PDA

View Full Version : Oh North Korea, you so silly!



Cobalt
01-24-2013, 02:04 PM
North Korea says new nuclear test will be part of fight against U.S. - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

I used to think that Kim Jong Un was more in touch with reality, but it seems that isn't the case.


North Korea said Thursday that it plans to carry out a new nuclear test and more long-range rocket launches, all of which it said are a part of a new phase of confrontation with the United States.

You think this is all a game? Maybe NK wants to declare war, get stepped on, and wait for money from the government to help rebuild.

DJM
01-24-2013, 02:09 PM
he did the same thing a few years ago, but the bush led us was not concerned and instead went on the saddam witchhunt

longBallLima
01-24-2013, 02:16 PM
he did the same thing a few years ago, but the bush led us was not concerned and instead went on the saddam witchhunt

worthless fight too, big risks, little reward. If NK was "democratized" for the lack of a better term, most contracts would go to South Korea and Japan, as it makes much more sense.

Nuclear Threat is not worth it at this point for the western powers, IMO.

h2s
01-24-2013, 02:31 PM
I often wonder what goes through the minds of leaders like kju. Do they really think they would have a chance in a full confrontation with a country of our military strength?

DJM
01-24-2013, 02:38 PM
http://2.media.todaysbigthing.cvcdn.com/59/18/b403a6b9886eddfac61ca16c287be0de.gif

Scope75
01-24-2013, 03:10 PM
The USA would wipe them the fuck out!!
Don't want it to happen but that's what would happen.

Cobalt
01-24-2013, 03:40 PM
^^^
FUCKING LOL DJ.

I think my biggest concern is that IF they were crazy enough to actually launch a missile at us (assuming they DO have the ability now), what would happen next? Yeah, we could just step on them like it's nothing, but I'm afraid of other countries doing something stupid.

h2s
01-24-2013, 03:51 PM
^^^
FUCKING LOL DJ.

I think my biggest concern is that IF they were crazy enough to actually launch a missile at us (assuming they DO have the ability now), what would happen next? Yeah, we could just step on them like it's nothing, but I'm afraid of other countries doing something stupid.

And we wouldn't step on them? The countries that have enough military and/or funding to support a war against us are part of peace treaties. These little "supreme leaders" making up for bedroom shortcomings by building large missles, don't stand a chance and they know it. We wouldn't even have to send a man overseas to retaliate on north korea, it could be done with a couple buttons on a computer.

DJM
01-24-2013, 04:02 PM
^^^^
jfk cuban missile crisis

longBallLima
01-24-2013, 04:24 PM
I often wonder what goes through the minds of leaders like kju. Do they really think they would have a chance in a full confrontation with a country of our military strength?

You know, when you're talking about other nuclear powers, mutually assured destruction is what gives madmen some confidence. Granted, missile defense in the US is superb and NK still didn't test the range. (so, NOT assured, i guess? lol)

h2s
01-24-2013, 04:43 PM
^^^^
jfk cuban missile crisis


You know, when you're talking about other nuclear powers, mutually assured destruction is what gives madmen some confidence. Granted, missile defense in the US is superb and NK still didn't test the range. (so, NOT assured, i guess? lol)

Thats exactly it, the mutually assured destruction is an extremely scary thought. However, as you mentioned our missle defense of modern day vs. their missles (which seem to fail as often as they work) don't seem to pose a crazy threat.

longBallLima
01-24-2013, 04:48 PM
Thats exactly it, the mutually assured destruction is an extremely scary thought. However, as you mentioned our missle defense of modern day vs. their missles (which seem to fail as often as they work) don't seem to pose a crazy threat.

true, but there's the allies. India, Japan can't defend against missiles so well and they are probably not crazy about the US attacking NK.

Truth of the matter is that, IMO, unlike the middle east, there's no real interest from the US to attack NK unless it gets way more serious than it is right now. The US is, in theory, at declared war with NK.

Biririjejad (sp? lol), Iran guy, crazy motherfucker, didn't threat half the shit that comes out of NK and there's a war movement growing here. If he says he'll test a missile to hit the US, 'tis war, starting yesterday.

burlyman30
01-24-2013, 05:22 PM
Thats exactly it, the mutually assured destruction is an extremely scary thought.

Kinda reminds me of quote from the marine in the tyranny thread... equal playing field changes the game from force to persuasion.... now in the hands of a madman, where reason cannot take into account mutually assured destruction... all bets are off.

longBallLima
01-24-2013, 05:33 PM
Kinda reminds me of quote from the marine in the tyranny thread... equal playing field changes the game from force to persuasion.... now in the hands of a madman, where reason cannot take into account mutually assured destruction... all bets are off.

Good catch and I find yet another parallel. To arm the citizens against the possibility of someone else having arms is somewhat like allowing every country to have nukes so they can all be "left alone", no?

Cobalt
01-24-2013, 05:37 PM
Just looked into it and realized that no one is backing NK on this. I guess NK is just being retarded and wants attention.

burlyman30
01-24-2013, 05:48 PM
Just looked into it and realized that no one is backing NK on this. I guess NK is just being retarded and wants attention.

Short man's syndrome.

Coolazice
01-24-2013, 05:53 PM
Short man's syndrome aka Napoleon complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_complex).

Fixed. ;)

Rulk
01-24-2013, 06:14 PM
Is NK allied with China?

h2s
01-24-2013, 06:53 PM
Good catch and I find yet another parallel. To arm the citizens against the possibility of someone else having arms is somewhat like allowing every country to have nukes so they can all be "left alone", no?

Both parallels actually work towards the arguments presented previously. I am not a fan of war at all, they accomplish little, but I wouldn't feel safe in a country without an extreme level of defense.

Cobalt
01-24-2013, 08:14 PM
Is NK allied with China?

Not so much "allied" as "on good terms".

A few years ago, they were allies, but last I checked, even China is backing away from them. As a matter of fact, when NK announced this nuke thing, China even stepped in and told them to knock it off.

Sperwer
01-24-2013, 08:35 PM
Is NK allied with China?

463

Seriously, this is a bit complicated.

The Chinese have been treaty allies of the NORKS since just before the Korean War, NORK commencement of which the Chinese pre-approved. That conflict started with the NORK invasion of South Korea, for which the NORKS first sought and received a green light from Stalin's Soviet Union, another NORK ally, whose own prior approval was a pre-condition of Chinese approval (because of the nominal Communist Bloc pecking order at the time).

The NORKS initially were devastatingly successful, driving ROK forces and small supporting elements of the US Army all the way down the Korean peninsula to the southeastern port city, Busan. The US/UN counterattack at Incheon, for which the metaphor changing the tide is particularly apt, then rapidly led to the effective defeat of the NORKS, with ROK/US/UN forces sitting on the Yalu River border between North Korea and China. China then intervened massively and effectively prevented the ROK/US/UN allies from winning the war and eliminating North Korea from the map. The war dragged on for 2 more years, ending in a stalemate with the border between North and South being pretty much the same as the status quo ante.

Despite Soviet backing for the NORKS in the war their own actual contribution was primarily logistical, including especially both equipping the Chinese forces and supplying China with the industrial infrastructure with which the Chinese could sustain the actual fighting on its own. Stalin had several interlocking and, to some extent, contradictory objectives. He wanted to expand and secure Communist control of the north Asia continental land mass by removing the American-occupied and influenced South Korea, thereby creating a solid Chinese/Korea buffer against a US-dominated Japan (MacArthur's unsinkable anti-Communist Pacific aircraft carrier); failing which he wanted to bog the US down in a costly Asian land war as a way of reducing US capability to counteract Soviet moves in Europe and elsewhere in the world, meanwhile minimizing risk for the Soviets by transferring the actual fighting to the Chinese, who also would thereby be deflected from their own drive to obtain more autonomy within the Soviet Bloc by having to focus their energy on the war while simultaneously being drawn into greater reliance on Soviet economic support.

Mao and the Chinese for their part were, even while courting Soviet aid in order to develop their economy, looking (among other things) to get out from under Stalin's thumb (and restore Chinese national dignity after the humiliations of the previous 150 years of imperial decline and colonialist intervention) by making their bones as a military power and establishing their prestige as the leading light of Asian communism. Making this all possible in a tragic way were the millions of Chinese soldiers who had formerly been part of the anti-communist Nationalist Chinese army before the Chinese communist victory in the Chinese Civil War; Mao was more than happy to use them literally as human cannon fodder against overwhelmingly superior US firepower in Korea in order to win Soviet economic and military aid and get them all killed in the process, thereby removing a huge dangerously politically unreliable element of the Chinese population.

The North Koreans were involved in equally cynical calculations. They pragmatically accepted the need to rely on the Russians and the Chinese for economic and military support, which was feasible because of the temporary alignment of interests resulting from a shared socialist ideology and a common Western capitalist enemy. but their own ultimate objective was to secure their own autonomy vis-a-vis two erstwhile colonial oppressors of Korea by playing the two off against one another as much as possible. The so-called Sino-Soviet split had its roots in the Communist Bloc in-fighting during the Korean War.

The situation is much the same today. North Korea plays ball with China because China is their only source of economic support, but this is strictly a matter of necessity for them, since the rest of the world effectively shuns them. The Chinese for their part put up with a lot of NORK provocations, and continue to provide assistance notwithstanding, because it's in their strategic interest to prevent the re-unification of Korea on what otherwise would be the South's terms, thereby eliminating the buffer that that N Korea provides between China and a capitalist S, Korea, with its significant contingents of deployed US land and air forces, and to try to create rifts between the US and other regional players who otherwise might effectively "encircle" China and obstruct its current drive for regional economic and military hegemony.

So today China and North Korea are still treaty allies, but there is a lot of play in the relationship, witness China's lately having taken a stricter line with the NORKS on their nuclear development plans, probably for reasons having to do more with China's attempt to appear to be playing well with others as a way of lessening what has been growing regional anatagonism resulting from Chna's recent spate of bullying tactics against other countries in the region.

That is the end of today's lecture. There will be a spot quiz tomorrow.:cool:

Macdon1588
01-24-2013, 09:02 PM
Good catch and I find yet another parallel. To arm the citizens against the possibility of someone else having arms is somewhat like allowing every country to have nukes so they can all be "left alone", no?

I am all for decommissioning our war heads as an example for the world to follow. Our missile defense is incredible and getting better everyday. One day we'll be able to hit 100% of the missiles shot at us. If there was a system that blocked 100 percent of thug attacks, I'd get rid of my guns.

Sperwer
01-24-2013, 09:03 PM
See the comment of my buddy Dan Pinkston, former Calif state championship Powerlifting contender, and now International Crisis Group coordinator for North Korea, in the attached article:

N Korea: New nuclear test part of U.S. clash | News - Home (http://www.news8000.com/news/N-Korea-New-nuclear-test-part-of-U-S-clash/-/326/18258102/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/5y0fbg/-/index.html)

One other thing worth bearing in mind is that during the Korean War the US in 3 years expended and dropped more ordnance in North Korea, an area about the size of Mississippi, than it did in ALL theaters in all of WW2. By the end of the Korean War, the cities and towns were gone, and most North Koreans were living in caves; we had literally bombed them back into the stone age (housing-wise).

It doesn't justify what the NORKS are up to today, but when you put yourselves in their shoes it sure doesn't seem irrational for the NORKS to want to have a deterrent against the US.

Cobalt
01-24-2013, 10:03 PM
NORKS

Oh god, I'm using this from now on.

DJM
01-25-2013, 06:57 AM
See the comment of my buddy Dan Pinkston, former Calif state championship Powerlifting contender, and now International Crisis Group coordinator for North Korea, in the attached article:

N Korea: New nuclear test part of U.S. clash | News - Home (http://www.news8000.com/news/N-Korea-New-nuclear-test-part-of-U-S-clash/-/326/18258102/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/5y0fbg/-/index.html)

One other thing worth bearing in mind is that during the Korean War the US in 3 years expended and dropped more ordnance in North Korea, an area about the size of Mississippi, than it did in ALL theaters in all of WW2. By the end of the Korean War, the cities and towns were gone, and most North Koreans were living in caves; we had literally bombed them back into the stone age (housing-wise).

It doesn't justify what the NORKS are up to today, but when you put yourselves in their shoes it sure doesn't seem irrational for the NORKS to want to have a deterrent against the US.

didnt this just happen but in afghanistan on the bin laden witch hunt.......those people wont recover till 2075

Macdon1588
01-25-2013, 09:21 AM
didnt this just happen but in afghanistan on the bin laden witch hunt.......those people wont recover till 2075

Let's be honest about Afghanistan and admit there's not very fucking much to recover at all in that shit hole. The very best thing that the Western Hemisphere can do is get the hell out of Afghanistan and the Middle East, let nature take it's course, and negotiate trade treaties with the winner using tariff systems that incentivize ethical treatment of individuals. What we're doing over there now amounts to thinly veiled colonialism. This colonialism is driven, in large part, by the artificial scarcity of means of production created by moronic regulatory and taxation practice in western society.

BigCLS
01-25-2013, 10:34 AM
Let's be honest about Afghanistan and admit there's not very fucking much to recover at all in that shit hole. The very best thing that the Western Hemisphere can do is get the hell out of Afghanistan and the Middle East, let nature take it's course, and negotiate trade treaties with the winner using tariff systems that incentivize ethical treatment of individuals. What we're doing over there now amounts to thinly veiled colonialism. This colonialism is driven, in large part, by the artificial scarcity of means of production created by moronic regulatory and taxation practice in western society.

As my buddy in the military calls it.. Trashcanistan.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

longBallLima
01-25-2013, 11:57 AM
Let's be honest about Afghanistan and admit there's not very fucking much to recover at all in that shit hole. The very best thing that the Western Hemisphere can do is get the hell out of Afghanistan and the Middle East, let nature take it's course, and negotiate trade treaties with the winner using tariff systems that incentivize ethical treatment of individuals. What we're doing over there now amounts to thinly veiled colonialism. This colonialism is driven, in large part, by the artificial scarcity of means of production created by moronic regulatory and taxation practice in western society.

From a humanitarian perspective though, it went from bad to worse. It was the taliban and its medieval practices. Now, the taliban is back and the US military has no control over them and you got the destruction and ridiculous amount of civilian casualties caused by military actions.

And it's ugly for the US too. It tries to be some beacon of freedom and humanity but a large portion of the military and a larger portion of private contractors act like absolute barbarians there.

Macdon1588
01-25-2013, 12:59 PM
From a humanitarian perspective though, it went from bad to worse. It was the taliban and its medieval practices. Now, the taliban is back and the US military has no control over them and you got the destruction and ridiculous amount of civilian casualties caused by military actions.

And it's ugly for the US too. It tries to be some beacon of freedom and humanity but a large portion of the military and a larger portion of private contractors act like absolute barbarians there.
Ya, ours guys may be acting like barbarians, not sure that its a large portion, but you know the saying, "when in Rome act as Romans."
Defining what constitutes barbarism ought to be done relative to the level of civility within a given society and I'm willing to bet that whatever our guys can dream up is a walk in the park compared to the Taliban boys. No good can come of that region and I say it's just time to bring our guys home.

longBallLima
01-25-2013, 01:12 PM
Ya, ours guys may be acting like barbarians, not sure that its a large portion, but you know the saying, "when in Rome act as Romans."
Defining what constitutes barbarism ought to be done relative to the level of civility within a given society and I'm willing to bet that whatever our guys can dream up is a walk in the park compared to the Taliban boys. No good can come of that region and I say it's just time to bring our guys home.


I agree, the troops shouldn't be there. They shouldn't have been there as a matter of fact. If the mission was to eliminate the Al Qaeda heads, what's wrong with good ole' assassination jobs like cold war-era?

Now, the US military went with the alleged intention of ending barbarianism and bringing democracy. And a somewhat objective view as what constitutes barbarianism could be violating international war conduct and boy oh boy, that's been violated.

now, don't get me wrong, i think the taliban is an international criminal organization that should be dealt with accordingly. what surprises me is that a civilized nation would have troops acting a bit like said criminal organization.

the fact that we hate holmes and think he deserves to die but have no idea who Robert Bales is tells me most of the american public finds this excusable.

Macdon1588
01-25-2013, 02:55 PM
I agree, the troops shouldn't be there. They shouldn't have been there as a matter of fact. If the mission was to eliminate the Al Qaeda heads, what's wrong with good ole' assassination jobs like cold war-era?

Now, the US military went with the alleged intention of ending barbarianism and bringing democracy. And a somewhat objective view as what constitutes barbarianism could be violating international war conduct and boy oh boy, that's been violated.

now, don't get me wrong, i think the taliban is an international criminal organization that should be dealt with accordingly. what surprises me is that a civilized nation would have troops acting a bit like said criminal organization.

the fact that we hate holmes and think he deserves to die but have no idea who Robert Bales is tells me most of the american public finds this excusable.

I think people heard about it, but the truth is, Bales didn't kill Americans so it doesn't particularly outrage us. Shitty, as that may be. For what is worth the Army is going for the death penalty.

longBallLima
01-25-2013, 04:24 PM
I think people heard about it, but the truth is, Bales didn't kill Americans so it doesn't particularly outrage us. Shitty, as that may be. For what is worth the Army is going for the death penalty.

true true. i hope they both fry.