Feel free to discuss the subject. Do you think they'd follow through? What do you imagine the result would be? What results could come about from this vow? etc
can't speculate on that. we dunno where they are. it might just aswell fail and then they have to right to retaliate and not you. then you started the war and they didn't.
I understand that. I'm only speaking in the case that we were able to do such.
if we force our human rights on all other countries that do not have it. then a world war isn't far away.
Yes, again, I realize this. As I said, that is in part why NK is still an isolationist dictatorship.
All I'm saying is that if the current trend continues, NK is going to attack. I no longer hold the same view. There are times for negotiation and wariness, and there are times when holding to more honorable mores leads to innocents being harmed. Non aggression is only to be valued in moderation, because the right to stop those who would harm others for selfish, greedy, bigoted, insane reasons trumps the right for for one to choose their own path. That is the basis of self defense, and I believe that extends to before an attack is made. If one is aware of a threat and fails to prevent it by choosing inaction, they share the responsibility for the tragedy.
i dont agree that it extends to befor an attack is made. you can prepare yourself to dodge, block or counter a attack. you dont have to hit 1st.
is this going to be like "we saved nk civilians by rallying them for a putsch"? these civilians are fully indoctrinated there entire life. they believe you killed the son of god when you kill kim jong un. they most likely want to kill you for it. not work along for a better future.
i dont agree that it extends to befor an attack is made. you can prepare yourself to dodge, block or counter a attack. you dont have to hit 1st.
Acting does not always mean violence.
these civilians are fully indoctrinated there entire life. they believe you killed the son of god when you kill kim jong un. they most likely want to kill you for it. not work along for a better future.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Which is why I only said it would disrupt their chain of command, not stop the threat. Actually assassinating their leaders/capturing them is idealistic anyways, I don't expect that to really happen.
it would disrupt their chain of command, not stop the threat.
you can disrupt it after they striked 1st. that way you get both. their "end" and not the blame of the one who started the war. what makes it more easy to convince the left over civilians to come to your side later on.
i dont agree that it extends to befor an attack is made.
Forgot to address this.
How does it not? If someone is aware of a threat and fails to stop it by negligence, how are they not responsible in part? I would hold anyone guilty if they saw a toddler playing with a knife and did not take it from them and they ended up cutting themselves, whether they were a passing stranger or the parent. How they got the knife in the first place is an entirely separate matter.
Preemptive actions are not always violent. We see examples of this all the time, when plans to murder someone are unveiled and the person is arrested. Or by evacuation of areas in the face of impending danger. Even things like vaccines are preemptive. If a parent does not have their child vaccinated against things other than the flu (as that's only one strain) and they have the ability to do so, I believe that to be negligence. If their child catches one of those diseases, it is their fault.
The same follows for other situations. Being aware of danger imparts a social obligation. If you find a leaking pipe and do nothing to fix it or report it so it can be fixed, when the ceiling catastrophically collapses after weeks of water damage, the person who ignored the issue clearly shares fault.
It all boils down to responsibility and not being lazy. Many of our world's problems would be gone if people stopped for a second to act on what needs to be acted upon.
Long story short, a political snafu is no different from anything else. You already agree with me too-if the leaders failed to act and hundreds or thousands died in NK's initial attack, waiting for a reason to retaliate, you'd be outraged. If you aren't, you clearly need to rethink your morals.
i agreed on preemptive actions. and that they dont have to be violent.
"you can prepare yourself to dodge, block or counter a attack. you dont have to hit 1st."
you wanted to use a violent one against nk.
a political snafu is no different from anything else.
snafu?
if the leaders failed to act and hundreds or thousands died in NK's initial attack, waiting for a reason to retaliate,
whit the leaders you mean usa/sk and the rest? or nk leaders?
if nk starts and fails then my thumbs go double up. (in favor of usa/sk) 1 time for not starting it. 1 time for beating them. if usa/sk starts and fails my thumbs go double down. (in favor of usa/sk) 1 time for starting it. 1 time for failing it.
or am i misunderstanding the sentence?
If you aren't, you clearly need to rethink your morals.
"a badly confused or ridiculously muddled situation"
or am i misunderstanding the sentence?
Most likely. He means that costly inaction is irresponsible. If NK manages to kill hundreds of thousands with a nuke in their first strike, it wasn't worth waiting around doing nothing to prevent it.
They've already shown they can't be reasoned with. The only other options are: 1) Continuing to let the dictatorship abuse the citizens of NK. 2) Waiting for NK to attack SK and open itself for annihilation. 3) Forcefully ending the problem.
In two of those three instances, innocent people die/suffer.The second is almost certainly going to happen regardless, so why wait? All waiting does is give them more time to abuse those within their country and to develop more nuclear bombs.
The time for waiting is gone, imo. They've been given every reasonable chance and are continuing to escalate and make bold threats. It's time to put the affair to rest.
whit the leaders you mean usa/sk and the rest? or nk leaders?
USA/SK and every other nation in the world. Everyone knows what's happening in NK. Waiting for NK to attack SK is not only pointless, but leading to an ever worsening situation. NK has already declared war on multiple countries, publicly announced their intentions to use nuclear devices on their enemies, and has sent out pictures (even if they are poorly photoshopped) of their weapons. They refuse to negotiate or listen.
It's time to shoot the rabid dog before it bites someone. Would I prefer a non violent solution? Of course. Except, I don't see that as being possible.
1) Continuing to let the dictatorship abuse the citizens of NK.
i'll pick this one. it wont last forever anyway. and he has already given more freedom then his father did. people are allowed to dance every day now if they like. unimaginable under his father.
3) Forcefully ending the problem.
this always sounds so easy. everytime a nation wants to start a war. they say it like it will be done befor christmas. it's always a blitzkrieg. how many will die this time?
The second is almost certainly going to happen regardless, so why wait?
regardless? nk isn't stupid. you can't build a dictatorship like that whit stupid people. the new leader needs to show it's ruthless power to us and give the feeling of safety to his people. and they take extreme risks whit that.
They've been given every reasonable chance and are continuing to escalate and make bold threats.
chance for what? it's their country. they can do whit it what they want. and their enemy is also showing their muscle allot the last few year. atleast they are clear whit their threads. i like that. not sneaky flying by whit 2 planes to check for gaps in the defense system. i know it is normal and countries are checking eatch other all the time like this. but nk doesn't like it. can be, right? especially now i understand they dont like it when that happens.
NK has already declared war on multiple countries
no, they gave a very last warning. (the other war did never end. technically they are in war for a few decades already) something along the lines of... "show your face 1 more time, and we shoot it"
If NK manages to kill hundreds of thousands with a nuke in their first strike, it wasn't worth waiting around doing nothing to prevent it.
good point. but i believe sk is well defended against it. not only do they know the thread for years. but so does everyone els knows this thread. and i find it very possible that it is all just a show. and if we do nothing, then nothing will happen. he just needs the attention.
not sneaky flying by whit 2 planes to check for gaps in the defense system.
Got a link for that? If you mean the 2 sent from Missouri, they only flew to SK.
but i believe sk is well defended against it.
Got a source? The US has a crude anti-ICBM system, as does Russia, but even the US system "is designed to counter a relatively small ICBM attack from a less sophisticated adversary" and has a poor (50%) rate of successful test interceptions, but SK has nothing.
Yea, lets wait. Totaly worked with Iraq. And with Naxi germany. Oh oh, Vietnam too! The problmes will solve themselves, im sure. I mean, why a Meglomaniac leader with a desire for an empire who falled to his own lies on his enemies and with a big army and nucklear wepones will ever make troubles?
(For all of you new guys, im sarcastic).
This post was writen by my phone during a guard duty. If you find grammer mistakes, go to your kitchen and take a candy as a prise!
This N. Korea missile threat sort of seems similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was resolved. Now granted that this is N. Korea, but the question I think is important to consider: Is the leader for N. Korea stupid (or crazy) enough to fight a war with the US? Then there is the fact that N. Korea would have broken the Geneva Convention due to the use of a nuclear weapon, which might cause repercussions with other nations.
well not for this case. but it happens for over 50 year already that under the line countries are checking other nations defense system.
for example does russia check the border defense of europe almost every week. they fly in stealth untill a few hundred meter past the maritime zones. and then check if the nation in question reacts on it. this same happens in africa, america and asia.
i dont really care about what the usa government say these planes did. i know they just checked the defense system. it's nothing special. but also not something everyone has to know. for political sake.
Got a source?
nope. but to think sk has nothing to defend is kinda naive. the thread is well know by everyone. even if sk does not have the defense themself there is sure someone that "rents" them the defense. and it's just smart to not tell that to anyone. if they did then nk knows it aswell. and will see it as a provocation. =/
I think that N. Korea is trying to get more leverage in negotiations rather than actually use the nukes. Also, I believe they don't have the technology capable of creating a nuke capable of being used in a missile, nor the technology for having an ICBM. They have missiles, but is does N. Korea have a missile that can travel across the Pacific Ocean? I know it has been posted before( and I have stated it earlier in this post), but I think either N. Korea is trying to have more leverage in negotiations, or their dictator is trying to increase the fanaticism of the people for the him. That is what I think anyway.
