Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Just when you think that rhetoric from the fraudulently-named Democratic People's Republic of Korea (nothing democratic about it, its people are subjects, the system is an absolute monarchy and not a republic... OK, so it does locate itself properly in Korea instead of somewhere else) can't get worse, it does.
Or is it just another unhinged blathering of a lunatic?
Quote:SEOUL/JAPAN, Sept 14 (Reuters) - A North Korean state agency threatened on Thursday to use nuclear weapons to “sink” Japan and reduce the United States to “ashes and darkness” for supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution and sanctions over its latest nuclear test.
Pyongyang’s Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, which handles the North’s external ties and propaganda, also called for the breakup of the Security Council, which it called “a tool of evil” made up of “money-bribed” countries that move at the order of the United States.
“The four islands of the archipelago should be sunken into the sea by the nuclear bomb of Juche. Japan is no longer needed to exist near us,” the committee said in a statement carried by the North’s official KCNA news agency.
Juche is the North’s ruling ideology that mixes Marxism and an extreme form of go-it-alone nationalism preached by state founder Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jong Un.
Regional tensions have risen markedly since the reclusive North conducted its sixth, and by far its most powerful, nuclear test on Sept. 3.The 15-member Security Council voted unanimously on a U.S.-drafted resolution and a new round of sanctions on Monday in response, banning North Korea’s textile exports that are the second largest only to coal and mineral, and capping fuel supplies.
The North reacted to the latest action by the Security Council, which had the backing of veto-holding China and Russia, by reiterating threats to destroy the United States, Japan and South Korea.
“Let’s reduce the U.S. mainland into ashes and darkness. Let’s vent our spite with mobilization of all retaliation means which have been prepared till now,” the statement said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nort...mg00000009
Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee
If that isn't Newspeak, then what is?
In case Kim Jong-Insane doesn't know, it is impossible to use nuclear weapons to sink a landmass like Japan into the ocean with nuclear weapons... but how would he know?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2016
I don't believe that the Norks represent a truly serious threat. Yes, the could probably do some damage to an area or two, and even kill a fair number of people if they manage to land a nuke in a population center, but as far as the ability to threaten the nation with destruction, that's a complete yawn. Not to mention their taking any such action would result in their complete annihilation. Best thing the world could do is pay the fat little idiot no attention, which would probably piss him off even more.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
The DPRK is not a real threat to the US per se, rather it is an existential threat to one and maybe two US allies (ROK obviously, and Japan). That being said any war between them and a US/ROK/Japan coalition will result in an absolute victory for the US unless China decides to back the DPRK. There is very little evidence that the PRC wants to fight the US, they buy far too much rice from us and few other places have the surpluses we do.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 46
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2016
(09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
I tend to look at this in terms of the self defense principle of AOJ: ability, opportunity, jeopardy. Firing a missile across another nation is definitely saying I have the ability and opportunity to harm you and most certainly placing them in immediate jeopardy. In self defense circles, this is the standard that legitimizes the use of deadly force in response to an aggressor.
In short, Japan would be well within their rights to violently respond to NK.
As far as China goes, well they can go shit in a pile and sit in it as far as I am concerned.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-14-2017, 01:16 PM)noway2 Wrote: I don't believe that the Norks represent a truly serious threat. Yes, the could probably do some damage to an area or two, and even kill a fair number of people if they manage to land a nuke in a population center, but as far as the ability to threaten the nation with destruction, that's a complete yawn. Not to mention their taking any such action would result in their complete annihilation. Best thing the world could do is pay the fat little idiot no attention, which would probably piss him off even more.
If they can destroy the city you live in, do you really care if the whole nation is destroyed?
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
09-18-2017, 02:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-18-2017, 02:27 PM by David Horn.)
(09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
Considering the PRC's economic reality I would say it is safer to take the bet now than to take the bet later when Kim not only has nukes but has the means to deliver them. The Chinese are unlikely to go to nuclear war with a state that they rely on for grain and for the means to purchase the raw materials to power their export based economy.
As it stands it would take 2 years for Brazil or a similar country to move from whatever cash crop to rice to feed China, and as for oil they would be limited to Iran, Venezuela or Russia, and probably only Iran and Venezuela as relations with Russia are tepid at the best of times.
China has far more to lose stepping in to defend Kim if the US strikes now.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.
The people in Seoul might disagree with this. Sure, we do fine, but they take a huge hit today, tomorrow and into the indefinite future.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-19-2017, 12:36 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: (09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
Considering the PRC's economic reality I would say it is safer to take the bet now than to take the bet later when Kim not only has nukes but has the means to deliver them. The Chinese are unlikely to go to nuclear war with a state that they rely on for grain and for the means to purchase the raw materials to power their export based economy.
As it stands it would take 2 years for Brazil or a similar country to move from whatever cash crop to rice to feed China, and as for oil they would be limited to Iran, Venezuela or Russia, and probably only Iran and Venezuela as relations with Russia are tepid at the best of times.
China has far more to lose stepping in to defend Kim if the US strikes now.
I can only repeat the same comment I made to Warren: this is already beyond the point where control is possible. When this gets to be too much for China, some resolution may be possible. Maybe.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-19-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote: (09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-15-2017, 10:44 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: China has stated that it will oppose American aggression (as in first strike or invasion) of North Korea but will be neutral in the event of North Korean aggression. As I see it Chinese neutrality about a conflict between North Korea and either South Korea, Japan, or the United States would be like throwing North Korea to the wolves.
Firing a missile over another country's territory is itself an act of war even if a military response to such may be unwise.
Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.
The people in Seoul might disagree with this. Sure, we do fine, but they take a huge hit today, tomorrow and into the indefinite future.
If the US attacks only the nuclear program and not the Kim regime, then the risk of Kim shelling Seoul and dooming his own regime is very small.
In contrast, if the US does nothing, then a successful invasion of South Korea by North Korea is very likely within a decade.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(09-19-2017, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.
None of which the senior Kim has done in the past 70 years. That he'll invade the South has a much higher likelihood.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(09-19-2017, 01:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: If the US attacks only the nuclear program and not the Kim regime, then the risk of Kim shelling Seoul and dooming his own regime is very small.
This seems reckless to me. The only military options that seem rational to me would be a decapitation attack or a full scale nuclear strike designed to destroy the nation and exterminate the North Korean population.
Doing the latter as a first strike would make us a pariah nation, like Nazi Germany and so would only make sense if it were in response to a nuclear strike against us or our allies. In fact this was our stance wrt to the USSR in the initial phases of the Cold War, when we had versus the USSR the same sort of nuclear superiority as we have wrt NK. We never did it because they never attacked us (and this was with Stalin, who was probably even more evil than Kim).
A decapitation attack would result in tens of thousands dead in the capital and would probably also require tactical nuclear strikes against military targets to blunt a response until SK can mount an invasion. The best chance of success would be to launch a surprise attack *after* the US has completed a unilateral withdrawal of all military forces from S. Korea complete with a public "look to you own defenses" speech by the president. This would serve to deescalate tensions and increase the probability that Kim and his top ministers will killed by a surprise attack out of the blue.
Or we could just pull out and rely on deterrence, which would be my preference.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(09-19-2017, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-19-2017, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.
None of which the senior Kim has done in the past 70 years. That he'll invade the South has a much higher likelihood.
I doubt it.
https://southfront.org/north-korea-vs-so...look-like/
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(09-19-2017, 04:18 PM)Mikebert Wrote: (09-19-2017, 02:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-19-2017, 02:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Within a decade. In the meantime Kim Jong-Un could be overthrown in a military coup. He could do something really stupid that causes the People's Liberation Army to liberate northern Korea. He could choke on some food.
None of which the senior Kim has done in the past 70 years. That he'll invade the South has a much higher likelihood.
I doubt it.
https://southfront.org/north-korea-vs-so...look-like/
That link is rather interesting. However, it fails to take into account two very large factors.
1. With nuclear weapons the DPRK would have a real deterant against US involvement.
2. The ROK with its large industrial base, and high GDP would be prime targets for the DPRK to take over to prop up the regime.
Add to that the fact that "Korean Unification" has been a stated goal for 60 years and the DPRK has much to gain from developing nuclear weapons and then invading the South, and little to lose since it is already an international pariah.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(09-19-2017, 01:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-19-2017, 09:26 AM)David Horn Wrote: (09-18-2017, 04:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: (09-18-2017, 02:22 PM)David Horn Wrote: (09-15-2017, 06:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Do you have a reference on China saying they would oppose an American first strike? Or does that just mean "oppose diplomatically" without military opposition?
Are you a gambler? Since we can't know how this will play for sure and the results range from a nothing burger to nuclear war, are you willing to bet?
I prefer to play it safe, which is why I prefer to take my chances resolving this now rather than taking my much worse chances after Kim has nuclear weapons and free rein to sell them to terrorists and rogue states.
The people in Seoul might disagree with this. Sure, we do fine, but they take a huge hit today, tomorrow and into the indefinite future.
If the US attacks only the nuclear program and not the Kim regime, then the risk of Kim shelling Seoul and dooming his own regime is very small.
In contrast, if the US does nothing, then a successful invasion of South Korea by North Korea is very likely within a decade.
You're acting like Kim is rational in the western sense of the term. I would suspect that an attack on his nuclear program would trigger an artillery barrage of Seoul. More to the point, I doubt we can knock out either his nuclear of missile program entirely, so we gain nothing at huge expense.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
The problem Mr. Horn, is that Kim is rational. There is no "western sense" to whether one is rational or not. In fact I would say that all three have been particularly cold and calculating in their world wide actions. Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un in particular. Il-Sung mostly lived on foreign aid from the USSR and China.
As for shelling Seoul, I say let him. It means the ROK will have no choice but to fight, and eventually reunify the penensula. They don't have much interest in doing that right now because modernizing the North would be a huge drag on their economy much like Germany experienced in their reunification.
Vietnam not so much. Neither the south or the north were particularly developed at the time.
|
