N. Korea Disscusion Thread

[Rio Cana]

The following youtube site is having what they say is live news on this situation. They even talked about the China and US incident the other day. US warship got very close to some Chinese islands in the South China sea. A Chinese aircrsft carrier is bound toward Shanghai. They showed that aircraft carrier having drills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6kKM03q1uk

[Union of Despotistan]

When East Germany fell, West Germany was hit hard by how poor the East German State was. It hurt their economy and we can still see the differences after all those years unified. All this without a war.

Can we seriously imagine South Korea be ok with anyone bombing DPRK to get rid of their rulers ? It would be an economical suicide to handle afterwards.

I think the best is still to wait. If the DPRK attacks someone, then we have a reason to obliterate them. But It's also quite probable this regime will simply fail an implode by itself in a while.

[Ragusan North America]

Trying to solve this problem diplomatically, like we tried to in Iran (that deal was, in my opinion, a waste of time), would be intriguing if done right, and disastrous if done wrong.

CHINA hates NK as much as we do and has the power to end them economically; they just won't lift a finger because they don't want a US puppet on their border. We can probably convince China to bring NK to the negotiating table IF we present an alternative to negotiation that isn't war:

If the US can agree to withdraw its presence from the Korean peninsula, and SK can agree to adopt constitutional neutrality (think Switzerland, Sweden), then maybe China could support Korean unification under the government in Seoul. Of course, certain assurances would have to be made to the Kim family and the rest of the NK ruling elite so that they don't strike out of some sense of personal self-preservation.

I'm not saying this HAS to happen, but if the NK leadership sees THIS as the alternative to negotiation rather than war then they may be willing to negotiate. I don't think that making coercive threats will have the same effect on the regime, especially since China would not be on board and would probably back up NK against such threats.

[Ethel mermania]

No no. We wait for NK to attack that way we aren't seen as the agressers

Just don't declare war, then we won't be the aggressors.

I feel like a west coast invasion from the bay along the peninsula is best. Possibly use North Korea ex-patriots and the like to spear head the invasion, and we'll provide air support.

What to call it though. That's the questions. I hear Koreans like pork, so maybe something to do with that. Call it the Bay of Swine invasion, maybe. Yeah, that sounds good.

I'm sure it will be a smashing success.

That's why it needs an awesome sound track. Also, the landing zone would obviously be Mrs. Piggy Cove.

Are you sayin. Kermit is going to be mounting piggy in the upcoming operation?

[Sovaal]

Just don't declare war, then we won't be the aggressors.

That's why it needs an awesome sound track. Also, the landing zone would obviously be Mrs. Piggy Cove.

Are you sayin. Kermit is going to be mounting piggy in the upcoming operation?

Savagely.

[Dreadnoughtia]

Stand up?

To us?

Kim is so fucking short, mini me looks down on him.

The average nork is a fucking manlet.

the KPA is a snapshot of the russian red army-from the 70s.

Even china is sick of their shit.

I say we divide it up into North Korea, where the PRC can have their buffer zone from evil American imperialism, and North South Korea, where we flood the land with investments to help Seoul rebuild.

Why divide them? That's the very same process that got us into this mess in the first place....
And im struggling to see where this "Flood of money" would be coming from? We would've spent hundreds of billions in a war, billions in aid to the south, and cant even guarantee the effective transfer in the other war zones we've participated in.
The North Koreans and South Koreans would need each other following the war more than ever if there was to be any measure of real progress. That starts at the local level and making sure you snuff out corruption there first, then have a strong reliable post- war government structure

https://www.sigar.mil/interactive-reports/corruption-in-conflict/index.html
https://insidedefense.com/insider/sigar-report-systemic-corruption-hampered-reconstruction-efforts-afghanistan
https://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+war+corruption&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS750US750&oq=iraq+war+corruption&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.13498j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/the-failed-reconstruction-of-iraq/274041/

[Khalisako]

Eh, I'm not too worried about it yet.

I think the ICBM shenanigans is just Little Kimmy flexing his flab to make himself appear to be as strong/stronger than his father and keep grip on power, cuz North Korean people these days are supposedly becoming increasingly unfavoring of him and the regime. If he has any sense of self preservation or desire to keep his power he'll avoid actually hitting anyone with those rockets he tossing about.

That's jsut what I think tho.

[Tierra de Gohni]

WTF?! They finally did it?! http://abcnews.go.com/International/nor ... d=48429720

Uncle Kimi is getting excited

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Resolving the North Korean issue by force would result in the biggest refugee wave since WWII. If by some miracle we manage to reunite the total horrid anarchy that would ensure with South Korea the resulting state would need more money than the entirety of the Marshall Aide provided to post-war Europe to bring it up to a mid-60's level of development. The entire East Asia region would be wrecked for a century to come and the world economy would basically implode. So yeah, you cannot invade North Korea, their perpetual famine is their best self-defence. The best hopes for it atm is a Chinese puppet regime that maintains the current development level but is actually rational.

[Kramania]

All bets are off. Kim and his regime need to be destroyed.

[Wallenburg]

Why don't we just use our nukes? Evacuations, yes. But just one to Pyongyang would take care of Kimmie.

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

[The East Marches II]

Why don't we just use our nukes? Evacuations, yes. But just one to Pyongyang would take care of Kimmie.

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

It's not like the so called laws have ever stopped us. It's really the mop up of nuke residue and bad visuals. I worry we will try to provoke a first strike by NK so we can just wipe them clean out.

[Neo Balka]

Why don't we just use our nukes? Evacuations, yes. But just one to Pyongyang would take care of Kimmie.

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

You really think Putin and the chinese premier are going to sacrifice their nations for fucking north korea?

[Athrax]

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

You really think Putin and the chinese premier are going to sacrifice their nations for fucking north korea?

Not at all, but it would hardly help to ease world tensions and would drive a huge wedge between the US and its allies, save perhaps a deeply weakened and preoccupied Korea

[Wallenburg]

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

You really think Putin and the chinese premier are going to sacrifice their nations for fucking north korea?

That's not what I said. I said that nuking a state that did not attack us will cause disaster for everyone in the area (including our allies), will lead to mass distrust of the US's collective sanity, and will reduce nukes to the level of conventional weapons in the eyes of military and political leaders. The end result is an irradiated far East, and a political stage where threatening to nuke anyone who doesn't do what you want becomes a "legitimate" method of "diplomacy".

[The East Marches II]

Yes, why don't we just engage in a first strike against another nuclear power, killing millions of civilians in violation of countless laws, and causing humanitarian and political crises larger than anything we have seen in decades, perhaps centuries? While we're at it, we may as well nuke Moscow and Beijing too. What could go wrong?

You really think Putin and the chinese premier are going to sacrifice their nations for fucking north korea?

I can't help but wonder if chemical weapons wouldn't be more effective tbh.

[Athrax]

You really think Putin and the chinese premier are going to sacrifice their nations for fucking north korea?

I can't help but wonder if chemical weapons wouldn't be more effective tbh.

In practically no situation are chemical weapons more effective than nuclear. And that's putting aside the lack of deployable US chemical weapons

[Wallenburg]

I can't help but wonder if chemical weapons wouldn't be more effective tbh.

In practically no situation are chemical weapons more effective than nuclear. And that's putting aside the lack of deployable US chemical weapons

LOL

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Shit.

[Sovaal]

Shit.

Yep.

[The East Marches II]

I can't help but wonder if chemical weapons wouldn't be more effective tbh.

In practically no situation are chemical weapons more effective than nuclear. And that's putting aside the lack of deployable US chemical weapons

Think about the damage and the cost. What looks better and is less damaging internationally? A bit of VX or roasted bodies? Surely we have to have some chemical weapons around. Its not like us to honor our agreements.

[The East Marches II]

Upon further google fu it looks like we were dumb enough to do that. Fuck.

[Athrax]

In practically no situation are chemical weapons more effective than nuclear. And that's putting aside the lack of deployable US chemical weapons

Think about the damage and the cost. What looks better and is less damaging internationally? A bit of VX or roasted bodies? Surely we have to have some chemical weapons around. Its not like us to honor our agreements.

Neither would be viewed favorably, and we've been so willing to toss out our chemical weapons because they are a fickle and tempestuous beast and you're better off just dropping a few big conventional weapons or even a nuke than rolling the dice on your enemy not being ready for chemical weapons. And they would mostly affect civilians anyway, because most military targets are hardened against chemical attack. It's best to just get the public goodwill from getting rid of them and being done with the matter.

[The East Marches II]

Think about the damage and the cost. What looks better and is less damaging internationally? A bit of VX or roasted bodies? Surely we have to have some chemical weapons around. Its not like us to honor our agreements.

Neither would be viewed favorably, and we've been so willing to toss out our chemical weapons because they are a fickle and tempestuous beast and you're better off just dropping a few big conventional weapons or even a nuke than rolling the dice on your enemy not being ready for chemical weapons. And they would mostly affect civilians anyway, because most military targets are hardened against chemical attack. It's best to just get the public goodwill from getting rid of them and being done with the matter.

You are correct that neither would be viewed favorably but chemical weapons have been used with great success in the past to suppress artillery positions. I'm not concerned about use on civilians so much as I am about the desperation of US forces to knock out North Korean artillery. Trump is the sort to resort to limited nuclear weapons usage if it would give us an advantage or help solve an unsolvable problem by conventional weapons. We don't operate nuclear artillery anymore either so we've limited delivery options. Chemical artillery though does have a role to play in its advantages in delivery speed.

[Athrax]

Neither would be viewed favorably, and we've been so willing to toss out our chemical weapons because they are a fickle and tempestuous beast and you're better off just dropping a few big conventional weapons or even a nuke than rolling the dice on your enemy not being ready for chemical weapons. And they would mostly affect civilians anyway, because most military targets are hardened against chemical attack. It's best to just get the public goodwill from getting rid of them and being done with the matter.

You are correct that neither would be viewed favorably but chemical weapons have been used with great success in the past to suppress artillery positions. I'm not concerned about use on civilians so much as I am about the desperation of US forces to knock out North Korean artillery. Trump is the sort to resort to limited nuclear weapons usage if it would give us an advantage or help solve an unsolvable problem by conventional weapons. We don't operate nuclear artillery anymore either so we've limited delivery options. Chemical artillery though does have a role to play in its advantages in delivery speed.

PGMs would be much more effective, and it's not like we've not got a few of those lying around