• 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!

How Likely is a War with North Korea?

How likely is a war with North Korea?

  • Very Likely

    Votes: 7 10.1%

  • Somewhat Likely

    Votes: 14 20.3%

  • Somewhat Unlikely

    Votes: 20 29.0%

  • Very Unlikely

    Votes: 28 40.6%
  • Total voters
    69
jimbo said:
Which formidable weapon does he have that could cause the US a serious problem?
Click to expand...

Picture a container dock in LA and NewYork, acres of shipping containers stacked six high. Now picture a nuke in one of those containers, buried in the stacks.
 
Grand Mal said:
Picture a container dock in LA and NewYork, acres of shipping containers stacked six high. Now picture a nuke in one of those containers, buried in the stacks.
Click to expand...

That's possible. Un is bat shlt crazy, but in general most of his available weapons are low end obsolete weapons. Even his nukes are relatively obsolete.
 
I don't see how the U.S. can tolerate a North Korea with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. If we can't, then we have to make plans to eliminate that threat, using military force is necessary. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 proved that if the U.S. places a very powerful military force in position to act, and if it can convince the opponent it will act if its demands are not met, the opponent may be scared into knuckling under. Part of what made the U.S. plan regarding Cuba work is that its centerpiece was a naval blockade, which did not require any shooting to work. A blockade, being a passive measure, puts the burden on the opponent to decide if he wants to try to raise it by using force.

If China curtailed or cut off its overland trade with North Korea and the U.S. blockaded North Korea's ports, Kim would have to decide whether it was better just to take it, or to start a shooting war he must know would quickly bring an end to his regime and probably to his life. I am convinced that his posturing is just that, and that if he were faced with truly overwhelming U.S. force, backed by a determined will, he would lose his nerve. The Soviet Union in 1962 was a vastly more powerful adversary than North Korea is today. At that time, it had about 3,000 nuclear weapons, including ballistic missiles in Cuba with warheads of a megaton or more that could reach most cities in the U.S. And yet in the end, it yielded to a U.S. ultimatum to take those weapons out of Cuba.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
I can't believe you have to ask that. You really need to do some reading on the subject so you don't look so ignorant. Lots of good information on the Internet at the right sources.

If you are solider on the ground you can't imagine the terror of mortars, missiles, and heavy artillery fire raining down on you. My parents of have experienced both and tell me there is nothing like it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Your parents have been in literal war zones?
 
matchlight said:
I don't see how the U.S. can tolerate a North Korea with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. If we can't, then we have to make plans to eliminate that threat, using military force is necessary. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 proved that if the U.S. places a very powerful military force in position to act, and if it can convince the opponent it will act if its demands are not met, the opponent may be scared into knuckling under. Part of what made the U.S. plan regarding Cuba work is that its centerpiece was a naval blockade, which did not require any shooting to work. A blockade, being a passive measure, puts the burden on the opponent to decide if he wants to try to raise it by using force.

If China curtailed or cut off its overland trade with North Korea and the U.S. blockaded North Korea's ports, Kim would have to decide whether it was better just to take it, or to start a shooting war he must know would quickly bring an end to his regime and probably to his life. I am convinced that his posturing is just that, and that if he were faced with truly overwhelming U.S. force, backed by a determined will, he would lose his nerve.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting just one thing.

North Korea's next-door neighbor is South Korea. Not us.

You want to take the risk that they could wipe Seoul off the map?
 
Roycarn said:
How likely is war to break out between the US and North Korea? Personally, I'd say fairly or somewhat likely given the current situation.
Click to expand...

Very Unlikely.North Korea has been pulling these kinds of stunts for decades and nothing never happens except for North Korea hiding behind China and Russia's(back when it was the Soviet Union) back like a scared little bitch and maybe getting more food aid out of the deal if it promises to behave. North Korea is the equivalent to that weak little punk who ****s with everyone and then goes hide behind his big brother's back for protection. As long as Russia and China are in the picture nothing will ever happen to North Korea.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
While I would love to be the one to plant the Star-Spangled Banner over Pyongyang, there's no feasible way to do so without risking open war with China.
Click to expand...


China is surprisingly mild in its warning against attacks on NK. Furthermore, China seems unable to reign-in Kim.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Two morons with ****ed up haircuts, who have no real input from the citizens of their nations, who have nuclear weapons, humongous egos, and are impulsive as humanly possible. How bad can it be? :roll:
Click to expand...

Since when did you ever have the right to input your vote?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
We didn't have president Trump last April now did we?

The man has no discipline or self control. And of course he's probably the dumbest president we've had in a long time.
Click to expand...

So what did Obama do about North Korea?
 
Risky Thicket said:
That is EXACTLY what should bother the hell out of rational adults. Want to alter the equation and make the chance of war much less likely? Put the families of most elected officials, Trump's children and grandchildren, the children and grandchildren of Trump's billion dollar cabinet smack in the middle of harm's way, like maybe in Seoul; risk Trump's empire and Wall Street money in the balance and then let's see how likely it is that Washington might go to war with North Korea.
Click to expand...

Don't come off the chain.
 
American said:
So what did Obama do about North Korea?
Click to expand...

Actually I think both Obama and Trump are doing thing the good way. Obama's response was a clear show of force without any major provocation while allowing S. Korea to handle the actual diplomacy while Trump is getting China involved, North Korea's number one backer.

There's plenty you can criticize about both Presidents, but thus far their handling of the DPRK ain't half bad.
 
My guess as to how this is going to play out:

-NK will eventually cool their rhetoric while chugging away at their nuclear program, which is what they've been doing for the past decade.
-Donald will call this a bigly win. His base will wholeheartedly support him.
-The media will rightfully point out the nuances of the situation, particularly the unprecedented role of China moderating the hotheaded US president. This will be seen as a blight against US sovereignty. But again, Trump's base will not care.

Or maybe two D20's both land on 1's, and Seoul gets flattened by a nuke.
 
Its extraordinarily unlikely.

The worst that might happen is that Kim will press too many buttons and get a good bitch-slapping. Kim is used to being able to rattle his little toy sword and get the worlds attention. I dont think much has changed. However...if you are going to openly threaten something over and over, you cant be surprised if at some point the people you are threatening dont take you seriously. But 'war'? Nah...maybe a few coordinated missile strikes if things get too bad. Kim dont REALLY want none.
 
VanceMack said:
Its extraordinarily unlikely.

The worst that might happen is that Kim will press too many buttons and get a good bitch-slapping. Kim is used to being able to rattle his little toy sword and get the worlds attention. I dont think much has changed. However...if you are going to openly threaten something over and over, you cant be surprised if at some point the people you are threatening dont take you seriously. But 'war'? Nah...maybe a few coordinated missile strikes if things get too bad.
Kim dont REALLY want none
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



I won't be a bit surprised if Kim gets a lot of what he doesn't want.
 
jimbo said:
I didn't think so.

Served. Thank you. Weapons Tech analyst.
Click to expand...

You could say you were anything you want on the Internet. People that have served don't usually make light of potential wars or in this case North Korea's firepower.

I was a weapons specialist myself for six years. I know enough to know I would not want to be on the receiving end of a barrage of artillery fire from NK, no matter how much you think they are only bottle rockets. And I also know enough to know we can't hit it all in one fell swoop to prevent it. NK has had plenty of time to fortify their positions but not so Seoul. Both sides are in too close including the large population center of Seoul. Even my dog understands that.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
It would drag on for years, with plane-loads of coffins coming home. For one thing, the US can't use nukes. For another, forget about over-running the country blitzkrieg-style.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about years but we have learned the hard way how difficult it is to deal with fanatics in the middle east. And there seems to be no shortage of brainwashed fanatics in NK.
 
jimbo said:
I didn't think so.

Served. Thank you. Weapons Tech analyst.
Click to expand...

I never heard of that job in my life. Do you have the original nomenclature for that MOS?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
You could say you were anything you want on the Internet. People that have served don't usually make light of potential wars or in this case North Korea's firepower.

I was a weapons specialist myself for six years. I know enough to know I would not want to be on the receiving end of a barrage of artillery fire from NK, no matter how much you think they are only bottle rockets. And I also know enough to know we can't hit it all in one fell swoop to prevent it. NK has had plenty of time to fortify their positions but not so Seoul. Both sides are in too close including the large population center of Seoul. Even my dog understands that.
Click to expand...

'Bout a hundred miles from Seoul to Pyonyang, innit? Takes nukes out of the equation, nukes going in that direction anyway.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I'm not sure about years but we have learned the hard way how difficult it is to deal with fanatics in the middle east. And there seems to be no shortage of brainwashed fanatics in NK.
Click to expand...

The guy's gotta go but it has to be his own people who do it. Sounds like a job for the CIA, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Didn't the spooks used to specialize in that kinda thing?
 
CMPancake said:
I never heard of that job in my life. Do you have the original nomenclature for that MOS?
Click to expand...

91st Ordnance Detachment TIC Germany 60 - 63.

Don't remember the exact MOS. 91?- something.
 
Phys251 said:
You're forgetting just one thing.

North Korea's next-door neighbor is South Korea. Not us.

You want to take the risk that they could wipe Seoul off the map?
Click to expand...

Tens of millions of Americans accepted the risk in October, 1962, that they themselves would be killed or wounded by nuclear weapons. You also ignore the fact that many hundreds of American troops are living closer to the border with North Korea--at Camp Hovey and along the DMZ, for example--than any resident of Seoul. That means any attack on South Korea could hardly avoid falling on Americans also, and that would call for military action against North Korea by the United States. Do you imagine the leaders of North Korea are unaware of that?

The references to Seoul being flattened, obliterated, wiped off the map, etc. which keep showing up are overheated and ill-informed prattle. The purpose of spreading it seems to be to exaggerate the danger so much, and repeat the exaggeration often enough, that the notion will spread that forceful action by the U.S. to stop a serious nuclear threat to South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. itself is unthinkable. That kind of talk must be music to Mr. Kim's ears.

Even the 16-inch guns on battleships had a maximum range of about 25 miles. North Korea's artillery pieces are far smaller than that, and not many of them could do more than reach the northern suburbs of Seoul with fairly small shells. Presumably, with many years to prepare, South Korea and the U.S. have plans to neutralize, quickly, any North Korean artillery that started firing at Seoul. And the fight Mr. Kim had started would be sure to end in the collapse of his regime and probably in his own death.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom