• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NKorea warns of war if punished for ship sinking

Polynikes said:
I am starting to think this situation is much closer to war than previously realized. North Korea is cutting all ties to the South, the U.S and the South just planned war games, which is a huge provocation (and rightfully so.)
Click to expand...

What makes this a provocation? War Games are common. China conducts war games, so does Taiwan... do those signify provocations? Of course not. The provocation is the DPRK's criminal sinking of a South Korean warship.

War on the Korean peninsula is really hinging on one SAM site operator acting without permission and shooting down a stray aircraft, 1 naval skirmish etc. This could get ugly quick.
Click to expand...

Not likely, but as you say, someone who is NOT authorized to make a decision makes one or a quick, itchy trigger finger gets involved and things could spiral out of control before the policymakers can bring it back under control.... poof, World War III...
 
Wait a minute here....Joint exercises as a show of strength is a "huge provocation"? What was sinking a ship killing 46? Business as normal?
Click to expand...

The exercises are a provocation in a situation that is already very tense. I also said that it is appropriate. Please, don't ask me rhetorical questions. Obviously the sinking of the ship was a very provocative act worthy of a military response. I think you are misconstruing my position.





My jaw is hitting the desk here....NK sinks a ship, and all we should do is what? Send a letter? Can we type it in bold type so that Il knows we are really, really serious this time?
Click to expand...

Again, I never said we shouldn't hold these exercises. I am in favor of a bold response by South Korea and the U.S. North Korea's irratic behavior must be put in check sometime before they make the assumption that they can get away with something more than hitting a ship with a torpedo.
 
ludahai said:
What makes this a provocation? War Games are common. China conducts war games, so does Taiwan... do those signify provocations? Of course not. The provocation is the DPRK's criminal sinking of a South Korean warship.



Not likely, but as you say, someone who is NOT authorized to make a decision makes one or a quick, itchy trigger finger gets involved and things could spiral out of control before the policymakers can bring it back under control.... poof, World War III...
Click to expand...

Correct, war games are common. War games that are planned immediately after an incident like this are not. IF they had been planned prior then it isn't provocative.

I think you are misunderstanding my usage of provocative. I am not saying it is a bad thing. I don't think we are intentionally provoking North Korea in engaging the U.S or South Korea, but none the less our actions are provocative and are a measured response to their much more provocative actions against the South.


Why is it unlikely that an incident such as an unauthorized engagement could lead to war? Anyways, I'm not too focused on that example, my point was that things are very tense right now and if both sides don't act rationally, things could get bad very quick.
 
USA-1 said:
What would you suggest we do?
Click to expand...

I know you weren't asking me...but

I think a military strike on the port in which the submarine originated/most likely originated out of is an acceptable response.

The North has done something very clever that prevents tit-for-tat response like this though. They have devised the image of irrationality and that any response by the south or the U.S will lead to the North engaging in total war. They have tried to do the same with sanctions, saying that if they are imposed it is equivalent to an act of war.

Game theory in these situations often rely on having a logical and rational player on the other side. North Korea has thrown off policymakers and military planners alike by making themselves out to be very irrational. It is time we call their bluff, but we must first decide if the cost/benefit ratio favors us, which it almost certainly won't.
 
Last edited:
Polynikes said:
I know you weren't asking me...but

I think a military strike on the port in which the submarine originated/most likely originated out of is an acceptable response.
Click to expand...

And something likely to result in a Second Korean War (at least) which would include the wiping of Seoul off the map.
 
Polynikes said:
I know you weren't asking me...but

I think a military strike on the port in which the submarine originated/most likely originated out of is an acceptable response.

The North has done something very clever that prevents tit-for-tat response like this though. They have devised the image of irrationality and that any response by the south or the U.S will lead to the North engaging in total war. They have tried to do the same with sanctions, saying that if they are imposed it is equivalent to an act of war.

Game theory in these situations often rely on having a logical and rational player on the other side. North Korea has thrown off policymakers and military planners alike by making themselves out to be very irrational. It is time we call their bluff, but we must first decide if the cost/benefit ratio favors us, which it almost certainly won't.
Click to expand...

By us or South Korea? Are you ready for a full scale war? A military strike on the North will probably start one.
 
USA-1 said:
By us or South Korea? Are you ready for a full scale war? A military strike on the North will probably start one.
Click to expand...

The retaliatory attack I mentioned would be carried out by South Korea.

I am still in the IRR, which means I would be called back to the Marine Corps if a total war broke out. I was in the infantry and have seen war first hand. I am not a gung-ho war monger who thinks 'war is cool.' I think war is amongst the worst things that humans do to each other.

To answer your question, yes, I am ready for a total war. How much more will we let NK get away? Where do you draw the line? What if it was a U.S vessel? What would you say then?

Do you think we can let actions by the North go without consequences just because they say they will launch a total war if we respond?
 
ludahai said:
And something likely to result in a Second Korean War (at least) which would include the wiping of Seoul off the map.
Click to expand...

Throw your oar in the water here and share your opinion of what you think should be done.
 
Polynikes said:
The retaliatory attack I mentioned would be carried out by South Korea.

I am still in the IRR, which means I would be called back to the Marine Corps if a total war broke out. I was in the infantry and have seen war first hand. I am not a gung-ho war monger who thinks 'war is cool.' I think war is amongst the worst things that humans do to each other.

To answer your question, yes, I am ready for a total war. How much more will we let NK get away? Where do you draw the line? What if it was a U.S vessel? What would you say then?

Do you think we can let actions by the North go without consequences just because they say they will launch a total war if we respond?
Click to expand...

I do not believe we should get involved in a war with with N Korea no matter what they do. It's not worth it, just as invading Iraq was not worth it.
 
zimmer said:
Perhaps it's all the al Jazeera you watch?
After all, FOXNEWS wasn't permitted by the Kanuckistani's but al Jazeera was. Seems the Go'ment knows it audience... eh Hosehead?

I know you Kanuckistani's very, very well... such an open minded group of drones.
So open minded Ann Coulter's speech was canceled.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I can watch Fox News here if I want. Back home it's one of the channels, and I watch it when I can to laugh out loud and idiots like Hannigan.

As far as Ann Coulter's speech... I don't really know what to say, people just don't want her hateful crap around here I guess, perhaps it is disallowing free speech and she should have been allowed to talk... but we're just not as loving of hateful and lying bitches.
 
USA-1 said:
I do not believe we should get involved in a war with with N Korea no matter what they do. It's not worth it, just as invading Iraq was not worth it.
Click to expand...

So if they launched a full scale attack on South Korea we should just cut and run and let them fend for themselves?
 
USA-1 said:
Nuke them.
Click to expand...

Nuke what? Military targets or their severely malnourished, oppressed populace who would have basically no idea why they are being nuked?

You don't think nuking a country is getting involved?
 
Polynikes said:
Throw your oar in the water here and share your opinion of what you think should be done.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as I have already noted, there ARE no good options at this point. And for the record, I don't trust the Chinese words (or should I say the South Korean reporting of Chinese words) until I see them in the Chinese language press -- which I have not seen yet...
 
I was joking. But under no circumstances would I commit US troops in a war against N Korea. We are not the world policemen and another war would probably totally wipe out our economy and our country. Diplomacy is the only way out of this.
 
Folks you have to give Obama time to amass all the facts, then he needs time to mull over all the facts, after which he needs time to get all his experts together so that they too can mull over all the facts.

Finally President Obama needs a month or three before he decides he will do as the Military advise him.

Just give the President some time, after all he has loads on his plate, what with the Gulf situation, deciding how to wriggle out of a possible impeachment and getting his pick onto the Supreme Court.

If he only had time!
 
jujuman13 said:
Folks you have to give Obama time to amass all the facts, then he needs time to mull over all the facts, after which he needs time to get all his experts together so that they too can mull over all the facts.

Finally President Obama needs a month or three before he decides he will do as the Military advise him.

Just give the President some time, after all he has loads on his plate, what with the Gulf situation, deciding how to wriggle out of a possible impeachment and getting his pick onto the Supreme Court.

If he only had time!
Click to expand...

Better to be patient then rush into a war that would destroy our econmy and cost thousands of American lives.

Facts? Who needs stinkin facts. Bush's didn't.
 
Better to be patient then rush into a war that would destroy our econmy and cost thousands of American lives.

Facts? Who needs stinkin facts. Bush's didn't.
Click to expand...





.sigh, another thread that has devolved in to pointless Bush references.
 
Polynikes said:
.sigh, another thread that has devolved in to pointless Bush references.
Click to expand...

The comparison is legitimate. Do we really want to get involved in another quagmire? Had the previous president got the facts right there would be thousands of Anerican soldiers still alive and we would have a trillion dollars we don't have now. Pointless to look back at history? Only if you are totally biased and in denial.
 
I think Obama should wait and weigh all available options. War is probably the most serious decision any country can make. We don't want N. Korea firing a nuke on South Korea, and an all out war wouldn't solve anything unless the N. Korea government was dissolved in the process.
 
digsbe said:
I think Obama should wait and weigh all available options. War is probably the most serious decision any country can make. We don't want N. Korea firing a nuke on South Korea, and an all out war wouldn't solve anything unless the N. Korea government was dissolved in the process.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you think North Korea would "fire a nuke on South Korea"?
 
NolaMan said:
How exactly do you think North Korea would "fire a nuke on South Korea"?
Click to expand...

It is believed that North Korea now has a nuclear weapon. If they fire that at Seoul millions of people will die.
 
digsbe said:
It is believed that North Korea now has a nuclear weapon. If they fire that at Seoul millions of people will die.
Click to expand...

I accept they have a nuclear warhead... I am asking with what delivery system you think it would be delivered with? Possession of a nuclear warhead does not mean it is combat use ready. North Korea has no real delviery system for a warhead.

Not to mention, their test yields were so low, there is about a .1% chance it would "kill millions of people."
 
NolaMan said:
I accept they have a nuclear warhead... I am asking with what delivery system you think it would be delivered with? Possession of a nuclear warhead does not mean it is combat use ready. North Korea has no real delviery system for a warhead.

Not to mention, their test yields were so low, there is about a .1% chance it would "kill millions of people."
Click to expand...

It is still a very risky thing. All I am saying is that war is probably the most important decision any country can make. America and South Korea should really weigh all the options, form a strategy, and get better intel before jumping into a war. We need to learn from the mistakes we have made in history, specifically the ones made within the last presidential administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom