• 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

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...
Actually NK does have missiles. Who is to say they don't have a nuclear warhead strapped to one. It's been years since the first nuclear test. They have had time to get ready. Thay have airplanes as well.

Summary of North Korea
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, and I personally think getting involved in another war would be a bad idea. That said, should one occur, I feel we must back South Korea or we will lose a huge part of our credibility with our allies.

Putting that aside, my point is simply the notion that seems to be floating around that "North Korea will get a free pass because it might nuke something" is outrageous, since NK really lacks the capacity to even deliver such a weapon in combat. Best case scenario for NK is they try to use an old bomber as the delivery system, however it seems extremely unlikely that such a mission would be successful, especially against the USAF and SK ground defenses.

I think people are putting to much emphasis on the NK nuclear aspect of the whole situation.
 
USA-1 said:
Actually NK does have missiles. Who is to say they don't have a nuclear warhead strapped to one. It's been years since the first nuclear test. They have had time to get ready. Thay have airplanes as well.
Click to expand...

It is widely acknowledged that they do not have the capability to successfully miniturize a warhead for use on any of their current missile systems.

As for airplanes, I briefly discussed that in the above post, but will more if you would like.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
Widely acknowledged? Who really knows what they have?
Summary of North Korea This was in 2005.
Click to expand...

Sure, nothing is for certain, however most of the literature (that I have come across at least) from those who focus on such issues seem to indicate they are unlikely to have such a capability currently. It is pretty difficult to accomplish, and (without help) I think it would take them much longer than they have had.
 
NolaMan said:
I don't disagree, and I personally think getting involved in another war would be a bad idea. That said, should one occur, I feel we must back South Korea or we will lose a huge part of our credibility with our allies.

Putting that aside, my point is simply the notion that seems to be floating around that "North Korea will get a free pass because it might nuke something" is outrageous, since NK really lacks the capacity to even deliver such a weapon in combat. Best case scenario for NK is they try to use an old bomber as the delivery system, however it seems extremely unlikely that such a mission would be successful, especially against the USAF and SK ground defenses.

I think people are putting to much emphasis on the NK nuclear aspect of the whole situation.
Click to expand...
It seems we agree. I was just stating that we weigh all options and get a strategy set and take no chances. And I agree that we must Support South Korea if there is a war to ensue.
 
USA-1 said:
Widely acknowledged? Who really knows what they have?
Summary of North Korea This was in 2005.
Click to expand...

There is a CRS report for Congress called North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program from 2006, and another CRS report on the threat to the US (I know not really the topic, but still enlightening on NK missile tech) from 2009 with a similiar name for reference.
 
.

Suspect that much hinges on what China agrees to with regard to actions against NK. Unless there is some direct provocation against the US by Lil' kim, don't believe we are going to take any notable aggressive steps unless China is on board with it...


.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you would have the US unilateraly abrogate the long-standing treaty between the US and the ROK on the Korean Peninsula?!?! So much for enhancing American credibility in the world...
 
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...

It should be LEE making the decisions, NOT Obama. The South Koreans were the victims of aggression. It is their call. The U.S. is treaty-bound to come to South Korea's aid. South Korea has already been the victim of an act of war. They are entirely justified (even if it wouldn't necessarily be smart) to insist on war against the DPRK. They are going to wait for the UNSC, but the language coming out of Beiping right now is NOT encouraging. Another example of the thugs in Zhongnanhai saying one thing to one audience and then changing their tune when they get home.
 
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...

They don't need to fire a nuke at Seoul. Their missiles would lay waste to large parts of the city... not to mention that their army could overrun the city within a day or two.
 
ludahai said:
They don't need to fire a nuke at Seoul. Their missiles would lay waste to large parts of the city... not to mention that their army could overrun the city within a day or two.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree persay, but a lot of the debate seems to be "since they have a nuke, we won't do anything." My point is just that the fact they have a nuke does not really matter.
 
NolaMan said:
Don't disagree persay, but a lot of the debate seems to be "since they have a nuke, we won't do anything." My point is just that the fact they have a nuke does not really matter.
Click to expand...

How doesn't it matter? Intelligence estimates put the number of nukes possessed by NK at between 5-8. NKs large and highly trained cadre of Special Forces undoubtedly have orders to smuggle such weapons in to the South in the event of war, if for no other purpose than to blackmail them.

The first thing military strategist consider when planning any type of action is the North's nuclear response. It simply can not be overlooked. Even the North using nukes defensively in a war would be devastating.
 
Polynikes said:
How doesn't it matter? Intelligence estimates put the number of nukes possessed by NK at between 5-8. NKs large and highly trained cadre of Special Forces undoubtedly have orders to smuggle such weapons in to the South in the event of war, if for no other purpose than to blackmail them.

The first thing military strategist consider when planning any type of action is the North's nuclear response. It simply can not be overlooked. Even the North using nukes defensively in a war would be devastating.
Click to expand...

Let me understand this... NK is unable to develop the technology to put a warhead on a missile, but you propose they will be able to miniturize a weapon even more, smuggle it across the border (which is very well guarded) and then detonate it that way?

NK has no real delivery system for their nuclear warheads. They are an overblown threat at the moment in my opinion.
 
NolaMan said:
Let me understand this... NK is unable to develop the technology to put a warhead on a missile, but you propose they will be able to miniturize a weapon even more, smuggle it across the border (which is very well guarded) and then detonate it that way?

NK has no real delivery system for their nuclear warheads. They are an overblown threat at the moment in my opinion.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to miniaturize it, and do you understand what the border will become in the event of total war? Basically meaningless. The American forces there are widely acknowledged to be little more than a speed bump in the event of the North pushing towards Seoul.
 
Polynikes said:
They wouldn't have to miniaturize it, and do you understand what the border will become in the event of total war? Basically meaningless. The American forces there are widely acknowledged to be little more than a speed bump in the event of the North pushing towards Seoul.
Click to expand...

They would to put it on a missile etc...

Additionally, I do not see NK doing something like that, since in every agreement that was reached, they seem to be under the impression that the American military has nuclear weapons in SK currently.

Putting all of that aside, why would they even need a nuclear weapon, if there is nothing standing in their path? It would serve no purspose for them to run down to Seoul, over run it, and then detonate a nuclear weapon in it.
 
NolaMan said:
They would to put it on a missile etc...

Additionally, I do not see NK doing something like that, since in every agreement that was reached, they seem to be under the impression that the American military has nuclear weapons in SK currently.

Putting all of that aside, why would they even need a nuclear weapon, if there is nothing standing in their path? It would serve no purspose for them to run down to Seoul, over run it, and then detonate a nuclear weapon in it.
Click to expand...

Again, the North has put on the impression that they are not rational. The threat of M.A.D or any similar concept relies on one of the players being rational.

I wasn't talking about them putting a warhead on the missile. Perhaps putting it in a ship or a semi truck, but most likely a cargo plane if they were planning a detonation, which would most likely be a suicide mission.

They wouldn't use weapons offensively on the border, I wouldn't think, because then their troops would be unable to move through the fallout zone.
 
Polynikes said:
Again, the North has put on the impression that they are not rational. The threat of M.A.D or any similar concept relies on one of the players being rational.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think MAD is a worthless theory. That said however, I do not think that NK has really shown itself to be irrational. In what way do you think they have done this?

I wasn't talking about them putting a warhead on the missile. Perhaps putting it in a ship or a semi truck, but most likely a cargo plane if they were planning a detonation, which would most likely be a suicide mission.
Click to expand...

Well, the North Korea navy is so pitiful, I have doubts that a ship would be a viable option. Maybe a suicide mission with a plane, but why would they need to do that if they could just overrun SK in a conventional manner? Doing that would most likely expose them to less of a retaliation than if they went nuclear immediately in such a manner.

They wouldn't use weapons offensively on the border, I wouldn't think, because then their troops would be unable to move through the fallout zone.
Click to expand...

I don't see any benefit NK would gain from using a weapon in this scenario at all.
 
Cole said:
We probably need to pause at least long enough to see how this plays out in the next few days. Hillary has taken a public stand "demanding international action" (whatever the hell that means) and NK appears to be calling her bluff.

Should be an interesting standoff.....
Click to expand...

Mouthpieces and their microphones. Causing more damage than anytihng else year after year and decade after decade. Leave it to politicians and civilians to find "alternate" ways to dealing with the military inevitable.
 
MSgt said:
Mouthpieces and their microphones. Causing more damage than anytihng else year after year and decade after decade. Leave it to politicians and civilians to find "alternate" ways to dealing with the military inevitable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, war is always the best option.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh you can do better than this. Let's go back to the Korean War. It was civilians that divided it in half leading to today's inevitability. Vietnam? Civilains looked for alternate ways to call it a war and concerned themseleves more with getting out of it than winning it. Afghanistan and Iraq? More civilians dictating how the military is to do the job they know how to do.

By all means, let's see how civilains can manage to string out an unfinished Korean war even longer.
 
MSgt said:
Oh you can do better than this. Let's go back to the Korean War. It was civilians that divided it in half leading to today's inevitability. Vietnam? Civilains looked for alternate ways to call it a war and concerned themseleves more with getting out of it than winning it. Afghanistan and Iraq? More civilians dictating how the military is to do the job they know how to do.

By all means, let's see how civilains can manage to string out an unfinished Korean war even longer.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you advocate a military state. Civilians are screwing up everything.
 
MSgt said:
Oh you can do better than this. Let's go back to the Korean War. It was civilians that divided it in half leading to today's inevitability. Vietnam? Civilains looked for alternate ways to call it a war and concerned themseleves more with getting out of it than winning it. Afghanistan and Iraq? More civilians dictating how the military is to do the job they know how to do.

By all means, let's see how civilains can manage to string out an unfinished Korean war even longer.
Click to expand...

delete ....
 
Sometimes it is. Our wars after WWII have been garbage. Attitudes who have a will to "win" will always defeat an attitude that tries to get out of it. Let the military do their job without civilain interference and our wars would look different.
 
MSgt said:
Oh you can do better than this. Let's go back to the Korean War. It was civilians that divided it in half leading to today's inevitability. Vietnam? Civilains looked for alternate ways to call it a war and concerned themseleves more with getting out of it than winning it. Afghanistan and Iraq? More civilians dictating how the military is to do the job they know how to do.

By all means, let's see how civilains can manage to string out an unfinished Korean war even longer.
Click to expand...

Come on man, it is pretty widely believed that an attempt to really "finish off North Korea" at that time would have resulted in a war with China. Coming on the heels of WWII, that is not something we really needed to do.

It was the military's idea to use nuclear weapons against China, which would have been an even worse idea. In this case, it is good that the civilians put a stop to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom