Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

Posted Mar 10, '13 at 2:31pm

OperationNilo

OperationNilo

2,044 posts

I agree with you Jacob. If North Korea tries to nuke the US, there'll be retaliation and then more and more until the world is just a barren rock floating in space.

 

Posted Mar 10, '13 at 3:07pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

If North Korea tries to nuke the US, there'll be retaliation and then more and more until the world is just a barren rock floating in space.

I really doubt it. NK doesn't have MAD capabilities. I agree that there will be retaliation, but not with nukes. We won't want to stoop to their level and break international treaties. Such a strike would likely rally most of the industrialized world against NK. It wouldn't be difficult to blow 'em up conventionally with that much support. The US alone has a hundred times their available military members and a hundred times their annual military budget.

 

Posted Mar 10, '13 at 6:40pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

1) Because by bringing in NATO in your statement, it highly insinuates that you feel NATO will join the party. Also, the big two in NATO (France and Germany) actually opposed US intervention in Iraq. It's not an easy extrapolation to presume NATO involvement; quite the contrary. NATO nations individually might support another Korean defensive war, but NATO as an organization will not.

NATO involvement in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, abd Libya, among others, indicates a past record in the last two decades of intervention. Why would an East Asia conflict be any different? An easy clextrapolation because there is grounds for it, unlike yours which would fly in the face of NATO's post-USSR policy.

A nuclear NK is of benefit to China. It acts as a thorn in the side of the US, and provides slightly more leverage in negotiations. China's main objective in NK policy is merely to keep the nation afloat; it's primary concern is a mass exodus of NK refugees should the nation disintegrate. If a nuclear program is going to keep that country together, China will not do anything against it.

I aggree that China wants to meep the country afloat and avoid refugees, but a nuclear NK would almost inevitably lead to this! As NK proceeds with its nuclear development, it will face more more and sanctions for doing so. This is evident in the UN sanctions recently placed upon it. Sanctions which China voted for. A nuclear NK is NOT beneficial to China, and China clearly does not want a nuclear China!

My point is that it is highly unlikely that Japan will jump on the bandwagon and attack China in a hypothetical war over Korea, given that they already have another serious problem broiling on their hands, which needs no more inflammation.

May be not. But Japanese involvement in a Korean conflict, whether indirectly or not, is inevitible given the close proximity of Japan to the peninsula. In the Korean War, Japan served as a launching platform for US forces, and such support at the very least will be expected.

As for the islands, Japan considers it soverign Japanese soil. Any action on the islands by China will be seen as an invasion, and would justify their use of force in compliance with Article 9. This is also why I brought up the US' nuclear umbrella, because an attack on Japan is equivalent to an attack on the US.

Zhu Chenghu was a rogue hawk, he was transferred to a second line appointment pretty fast after he mentioned that. In 1995, General Xiong was widely, and incorrectly quoted as threatening to use nuclear weapons against Los Angeles. The person to whom he was alleged to have said this, Chas Freeman, denies it.

In 2005, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a white paper stating that the government would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances. In addition, the paper went on to state that this "no first use" policy would remain unchanged in the future and that China would not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones.

I revise my earlier statement to say that Chenghu allegedly threatened to blow up LA. :D

The "White Paper" I found was 2011, but thats immaterial really. Sure, but it never denies first use against a nuclear weapons capable state. Spoken policy isn't operational policy, and shouldn't be given equal weights. If China truly maintains an NFU policy, why then are they in the process of modernizing their nuclear arsenal? If actions speak louder than words, this speaks volumns.

 

Posted Mar 11, '13 at 12:16pm

redfan45

redfan45

202 posts

The thing is, the US will never do anything but have the UN give them sanctions. And obviously NK does not care about their peoples starving so what good does it do.
And I feel like one day this nation will need to be dealt with, if not now. Then later when it's worse.
But with these war-games the US and SK are doing as of today, who knows what might happen if it bothers the fat prince too much.
Guess we will see soon enough, most likely nothing though.

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 8:17am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

The thing is, the US will never do anything but have the UN give them sanctions.

NK sees the usa and sk as their main enemies.
why would we in europe bother whit it? they are not aiming for us (yet).
and how much will NK care about a UN sanction? my guess is absolutely nothing. xD

who knows what might happen if it bothers the fat prince too much.

like he is the only 1 whit power....
he has most likely less power then his advisers.
read a little about the man befor jumping to conclusions plz.

Guess we will see soon enough, most likely nothing though.

you got that right.

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 11:47am

redfan45

redfan45

202 posts

So far the USA's response is giving "even more stronger sanctions" as they are "worried".

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 11:55am

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

i just wonder how they want to sanction nk effectively.
if there is a way, why hasn't it done already?

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 1:30pm

redfan45

redfan45

202 posts

There doesn't seem to be a way, when the UN sanctions NK it normally just means more North Koreans starving and losing their job, and not the leaders but the civilians. And their government doesn't care about them much anyway, so it's apparent that if NK gladly starves them, then the UN starving them wont really do anything.
Sooner or later they will need to be dealt with, and South Korea knows that and is getting ready for that, as for the US I don't know. I think a lot of US military generals know this, but Washington is full of cowardly politicians.
Not that engaging in war is always the "brave" thing to do, but sometimes you need more than sanctions. As this is evidently showing the world that.
South Korea says the moment North Korea does something, for once they will do something back and it will be 10x worse and I believe that. A lot has changed since 1952. South Korea is a modern well supported nation with a modern military.
Well they at least have modern camo unlike north Korea lol.

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 3:32pm

P0rchm0nkey

P0rchm0nkey

5 posts

Good, bring it on I say

 

Posted Mar 12, '13 at 5:06pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Not that engaging in war is always the "brave" thing to do, but sometimes you need more than sanctions.

does it? can't the usa just back of for once? (not talking about specific one (yet))

 
Reply to North Korea Vows to Nuke U.S.A.

You must be logged in to post a reply!