• 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!

Pentagon: North Korean Missiles Can Reach The United States

Honestly. North Korea is an example of why you need a foreign service department like the CIA. It is also the reason you guide someone into leadership...specifically someone not in the NK military and someone a part of the resistance against the current opposition.

Civil wars suck. Sometimes they are necessary when dealing with a saber rattling nuke having whacko rogue state like NK. How would you feel if they detonated a suitcase nuke in the US or South Korea.

Oh, no question there. But just calling for a civil war to start is generally a desperate final attempt to try and solve an issue.

And make no mistakes, if they attacked the US, South Korea or any other nation (even China), I would be among the first urging the destruction of their government,
 
mostly keyboard commandos. i have yet to hear someone in power actually promoting preemptive war against NK.

Most of them I give absolutely no credit to.

A great many here have accused me of being a "hawk". But since I am in the military, one of the last things I honestly want to do is to fight a war.

However, I also do not want the cost of avoiding a war today meaning my children have to fight one in the future, nor am I willing to avoid a war if in the long term it actually saves people. Let's just say I support wars that in the end accomplish something positive in the world.
 
Most of them I give absolutely no credit to.

A great many here have accused me of being a "hawk". But since I am in the military, one of the last things I honestly want to do is to fight a war.

However, I also do not want the cost of avoiding a war today meaning my children have to fight one in the future, nor am I willing to avoid a war if in the long term it actually saves people. Let's just say I support wars that in the end accomplish something positive in the world.

i don't want you to have to fight one, either.

i am mostly a pacifist who understands that sometimes it's unavoidable, such as WWII. however, i would like to see war become more of a last resort rather than an early response.
 
Actually, I think I would question that a bit. And with several good reasons.

First, I think that North Korea has become somewhat of an embarrassment for China. They are unpredictable, antagonistic, and the source of a fair amount of refugees. And like Cuba during the days of the Soviet Union, they are having to spend large amounts of money to keep them propped up.

Then secondly, look at the history of the last major reunification, Germany. When the "wall came down", Germany had to spend over a decade actually absorbing the former East Germany. Over a decade of internal strife, adjustments in absorbing a nation that was entirely Marxist based so currency, income, housing, and everything else was totally different from that in West Germany. Even the internal power and phone systems were different, costing tens of billions of US dollars in trying to tie the two systems together.

And even today over 20 years later, many former East German citizens tend to think of themselves as "second class citizens".

And also the absorption caused the German Government to swing even further to the Left then it had been before. Because even though many East Germans were soured on Marxism, they still believed in a great many Socialist beliefs, so their voting block caused a shift in internal politics.

Do not think this would be any different in a "New Korea". Korea would have to easily spend a decade or more absorbing North Korea into South Korea. A decade in which Korean production would likely be reduced, and China could expand both in overseas markets, as well as in exports to a Korea that now has a greater GDP and more money to spend.

It would be much more likely for China to invade North Kotea and set up a stable puppet government and maintain it as a buffer state than it is China would allow a reunification of Korea outside its auspice.
 
Thanks.

One thing I do when considering something like this is analyze. And in this case, people do not seem to understand that the China of 2013 is not the China of 1950.

In the Korean War, China lost far more troops and equipment then it could afford to loose. They lost an entire generation of their youth, and soured relations with the other nations for decades. It was over 20 years until they finally got at least cordial relations with the United States, and many other Western nations.

And while China can be very belligerent, it also knows that if their economy took the sudden crash that would result from the loss of US and other nations boycotting their goods, they might very well have a serious internal revolt. Mass unemployment that would result from a loss of over 1/3 of their GDP could very well spell the end of the current regime, and I seriously doubt that they would be willing to risk that for North Korea.

Well stated. That is exactly the point.
 
It would be much more likely for China to invade North Kotea and set up a stable puppet government and maintain it as a buffer state than it is China would allow a reunification of Korea outside its auspice.

I agree the former is more likely; however, I think China would be fine with the US destroying the regime and military capability and handing nK over to China. That might not sound great from a human rights perspective, but for nK it would be a pretty big improvement.
 
i don't want you to have to fight one, either.

i am mostly a pacifist who understands that sometimes it's unavoidable, such as WWII. however, i would like to see war become more of a last resort rather than an early response.

No question there. I doubt you will find many people who are more pacifistic then those in the military. Because we are the ones that actually put our lives on the line.

But when war become inevitable, we want to end it as quickly and as violently as we can, hopefully to serve as an example as to why that kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be done again.

Ironically, most of my beliefs in this aspect come from two men who are much wiser then myself.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill

A man who won't die for something is not fit to live. - Martin Luther King Jr.
 
No question there. I doubt you will find many people who are more pacifistic then those in the military. Because we are the ones that actually put our lives on the line.

But when war become inevitable, we want to end it as quickly and as violently as we can, hopefully to serve as an example as to why that kind of behavior is unacceptable and should not be done again.

Ironically, most of my beliefs in this aspect come from two men who are much wiser then myself.

your work is appreciated, even by pacifists. at least by this one.
 
I agree the former is more likely; however, I think China would be fine with the US destroying the regime and military capability and handing nK over to China. That might not sound great from a human rights perspective, but for nK it would be a pretty big improvement.

Yeah, but the US wouldn't sacrifice the blood and treasure to conquer a country only to hand it over to a rival - though not hostile - world power.

Just let the PRC do it instead.
 
No. That's assuming the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

In regards to nuclear warfare, the goal isn't to survive - its to have he capability o utterly destroy your enemies in retaliation so they never use their nukes.

And Russia and PRC would want to bring down the US with them if they think the US is attacking them.


Are you sure you understand the meaning and purpose of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction? I can assure you it has nothing to do with committing suicide by nuke when you aren't even a target.
 
Are you sure you understand the meaning and purpose of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction? I can assure you it has nothing to do with committing suicide by nuke when you aren't even a target.

I'm positive I know the purpose behind mutually assured destruction.
 
I'm positive I know the purpose behind mutually assured destruction.

I disagree. Your explanation of what MAD means for PRC and Russia in the event of a US retaliation on North Korea is absurd. Any retaliation by Russia or the Soviets would not be due to MAD, that's ridiculous. You have the whole thing turned on its head.
 
I disagree. Your explanation of what MAD means for PRC and Russia in the event of a US retaliation on North Korea is absurd. Any retaliation by Russia or the Soviets would not be due to MAD, that's ridiculous. You have the whole thing turned on its head.

Which just shows that you don't understand a principle as simplistic as "the fog of war."

The US would be quite unwilling to launch nukes because Russia and China may fear those nukes are actually going after them instead of North Korea. And if Russia and China fear that, they would launch their nukes at us in retaliation of a perceived US nuclear first strike.

Which is what mutually assured destruction is all about.
 
Oh, no question there. But just calling for a civil war to start is generally a desperate final attempt to try and solve an issue.

And make no mistakes, if they attacked the US, South Korea or any other nation (even China), I would be among the first urging the destruction of their government,

Meh. I wouldn't call it a desperate final attempt. I would say it a good first response. Especially to a whack job state like NK. Civil wars are not good. Yes. But sometimes a power struggle could save lives. Especially depending on who wins.
 
Which just shows that you don't understand a principle as simplistic as "the fog of war."

The US would be quite unwilling to launch nukes because Russia and China may fear those nukes are actually going after them instead of North Korea. And if Russia and China fear that, they would launch their nukes at us in retaliation of a perceived US nuclear first strike.

Which is what mutually assured destruction is all about.
I doubt Russia or China would engage the US...especially in this scenario. IF Kim were crazy enough to launch a nuke at the US, then most likely an Obama response would be tactical but conventional and there would be only one end game...Kims death or capture. Frankly, we SHOULD NOT respond to a NK nuclear response with nukes (not that I think they would attack us). A conventional war would be the appropriate response. Not just some half assed retaliation...Obama couldn't respond in such a manner and have any type of credibility...but a full on declared war with complete defeat of NK.

This is not a MAD scenario...NK is not our equal and we are not in any type of arms race or even race for global domination with NK. But Russia and China wouldn't risk WW3 over NK, not even if we did hit them w/ a nuke response. The ONLY truly scary part about that whole scenario is that Kim might believe he could launch nuclear and withstand a conventional attack. This is all presuming of course that Kim actually has nuke ready ICBMs that could reach CONUS. So...extraordinarily unlikely NK launches against the US...virtually impossible that Obama responds w/ nukes, and no real concern over Russia or China engaging, regardless of what our response would be.
 
Meh. I wouldn't call it a desperate final attempt. I would say it a good first response. Especially to a whack job state like NK. Civil wars are not good. Yes. But sometimes a power struggle could save lives. Especially depending on who wins.

But you are totally forgetting history in encouraging this approach.

In the early 1970's, the government of Cambodia was falling, and was in danger of going to the Communists (which had support from North Vietnam). And many in the US and other countries thought it was better when a group of Nationalists that few people have heard of rose to power at the end of the Cambodian Civil War.

That group was known as the Khmer Rouge.

The resulting bloodbath is now known as "The Killing Fields", with over 20,000 mass graves containing the bodies of between 1.4 and 2.2 million people (the exact numbers will never be known).

Traged7.jpg


And remember, the National Socialist Party of Germany also came to power after a less bloody civil war. As did the Taliban.

Civil War should never be encouraged lightly. It really is a deamon that often times should be left in the bottle forever. And with such examples in the last 40 years as the Khmer Rouge and Taliban I can't understand how somebody could actively encourage it again.
 
I doubt Russia or China would engage the US...especially in this scenario. IF Kim were crazy enough to launch a nuke at the US, then most likely an Obama response would be tactical but conventional and there would be only one end game...Kims death or capture. Frankly, we SHOULD NOT respond to a NK nuclear response with nukes (not that I think they would attack us). A conventional war would be the appropriate response. Not just some half assed retaliation...Obama couldn't respond in such a manner and have any type of credibility...but a full on declared war with complete defeat of NK.

Actually, we would have to respond with nukes for several reasons.

First, it is our own National policy. To respond to attacks with "Special Weapons" with "Special Weapons".

Secondly, because failure to do so would be seen as "weakness" by other nations. Smaller nuclear or potentially nuclear nations may then feel emboldened when we do not respond to such an attack in kind.

Thirdly, because of our treaties and agreements with other nations. A lot of Europe and other nations have voluntarily destroyed their Nuclear arsenal, or did not build one at all simply because the US promised to respond to a nuclear attack upon them as if it was an attack on the US. Now if we fail to respond to such an attack with a counter-attack in kind, what kind of message does that send our allies? If we do not respond to a nuke at our own country with a nuke, why should anybody believe we would respond if they were attacked?

So failure to at least respond in kind with an equal number of nukes in return (notice I said equal number, not "nuke them till they glow") would do many things. It would raise tensions and even encourage attack by others. It would also likely cause many more Nuclear nations to develop, out of fear that the US will not protect them.

Does anybody believe that Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Turkey, Canada, Greece, or Japan would be unable to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems if they really wanted to? None of them do because they actively (by treaty) or are seen as being under the "umbrella" of US Nuclear protection. Our failure to respond in kind would be a strong signal to all of these nations and more that they are really on their own, and I predict that a new Nuclear Arms Race would kick off within 5 years.
 
Actually, we would have to respond with nukes for several reasons.

First, it is our own National policy. To respond to attacks with "Special Weapons" with "Special Weapons".

Secondly, because failure to do so would be seen as "weakness" by other nations. Smaller nuclear or potentially nuclear nations may then feel emboldened when we do not respond to such an attack in kind.

Thirdly, because of our treaties and agreements with other nations. A lot of Europe and other nations have voluntarily destroyed their Nuclear arsenal, or did not build one at all simply because the US promised to respond to a nuclear attack upon them as if it was an attack on the US. Now if we fail to respond to such an attack with a counter-attack in kind, what kind of message does that send our allies? If we do not respond to a nuke at our own country with a nuke, why should anybody believe we would respond if they were attacked?

So failure to at least respond in kind with an equal number of nukes in return (notice I said equal number, not "nuke them till they glow") would do many things. It would raise tensions and even encourage attack by others. It would also likely cause many more Nuclear nations to develop, out of fear that the US will not protect them.

Does anybody believe that Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Turkey, Canada, Greece, or Japan would be unable to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems if they really wanted to? None of them do because they actively (by treaty) or are seen as being under the "umbrella" of US Nuclear protection. Our failure to respond in kind would be a strong signal to all of these nations and more that they are really on their own, and I predict that a new Nuclear Arms Race would kick off within 5 years.

Nah...we wouldn't respond with nukes for several reasons. 1-cuz I don't think Obama has the stones to make that kind of a decision, 2-(I'll throw him a bone) Cuz it would be the wrong decision (SK is our ally and would definitely be impacted by nuclear response) 3-it's just not needed. We can level the whole country with conventional weapons if need be. A decisive and effective response would be as if not more effective than a nuclear response. NK is NOT the Soviet Union.
 
But you are totally forgetting history in encouraging this approach.

In the early 1970's, the government of Cambodia was falling, and was in danger of going to the Communists (which had support from North Vietnam). And many in the US and other countries thought it was better when a group of Nationalists that few people have heard of rose to power at the end of the Cambodian Civil War.

That group was known as the Khmer Rouge.

The resulting bloodbath is now known as "The Killing Fields", with over 20,000 mass graves containing the bodies of between 1.4 and 2.2 million people (the exact numbers will never be known).

Traged7.jpg


And remember, the National Socialist Party of Germany also came to power after a less bloody civil war. As did the Taliban.

Civil War should never be encouraged lightly. It really is a deamon that often times should be left in the bottle forever. And with such examples in the last 40 years as the Khmer Rouge and Taliban I can't understand how somebody could actively encourage it again.

Civil wars like the Arab Spring? Closely monitored revolution might be a better term. Surely the people of North Korea wouldn't mind food. See the old CIA mindset was to fight the USSR and and communism. We didnt care who was in power. We do now. I can see revolution there. No change of power in that state will be lightly done or bloodless.

So the question is. Would you or would you not agree that a change of power there might be necessary to shut down their militant government?

The other option would be kidnapping. Kidnapping nuclear scientists. Kidnap generals. Kidnap anyone who could be useful to their nuclear program.
 
It would be much more likely for China to invade North Kotea and set up a stable puppet government and maintain it as a buffer state than it is China would allow a reunification of Korea outside its auspice.

Good point. NK has become an embarassment to China, but there is no way that China wants a prosperous democracy like SK expanding to the Chinese border.
 
Nah...we wouldn't respond with nukes for several reasons. 1-cuz I don't think Obama has the stones to make that kind of a decision, 2-(I'll throw him a bone) Cuz it would be the wrong decision (SK is our ally and would definitely be impacted by nuclear response) 3-it's just not needed. We can level the whole country with conventional weapons if need be. A decisive and effective response would be as if not more effective than a nuclear response. NK is NOT the Soviet Union.

Agreed, primarily because of your first reason.
 
They are that crazy.
And then we also have to deal with China if we respond.
So no they wouldn't be gone in a heartbeat.

And we likely wouldn't endanger South Korea either by responding Nukes.
So no, they would not be gone in a heart beat.

I have it on good authority that Walmart will close half their stores if China intervenes, which will damage China beyond repair. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom