blame on NK for these attacks.

On the other hand, I fail to see where suggesting Robin must be retarded/sociopathic/whatever is really helping matters, particularly where in his views aren't that far off from many American citizens when it comes to North Korea and Kim Jong Il. And, to be honest, Kim Jong Il and his kid are, as a pair, two of the most, if not the most, dangerous 'world leaders' around these days, so it's not like they're entirely wrong in thinking something should be done. Just short sighted on the full ramifications of jumping in there, especially with nukes (WWIII, possibly nuclear winter).

I think maybe everyone involved needs to step back, take a deep breath, and just kind of chill.

I mean, sure, Robin's wrong about the proper course of action here, but he's also not sitting next to the red button so it doesn't actually matter.

Edit@Robin: Earthbound. Everyone knows that, stupid.

[Kim]

I'm inclined to say Robin, in part because hir viewpoint seems to be that of the majority of American people. Ze is contributing to their numbers. Ze can't push the red button, but I think arguing that it should be pushed in the first place displays a large level of, and I'm going to put this as nicely as I can, ignorance. Not stupidity, necessarily, and not socipathy, necessarily, but ignorance. Optimistically speaking, a person who argues in favor of a nuclear strike, as though it were a reasonable course of action to take, is ignorant of the effects such an action would have. It's partly that short-sightedness that you mentioned, but I'd argue that there's more to it than that. This isn't just the long-term consequences, but the immediate ones as well.

Kim Jong Il is a pretty terrible guy, and that he has that much power is also pretty terrible. I don't think anyone's arguing against that fact. However, shooting first isn't the best idea, especially for America. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who isn't America shooting first would be far better than America doing it. The sort of shoot first, ask later mentality that argues in favor of stuff, like nuking North Korea, is the same mentality that has us in Iraq right now.

The people pissed off at Robin are probably overreacting, but I think their argument is less frustration with Robin specifically, and more frustration with the large group of people who share Robin's opinion. Since Robin seems to be, from what I've seen of the thread, the only person arguing in favor of that course of action, ze becomes the focal point for all that anger. Both sides in this thread are at fault, but I think I'm far more able to sympathize with the angry people taking it out on Robin than with Robin.

[Aerozord]

Problem with such an absolutist premature strike is, while it is practicle, it is so on the scale of paranoia. I mean EVERY nation is potential threat. By that logic we should also bomb China, the middle east, and if you really want to be sure, every other nation on the planet. Just to be sure they cant one day rise to be a threat to us.

America is being reasonable and trying to find alternate solutions. Nothing wrong with that

Plus it runs under the assumption that they'd use nuclear weapons. I like to have more faith in humanity then that. Because if we cant trust our fellow man with the kind of power much of the world already wields, we are boned

And remember this. You say we should nuke them because its ruled by someone that would use nukes in a war? Wouldn't that make us the evil nation that needs to be wiped out?

[Azisien]

Sigh, fine, we'll just use the vacuum bombs then!

I'm also on the boat of not just up and nuking a country, however terrible that country may be. Based on the reading I've done on North Korea though, nuking Pyongyang wouldn't kill as many innocents as you'd think. Probably only a fraction of the casualties you would incur in a war leading up to a siege on Pyongyang. (And especially assuming America continues its Iraq War method of attack: "Oh it's moving? Let's drop $200,000 ordinance on it.")

It would end up being pretty ironic though, just lobbing nukes at North Korea because they are crazy. Bro, you just lobbed nukes with little warning.

EDIT:

THEN there's also the question of whether it actually WOULD start an ensuing horrible WWIII anyways. I actually don't know enough about the chain of command to comment, either. I expect a lot of chaos, though.

[Fifthfiend]

Being an Empath

http://www.theafers.com/images/fiddynkeenan.gif

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If we are startig a nuclear war we should hit Israel first. They have shit loads of nukes and they are crazy enough and military dictatory enough to use them.

[Kim]

Racist!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You're racist against Arabs! And Koreans! And straight people!

[Aerozord]

if you nuke a country, you get nuked. Because the other countries with these weapons know you have to set a precedence that using these weapons means they will be used on you. Sadly that is the best case scenario. Worst case is the US isn't nuked immediately and people realize most nations wont retaliate if they use their own.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

if you nuke a country, you get nuked. Because the other countries with these weapons know you have to set a precedence that using these weapons means they will be used on you. Sadly that is the best case scenario. Worst case is the US isn't nuked immediately and people realize most nations wont retaliate if they use their own.

That is why you nuke everybody at once. It can't fail.

[Viridis]

That is why you nuke everybody at once. It can't fail.You may be on to something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI)

[Aldurin]

We should go to nuclear war just to see if we can flush out any superheroes that remain in hiding because everything else is trivial in comparison.

If there turns out to be no superheroes then we get a live rendition of Fallout 1-4.

[RobinStarwing]

We should go to nuclear war just to see if we can flush out any superheroes that remain in hiding because everything else is trivial in comparison.

If there turns out to be no superheroes then we get a live rendition of Fallout 1-4.

Awesome! I always wanted to live in a post-apocalyptic world. :dance:

But seriously, I know my comments seem nuts. Hell, I am more than likely wrong on the approach. That doesn't change that sooner or later, North Korea is going to do something worse and we will need to respond.

[Marc v4.0]

It makes me feel better, because the best crazy people always know they are crazy.

[RobinStarwing]

It makes me feel better, because the best crazy people always know they are crazy.

Yep and I always admitted I am crazy. :dance: I celebrate being nuts.

Oh and also, I think North Korea has the Crazy Dial at 11 already.

[Marc v4.0]

I think you are anthropomorphizing North Korea way too much and have long since lost sight of the real problem

[Yrcrazypa]

I'm pretty sure we have conventional bombs and such that are FAR more powerful than the nukes we used back in World War II. If it comes to having to bomb them, wouldn't it be far safer for the rest of the world to just use those? That said, I'd much prefer if it didn't even have to come to that, especially considering what my profession is.

[RobinStarwing]

I'm pretty sure we have conventional bombs and such that are FAR more powerful than the nukes we used back in World War II. If it comes to having to bomb them, wouldn't it be far safer for the rest of the world to just use those? That said, I'd much prefer if it didn't even have to come to that, especially considering what my profession is.

I agree with ya. War is Hell. It is a very Darwinian Enviroment. I don't like it myself but I figure knowing about it will save me possibly if I have to get out of a war zone or know what to do in the event of certain things.

[Geminex]

Robin, this... urgh.

You started by quoting machiavelli, of all people (if you read up on him, "The Prince" was actually satire, in case you weren't aware), and it went downhill from there. There's just fallacy upon fallacy in your argument.

First is the assumption that the situation in korea will definitely escalate.
You can't know that. None of us can. This is so very political, there's so very many factors involved in determining the decision-making of all participants, it's goddamn impossible to predict what's gonna happen. And anyone who says they can is speaking out of their ass.

But as it is, the political climate is still becoming more and more... stable. Nations are becoming interdependent to a pretty major degree. It's hard to start a war with someone who you rely on each other economically. Sure, this doesn't include korea. But it's hard to be an agressor when everyone around you is interdependent. So in balance, I'm pretty sure that the situation will improve, rather than get worse. I certainly doubt that it'll lead to any full-scale conflict.

And even if there was a high probability for this to erupt into some kind of large-scale conflict through north korea's agression, I very much doubt the probability would be high enough to warrant a strategic first strike! If large-scale agression is likely, then the US should be first and foremost preparing to ward off said agression. You'd be successful, almost certainly! The north korean military isn't weak, but an aircraft carrier or two, plus what south korea has, and any offensive they launched would probably fail before it can do major damage. The north simply aren't big enough a threat to warrant a strategic nuke, even assuming that it looked like they were about to attack!

Unless you're worried that china might go along with their agression... in which case nuking north korea is gonna be the least of your worries.

And finally, the nuke. Even if all your other points weren't fallacies, and a north korean attack was obviously imminent and a strategic first strike was absolutely necessary... Do you have any idea what the use of a nuke would do to the political climate in that region? All over the world? Goodbye to any relations with china, especially when they get increased cancer rates from all the fallout. The southern population would be none too happy when they see norther civillians dying of radiation sickness. Every conflict that the US are involved in (which is pretty much every major conflict in the world) would suddenly be so much more risky, so much more precarious, because hey, they used nukes once, right? Who says they won't again? And this won't be a good thing, because knowing that you have nukes is either gonna make people strike at you before you strike at them, or it's gonna make them want to have superweapons of their own, and you would've just given them perfect justification.
Even the US relationship with their allies would be out the goddamn window, because y'know how it was impossible to deal with north korea due to batshit insanity? Yeah. Now imagine that instead of some itty bitty asian country with no economy to speak of, that relies on their goddamn enemies for food and aid so its population doesn't die, you have the good old US of A. And instead of threatening war, you're using nukes against itty bitty asian countries etc...

That would be a massive political upheaval. And I honestly don't want to know how it would end.

So yeah, pretty much agreeing with bard's post on this one. I'm not saying you're (necessarily) a bad person, but the suggestion? It gets no points.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

But seriously, I know my comments seem nuts.

You have no fucking idea.

[RobinStarwing]

Let me go over this whole post piece by piece here.



Robin, this... urgh.

You started by quoting machiavelli, of all people (if you read up on him, "The Prince" was actually satire, in case you weren't aware), and it went downhill from there. There's just fallacy upon fallacy in your argument.



Just because something is satire doesn't make it any less true or false. Some wars are avoidable. But others are only avoidable to another's advantage, and they end up in a stronger position. The history of the world should illustrate this, especially the 20th Century which saw the greatest number of civilians killed in the name of some guy's fucked up idea of what Humanity is just because of religion. The League of Nations put off confronting Germany over the rumors because "They aren't true." or "It isn't us." and look what happened?



First is the assumption that the situation in Korea will definitely escalate.
You can't know that. None of us can. This is so very political, there's so very many factors involved in determining the decision-making of all participants, it's goddamn impossible to predict what's gonna happen. And anyone who says they can is speaking out of their ass.


That's correct so one has to go on gut intuition. It may not mean much but China is first telling everyone to calm down, not citing North Korea but everyone involved. Just today, North Korea said it was on "the brink of war" with South Korea and that's the thing. I've heard Kim Jung Il called "Crazy like a fox" but now it seems we got a Schizophrenic country going on here.



But as it is, the political climate is still becoming more and more... stable. Nations are becoming interdependent to a pretty major degree. It's hard to start a war with someone who you rely on each other economically. Sure, this doesn't include korea. But it's hard to be an agressor when everyone around you is interdependent. So in balance, I'm pretty sure that the situation will improve, rather than get worse. I certainly doubt that it'll lead to any full-scale conflict.


That's something else. Just like you said, things can't be predicted with any accuracy and Global Geo-Politics and National/Military Intelligence is couple of them. All you need is someone interpreting a what someone said as an insult or a training exercise being misconstrued and you might end up with a war in some parts of the world.

A good example is 1983, during a very tense time in the cold war. I will let Vulture's Row blog (http://vulturesrow.blogspot.com/2006/01/day-world-almost-died.html) speak about a particular incident.



Most people in America recall the early 80s with fondness. AIDS was still, “just a gay thing” Uncle Ronnie was in office, and Parachute pants were sooooo cool!

But for most of us, we do not know that just after midnight (Moscow time) on September 26, 1983 the world almost saw a full scale nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, 44 was sitting In the commander’s chair of the Serpukhov-15, the secret USSR command bunker hidden in a forest 30 miles northeast of Moscow, looking down from his mezzanine desk to the gymnasium-sized main floor filled with about 120 military officers and technicians charged with monitoring the U.S. missile system and retaliating instantly at the first sign of any nefarious activity. Some one shouted out in alarm and all attention was focused on the man. The new satellite monitoring system picked up a thermal bloom in one of the American Minute Man missile silos. A Thermal bloom is an infrared signature that indicated the launch of a missile, then another and another and another and a fifth one.

Believing they were under a surprise nuclear missile attack, the staff prepared to alert the high command and order a full strike of more than three thousand missiles. Once the order was given there would be no recalling it, there was no fail safe measure, no way to stop the night mare. Lt. Col Petrov held his “Red Phone” in one hand shouting orders to calm his staff down and get them to verify the launch. He had a hunch, if America was starting a nuclear war, why would they only launch five missiles? Why were the vaunted American missile submarines not launching, why were the B-52 bombers still on the ground? He held off on the knee jerk reaction to strike back that he and all other watch commanders had been trained to do. He waited, he stalled for five critical minutes. In those minutes it was verified that there was no US launch. It was later determined that the Thermal Blooms that the new system had detected was nothing more than the sun reflecting off of clouds over the Minute Men bases.

Had Lt. Col. Petrov ordered the launch, the us would have detected their launch and believed that it was a first strike. Thousands of missiles would have crossed each other on their way to their targets.

Petrov received a special World Citizen Award at a UN meeting in New York on January 19, 2006. Petrov was honored as the “Man Who Averted Nuclear War”. But for his foresight and intuition, Lt. Col. Petrov was reassigned to busy work, his career over. He would never gain another promotion and he would never see success. His wife became ill with cancer, he retired from active duty to tend to her. When she died, he borrowed money to give her a funeral.

Today, Petrov, 67, lives in Moscow on a monthly pension of less than $200.


As far as I am concerned, he should be put in charge of solving all the world's military problems as he seems to have a level head compared to most at the time. Now what would of put the Russians at this time on edge? It was a simple exercise we did year after year over there. A wargame involving a scenario where you get escalation to full-scale NUCLEAR WAR. The powers that be were paranoid we might be getting ready to attack them.

As I said, a misunderstanding and someone's interpretation almost led to all of us living out the Fallout games for real. Thankfully, more levelheads prevailed at the next level up.



And even if there was a high probability for this to erupt into some kind of large-scale conflict through north korea's agression, I very much doubt the probability would be high enough to warrant a strategic first strike! If large-scale agression is likely, then the US should be first and foremost preparing to ward off said agression. You'd be successful, almost certainly! The north korean military isn't weak, but an aircraft carrier or two, plus what south korea has, and any offensive they launched would probably fail before it can do major damage. The north simply aren't big enough a threat to warrant a strategic nuke, even assuming that it looked like they were about to attack!

Unless you're worried that china might go along with their agression... in which case nuking north korea is gonna be the least of your worries.


Yeah and your plan is something I'd want to try first before nuking Pyongyang preferably.

Considering the way China has been acting lately. Telling people the "Western Human Rights" are a thing of the past (I paraphrase that from the guy in charge of China himself) and that we need a "Celestial Emperor" type system of finance (another paraphrasing). Oh, and they have the family of the current Peace Prize Winner pretty much under house arrest. Is this the kind of country you want as a Superpower to make decisions and influence people and nations? I don't as that just leads down a path that may just be the end of our species.



And finally, the nuke. Even if all your other points weren't fallacies, and a north korean attack was obviously imminent and a strategic first strike was absolutely necessary... Do you have any idea what the use of a nuke would do to the political climate in that region? All over the world? Goodbye to any relations with china, especially when they get increased cancer rates from all the fallout. The southern population would be none too happy when they see norther civillians dying of radiation sickness. Every conflict that the US are involved in (which is pretty much every major conflict in the world) would suddenly be so much more risky, so much more precarious, because hey, they used nukes once, right? Who says they won't again? And this won't be a good thing, because knowing that you have nukes is either gonna make people strike at you before you strike at them, or it's gonna make them want to have superweapons of their own, and you would've just given them perfect justification.
Even the US relationship with their allies would be out the goddamn window, because y'know how it was impossible to deal with north korea due to batshit insanity? Yeah. Now imagine that instead of some itty bitty asian country with no economy to speak of, that relies on their goddamn enemies for food and aid so its population doesn't die, you have the good old US of A. And instead of threatening war, you're using nukes against itty bitty asian countries etc...

That would be a massive political upheaval. And I honestly don't want to know how it would end.


Agreed on all counts. Nukes should be weapons of last resort preferably. Also, we already used TWO to end a war. Again, someone please research and bring up Operation Downfall and look it over and tell me you think it was a better plan that nuking two cities considering what the Japanese at the time were doing both in the military (Kamikaze) and on the islands we had captured (Ritual Suicide by POWs and Civilians)? Now just imagine an entire ISLAND doing the same exact thing.



So yeah, pretty much agreeing with bard's post on this one. I'm not saying you're (necessarily) a bad person, but the suggestion? It gets no points.


It isn't a popular viewpoint. I get that and no, I am a pretty good guy. I just tend towards the idea you deal with a bully by beating their heads in with a big enough stick.

But I also know that I am likely wrong and my idea is freaking insane to start with. I can admit that as well.

[Geminex]

But I also know that I am likely wrong and my idea is freaking insane to start with. I can admit that as well.
This makes everything better. I will go on to respond minutely to your post anyways.

The history of the world should illustrate this, especially the 20th Century which saw the greatest number of civilians killed in the name of some guy's fucked up idea of what Humanity is just because of religion. The League of Nations put off confronting Germany over the rumors because "They aren't true." or "It isn't us." and look what happened?
You can't compare nazi germany to north korea, just as you can't compare the 1930s to today! They're worlds apart. Against the third reich, yeah. A first strike would probably have been a good thing (I'm saying probably because I have no idea how germany would've developed in the aftermath). But like I've said, the political climate now is pretty stable, in a way that it really wasn't back then. And north korea is not the third reich. Are its people suffering greatly? Is it politically unstable? Yes. But it doesn't have the allies that nazi germany had, it has far fewer forces compared to what it'd be facing, it's just not a big threat! Even assuming the worst-case scenario, attacking it pre-emptively would do a lot more damage than taking the chance and letting them be the agressor!

If you attack, you avert a possible first strike on their side and almost certainly subdue them. But you destabilize asia politically (and trust me, we want china on our side, or at least not actively going against us), doubly so if you use nukes, you show yourself as an agressor, and no matter what you do in the aftermath, it'll almost certainly come back to bite you in the ass later. The reason everyone's scared of a conflict there isn't because north korea is so intimidating. It's because of the political tension such a conflict would create. We want to avoid those, not provoke them.

If you wait, then... well, first there's the chance that no war will be necessary at all! That's always a chance worth taking. Then there's the fact that, like I said, a north korean attack would end with them retreating and probably on fire anyway. Do you have any idea how much power a carrier fleet has? Missile strikes, airstrikes, marines, you name it. And the US would probably commit 2 or 3 to something like this. Plus the southern forces, plus whatever japan decides to send (because they want the south to win as well)... North korea's military infrastructue would be all but nonexistant by day 3, their airfields would be destroyed even before that. Their forces would be fighting through military emplacements specifically designed to hold them back, all the while being bombed by enemies they have no chance of hitting back at, their supply routes destroyed and no air support to speak of. You do not win a war that way.
Okay, I may be oversimplifying this. But I'm just trying to give you an image of how little a north korean attack would actually achieve. It's a risk to allow them first strike, sure, but it's such a small risk, taking it is infinitely preferrable to the consequences of striking first. If China's gonna be actively supporting them, this is a different story. But like I said, if war with China is prospective (which I doubt very much), then you have far bigger problems than hitting North Korea.

So strategically? First strike is a terrible, unnecessary thing. It just doesn't make sense to do it! Like I said, especially not with nukes! They were effective against japan because they demoralized the nation. But here the use of nukes is not an alternative to some sort of huge future battle. It is what would probably cause a huge future batle, for the love of god.

And look, China is... interesting. I'll be the first to admit that its government doesn't seem to like the west very much. But gah. The whole thing is incredibly, incredibly complex. Even if the guy at the top says something, we really don't know what it means, especially if it's quoted out-of-context. If we wanna determine how china's gonna act, we need to look at the strategic aspects, see what their interests are.
And their interests right now are keeping relations with the US upright while still establishing themselves as a superpower. Supporting the north They depend on the west too much. So them getting involved isn't really much of a factor, unless we take your suggestion and nuke north korea, in which case they'd get hella involved and we would have one hell of a problem on our hands. We depend on them too, you know.

Though that part of your post seemed less to suggest that china would support north korea, and more that china's a bad country in general, and we should prevent it from gaining power? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Should we nuke china while we're at it? Is that what you mean? Cause man, that would just fire this discussion right up again.

Though as far as the "Is THIS who you would want as a superpower?" aspect goes... Well, some would say that it could only be a step up from our current incumbent. Their names would probably rhyme with Barty BacSmarrelmants.

[Wigmund]

Reading all this makes me wonder how many nukes the Russians still have set up to automatically launch once they detect us using our own arsenal? Same with the Chinese.

[Aerozord]

Reading all this makes me wonder how many nukes the Russians still have set up to automatically launch once they detect us using our own arsenal? Same with the Chinese.

I think Cold War ended specifically because Russia stopped pointing them at us. Also they have no automated launching system. Last thing anyone wants is those things going off accidently.

Course now there is no need to have any pointed at anyone for nations like the ones you mentioned have the technology to target anywhere on the planet with a few key strokes.

[RobinStarwing]

I think Cold War ended specifically because Russia stopped pointing them at us. Also they have no automated launching system. Last thing anyone wants is those things going off accidently.

Course now there is no need to have any pointed at anyone for nations like the ones you mentioned have the technology to target anywhere on the planet with a few key strokes.

I want Orbital Particle Lasers that we can play Tic-Tac-Toe with and flying Aircraft Carriers for the USAF so we can put Raptors where ever we need the airpower.

[Azisien]

The hilarious thing about this is Robin is basically just using wild speculation to make his points about a first strike.

And then the general reply is "No! You cannot use a first strike! Your points are based off pure speculation, the politics of this situation are very complex!" People then make wild speculation of their own, exactly like Robin.

It's god damn hilarious to watch unfold.

[RobinStarwing]

The hilarious thing about this is Robin is basically just using wild speculation to make his points about a first strike.

And then the general reply is "No! You cannot use a first strike! Your points are based off pure speculation, the politics of this situation are very complex!" People then make wild speculation of their own, exactly like Robin.

It's god damn hilarious to watch unfold.

Yes, isn't it though?:dance:

[Marc v4.0]

I doubt very much that the rest of the world not being OK with that sorta shit at all is a 'wild speculation'

edit: Not sure how close to the trolling line it is to post an admitted horrible idea and then lawl at the ensuing shit-fit over it.

[Azisien]

Not being OK with something and doing something about it are different things. Nobody was overly keen on Iraq but hey, troops are still there, still getting blown up.

[Archbio]

Not being OK with something and doing something about it are different things. Nobody was overly keen on Iraq but hey, troops are still there, still getting blown up.

Two things that are also different from one another: invading Iraq and "nuking Baghdad."

[Syzygy]

The nuclear option should always be the last possible option and used only if the enemy has either used nuclear weaponry themselves or the only other outcome is total annihilation. Using a nuclear weapon to put a country in its place? That's insane.

Go tell that to Japan. How many times have they resorted to using kamikaze fighters since hiroshima?

But still, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I for one would NOT want someone else to drop a nuclear bomb on my home. No, if they really wanted to kill me I'd prefer they use a regular bomb, that way at least my land remains habitable.

Is there any sort of... international law, I suppose you could call it... against taking a really large object into space, calling it an asteroid, then slamming it into the offending party? Can't blame the US for an act of nature (Shifty eyes)

And yes, it's totally possible to do that:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/700oklkt.asp

(Another source)http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread263119/pg1

Or at least it will be. I say 20 years away at the most, if it isn't possible right now and the government just hasn't told anyone yet. Man, technology is AWESOME. What was I talking about?

[Kim]

The fuck?

[Melfice]

Go tell that to Japan. How many times have they resorted to using kamikaze fighters since hiroshima?

How many times has Japan been in any wars since World War 2 again?

Oh, right.

Just one, but only because the US decided to be an asshole, get into a war themselves, and then bully several NATO members into helping out. After going beyond the NATO in the first place.

In any case, Hiroshima was different, because nobody else had The Bomb. Or, at the very least, not in any state where they could use it. Ironically, Japan could have, but they decided to abandon nuclear weaponry in favour of death rays. I am not shitting you. (http://www.atomic-robo.com/2010/11/04/the-japanese-death-ray/) (Thank you, mister Clevinger!)

Nowadays, nukes are pretty impossible to use.
Russia and China both have nukes. No matter who the US attacks, China will retaliate. Even more so when it's an ally of China. Russia will probably first assess the situation due to current improving relations, but you can be damned sure they'll fire theirs if the attack is found to be unreasonable.

And firing a nuke on a small country that lives off of support from their enemies could very much be considered unreasonable.

[greed]

Is there any sort of... international law, I suppose you could call it... against taking a really large object into space, calling it an asteroid, then slamming it into the offending party? Can't blame the US for an act of nature (Shifty eyes)


There is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty.

It's legal to install conventional weapons into spacecraft but that's apparently all that's legal weaponwise in space.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It'd be stupidly expensive and not that effective. And obvious as fuck because any thing large enough to do real damage will have been seen taking off from all over the world and probably monitored all the way till falling again.
Also this footage of the falling "asteroid" shows it is covered in rockets and controls and such like. Who would have thought?

[Geminex]

The hilarious thing about this is Robin is basically just using wild speculation to make his points about a first strike.

And then the general reply is "No! You cannot use a first strike! Your points are based off pure speculation, the politics of this situation are very complex!" People then make wild speculation of their own, exactly like Robin.

It's god damn hilarious to watch unfold.

Well, one point is to say that it's just not possible to justify a nuclear strike on the basis of pure speculation. I mean, attacking another nation, no matter how belligerent, because you think they might launch an attack? That's both unethical and unwise in this political climate.

An entirely separate point is where we actually analyze the situation to show exactly why a first strike would be a very bad idea, even if speculation were accurate. Sure, this involves speculation as well. But there's a difference between 'Nuke korea cause they're gonna attack us first otherwise!'-speculation and 'Asia would probably hate america's guts with good goddamn reason, also, nobody would trust them anymore or allow their influence to go undiminished, plus there's the whole 'cold war flaring up again' thing to worry about'-speculation. The difference being that the latter has its basis in a lot more fact. We can't be certain of either! But 'pure speculation'? Nah.

I do hope I'm not ruining the experience for you by pointing this out. I'd hate to drain away what little joy seems to remain in your life.

Also this footage of the falling "asteroid" shows it is covered in rockets and controls and such like. Who would have thought?
Aliens did it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Anything that hasn't happened yet is equally possible to happen. I think that is what they are trying to teach us.

[Geminex]

Bleh...

Only on the long term. In the short term, saying that we can't know what consequences a certain decision will have, even in as chaotic a context as conflict and politics, and then using that as justification to do whatever the hell we want with the situation, isn't just goddamn lazy, it's harmful to everyone involved. It's hard to predict how the situation will turn out in the long run, most certainly.

But we can predict to some degree of accuracy, what short-term consequences a decision will have, if not precisely than at least well enough to formulate short-term policy. By simply using historical experience (skewed as it may be) and information about the situation in question we can at the very least establish the most probabe outcomes. Establishing the most probable outcomes (or at the very least trying to) is what I was doing. Yes, it was speculation, but there was analysis involved.

What Robin was doing was oversimplifying the situation, just naming north korea the villain and assuming that, as villain, they'd be attacking. And I'm not saying that a north korean attack is out of the question. Just that it's unlikely, and that it wouldn't inflict much damage. They would not benefit from it. There was analysis involved in my rebuttal as well.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My previous post was TOTALLLY serious. About as serious as this one.

[Geminex]

Ah. Nevermind then.
You can't blame me, though. Sometimes it is really hard to tell with you.

Edit: That's totally a compliment, though. You defy expectations.

[Azisien]

Well, one point is to say that it's just not possible to justify a nuclear strike on the basis of pure speculation. I mean, attacking another nation, no matter how belligerent, because you think they might launch an attack? That's both unethical and unwise in this political climate.

I think given the anti-war and anti-military stance of most of the populace of this forum, it's just not possible to justify a thing on the basis of things, with the one exception of baking cookies for everybody down there and hoping for the best. Well, I'm hoping world trade just eventually evens everything out, but that's probably a little idealistic.


I do hope I'm not ruining the experience for you by pointing this out. I'd hate to drain away what little joy seems to remain in your life.

You totally are raining on my parade, because I was having a good time before you came in here with your rather reasonable and consistent guesswork based, not really on any knowledge of any politics AT ALL, but more on the knee-jerk human reaction that pretty much everybody seems to have when others use bombs that create small, temporary stars on Earthly locations. Horror is probably the word for it.

As for predicting the events of such an act on a country that itself doesn't have deployable nuclear weapons, at least definitely not back at the USA, firmly still in the realm of speculation, sorry. Yes, we'd all be horrified by a first strike, no big surprise there. Yes, everybody would probably immediately hate and fear the USA (alignment change: 0). Beyond that? MAD is not necessarily on the menu unless China and Russia detect this nuke and assume it is headed for their land, and they all launch based on this single nuke. And I don't know enough about how this completely hypothetical nuke is launched to even be detected. It's a pretty huge unknown as to how other countries would react. Lots of hate and fear, sure, but would they do as much as you say they would? The last time a country got nuked, they sat the fuck down and was a good little boy. The armories of countries has changed since, but this isn't nuking someone else with nukes.

Man, all this thinking about it has made it kind of boring now. Thanks a lot Geminex.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Because the last time somebody got nuked nobody could do anything about it or knew what it would do beforehand. Comparing the japanese bombings with a hypothetical bombing today is out and out being ridiculous.
But now tha he US has justified nuklear weapon useage not only will Russia feel freer to use them in territorial disputes but everyone will be looking to shut down the US before they feel like intervening with nukes the next time one country shoots some guys from another country. The US isn't even directly involved.
Nukes would lead to a ridiculous drastic decline in world climate, it would be the end of the world as we know it. A state that uses nuklear weapons at a whim cannot and would not be tolerated by the rest of the world. Like imagine if North Korea was the size/power/armament of he US, that is the post nuke scenario here.

[Azisien]

I wouldn't want a nuke-flinging country to exist, either. However, we would have to launch many hundreds, but more likely thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons to cause a "drastic decline in world climate." Habitat loss around the areas of the nuke would increase by positive infinity, though. I think the "end as we know it" would really just be all the major cities everywhere getting reduced to ash in a full-on MAD scenario, which, I'm only partially convinced would happen in this case.

Hmmm it may be wiser to launch a first puppy strike. I think a lot of these tense political situations could be cooled off if all of the world leaders just had a half dozen puppies to play with. We'll mix up the breeds to increase the odds they really fall for one of them. Worst case scenario it may set a precedent for retaliatory kitten strikes.

[Geminex]

I think given the anti-war and anti-military stance of most of the populace of this forum, it's just not possible to justify a thing on the basis of things, with the one exception of baking cookies for everybody down there and hoping for the best. Well, I'm hoping world trade just eventually evens everything out, but that's probably a little idealistic.
There's a difference between 'idealism' and 'basic ethics'. Sunshine policy, hoping that everything turns out for the best, that's idealism. Not nuking several million innocent civillians because the guy in charge is crazy and might attack us? I very much hope that that counts as 'basic ethics', because, otherwise there is more wrong with this society than even a hypothetical fifth/smarty crossbreed could comprehend.
...
Now I'm thinking about the creation of a fifth/smarty crossbreed. In graphic detail. Thanks a lot, asshole.

not really on any knowledge of any politics AT ALL, but more on the knee-jerk human reaction that pretty much everybody seems to have when others use bombs that create small, temporary stars on Earthly locations. Horror is probably the word for it.
Okay, what? I mean, I do dislike nukes and the use thereof, yeah! But less because 'OMG NUKES ARE BAAAD' and more because I've actually spent significant amounts of time studying the cold war. Saying that I'm not basing my analysis on knowlege of politics is like saying that your posts aren't based on your skills in saying extremely silly things! The thought is just preposterous.

Causee, I never actually mentioned MAD. Because I'm aware that it probably wouldn't factor in this situation! At least not in the short term. North Korea has no (or very few, at best) nukes, and china's not about to start a nuclear war on Korea's behalf.

No, the point I'm making is that of political tension. Smarty said it pretty well, really. The US is a superpower mostly because other nations are letting it. It has lots of power and influence, sure. But primarily because nobody is actively opposing it. If they showed that they were unstable enough to nuke korea over something like this, even if it made perfect strategic and political sense, pretty much every democratically-ruled nation is gonna be up in arms (metaphorically, probably) against the US. Imagine vietnam all over again, only this time, all the public anger that got expressed over more than a decade gets condensed into one single moment of outrage. And now add asian governments breaking off diplomatic relations, and probably a serious restructuring of the UN and NATO. It would just hurt the US immensely, and the climate of mutual interdependence and relative trust that's being established would be simply eliminated, to be replaced by fear.

The Cold War 'ended' because gradually both sides ceased seeing each other as major threats, and the threat of MAD gradually faded away. But if the US nukes over a matter like this, then I wouldn't be surprised if things cooled down again. China would definitely use this to its advantage politically, and one thing I could see happening would be a new Warsaw pact. Only instead of eastern europe, it's asia this time. That is not a situation we want. I'll admit, this bit is speculation. But the bit about how interdependence and trust result in our currently stable political and economic climate, and how a nuke would destroy all that in an instant and make our world a far more interesting (that is to say, unstable and dangerous) place? Analysis.

Totally agree on the puppy strikes, though. And maybe a cake with a stripper in it.

Edit:
Also, does Krylo have precognition or how did he know that this thread would evolve into a discussion about nuking korea? Or am I missing a pop culture reference?

[Krylo]

Also, does Krylo have precognitionYes.Or am I missing a pop culture reference?

And yes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JPULswVojE).

[Azisien]

I have a confession: I was chosen by the Fates of NPF to defend Robin's position in order to fulfill the ancient prophecy of making each and every discussion thread ever on NPF devolve into a place of ridiculousness and misery for all involved. I didn't actually want to, I had to.

P.S. Fates = rum and coke.

[Geminex]

So I guess you could say that...
:cool:
The spirits made you do it.

YEEEEEEEEEAH

[Azisien]

You....get all the points, I think.

[RobinStarwing]

I have my own confession to make...

My POV was brought on by completely hysteria leading up to Turkey Day and seeing idiots come into my store in droves to buy the supplies for Thanksgiving.

In other words, I claim the Insanity Defense.

Wait a minute...

I'm already F-ing insane!

Please return to your regularly scheduled forum discussion, already in progress.

[BigGator5]

It looks like the South Koreans are ready for a fight (http://www.businessinsider.com/south-koreans-want-war-2010-11). I guess it will be up to them, since it's their land we would be fighting on.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Surely we will fight in belgium. That's what it is there for

[RobinStarwing]

Surely we will fight in belgium. That's what it is there for

You are not fighting in my Family's homeland.

If you want a fight someplace...how about on some little cold island on the edge of the Alaska during Winter.

There is a cultural reference for this. A lot of the Asian Traditions view Hell as being a cold place. The place in question would than be viewed as Hell on Earth for them.

Or were talking just people generally having a war Smarty?

[BigGator5]

Surely we will fight in belgium. That's what it is there for.
Did you know that Belgium voted into power a party that wants to split the country in two? True (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/europe/14belgium.html) story (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0614/Belgium-elections-Beginning-of-the-end-of-a-nation).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Did you know Belgium has been pretty much two countries since its inception with different laws and customs depending on which bit you live? They've been talking about that shit a good 170 odd years now.
Still a good place to have a war though.

[BigGator5]

Did you know Belgium has been pretty much two countries since its inception with different laws and customs depending on which bit you live? They've been talking about that shit a good 170 odd years now.

Still a good place to have a war though.
I didn't say it wasn't! I hate Belgium and want to see it burn.

[Geminex]

Wow.
The sad thing is, I'm not actually sure whether or not that's a joke.

Still a good place to have a war though.
Nah. It isn't a place to have a war. It's more of a place to invade along the way to invading other, bigger nations.

[BigGator5]

Nah. It isn't a place to have a war. It's more of a place to invade along the way to invading other, bigger nations.
That is why it is a perfect place for a war. No one cares for the place, so we can glass the place over and no one will miss the place.

[Magus]

Poe's Law all up in this biatch.

I should make reference to my fervent Libertarian faith less often.

[Kim]

New vote: We nuke both terrible threads. From orbit.

[Krylo]

It's the only way to be sure.

[BigGator5]

New vote: We nuke both terrible threads. From orbit.
I thought liberals hated using nukes?

[Krylo]

That's true, but sometimes you just have to listen to the woman who has survived two Alien infestations. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q)

[RobinStarwing]

That's true, but sometimes you just have to listen to the woman who has survived two Alien infestations. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q)

Or hell...let's go this route.

http://scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/exterminatus.jpg

EDIT: I think even Ripley would back destroying the whole planet to kill an Alien Queen.

[Marc v4.0]

Wait, so, North Korea is full of Xenomorphs?

I change my vote.

[Krylo]

The only reason Kim Jong Il shares his food with his military is so that his pet xenomorphs have suitable hosts to reach adulthood in.

[Marc v4.0]

That is terrifying.

All the Terror.

[Geminex]

Wait, so, North Korea is full of Xenomorphs?

We Gotta Stand With Our North Korean Allies. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEylpSsOsQ)

Gentlemen... They are among us.
And they call themselves the GOP.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

See this is why we should stop using silly North and South monikers which are easy to confuse and go back to their proper names- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea- much easier!

[RobinStarwing]

See this is why we should stop using silly North and South monikers which are easy to confuse and go back to their proper names- the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea- much easier!

Smarty, it has nothing to do with that. It is just a lot easier to call them North Korea and South Korea.

Just like it's easier to call Myanmar by it's actual name of Burma.

Besides, we all know Sarah Palin is a whack-job, tea party, RRR idiot who's show is currently tanking in the ratings on Cable. If you want more proof of her lack of working neurons, her BFF is Michelle Bachman...who is practically a clone of her.

[Melfice]

Smarty, it has nothing to do with that. It is just a lot easier to call them North Korea and South Korea.

Just like it's easier to call Myanmar by it's actual name of Burma.

How to put this as nicely as possible...

That was Smarty's point, really.

EDIT: Also, Myanmar sounds a lot nicer than Burma.
I mean, when I hear Myanmar, I think of cats saying it. "Myan~! Marrrrrr..."
And then listen to Burma. "BHURRRRR-muh".

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I now feel empowered to start calling you guys the United Colonies or the UC for short. Less letters, easier to remember. Hopefully it'll catch on.

[Magus]

Just as long as we get to call you Avalon.

Wait, that's a cooler name! SHIT

EDIT: Pretania? It's still pretty cool...lame.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'd go with France Junior.

[Archbio]

Nothing's as cool as Naggaroth.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Yay! The dragon is looking less and less fearsome. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

And North Korea is that much closer to getting a nice talk down. And Korea being whole again is a possibility.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's all part of a cunning plan!