SURVEY: Is a military strike against North Korea justified?

[MyFriend You]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

_{I'd pretty much guarantee if Kim stopped his nuclear weapons program, got rid of the thousands of weapons aimed at Seoul, and stopped incursions into SK, the US would seriously consider removing troops.}

 

_{Trump is an absolute disgrace and is only making things worse.}

And I'd pretty much guarantee that if the US stopped with exercises next to North Korea and withdrew its army/airforce/navy, NK would seriously consider stopping with its nuclear weapons programme.

What on Gods earth are you two people smoking??    Neither is obtainable because neither side is willing to concede either of those pipedreams  -  what people seem to forget, The UN is still technically "at war" with North Korea, we have an Armistice, not a peace treaty.  The Norks have violated that armistice time and again over the past fifty years or so, any of our past presidents could have invaded North Korea at any time in the past. They chose not to because they hoped the North would come into step with the rest of the world, instead it became reclusive and secretive - they they got Nukes.  Its time for them to pay the piper, irregardless of the cost.

[MyFriend You]

8 hours ago, worgeordie said:

The best way to solve the problem is to take the little fat guy out,somehow, then the dynasty would be at an end, not sure what would happen after, but surely there's not another megalomaniacal and as dangerous as him in 

North Korea. 

It could be done,after all he managed to kill his half brother, and its the only scenario that would result in a low body count,and hopefully solve the problem, just hope the CIA have made improvements,after their many attempts to remove Fidel Castro !

 

regards worgeordie

He first killed his Uncle, brother of Kim Jung Jill, who was trying to "advise" him to work with the USA under Obama, then proceeded to take out "no one knows" how many Military Officers that colluded with his uncle ..........it's not safe being close to Kim Jung Un.

[ThaiWai]

9 hours ago, pattayadon said:

A perfect scenario would be for South Korea, (U.S. backed) to invade and take over the entire country! However, the military exchange would kill many in both Korea's, and then......Here's the kicker .... Who is going to support, feed and house the millions of North Koreans that don't know how a free society lives. It would be a huge undertaking by the U.N.,  which might explain the softening posture of Trump towards the U.N!

All true.  KJU's military is not what people might typically conceive also.  I have read he has as many submarines as the US does, not to say they are of equal strength but it's a lot of subs nonetheless.  And once he is cornered anything is possible.  The collateral damage would be truly unfortunate also as the citizens of NK are basically just hostages.  And how does a society go from having no internet one day to a democratic fee society in our modern world overnight?  But what's worse?  This is three generations of this guy's family already.  Last week I read the report that KJU sends military staff into grade schools to pull all the cute Korean girls to come "serve" him personally and if they refuse they are "disappeared".  It is just fascinating that we still live in a world were one totally insane person can have his own country AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!  Something has to be done.  I am all for cyber warfare to try to dismantle him but with no external access to his networks it's easier said than done  Turn Dennis Rodman into a suicide bomber maybe.  

[USPatriot]

Keep launching missiles in to the ocean and more earthquakes will continue 

[Thorgal]

1 hour ago, rijb said:

What attempts?  When and how?

 

[attrayant]

North Korea views its nuclear program as vital to the survival of the nation, and would probably allow two-thirds of its people to die of sanction-imposed starvation before it gives up its nuclear ambitions.  Even the latest round of sanctions still means NK gets to keep earning $2 billion in annual exports.  And that figure is probably higher, since neither China nor Russia will likely enforce the sanctions as they have promised.

 

This is a terrible choice, and I'm glad I don't have to make it.

[atyclb]

14 hours ago, Bannoi said:

A "mentally deranged"  president vs a "little rocket man" dictator who are both just itching to play with their nuke toys best to just put them both in a ring and let them slug it out.

 

Whatever happened to "make love not war" and "give peace a chance" 

 

i though "rocket man" was rather cool, after the same name song by elton john

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by atyclb

[sammieuk1]

The fat boy should be easy to take out just follow the food.

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, TunnelRat69 said:

What on Gods earth are you two people smoking??    Neither is obtainable because neither side is willing to concede either of those pipedreams  -  what people seem to forget, The UN is still technically "at war" with North Korea, we have an Armistice, not a peace treaty.  The Norks have violated that armistice time and again over the past fifty years or so, any of our past presidents could have invaded North Korea at any time in the past. They chose not to because they hoped the North would come into step with the rest of the world, instead it became reclusive and secretive - they they got Nukes.  Its time for them to pay the piper, irregardless of the cost.

Exactly, glad you got the point, in your first 2 lines anyway.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly, glad you got the point, in your first 2 lines anyway.

What's wrong with the rest of his post?  No propaganda.  Just facts.  But I don't agree with the last sentence.  There are better alternatives than an invasion.

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What's wrong with the rest of his post?  No propaganda.  Just facts.  But I don't agree with the last sentence.  There are better alternatives than an invasion.

For starters UN and USA are mixed up. NK at war with UN but USA could have invaded.

 

Imo the USA should not be the main player here, but they made themselves into that.

Edited September 25, 2017 by stevenl

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

For starters UN and USA are mixed up. NK at war with UN but USA could have invaded.

It's early.  I'm confused.  NK is at war with the UN.  Actually, neither side ever declared it was a war.  An armistice was signed, but no declaration of peace.  NK has violated that armistice many times. And yes, the US could have invaded any time they wanted. Just like any other country.  Not smart, but a possibility.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement#North_Korean_announcements_to_withdraw_from_the_agreement

Quote

North Korea has announced that it will no longer abide by the armistice at least 6 times, in the years 1994, 1996, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2013.

 

[Si Thea01]

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

So who runs the military complex?  A name would be great. LOL.  We'll match it up with a name you provide for the person running the media. LOL  Nice conspiracy theory.

 

Sad commentary when you criticize your own country for trying to do the right thing.  Deal with country that's violated UN resolutions for years. 

 

Nobody wants war.  The world wants a denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Yes, I agree, sad when one criticises their own country, if it is their country, especially when the last comment from the Australian FA minister was to follow the diplomatic trail.   No one is enslaved to the US, actually half the pollies, including the current PM, are so far up China it's not funny. Many people either have a short memory or really have no idea of history.

 

I take my hat off to the US and hope we have a long and strengthened relationship for if it weren't for their military, Australians, today, might be speaking a totally different language to English.  Their troops and navy, together with our armed forces saved our country and for that I say thanks Yanks.

[lvr181]

14 hours ago, mikebike said:

Its really off topic but the world's former colonial powers mentioned were effectually powerless post WWII. No need to blame them.

 

13 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I'm sure there are many who'd argue that point. LOL

You cannot change history but we could learn from it?  

 

Although I fear that many have only 'learned' that they haven't learned from history! 

[Antioc]

23 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

In the bigger picture, the Korean problems stem from over-population, as do the problems with mass migrations to Europe and the US, Rohinga problems, Middle East, etc etc, ad nauseum

 

Yes, I agree.  It's also about meaningful employment and the lack of it. 

However, killing, what could be millions (or more), of innocent people because of the actions and threats of "one man" is not justified under any circumstances.  This bloke only wants recognition and an invitation to join the World Community.  The more he is isolated and pushed aside the more frantic and desperate he is becoming.  If honest negotiation fails then consider the surgeon's option - cut the cancer out or kill the whole person?  The surgeon's choice is always the cut.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your claim is simply not correct.

 

How is it not correct? Kim's artillery pointed at Seoul is a major threat aimed at South Korean civilians. It's removal is not mentioned in your post, and doesn't feature all that much on other pro-Kim/anti-USA musings. Rather, the usual equation refers to USA removing troops from South Korea and ceasing joint maneuvers, while with regard to Kim the focal point is the nuclear and ballistic projects. This still leaves them barrels trained on Seoul.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How is it not correct? Kim's artillery pointed at Seoul is a major threat aimed at South Korean civilians. It's removal is not mentioned in your post, and doesn't feature all that much on other pro-Kim/anti-USA musings. Rather, the usual equation refers to USA removing troops from South Korea and ceasing joint maneuvers, while with regard to Kim the focal point is the nuclear and ballistic projects. This still leaves them barrels trained on Seoul.

Also removal of US fire power is not mentioned by me. Nor are other things you claim like removing troops from SK.

 

Again, stop reacting to claims not made. You do that on a continuous basis.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Also removal of US fire power is not mentioned by me. Nor are other things you claim like removing troops from SK.

 

Again, stop reacting to claims not made. You do that on a continuous basis.

 

This what you originally posted:

 

"And I'd pretty much guarantee that if the US stopped with exercises next to North Korea and withdrew its army/airforce/navy, NK would seriously consider stopping with its nuclear weapons programme."

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1003879-survey-is-a-military-strike-against-north-korea-justified/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-12299672

 

So, withdrawing army, air force  and navy is not the same as removal of fire power and removing troops?

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Thaidream said:

North Korea not only is violating Japanese airspace but there is always the possibility that NKorea can sell the technology to include a nuclear bomb to countries such as Iran , Syria or the Palestinians  or terrorist organizations like  The Taliban or ISIS.  The whole World is concerned with radical terrorism- do we really want terrorists to possess a nuclear weapon?

I am not indicating a US strike should take place but pointing out that a way to control NKorea and its arsenal has to be found . N Korea already uses its diplomatic personnel to smuggle stolen items such as gold and counterfeit currencies to include drugs around the World. It's time for the World to come to together to sole this problem.

 

North Korea already sold ballistic missile and nuclear related technology and hardware to several ME countries. A tighter sanctions regime, an embargo, a blockade may have an effect on hardware shipment, not so with regard to know how. A similar problem even if the issues are resolved in a peaceful manner.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

This what you originally posted:

 

"And I'd pretty much guarantee that if the US stopped with exercises next to North Korea and withdrew its army/airforce/navy, NK would seriously consider stopping with its nuclear weapons programme."

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1003879-survey-is-a-military-strike-against-north-korea-justified/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-12299672

 

So, withdrawing army, air force  and navy is not the same as removal of fire power and removing troops?

 

Both should stop provoking.

 

And stop pretending the US are the only defense of Seoul, there is also, and there should be mainly, the SK military.

Edited September 25, 2017 by stevenl

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Both should stop provoking.

 

And stop pretending the US are the only defense of Seoul, there is also, and there should be mainly, the SK military.

 

Both should stop provoking is the go-to cliche. If one was to follow your post, the end result would still leave Kim with a major "provocation" (or, threat) - massive amount of artillery pointed at Seoul. I don't think that there are many posts on these topics which make the removal of these a condition. How come?

 

I wasn't "pretending" anything of the sort. Kinda funny coming from someone whining about "claims not made". As far as I'm aware, the South Korean armed forces do not have a similar standing threat pointed at Pyongyang. Deflect away.

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Both should stop provoking.

 

And stop pretending the US are the only defense of Seoul, there is also, and there should be mainly, the SK military.

How about we start with NK abiding by the variety of UN resolutions over the years relating to their nuclear programs?  Then, move on from there.  If Iran can do this, along with many other countries, so can NK.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

How about we start with NK abiding by the variety of UN resolutions over the years relating to their nuclear programs?  Then, move on from there.  If Iran can do this, along with many other countries, so can NK.

Agree, I find it strange some here do not understand the facts..The USA and most of the world is telling NK they cannot have nukes.....Instead they pick on the USA for telling NK the worlds position.....

 

If NK actually gets a nuke on a missile and takes out somewhere these folk will say,

"Oh, it was the USA's fault".........

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Agree, I find it strange some here do not understand the facts..The USA and most of the world is telling NK they cannot have nukes.....Instead they pick on the USA for telling NK the worlds position.....

 

If NK actually gets a nuke on a missile and takes out somewhere these folk will say,

"Oh, it was the USA's fault".........

Many are just anti-US, as shown by their posts.  It gets old, but what can you do?  Other than fight back. LOL

[Machiavelli]

On 9/24/2017 at 10:58 AM, craigt3365 said:

So who runs the military complex?  A name would be great. LOL.  We'll match it up with a name you provide for the person running the media. LOL  Nice conspiracy theory.

 

Sad commentary when you criticize your own country for trying to do the right thing.  Deal with country that's violated UN resolutions for years. 

 

Nobody wants war.  The world wants a denuclearized Korean peninsula.

The world wants a denuclearized world. 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, Machiavelli said:

The world wants a denuclearized world. 

Agreed!  Maybe the country with the most can start this process?  P.S. it isn't the US.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Both should stop provoking is the go-to cliche. If one was to follow your post, the end result would still leave Kim with a major "provocation" (or, threat) - massive amount of artillery pointed at Seoul. I don't think that there are many posts on these topics which make the removal of these a condition. How come?

 

I wasn't "pretending" anything of the sort. Kinda funny coming from someone whining about "claims not made". As far as I'm aware, the South Korean armed forces do not have a similar standing threat pointed at Pyongyang. Deflect away.

 

 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Machiavelli said:

The world wants a denuclearized world. 

For sure, but when the west has the Russians continually backing dodgy folk what chance is there...China is doing sod all because of stuff they get from NK to help both their finances and no nuke threat.....

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

You do that.

Better than spouting off ridiculous posts, inaccurate complaints and not owning up to either.

 

Kim (and his predecessors) had two major threats (or, deterrents - depends on perspective): A large standing army which can be mobilized for invasion, and a whole lot of artillery trained on Seoul. On the South Korean side, there's a large army as well, plus USA military presence. It should be noted that most of the border incidents, incursions and directly hostile actions in recent decades were initiated by North Korea, and that the South Korean/USA deterrents are no specifically aimed at civilian targets.

 

By adding nuclear and ballistic capabilities, North Korea now possess an extra deterrent. So if one follows the "logic" of your original post, then the USA removing it's forces from South Korea vs. North Korea putting its nuclear/ballistic program on hold, would still leave North Korea holding a major threat over South Korea - artillery pointed at Seoul.

[lvr181]

6 hours ago, Antioc said:

Yes, I agree.  It's also about meaningful employment and the lack of it. 

However, killing, what could be millions (or more), of innocent people because of the actions and threats of "one man" is not justified under any circumstances.  This bloke only wants recognition and an invitation to join the World Community.  The more he is isolated and pushed aside the more frantic and desperate he is becoming.  If honest negotiation fails then consider the surgeon's option - cut the cancer out or kill the whole person?  The surgeon's choice is always the cut.

"However, killing, what could be millions (or more), of innocent people because of the actions and threats of "one man" is not justified under any circumstances."

Agreed but learn the lessons of history e.g. Hitler, Hirohito and the warlords of Japan ad infinitum ad nauseam. Don't be naive to think that Kim Jong-Un will not slaughter South Koreans, Japanese and others in his quest for power. This is not a time for being a bleeding heart wearing rose coloured spectacles!