You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The problem that is North Korea
December 11 2017 11.07am

The problem that is North Korea

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 15 May 17 11.57am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721


Its a cold war stalemate.

No it isn't.

This is the problem with this analysis is that it is extremely short term.

North Korea will continue on to develop its missile technology until it can be accurate and reach all its foes not just the region.

From there the danegeld.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 May 17 12.02pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Trump's position is essentially the correct one. If China doesn't stop NK's nuclear threat then the US will.

What the policy is beyond that I con only summise.

NK's ability to reach the nearest US bases are now becoming a possible reality. It will just continue on from there.

I for one won't countenance paying the danegeld.

A very real threat to drop a nuclear missile to wipe out Pyongyang within a time limit unless all weaponized nuclear development is verifiably stopped is the only language this modern day 'Sparta' slave state will understand if it doesn't and China can't change it then it has to go.

I don't think its quite as simple as a moral stance. Either you negotiate the price for peace, and that involves some give, or you work out just how many people you're prepared to see die for your moral high point.

Pragmatically, we could be talking about millions of dead people, and the relative destruction of many Japanese metropolises and most of South Korea and that may be before you start to count military casualties.

Do I like that we occasionally have to make a deal with North Korea every few years, no. But I don't think that we (or the US) can really influence North Korea militarily to give up its nuclear programs either.

So we're back an in impasse. Do we start a war, which we can only likely win with massive casualties, or look at whether the 'dane gold' is reasonable.

After all, if the price of peace is reasonable, then why not. Its not like they're demanding that we all join the Communist Party.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 May 17 12.07pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

No it isn't.

This is the problem with this analysis is that it is extremely short term.

North Korea will continue on to develop its missile technology until it can be accurate and reach all its foes not just the region.

From there the danegeld.

So are you saying, we should strike now, whilst the only likely casualties are foreigners and the US servicemen stationed in the area?

I think Japan and South Korea would rather be paying the danegold indefinitely, provided the price isn't too extortionate, and the demands aren't unreasonable.

In fairness, North Koreas capability with missile technology is such, that it might be able to hit the US. They still won't launch more than a symbolic strike against the US. Their plan has always been to retaliate against US aggression by targeting Japan and South Korea.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 15 May 17 12.18pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I don't think its quite as simple as a moral stance. Either you negotiate the price for peace, and that involves some give, or you work out just how many people you're prepared to see die for your moral high point.

Pragmatically, we could be talking about millions of dead people, and the relative destruction of many Japanese metropolises and most of South Korea and that may be before you start to count military casualties.

Do I like that we occasionally have to make a deal with North Korea every few years, no. But I don't think that we (or the US) can really influence North Korea militarily to give up its nuclear programs either.

So we're back an in impasse. Do we start a war, which we can only likely win with massive casualties, or look at whether the 'dane gold' is reasonable.

After all, if the price of peace is reasonable, then why not. Its not like they're demanding that we all join the Communist Party.

You are quite the modern day 'Chamberlain' Jamie.

Again, I think this analysis is short sighted.

Once you accept the danegeld with NK you show that blackmail works and you encourage this approach with other emerging states.

For me personally I would never agree to this. Of course...I only represent an opinion as does any individual. Japan and South Korea can make their own minds up or course but I think it's a foolish path.

The US needs to draw a line in the sand quickly before it loses all its options here. NK is essentially China's little barking dog and we are the scared tart standing on the chair.

I'm afraid it's calculation like yours Jamie that has led us here.

Destroying the capital Pyongyang has to be a real possibility.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 12.18pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View hedgehog50's Profile hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 15 May 17 12.23pm Send a Private Message to hedgehog50 Add hedgehog50 as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I don't think its quite as simple as a moral stance. Either you negotiate the price for peace, and that involves some give, or you work out just how many people you're prepared to see die for your moral high point.

Pragmatically, we could be talking about millions of dead people, and the relative destruction of many Japanese metropolises and most of South Korea and that may be before you start to count military casualties.

Do I like that we occasionally have to make a deal with North Korea every few years, no. But I don't think that we (or the US) can really influence North Korea militarily to give up its nuclear programs either.

So we're back an in impasse. Do we start a war, which we can only likely win with massive casualties, or look at whether the 'dane gold' is reasonable.

After all, if the price of peace is reasonable, then why not. Its not like they're demanding that we all join the Communist Party.

Not yet - be patient.

I was going to mention Chamberlain, but Stirling has beat me to it.

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 15 May 17 12.26pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

So are you saying, we should strike now, whilst the only likely casualties are foreigners and the US servicemen stationed in the area?

I think Japan and South Korea would rather be paying the danegold indefinitely, provided the price isn't too extortionate, and the demands aren't unreasonable.

In fairness, North Koreas capability with missile technology is such, that it might be able to hit the US. They still won't launch more than a symbolic strike against the US. Their plan has always been to retaliate against US aggression by targeting Japan and South Korea.

You can't be certain of NK's intentions and you don't build a defence policy on guesses on intentions....You build it on capacity. With the USSR we knew we had a rational opponent, whereas with North Korea we have guesswork.

If Japan and South Korea wish to bend its knee then that's for them....though I wouldn't be so certain that this would carry much favour for long in Japan. They need to be building underground bunkers....Hell, it's a crime that this hasn't been invested in even here.

I've said what I think should be done...I wouldn't be surprised if Trump's team has done this already. You provide your client states with as much anti missile capacity as possible. Notice that China object heavily to this...How surprising. Then you tell China and its barking dog that once you assess that they have advanced their strike capacity to a certain stage that they will lose Pyongyang. This is what happens when you continue to pass the buck down the line and let the problem continue to grow.

It should be made very clear that we won't be paying any danegeld.


Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 12.47pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 May 17 12.46pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You are quite the modern day 'Chamberlain' Jamie.

Again, I think this analysis is short sighted.

Once you accept the danegeld with NK you show that blackmail works and you encourage this approach with other emerging states.

For me personally I would never agree to this. Of course...I only represent an opinion as does any individual. Japan and South Korea can make their own minds up or course but I think it's a foolish path.

The US needs to draw a line in the sand quickly before it loses all its options here. NK is essentially China's little barking dog and we are the scared tart standing on the chair.

I'm afraid it's calculation like yours Jamie that has led us here.

Destroying the capital Pyongyang has to be a real possibility.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 12.18pm)

If we can escape the rhetroric for a minute, of who is who, I'm not really suggesting that dane gold is anything more than negotiations - Something that happens with every country in the world.

What do I think will happen, well the US line in the sand will be 'the face to the world' and in truth, they'll negotiate a solution behind the scenes with the Chinese.

The US won't I think, do much more than rattle its sabres, the two sides will face off, and that'll be that for another few years. Both sides will them claim a great victory.

Same as always happens. They're not going to give up their nuclear program, any more than Iran will, because ultimately, its their main means of political engagement with the outside world, and their leverage.

Full scale military intervention? If I'm Chamberlin, then you're Jack Ripper (Dr Strangelove).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View jamiemartin721's Profile jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 15 May 17 12.54pm Send a Private Message to jamiemartin721 Add jamiemartin721 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You can't be certain of NK's intentions and you don't build a defence policy on guesses on intentions....You build it on capacity. With the USSR we knew we had a rational opponent, whereas with North Korea we have guesswork.

Of course they're rational, because irrational dictators tend to end up 'having accidents'. They seem irrational, but like anything, the 'Leader' isn't really the person in charge, they're the symbol of power.

They're not, as a rule, raving mad men. And even if they are, they tend to be quickly replaced, because like any other system, the elite have their own interests at heart.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

If Japan and South Korea wish to bend its knee then that's for them....though I wouldn't be so certain that this would carry much favour for long in Japan. They need to be building underground bunkers....Hell, it's a crime that this hasn't been invested in even here.

I think Japan might be more concerned that they'd carry the vast weight of the retaliation for the US foreign policy.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It should be made very clear that we won't be paying any danegeld.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 12.31pm)

We're not though, we're negotiating with them, because the consequence of an actual war with North Korea potentially means millions on dead in South Korea and Japan - Which isn't an acceptable price for preventing North Korean missile research.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 15 May 17 1.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

If we can escape the rhetroric for a minute, of who is who, I'm not really suggesting that dane gold is anything more than negotiations - Something that happens with every country in the world.

What do I think will happen, well the US line in the sand will be 'the face to the world' and in truth, they'll negotiate a solution behind the scenes with the Chinese.

The US won't I think, do much more than rattle its sabres, the two sides will face off, and that'll be that for another few years. Both sides will them claim a great victory.

Same as always happens. They're not going to give up their nuclear program, any more than Iran will, because ultimately, its their main means of political engagement with the outside world, and their leverage.

Full scale military intervention? If I'm Chamberlin, then you're Jack Ripper (Dr Strangelove).

Come on James...the rhetoric is half the fun.

As for 'Jack the Ripper' well he got away with it.

Chamberlain died a quite unpleasant death while we were still very much in peril. A noble but unfortunately duped actor on the world stage.

You see these 'negotiations' with China will result in very little result without the real intent for actual military action on NK. The 'Obamas' of this world just don't cut it. A defensively minded and supplicant west is very much a desired state for China's regional ambitions.

I hope you are right about the 'behind the scenes' negotiations with China. That's what should happen but I think it's fifty fifty myself......I don't see NK being easily talked out from a blackmail position myself.

Real ball twisting is required.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 15 May 17 1.10pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

We're not though, we're negotiating with them, because the consequence of an actual war with North Korea potentially means millions on dead in South Korea and Japan - Which isn't an acceptable price for preventing North Korean missile research.

I wish I could say I agreed with any of your analysis on this topic Jamie.

Regardless we are pawns on the board and we will see where the Kings and Queens move us.

Quite a while ago I started looking for what I should do for my family in the result of a nuclear attack....I'm probably fifty miles away from the most likely target.....third degree burns at worse, building would stand up and depending on the wind direction half an hour to get underground with provisions....Still, I swiftly discovered that there is no provision for the general public.

You can't even easily get planning permission to start building an underground bunker.

I think the general public need to start putting pressure on the government for more of a 'cold war' mentality. We need the options to create communal bunkers.

Up s*** creek without a paddle.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 1.16pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View .TUX.'s Profile .TUX. Flag 15 May 17 1.27pm Send a Private Message to .TUX. Add .TUX. as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I wish I could say I agreed with any of your analysis on this topic Jamie.

Regardless we are pawns on the board and we will see where the Kings and Queens move us.

Quite a while ago I started looking for what I should do for my family in the result of a nuclear attack....I'm probably fifty miles away from the most likely target.....third degree burns at worse, building would stand up and depending on the wind direction half an hour to get underground with provisions....Still, I swiftly discovered that there is no provision for the general public.

You can't even easily get planning permission to start building an underground bunker.

I think the general public need to start putting pressure on the government for more of a 'cold war' mentality. We need the options to create communal bunkers.

Up s*** creek without a paddle.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 May 2017 1.16pm)

It's a tough call but ultimately the best bet may well be to move 50miles closer and get it over with.

 


Market chaos looms.
Buy Bitcoin/Litecoin.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Frickin Saweet's Profile Frickin Saweet Flag Just outside The Cronx 15 May 17 2.16pm Send a Private Message to Frickin Saweet Add Frickin Saweet as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The policy on North Korea is seemingly to wait until it is powerful enough to blackmail western and regional states for money and influence to avoid nuclear war. Leaders preferring to pass on the problem to the next administration. In history it's a bit like paying the danegeld to avoid the raiding Vikings....the softness of the rich and entitled west exposed on the world stage.

Anyone have any thoughts on the issue?

Trump and the new South Korean head chap have both said they'd be up for meeting him in the right circumstances. No one wants a war so engagement and conversation is the best route to bringing about a better way of N Korea working with the rest of the world. It might just be the olive branch they need to dig their backwards regime and poor people out of the dark ages.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The problem that is North Korea