2004....Who do we waste next?

[The Yosemite Bear]

*plays Randy Newman*

"They all hate us any7 how so lets dropp the big one now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm assuming you mean, by the way, that they'd help us if we attacked first. If the north tried to invade the south and we assisted the southern counterattack, they might indeed send troops to stake a claim to the reconstruction process. Or at least shoot anyone who tries to get across the Yalu.

In both cases I think they might engage in operations to secure a part of the DPRK. The help would be, ah, two-edged to say the least. I have even proposed before that China might at some point invade the DPRK on its own. Though nukes make that unlikely now, it isn't unfeasable in concept. If China could loot the DPRK and hand the carcass over to the ROK in exchange for ROK neutrality, that would remove one U.S. ally from their flank and secure them better water deals on the Yalu (they badly need water anywhere they can get it), along with a "good image" in the international stage for having dealt with a rogue state. They'd also gain any technology they might find of worth there.

[Joe]

They'd also gain any technology they might find of worth there.

The DPRK doesn't have much of that that China or the RoK wouldn't have already, as far as I'm aware.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The DPRK doesn't have much of that that China or the RoK wouldn't have already, as far as I'm aware.

I should have said "industry", apologies.

[Joe]

The DPRK doesn't have much of that that China or the RoK wouldn't have already, as far as I'm aware.

I should have said "industry", apologies.

Actually, not much of that either. *laughs*

It's a really shitty country.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, not much of that either. *laughs*

It's a really shitty country.

The north has always been the industrial heartland of Korea, and they their economic productions do go somewhere--arms factories.

[Sarevok]

No, we mustn't attack North Korea. Not while there's the possibility that it can be solved diplomatically and/or the DPRK will simply crumble completely from within. Seoul is too great a price to pay, both morally and from the perspective of the best interests of the United States.

Solving the crisis diplomaticaly will be essentialy surrendering to North Koreas blackmail. DPRK has not collapsed in over 50 years and is unlikely to self destruct in the next 50 years. So unless the US intervenes North Korea will continue to remain a threat indefinately.

I'm trying to be patient here because I'm not much for the "you fucking idiot" school of debating, but North Korea ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons. We invade=Seoul destroyed. Also, perhaps you missed this part of history class, but the last time we invaded North Korea and attempted to destroy the Communist regime there, 500,000 Chinese "volunteers" poured across the Yalu River. I've argued repeatedly that Beijing would not interfere with a counterattack against North Korea if they tried to push across the DMZ, but if we strike first, all bets are off (and do remember that prior to 1991, the USSR also would have disapproved of a preemptive invasion of the North).

You are right that the war would carry a terrible toll on the innocents. But there is no other real option. If North Korea is allowed to exist they will continue opressing their own people, build more WMDs, supply WMDs to terrorists and even build missiles capable of threating the US mainland.

Anyway if North Korean nuclear weapons could be used before the US can destroy them I am against military intervention. But if North Koreas nuclear weapons are not ready or can be taken out quickly then I think the US should attack before DPRK builds more nuclear weapons.

[RedImperator]

You are right that the war would carry a terrible toll on the innocents. But there is no other real option. If North Korea is allowed to exist they will continue opressing their own people, build more WMDs, supply WMDs to terrorists and even build missiles capable of threating the US mainland.

I hate to be the one who has to tell you this, but better the North Koreans be oppressed than millions of Koreans from both side of the DMZ dying along with thousands of American troops, along with the entire Goddamn world economy as downtown Seoul goes up in a mushroom cloud.

Anyway if North Korean nuclear weapons could be used before the US can destroy them I am against military intervention. But if North Koreas nuclear weapons are not ready or can be taken out quickly then I think the US should attack before DPRK builds more nuclear weapons.

You'd need rock-solid, indisputable intelligence that you'd located and accounted for every single weapons and could destroy them in a first strike. That kind of intelligence doesn't exist in the real world. If ONE SRBM gets through, Seoul is destroyed. Two, and there's a good chance you've lost Tokyo, too. The risk isn't worth it. North Korea is diplomatically and economically isolated. The odds are much better that they'll fall apart on their own than we'll locate all their weapons and destroy them in a first strike.

[Peregrin Toker]

Uh, hello, remember Seoul? Major world economic nexus? 11 million people? Center of South Korean industry? Millions of pretty Korean girls? Guess which city goes up in a mushroom cloud if Kim Jong Il thinks he's got nothing to lose?

That is the very reason why North Korea should be attacked. If North Korea is allowed to continue with their nuclear programme they could threaten any country they do not like. The problem is North Korea may already have nuclear weapons which it will not hesitate to use. If the US acted before they had nuclear capability we would not be risking the lives of so many civilians today.

No, we mustn't attack North Korea. Not while there's the possibility that it can be solved diplomatically and/or the DPRK will simply crumble completely from within. Seoul is too great a price to pay, both morally and from the perspective of the best interests of the United States.

But wouldn't a reluctance to attack North Korea simply lead to another Cold War?

[Sarevok]

I hate to be the one who has to tell you this, but better the North Koreans be oppressed than millions of Koreans from both side of the DMZ dying along with thousands of American troops, along with the entire Goddamn world economy as downtown Seoul goes up in a mushroom cloud.

You'd need rock-solid, indisputable intelligence that you'd located and accounted for every single weapons and could destroy them in a first strike. That kind of intelligence doesn't exist in the real world. If ONE SRBM gets through, Seoul is destroyed. Two, and there's a good chance you've lost Tokyo, too. The risk isn't worth it. North Korea is diplomatically and economically isolated. The odds are much better that they'll fall apart on their own than we'll locate all their weapons and destroy them in a first strike.

Looks like I was wrong and you were right. Thanks for your arguments.

BTW will North Korea ever crumble from the inside ? It has shown no signs of doing so in the last 50 years.

[phongn]

But wouldn't a reluctance to attack North Korea simply lead to another Cold War?

Well, in this case it's a superpower versus some pissant little power with a few big sticks, but yes. Containment and economic warfare.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If ONE SRBM gets through, Seoul is destroyed. Two, and there's a good chance you've lost Tokyo, too.

A single SRBM is not going to destroy Seoul, and the DPRK's upper-end estimate 9-warhead arsenal would be hard pressed to do so, for that matter, let alone to Tokyo, assuming they can all fit on missiles.

[phongn]

Of course, you can do considerable damage to either city if not destroy even a large percentage outright.

[RedImperator]

If ONE SRBM gets through, Seoul is destroyed. Two, and there's a good chance you've lost Tokyo, too.

A single SRBM is not going to destroy Seoul, and the DPRK's upper-end estimate 9-warhead arsenal would be hard pressed to do so, for that matter, let alone to Tokyo, assuming they can all fit on missiles.

You're right that it wouldn't destroy Seoul (forgive my embellishment), and without a compass and a population density map, I can't figure out exactly how many people would die, but you figure, absolute low end, they'll have one Nagasaki type implosion bomb worth 20kt, detonated over the city center on a workday morning, and you're looking at a million people dead or injured and the world economy going into a tailspin. It's simply not, in my estimation, worth the price.

[j1j2j3]

Hahaha all you people talking about Seoul wasted by a nuclear weapon...

And I'm playing Korea's national pastime Starcraft unperturbed... not caring about fallout or how many millions will die but, whether I should go for the tank upgrade or stick with medics and marines.

I guess it's the social conditioning.

[Peregrin Toker]

Hahaha all you people talking about Seoul wasted by a nuclear weapon...

And I'm playing Korea's national pastime Starcraft unperturbed... not caring about fallout or how many millions will die but, whether I should go for the tank upgrade or stick with medics and marines.

I guess it's the social conditioning.

Can you attempt to take this seriously?

[j1j2j3]

Can you attempt to take this seriously?

Nobody here actually cares, This threat may now be nuclear but we have been threatened 12473744732 more times than I can remember. If you've been threatened all your life it doesn't really matter if you are threatened again.

We all know what to do when nukes hit : All abled bodied 18-38 males report to conscription centers

Now back to Starcraft...

[Gil Hamilton]

Out of morbid curiousity, why are you people so gung ho about going out and "wasting" some other country. The US is not the world's policeman, and it's even less the world's hitman.

I also assume, of course, that you all are currently negotiating with your local military recruiters to enlist. After all it would be awfully silly of you to be cheerfully picking who the military goes out and fights, even though you yourselves are unwilling to pick up a gun or wrench or flight stick to actually help the effort. Asking people to go risk their lives for you while you are unwilling to do the same is, well, disgusting.

[Enforcer Talen]

I would argue that we *are* the world's policeman - whether we like it or not.

[RedImperator]

Out of morbid curiousity, why are you people so gung ho about going out and "wasting" some other country. The US is not the world's policeman, and it's even less the world's hitman.

I also assume, of course, that you all are currently negotiating with your local military recruiters to enlist. After all it would be awfully silly of you to be cheerfully picking who the military goes out and fights, even though you yourselves are unwilling to pick up a gun or wrench or flight stick to actually help the effort. Asking people to go risk their lives for you while you are unwilling to do the same is, well, disgusting.

Yeah, 'cuz we all know, when I say "We're going to Colombia next, and it's going to be a total clusterfuck", I'm REALLY gung-ho about it.

[HemlockGrey]

Nobody here actually cares, This threat may now be nuclear but we have been threatened 12473744732 more times than I can remember. If you've been threatened all your life it doesn't really matter if you are threatened again.

So you don't actually mind we go in and cut loose on your northern neighbors, then? No pointing fingers and bitching at the USA?

[j1j2j3]

Nobody here actually cares, This threat may now be nuclear but we have been threatened 12473744732 more times than I can remember. If you've been threatened all your life it doesn't really matter if you are threatened again.

So you don't actually mind we go in and cut loose on your northern neighbors, then? No pointing fingers and bitching at the USA?

Go right ahead. Just as long as you can spare me from getting killed in the process. If you have a way to do it without wasting us in the process I'm all for it.

And about bitching student protesters, those people have nothing else to do so they bitch about the government, the USA, the whales...

It's not like the whole populace agrees with fanatical student protesters. So just don't mind them Think of them as somewhat like JW's ... It's not like they're going to pull a 9/11 or anything, our local riot police can take care of them.

[Axis Kast]

We could answer the Venezeualn call and try to oust Chavez. Of course, in that case, I'd advocate letting the existing government infrastructure remain. The unionists and oil men will sort it out from that point on - with a minor American presence for about a year, of course. This seems less dangerous - and more profitable - than invading Colombia.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Looks like I was wrong and you were right. Thanks for your arguments.

BTW will North Korea ever crumble from the inside ? It has shown no signs of doing so in the last 50 years.

I don't know how the North's was during the Cold War, but its economy is spirally down into oblivion, half the population is has no food and is eating each other, and the military they're starving millions to keep up is next to useless.

[Raptor 597]

Out of morbid curiousity, why are you people so gung ho about going out and "wasting" some other country. The US is not the world's policeman, and it's even less the world's hitman.

I also assume, of course, that you all are currently negotiating with your local military recruiters to enlist. After all it would be awfully silly of you to be cheerfully picking who the military goes out and fights, even though you yourselves are unwilling to pick up a gun or wrench or flight stick to actually help the effort. Asking people to go risk their lives for you while you are unwilling to do the same is, well, disgusting.

Actually, I am or seriously considering it. Mmmm, puppeted nations. But nothing I see that posts a real good target too waste.