PDA

View Full Version : Should the United States offer military assistance if North Korea invades South Korea



greatday
11-27-2010, 05:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Korean War started in June of 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea...
The U.S. willingly sent troops to protect the liberty of South Korea.
After the 3-year war, the Korean peninsula was split in half - North and South.
With help from many nations, South Korea has developed enormously.

However, North Korea recently unleashed an indiscriminate attack on South Korea.
2 civilians and 2 marines were killed on the battlefield.
Yeon-Pyeong island that used to be so peaceful, has now turned into rubbles.

South Korea is currently full of anxiety that North Korea might attack again.
Many South Koreans are worried that a new war might break out soon.
Of course we cannot have another war, but what are we supposed to do if North Korea attacks again...?
Obviously our economy is in trouble, too. Korea? Many people do not even know where Korea is.
However, the United States of America and Republic of Korea are allies.
Like our grandfathers and fathers fought for the liberty of Republic of Korea, we believe that it is a duty to send troops for the peace and liberty of Republic of Korea.

North Korea is an organization that destroys global peace.
They are even developing missiles that can target the mainland United States.
Their nuclear development is threatening the entire world.
Something must be done to North Korea.

megimoo
11-27-2010, 07:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Korean War started in June of 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea...
The U.S. willingly sent troops to protect the liberty of South Korea.
After the 3-year war, the Korean peninsula was split in half - North and South.
With help from many nations, South Korea has developed enormously.

However, North Korea recently unleashed an indiscriminate attack on South Korea.
2 civilians and 2 marines were killed on the battlefield.
Yeon-Pyeong island that used to be so peaceful, has now turned into rubbles.

South Korea is currently full of anxiety that North Korea might attack again.
Many South Koreans are worried that a new war might break out soon.
Of course we cannot have another war, but what are we supposed to do if North Korea attacks again...?
Obviously our economy is in trouble, too. Korea? Many people do not even know where Korea is.
However, the United States of America and Republic of Korea are allies.
Like our grandfathers and fathers fought for the liberty of Republic of Korea, we believe that it is a duty to send troops for the peace and liberty of Republic of Korea.

North Korea is an organization that destroys global peace.
They are even developing missiles that can target the mainland United States.
Their nuclear development is threatening the entire world.
Something must be done to North Korea.We have a mutual defense treaty with South Korea already.We are bound by treaty to come to their defense if they are attacked.

MrsSmith
11-27-2010, 08:52 AM
We have military IN South Korea. My son did a 1 year tour there, and so did my niece's husband. How can we possibly not support them?

I think this attack is as much against the US as South Korea. I wonder if it means the North already has those nukes ready to go...

megimoo
11-27-2010, 09:34 AM
We have military IN South Korea. My son did a 1 year tour there, and so did my niece's husband. How can we possibly not support them?

I think this attack is as much against the US as South Korea. I wonder if it means the North already has those nukes ready to go...It's not even clear if their first test was successful!The background radiation levels were much too low for a full Nuclear reaction .

They are just pulling the same old saber rattling but this time China is jumping into the mix !The new North-Korean leader needs to control the army before they really start a war.

Starbuck
11-27-2010, 09:39 AM
I see nothing but embarrassment and frustration ahead for the US, and see how the North has already won by suckering us into sending in the aircraft carrier, which will either never be used or used in a half-hearted way.

NK knows the rules; they know all about the treaty and our relationship with China.

If the US took out the nuclear reactor in the north, NK could retaliate by shelling Seoul, which would be a disaster.

If I were Pres I would launch an attack along with the South Korean army, and there would be more than one Carrier involved. But I'd give the US about 48 hours to accomplish all were going to do, then let the South Koreans finish the job of unification. US boots would never touch North Korean soil as long as North Korea flies its own flag.

China, I believe would not intervene militarily.

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 09:41 AM
They are just pulling the same old saber rattling but this time China is jumping into the mix !The new North-Korean leader needs to control the army before they really start a war.
I believe that China is ultimately behind this attack, we fired the first shot when we monetized our debt a couple of weeks ago. China told us not to long ago not to dishonor their investment. Now we will pay for dishonoring them!

SaintLouieWoman
11-27-2010, 11:25 AM
I believe that China is ultimately behind this attack, we fired the first shot when we monetized our debt a couple of weeks ago. China told us not to long ago not to dishonor their investment. Now we will pay for dishonoring them!

Sadly many of the dems don't understand that "honor thing". Look at Jimmy Carter badmouthing subsequent presidents (primarily Republicans) any chance he can get. I don't believe "honor" is in Obama's vocabulary. He's a streetfighter/community organizer from Chicago via Indonesia, Kenya and wherever else.

We borrowed the money to pay for the various schemes to benefit the unions, hanger on's, etc. Rock, I think you're right on about the Chinese sending a message. I hope Obama and his secretary of state don't actually think that the Chinese will intervene on our behalf in this manner.

We've got an inexperienced, not qualififed for the job president and a secretary of state who doesn't quite have all the experience and knowledge that she pretends to have. I hope we make it safely through the next 2 years.

SarasotaRepub
11-27-2010, 12:10 PM
Moved to GD

Please read the Breaking News Rulz!! :)

gator
11-27-2010, 12:34 PM
We have military IN South Korea. My son did a 1 year tour there, and so did my niece's husband. How can we possibly not support them?

I think this attack is as much against the US as South Korea. I wonder if it means the North already has those nukes ready to go...

My son also did a tour in South Korea in 2007.

Don't you think your son and my son would be better serving the people of the US by guarding the Mexican border rather than guarding the Korean border?

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 12:38 PM
My son also did a tour in South Korea in 2007.

Don't you think your son and my son would be better serving the people of the US by guarding the Mexican border rather than guarding the Korean border?

Do we just break our treaties?

gator
11-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Do we just break our treaties?

If it serves our purpose yes.

The mutual defense treaty with South Korea was signed in 1953. There was no “mutual” to it because it was really only one way. The US gave money and troops to South Korea. I don’t see South Korea guarding our border with Mexico or paying off our national debt, do you?

There is nothing in the rule book that says treaties like that have to go on forever. This one has been around for 60 years and things have changed considerably since it was enacted.

Nowadays Korea has one of the strongest economics in the world and one of the strongest militaries. The US is fighting another war and our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy.

It is time for the welfare to stop. If Korea is not strong enough to protect their own borders now against a 40 billion dollar a year economy of North Korea then that is their problem and not ours. After all we gave the lives of 36,000 of our men and hundreds of billions dollars. When it is going to end? The Sugar Daddy (Soviets) of the NKs is long gone and it is not a battleground between the East and the West anymore like it was in 1953.

The US simply has no dog in that fight anymore. It is better to let the South Koreans be responsible for their own welfare.

RobJohnson
11-27-2010, 01:00 PM
My son also did a tour in South Korea in 2007.

Don't you think your son and my son would be better serving the people of the US by guarding the Mexican border rather than guarding the Korean border?

Yes I do.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 01:57 PM
If it serves our purpose yes. no dog in that fight anymore. It is better to let the South Koreans be responsible for their own welfare.

You may well be right, but now is hardly the time for the US to be leaving SK.

What kind of message will that send the NORKS? That it's OK to invade the South, that's what.

The US can only leave after a long period of stability in the region, otherwise no nation will trust the US again. They will just assume the US will bail when the going gets tough.

Once you open the bottle, the genie ain't going back in that easy.

gator
11-27-2010, 02:01 PM
You may well be right, but now is hardly the time for the US to be leaving SK.

What kind of message will that send the NORKS? That it's OK to invade the South, that's what.

The US can only leave after a long period of stability in the region, otherwise no nation will trust the US again. They will just assume the US will bail when the going gets tough.

Once you open the bottle, the genie ain't going back in that easy.

You are correct in that today is not the day to do it in the middle of a crisis. We should have done it 15-20 years ago. When the crisis is over is another day and we should move to disengage ourselves from the requirement to guarantee the security of South Korea and other countries.

gator
11-27-2010, 02:02 PM
Yes I do.

You have much moral clarity today.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 02:08 PM
You are correct in that today is not the day to do it in the middle of a crisis. We should have done it 15-20 years ago. When the crisis is over is another day and we should move to disengage ourselves from the requirement to guarantee the security of South Korea and other countries.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

If a friendly nation can defend itself militarily, then it should be encouraged to do so, and without depending on foreign largesse.

I think that the problem is that each Korea has the backing of a major world power, one of which is currently trying to gain ascendency over the other. It's a micro proxy war, in some ways.

It will be interesting to see it played out.

Bubba Dawg
11-27-2010, 02:16 PM
I agree that 15 or 20 years ago would have been the time to gradually remove ourselves militarily from a region where SK and Japan should be taking care of their own defense needs.

The problem is that we typically don't disengage ourselves from treaties and mutual defense obligations at a time when there is relative stability in a region. The current crisis is a good example of this.

My guess is that the reason for this has a great deal to do with Taiwan. Maybe not, but that at least is a factor in my opinion.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 02:27 PM
My guess is that the reason for this has a great deal to do with Taiwan.

Taiwan. It would stand a snowball's chance in hell against the mainland. But for US support, they'd have about 15 minutes.

If you really give a shit about freedom from Communism, or about the threat of subjugation by a hostile power, Taiwan is somewhere you can't just walk away from.

megimoo
11-27-2010, 02:30 PM
If it serves our purpose yes.

The mutual defense treaty with South Korea was signed in 1953. There was no “mutual” to it because it was really only one way. The US gave money and troops to South Korea. I don’t see South Korea guarding our border with Mexico or paying off our national debt, do you?

There is nothing in the rule book that says treaties like that have to go on forever. This one has been around for 60 years and things have changed considerably since it was enacted.

Nowadays Korea has one of the strongest economics in the world and one of the strongest militaries. The US is fighting another war and our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy.

It is time for the welfare to stop. If Korea is not strong enough to protect their own borders now against a 40 billion dollar a year economy of North Korea then that is their problem and not ours. After all we gave the lives of 36,000 of our men and hundreds of billions dollars. When it is going to end? The Sugar Daddy (Soviets) of the NKs is long gone and it is not a battleground between the East and the West anymore like it was in 1953.

The US simply has no dog in that fight anymore. It is better to let the South Koreans be responsible for their own welfare.North Korea's 'sugar daddy' today is China and China is using NK as a puppet to bait America into deeper involvement in the region .

The Missile launch off the California coast and the Chinese sub popping up ih the middle of USS Kitty Hawk fleet operations was designed to show America that China is a great sea power equal to America .

China would love to sink one of our carriers in the South China sea just to show that we are a paper tiger and to keep us looking over our shoulders .

WE should hunt down one of their Song class diesel boats and sink it off the Chinese coast and deny everything just to tweak their noses .

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 02:35 PM
If it serves our purpose yes.

The mutual defense treaty with South Korea was signed in 1953. There was no “mutual” to it because it was really only one way. The US gave money and troops to South Korea. I don’t see South Korea guarding our border with Mexico or paying off our national debt, do you?

There is nothing in the rule book that says treaties like that have to go on forever. This one has been around for 60 years and things have changed considerably since it was enacted.

Nowadays Korea has one of the strongest economics in the world and one of the strongest militaries. The US is fighting another war and our economy is on the brink of bankruptcy.

It is time for the welfare to stop. If Korea is not strong enough to protect their own borders now against a 40 billion dollar a year economy of North Korea then that is their problem and not ours. After all we gave the lives of 36,000 of our men and hundreds of billions dollars. When it is going to end? The Sugar Daddy (Soviets) of the NKs is long gone and it is not a battleground between the East and the West anymore like it was in 1953.

The US simply has no dog in that fight anymore. It is better to let the South Koreans be responsible for their own welfare.
You are not worth a nickel if you don't keep your word, that goes for a man as well as his country.

Bubba Dawg
11-27-2010, 02:38 PM
Taiwan. It would stand a snowball's chance in hell against the mainland. But for US support, they'd have about 15 minutes.

If you really give a shit about freedom from Communism, or about the threat of subjugation by a hostile power, Taiwan is somewhere you can't just walk away from.

That is true about Taiwan and freedom. But the question is what will the US, or anyone else, do in the long run for preserving a free Taiwan?

I fear that it will eventually share the same fate as Hong Kong. This may be inevitable but is certainly regretable.

All that China need do is bide its time and wait for the political and economic winds to favor them.

m00
11-27-2010, 02:40 PM
Taiwan. It would stand a snowball's chance in hell against the mainland. But for US support, they'd have about 15 minutes.

If you really give a shit about freedom from Communism, or about the threat of subjugation by a hostile power, Taiwan is somewhere you can't just walk away from.


If you really give a shit about freedom from Socialism, or about the threat of subjugation by its own government, USA is somewhere you can't just walk away from.

^fixed.

gator
11-27-2010, 03:08 PM
You are not worth a nickel if you don't keep your word, that goes for a man as well as his country.


Treaties are not "word" as you are using the context. Does giving food stamps to a poor Black in inner city Atlanta constitute an unbreakable contract? Shouldn’t the food stamps end when you no longer have the money to provide the food stamps and the poor Black has a job and is actually very well off? Foreign aid is like welfare.

Treaties are signed for the mutual benefit of both parties. In 1953 it was in our interest to curtail the expansion of the Soviet Union in SE Asia ecause we firmly believed in the “domino effect”. That reason went away with the fall of the Soviet Union. We are no longer working to stop the expansion of communism in SE Asia, or any place for that matter.

With the strength of the Korean military and economy it is past time to walk away from any deal we had with them back in 1953. Unlike you I have confidence in the Koreans to provide for their own defense. They are tough people and I think that can handle it themselves. If they can’t then we have wasted the lives of the 36,000 men that died defending Korea and the hundreds of billions of dollars we poured into the country.

If it becomes China against South Korea then we need to rethink our priorities but as far as I know right now it some lunatic regime trying to hustle the world into providing more money as a tribute to not make waves. Let the South Koreans handle it. No need for us to beat the drums of war. We have bigger problems right now like a tremendous debt and 9.5% unemployment not to mention trouble on our own border. We need the 4th Squadron of the 7th Cav Regiment and the rest of the 2nd Infantry Division back home guarding our border rather than in some far away Asian land guarding somebody's else’s border.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 03:52 PM
This may be inevitable but is certainly regretable.


It would certainly be regrettable, but should certainly not be considered as inevitable.

BTW, Hong Kong was part of a British territory held on a lease, the Second Convention of Peking (1898) from China. The lease had a 99 year term. We had to honour the term of the lease, which meant zài jiàn to us in 1997.

It sucks ... we should have negotiated a longer lease, but what you gonna do.

There is NO comparison whatsoever to be drawn here with Taiwan. Taiwan has stood up to China, with US support (sometimes weak support, at that, but still vital). Without US support, Taiwan would be have been part of the PRC years ago.

megimoo
11-27-2010, 04:19 PM
Taiwan. It would stand a snowball's chance in hell against the mainland. But for US support, they'd have about 15 minutes.

If you really give a shit about freedom from Communism, or about the threat of subjugation by a hostile power, Taiwan is somewhere you can't just walk away from.
If that's the case why hasn't China taken Formosa long ago. England left Hong Kong because of treaty expiration and not because China forced her too.
China is feeling it's way in the world of modern military power and fears overextending itself in dealing with the western World.
They have a small percentage of the military might that America wields but act as if they were a true superpower by show of sheer bravado.They choose to deal with the west through puppet states like North Korea and in the past with Vietnam .

m00
11-27-2010, 04:21 PM
If that's the case why hasn't China taken Formosa long ago. England left Hong Kong because of treaty expiration and not because China forced her too.
China is feeling it's way in the world of modern military power and fears overextending itself in dealing with the western World.
They have a small percentage of the military might that America wields but act as if they were a true superpower by show of sheer bravado.They choose to deal with the west through puppet states like North Korea and in the past with Vietnam .

They have time on their side though. They don't want to overextend because they WILL be a modern military power within 50 years.

Bubba Dawg
11-27-2010, 04:22 PM
It would certainly be regrettable, but should certainly not be considered as inevitable.

BTW, Hong Kong was part of a British territory held on a lease, the Second Convention of Peking (1898) from China. The lease had a 99 year term. We had to honour the term of the lease, which meant zài jiàn to us in 1997.

It sucks ... we should have negotiated a longer lease, but what you gonna do.

There is NO comparison whatsoever to be drawn here with Taiwan. Taiwan has stood up to China, with US support (sometimes weak support, at that, but still vital). Without US support, Taiwan would be have been part of the PRC years ago.

I believe the US should continue to honor our commitment to Taiwan. I also believe that the there must be a continued vigilance against a totalitarian power such as China and that Eurpoean, North American and allied Pacific powers (such as Australia) should be engaged in containing China in any way possible. South Korea also needs to be responsible for their own defense to the full extent that they can afford it. That will free the US to have more resources to apply on other fronts.

I remain concerned that, over time, some economic downturn or political circumstance could make that support for Taiwan untenable. I wasn't suggesting that there was an exact parallel between Hong Kong and Taiwan on the basis of their legal standing, but rather that a growing economic power such as China can afford to be patient and wait for the winds of circumstances to favor them.

Big Guy
11-27-2010, 04:43 PM
You are not worth a nickel if you don't keep your word, that goes for a man as well as his country.

What Rock said.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 04:50 PM
I remain concerned that, over time, some economic downturn or political circumstance could make that support for Taiwan untenable. I wasn't suggesting that there was an exact parallel between Hong Kong and Taiwan on the basis of their legal standing, but rather that a growing economic power such as China can afford to be patient and wait for the winds of circumstances to favor them.

Point taken.

I think there is some convergence on view here. I think that most would agree that the US cannot make a 180deg course change in every single case, and that some cases will require a continued commitment.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 05:20 PM
If that's the case why hasn't China taken Formosa long ago.
...
They have a small percentage of the military might that America wields but act as if they were a true superpower by show of sheer bravado.They choose to deal with the west through puppet states like North Korea and in the past with Vietnam .

I think the key word here is "past".

I remember seeing, years ago, a BBC documentary on the Chinese Air Force (The People's Liberation Army Air Force, as they like to call it). It was risible. It showed candidate pilots rehearsing combat manoeuvres, not by flying real aircraft, or even sims, but with hand-held plastic aircraft. They were all but making jet engine and cannon sounds as they did it.

I'm guessing that those times are long, long gone.

We have to make the assumption that if push were to come to shove, they would put up a spirited fight, and the outcome would not be assured to us as it would have been 25 years ago.

djones520
11-27-2010, 05:30 PM
I think the key word here is "past".

I remember seeing, years ago, a BBC documentary on the Chinese Air Force (The People's Liberation Army Air Force, as they like to call it). It was risible. It showed candidate pilots rehearsing combat manoeuvres, not by flying real aircraft, or even sims, but with hand-held plastic aircraft. They were all but making jet engine and cannon sounds as they did it.

I'm guessing that those times are long, long gone.

We have to make the assumption that if push were to come to shove, they would put up a spirited fight, and the outcome would not be assured to us as it would have been 25 years ago.

Those times are long gone. China has more then tripled it's military budget in the past 20 years. That is, at least what they tell the world that they are spending. It is believed that they are spending much more then they announce, which is even worse. In a country whose per capita is $6,600, you can bet that their military budget goes a lot further then it would in our country.

They are modernizing their Air Force, and their Navy at an astounding rate. It is still nothing to go toe to toe with ours, but with other countries in that region, there is little that could stop them if they really wanted to take some action, and it'll just get worse over the next decade once all of this new equipment becomes more readily available for them.

djones520
11-27-2010, 06:25 PM
As to the OP, it shouldn't even be a question if we "offer" military assistance.

They are an ally. They have contributed more then 4,000 troops to our efforts in OIF and OEF despite the fact that they are in a constant stand off with one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

S. Korea is one of our most loyal friends, and to not even consider if we should "offer" military assistance would be of such moral cowardice one would have to be ashamed of themselves.

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 06:29 PM
As to the OP, it shouldn't even be a question if we "offer" military assistance.

They are an ally. They have contributed more then 4,000 troops to our efforts in OIF and OEF despite the fact that they are in a constant stand off with one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

S. Korea is one of our most loyal friends, and to not even consider if we should "offer" military assistance would be of such moral cowardice one would have to be ashamed of themselves.

I agree with you 100%.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 07:02 PM
Unlike you I have confidence in the Koreans to provide for their own defense.

Wish I shared that confidence. NK has at least 12 theatre-ready nukes, last I heard. They announced that a few weeks ago. They may be bluffing, but I wouldn't put money on it.

The SK contingent has exactly zero nukes, plus whatever the US would be prepared to use. At the moment, without United States backing, SK will not stand, if push comes to shove.

The alternate position is that both Japan and SK are allowed to reach for and then maintain a full nuclear deterrent. Both Japan and SK are sufficiently advanced industrially that this could be achieved within, at most an 18 month period, given sufficient government funding.

Do you really want to see this happen?


If it becomes China against South Korea then we need to rethink our priorities but as far as I know right now it some lunatic regime trying to hustle the world into providing more money as a tribute to not make waves. Let the South Koreans handle it.

That can change, and probably will, in a heartbeat, and you know it.

I agree with most of what you say, but for many reasons, SK is soft and ripe for attack. It would not be the first time that a stronger opponent would yield to a weaker one.

gator
11-27-2010, 07:27 PM
Wish I shared that confidence. NK has at least 12 theatre-ready nukes, last I heard. They announced that a few weeks ago. They may be bluffing, but I wouldn't put money on it.

The SK contingent has exactly zero nukes, plus whatever the US would be prepared to use. At the moment, without United States backing, SK will not stand, if push comes to shove.

The alternate position is that both Japan and SK are allowed to reach for and then maintain a full nuclear deterrent. Both Japan and SK are sufficiently advanced industrially that this could be achieved within, at most an 18 month period, given sufficient government funding.

Do you really want to see this happen?



That can change, and probably will, in a heartbeat, and you know it.

I agree with most of what you say, but for many reasons, SK is soft and ripe for attack. It would not be the first time that a stronger opponent would yield to a weaker one.

The use of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans or anybody else in the world would be disastrous for everybody concerned including the ones that used them.

I seriously doubt the NKs have deployable weapons now but if they do and decided to use them again the South that would be one of the greatest tragedies in recent human history.

There is not much the US or anybody else can do against a madman with nukes. We aren’t going to invade every country that has them so will just have to deal with the fact some undesirables have them. That genie is out of the bottle and that is the world we live in.

From a conventional standpoint I suspect the SKs can kick the ass of the NKs. The artillery aimed at Seoul would be a significant ball buster but after the initial onslaught the SKs superior weapons and training will win the day. I suspect that once the SKs counter attacked it would be pretty much over in a short period of time although there would be significant damage to Seoul. The SKs have been taught modern American military doctrine. I suspect the last doctrine lessons the NKs got was from the Soviets back in the 1960s or 1970s.

I saw a report a couple of years ago that said the NKs are very ill equipped nowadays. They have a lot of manpower in a 1.5 million man army but little else. The last time they got weapons upgrade was 25-30 years ago. Only about one third of their military rolling stock is operational at any one time and most of their ordinance and ammo is 1960s vintage. Their troops and pilots get minimal training and they are very venerable to supplies of fuel. Their command and control structure is very outdated and be destroyed almost immediately.

I have confidence in the South Koreans to take care of business when the time comes. They have had 60 years to prepare for the conflict and if they can’t do it now then they never will be able to do it.

ironhorsedriver
11-27-2010, 07:31 PM
Yes, we should aid SK. They have stood by us, providing troops to assist us in Vietnam. They are also a strong trading partner. Hyundai Heavy Industries build ships, railway equipment used worldwide. Not to mention their little cars. Bottom line, if we stand for the principle of freedom, not to mention treaties we have with them, we must stand by them.
What kind of message do you think it would send to NK, Iran, Terrorist, China, and Russia for that matter, if the US just throws it's allies continuously under the bus, or jack boots?

m00
11-27-2010, 07:43 PM
There is not much the US or anybody else can do against a madman with nukes. We aren’t going to invade every country that has them so will just have to deal with the fact some undesirables have them. That genie is out of the bottle and that is the world we live in.

I don't think NK leadership are "madmen." They're evil, but they are rational kind of evil that mostly acts in their own personal best interest (at the great cost to north koreans in general). But all firing a nuke will do is bring down their little kingdom. There are no 72 Virgins for martyrs in North Korea. Which is why I am far, far, far more concerned about Iran. That communists don't believe in a God I think was useful at times we needed to appeal to their sense of self-preservation.

hampshirebrit
11-27-2010, 07:54 PM
There is not much the US or anybody else can do against a madman with nukes. We aren’t going to invade every country that has them so will just have to deal with the fact some undesirables have them.

There is a lot that the US and original nuke capable nations should do, can do and indeed, must do, to prevent madmen coming into possession of nukes.

I am not confident that enough is being done to prevent it from happening.

There are far too many players now, lately, in the nuke game.

The fewer the players, the safer I feel.

djones520
11-27-2010, 07:58 PM
There is a lot that the US and original nuke capable nations should do, can do and indeed, must do, to prevent madmen coming into possession of nukes.

I am not confident that enough is being done to prevent it from happening.

There are far too many players now, lately, in the nuke game.

The fewer the players, the safer I feel.

The problem is, that people won't do what needs to be done. They mask their apathy (kindest word I could find for it) with "moral clarity". :rolleyes:

I hope that clarity helps them out when those bombs are falling that they were unwilling to take the steps to prevent.

AmPat
11-27-2010, 08:02 PM
Should the United States offer military assistance if North Korea invades South Korea They are an ally, yes.
Plus, we could always use another bombing range.

gator
11-27-2010, 11:03 PM
There is a lot that the US and original nuke capable nations should do, can do and indeed, must do, to prevent madmen coming into possession of nukes.

I am not confident that enough is being done to prevent it from happening.

There are far too many players now, lately, in the nuke game.

The fewer the players, the safer I feel.


Of course we would like the players to be only one - us but that ain't gonna happen. (of course we can trust our good friends in the UK to have one)

Unfortunately nuclear proliferation is a fact of life.

The physics and chemistry of making a nuke is known by almost any graduate physics student nowadays. The trick is to get the refined nuclear material and making the bomb efficient enough to be used as a deployable weapon. Probably there are 100 additional countries in the world that could produce a nuclear weapon if they wanted to.

Who do we try to take the weapons from? Russia? China? Israel? North Korea? Iran? For all we know Castro has a couple stored away.

We have lost that battle. Unless we are prepared to military action against North Korea or unless we can bribe the Chinese to get the NKs under control then there is really not much we can do. The Clinton strategy of appeasement and paying off the NKs to not make waves was only a short term fix.