N KOREAN ENVOY: We want peace but ready for war with US

[Jingthing]

Neither side is intentionally planning to start a war now, although they both have war plans, in case it breaks out,  possibly accidentally. 

 

Quote

 

What Would War with North Korea Look Like?

...

Marks told me that Mattis’s statements reflected the views of top American commanders. “There is certainly a hawkish option on North Korea,” he said, “but there is no hawkish faction at the Pentagon. Nobody wants another war in Korea.”

 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-would-war-with-north-korea-look-like

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jingthing

[Jools]

The next "black hole" into which the USA will fall. Beware.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Robbess said:

Who invades and occupies the most countries these days?

Russia.  Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Syria....

[stanleycoin]

Kim Jong-un,

A total wing nut. he needs to go. ASAP.

can't they just encourage south Korea to go take him down.

and free the people.

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, stanleycoin said:

Kim Jong-un,

A total wing nut. he needs to go. ASAP.

can't they just encourage south Korea to go take him down.

and free the people.

 

 

Um. No. 

[Ron19]

A post has been removed at posters request

[khunken]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

There will be no American nuclear first strike. It is simply not a viable option for  many reasons being that the World would condemn an American first strike.  However, if Nkorea launched a nuclear weapon targeting the US; Us territories or US Allies- then a full American retaliatory strike would most likely be ordered.  I doubt NKorea would launch as they know their total destruction would occur.

 

Once one rules out the nuclear options that leaves only conventional war. However, conventional war would cause huge losses of life in SKorea as Seoul is well within the range of massive amounts of NKorea artillery and there is no way the US ; Japan, or Korea could knock out all of the artillery and conventional missiles. One thing that could mitigate loses in Seoul is the there is a massive underground shopping areas all over Seoul that also can be used as shelters and part of the SKorea war plan is to get its citizens underground.

 

At present, I see no movement towards conventional war by any side. There is no massing of NKorean troops at the DMZ (neutral zone) and there is no massive movement of US Forces to Asia, which would be needed to respond to a NKorea invasion. The media keeps playing the story with its worst case scenarios but the current evidence is that neither country is anywhere near hostilities. In addition, Trump has played it and got a massive $70 billion increase in the Us defense budget, already the highest in the World- of course being paid off the back of the suffering US middle class and poor.

 

The only viable solution is negotiation. If NKorea can be convinced that America is not interested in regime change-then a peace treaty can be signed- China can take control of NKorea's nuclear weapons and US troops move off the peninsula. Then North and South Korea can negotiate an opening of borders and economic integration. 

Well said. The most sensible post in the thread so far.

[Jools]

Why does America even need to respond to insane sabre-rattling by Kim Jong Un? He is obviously posturing. Giving Kim credibility by relaying his threats and blather serves no purpose whatever.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jools said:

Why does America even need to respond to insane sabre-rattling by Kim Jong Un? He is obviously posturing. Giving Kim credibility by relaying his threats and blather serves no purpose whatever.

 

America does not respond. Trump does. Can't help himself.

[sweatalot]

10 hours ago, greatwhitenorth said:

Nuclear war would be devastating to not just to Asia but to world trade and finacial markets. If the sh*t hits the fan life as all of us know it will be changed permanently. It is truly scary that two crazies are the ones that will determine our collective future. 

I don't believe that - if there would be war with NK and if nukes would be used they would stay mainly in the region. NK if attacking South Korea would destroy their own country. That's possible because their leader is a mad clown. Attacking the US? I don't think they can - at least not effectively.

[SheungWan]

41 minutes ago, Jools said:

Why does America even need to respond to insane sabre-rattling by Kim Jong Un? He is obviously posturing. Giving Kim credibility by relaying his threats and blather serves no purpose whatever.

Its always intriguing what arguments the white flag crowd come up with.

[sweatalot]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

There will be no American nuclear first strike. It is simply not a viable option for  many reasons being that the World would condemn an American first strike.  However, if Nkorea launched a nuclear weapon targeting the US; Us territories or US Allies- then a full American retaliatory strike would most likely be ordered.  I doubt NKorea would launch as they know their total destruction would occur.

 

Once one rules out the nuclear options that leaves only conventional war. However, conventional war would cause huge losses of life in SKorea as Seoul is well within the range of massive amounts of NKorea artillery and there is no way the US ; Japan, or Korea could knock out all of the artillery and conventional missiles. One thing that could mitigate loses in Seoul is the there is a massive underground shopping areas all over Seoul that also can be used as shelters and part of the SKorea war plan is to get its citizens underground.

 

At present, I see no movement towards conventional war by any side. There is no massing of NKorean troops at the DMZ (neutral zone) and there is no massive movement of US Forces to Asia, which would be needed to respond to a NKorea invasion. The media keeps playing the story with its worst case scenarios but the current evidence is that neither country is anywhere near hostilities. In addition, Trump has played it and got a massive $70 billion increase in the Us defense budget, already the highest in the World- of course being paid off the back of the suffering US middle class and poor.

 

The only viable solution is negotiation. If NKorea can be convinced that America is not interested in regime change-then a peace treaty can be signed- China can take control of NKorea's nuclear weapons and US troops move off the peninsula. Then North and South Korea can negotiate an opening of borders and economic integration. 

Don't the US have nuclear artillery that could in one simultaneous strike eradicate a stripe along the NK /South Korea border with all the NK artillery? Conventional war would be possible then.

And whatever is said: fat kim has to disappear.  Agreeing to "no regime change" is utter bullocks.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by sweatalot

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

...

The only viable solution is negotiation. If NKorea can be convinced that America is not interested in regime change-then a peace treaty can be signed- China can take control of NKorea's nuclear weapons and US troops move off the peninsula. Then North and South Korea can negotiate an opening of borders and economic integration. 

This is super naive and dangerous thinking. Totally pie in the sky. That's exactly what NK wants -- for the USA to withdraw. You're ignoring their real goal, to take over SOUTH KOREA, which they can only hope to do if they can sucker the USA to withdraw.

I agree there needs to be negotiation but it shouldn't (and won't) include USA withdrawal. 

[wwest5829]

13 hours ago, lujanit said:

 

They actually believe this stuff which is scary.  I guess they believe their own sh!t smells like perfume too.

Why would they not believe this when the "greatest military power on the face of the globe" cannot win in the two major wars in which they have been engaged with their allies helping for how many years?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

Why would they not believe this when the "greatest military power on the face of the globe" cannot win in the two major wars in which they have been engaged with their allies helping for how many years?

 

How do things fare for the ones opposing the USA on these "two major wars"? Don't know if that's a great sales pitch you got there.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed. 

[wwest5829]

6 hours ago, Fore Man said:

The US could snuff out nK in a matter of days, if not hours, depending on the types of weapons used and the completeness of their targeting packages.  They have the quantities, the right mixes and the precision to do so.  Yes, hundreds of thousands of nK citizens would perish, but that might be the toll to stop this nuclear-crazed, madman leader from realizing his true goals which another poster has previously stated.  Left unchecked, Kim will only continue to escalate tensions and reach a point where his regime can truly imperil the West. I’m thinking ahead with this thought, assuming that in due course nK will deploy nuclear subs equipped with far more sophisticated ICBMs as well as SLCMs armed with nuclear payloads. Their continued course of weaponization cannot be tolerated unless the Kim dynasty is toppled and replaced by moderate, peace-minded national leadership.  

Nukes aside being used how are those conventional weapons working out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Past time for Americans to learn the lesson taught the British many years ago. It is extremely difficult to defeat a dedicated, native population on its own territory. "When will they ever learn..."

[wwest5829]

8 hours ago, lapamita said:

NK is a pure example ,that the United Nations must be reformed ,to have the power to act more early and as well to prevent upcomming events.

 

In my ideas,since 2 decades , i want the Un reform like following

- Termination of Veto rights

-a country key for voting rights, depending on size of the country, Residents of the country and economic power GDP 

- military interventions for prevention, under a force of the UN , by 2/3 of votes. 

 

 

due to veto rights the Un is a paper tiger, bcs in any conflict, their is a veto of any side..., so  conflicts have time to growth . If 2/3  vote for premetive meassures, nobody can blame one country at the end.

Many regimes ,would cooperate under this pressure, and wars would be prevented. and  others would be less dangerous, bcs messures taken early.

 

A strong Un with military power is the solution

The NK cponflict  would be not heated up to the satge of today ,and would be solved end of 80ths already

 

but its just a dream... nor the us or cina or russia  will give off, the VETO rights.

 

with this stupid vetos ..the UN will be a paper tiger even in the future

 

The U.S. would never give up Security Council Veto Power. It would be outvoted on many issues in a democratic vote. I understand your idea of weighting the voting power. Afterall I should ...  these are the very reasons, ironically, for the structure of checks and balances built into the American system of government.

[yellowboat]

Given reports regarding the north Korean guard that defected,  the people in there are dying a slow death.  The guard had large parasitic worms in his body, and he is from an elite unit.  Goodness knows what health problems the average north Korean has.  Do you allow the population to suffer until they just cannot take it anymore ?  A bit of a moral dilemma. 

[bedouin1990]

As Shakespeare so wisely said, "The quality of bullshit is not strained."

[Jingthing]

45 minutes ago, bedouin1990 said:

As Shakespeare so wisely said, "The quality of bullshit is not strained."

Yeah. Larry Shakespeare said that.

[baboon]

2 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Given reports regarding the north Korean guard that defected,  the people in there are dying a slow death.  The guard had large parasitic worms in his body, and he is from an elite unit.  Goodness knows what health problems the average north Korean has.  Do you allow the population to suffer until they just cannot take it anymore ?  A bit of a moral dilemma. 

Well, change from without has led us to ISIS, a refugee crisis and the current lawless state of Libya. Do we expand the white man's burden into northeast Asia now?

Others are free to believe as they please but I say a firm 'No'. We can choose not to do business with distasteful states, but I think we should leave regional crises to the countries of the region. They are better orientated to handle disputes by themselves. 

[candide]

I hate his regime but I don't agree the NK leader is crazy  (well, not completely).

He has drawn his conclusions from what happened to Sadam Husseyn. From his perspective, the nuclear option was the best way to avoid an invasion. Internally, claiming the existence of foreign threats is also a proven way to justify a dictatorial regime.

Inhuman and crooked, but quite rational from his dictatorial perspective.

Edited November 20, 2017 by candide

[bobbymack]

I would like to have a wager with that envoy against NK winning a war against the US. I wonder what odds he would give me?

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, baboon said:

Well, change from without has led us to ISIS, a refugee crisis and the current lawless state of Libya. Do we expand the white man's burden into northeast Asia now?

Others are free to believe as they please but I say a firm 'No'. We can choose not to do business with distasteful states, but I think we should leave regional crises to the countries of the region. They are better orientated to handle disputes by themselves. 

North Korea already "exports" it's criminal activities internationally.  From drugs to internet hacks to slaves.  The world would be a better place without this rogue regime.

 

White man's burden?  Seriously?  Too funny.

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, yellowboat said:

Given reports regarding the north Korean guard that defected,  the people in there are dying a slow death.  The guard had large parasitic worms in his body, and he is from an elite unit.  Goodness knows what health problems the average north Korean has.  Do you allow the population to suffer until they just cannot take it anymore ?  A bit of a moral dilemma. 

The people there deserve better.

https://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154872720/malnutrition-stunts-growth-of-n-korean-children

 

Quote

 

Malnutrition Stunts Growth Of N. Korean Children

 

The United Nations is warning that two-thirds of North Koreans are suffering from chronic food shortages. The UN's representative in Pyongyang says about half the country's children are stunted from malnutrition. While the North Korean government acknowledges the food shortages, there are no signs of structural reform to alleviate the problem.

 

 

[habanero]

22 hours ago, baboon said:

It isn't going to happen. This is just the media and their right wing stooges hyping it up to sell copies and frighten people.

"Right-wing stooges"?

You do realize the Nation is hardly Right-Wing?

[Robbess]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Do tell about the independence of North Koreans.

I just did. Can’t you read?

[hawker9000]

20 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Kim is apparently a permanent fixture. The blunder that is Trump can be corrected. Not same same.

Yes, Trump actually was the correction for the previous monumental 8-yr blunder that's true, and it's certainly true the NORKs are capable of nonesuch.  But if they've got their graves all dug I guess maybe they can reasonably say they're "ready".

[Rangerdriver]

Every parasitic little empire builder has jumped on the story to further their power and wealth. Its like children egging on a playground fight for their own entertainment.
Grow up all those involved.

Sent from my ASUS_Z002 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app