North Korea launches missile that passes over Japan

stupei said:
None of this is remotely recent news and it's assuredly horrific, but why are you so eager to doom millions to death based on a hunch and an incredibly over-simplified understanding of world history?

Evil is not so unpredictable as you suggest. It is not innately irrational. No individual sets out with the goal of destroying themselves. The logic of tyrants can be studied, understood from the outside, and reacted to. There are experts who have studied North Korea for most of their lives, and they don't believe we should strike at them. The essential flaw with your Nazi comparison is that the Nazis attacked other countries for what they perceived as the betterment of their own people. North Korean leadership is unconcerned with the well being of its own citizens and is exploiting them instead of surrounding nations, because expansion is (and always will be) impossible.

What the North Korean leadership is doing to their own people is barbaric, but it's no reason to sacrifice all of South Korea.
Click to expand...

Again, I never meant to equate Nazis and North Korea. I used them (specifically the way they acted after Stalingrad) as an example of a group of people not acting in their own best interest, even disregarding the primal instinct of self preservation.
Of course dictators follow certain principles, but not always. First example that comes to mind: Idi Amin. We really don't know enough about Kim Jong-un's state of mind to allow any such presumptions.
What has been happening in North Korea for decades is a humanitarian catastrophe. In an ideal world, the leaders of the world would have come together and ended it long ago. Now that NK has gained nuclear capability, it has turned from a local problem into a global one.
 
GameAddict411 said:
They might have nukes, but they are not small enough enough to be put on a rocket or even carried by a plane(at least not by a plane NK had access to). The west and all of Japanese allies should respond accordingly, and from an upper hand. What you are suggesting is bending over.
Click to expand...

In your mind, what is North Korea's goal?

And what they are suggesting is the most sensible option. A first strike scenario could cause a regional war that has the potential to escalate even further. Millions dead with possible nuclear war.
 
Into some of these tweets https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/902298716161404928

BDqf04F.png


I don't know about the 'nightmare scenario' part but it's obvious that "strong words" does nothing besides give the go-ahead for NK to continue doing literally whatever it wants.
 
Occam said:
Well, we are going in circles. I believe that due to the nature of the North Korean system a peaceful solution is highly unlikely and that the death toll (North Korean, too) will become much greater the longer military action is delayed.
I haven't seen any sensible suggestions on how to end the North Korean threat and dictatorship peacefully. I don't think the "Let's just let them build more and more nuclear warheads and missiles and the problem will go away" strategy is going to work.
Click to expand...
North Korea is showboating. Kim Jong Un has to to keep his people from revolting. He needs an exterior threat to prevent them from tearing his little country apart. He does not want to provoke a war, but when threatened, like by the words of an idiot president, he is absolutely forced to respond. The threat of the US is much much better for Kim Jong Un than actual violence. He's not stupid. He knows he'll just become another Sadam if he pushes it too far. But he's got to push. He's got to at least make some semblance of being a viable threat for his country to work under the current system.

The only real danger is forcing Kim Jong Un to respond.
Occam said:
What has been happening in North Korea for decades is a humanitarian catastrophe. In an ideal world, the leaders of the world would have come together and ended it long ago. Now that NK has gained nuclear capability, it has turned from a local problem into a global one.
Click to expand...
Would another Iraq, and another ISIS, be better than bending over? Because that's the best case for going to war with North Korea.
 
Occam said:
Again, I never meant to equate Nazis and North Korea. I used them (specifically the way they acted after Stalingrad) as an example of a group of people not acting in their own best interest, even disregarding the primal instinct of self preservation.
Of course dictators follow certain principles, but not always. First example that comes to mind: Idi Amin. We really don't know enough about Kim Jong-un's state of mind to allow any such presumptions.
What has been happening in North Korea for decades is a humanitarian catastrophe. In an ideal world, the leaders of the world would have come together and ended it long ago. Now that NK has gained nuclear capability, it has turned from a local problem into a global one.
Click to expand...

What you have repeatedly suggested is that you prioritize the potential loss of other lives over the guaranteed loss of South Korean lives, so let's not pretend this is a humanitarian cause. It isn't up to the "leaders of the world" to destabilize a region. Why should anyone else get to make that decision on behalf of all the other countries and people living there who would likely suffer and die?

The last time America destabilized an entire region to deal with a tyrant, how did that go for us? How well is the world handling the Syrian refugee crisis? How eager should we be to cause entire nations to flee?
 
stupei said:
What you have repeatedly suggested is that you prioritize the potential loss of other lives over the guaranteed loss of South Korean lives, so let's not pretend this is a humanitarian cause. It isn't up to the "leaders of the world" to destabilize a region. Why should anyone else get to make that decision on behalf of all the other countries and people living there who would likely suffer and die?

The last time America destabilized an entire region to deal with a tyrant, how did that go for us? How well is the world handling the Syrian refugee crisis? How eager should we be to cause entire nations to flee?
Click to expand...

It absolutely is an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe (hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have been murdered in concentration camps, millions have died of famine).
Anyway, what we have here is a Kobayashi-Maru scenario. There is no good outcome.
You think doing nothing is the best move, I think deposing North Korea's leadership before they can create a larger nuclear arsenal of greater reach is what should be done because doing nothing while the military dictatorship of a country on the brink of economic collapse creates a global threat is worse than the alternative.
 
entremet said:
But people were saying business as usual, don't panic, etc?

I'm obviously being sarcastic but goes to show that this wasn't like other times.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of both probably. Nothing to panic about over this incident, but no response could mean more "wake up the country with missile alert" situations replacing the "missile in water and not near anyone" situation.
 
ponpo said:
Into some of these tweets https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/902298716161404928

I don't know about the 'nightmare scenario' part but it's obvious that "strong words" does nothing besides give the go-ahead for NK to continue doing literally whatever it wants.
Click to expand...
Man, getting an alert on your phone telling you to get to the nearest shelter is unimaginable. It becoming common would be... more unimaginable.

As a completely uninformed person, how do the Japanese people see the NK/SK situation? Surprised I don't see stories about people calling for a push for more militarisation in the face of this sort of aggression.
 
Uhyve said:
Man, getting an alert on your phone telling you to get to the nearest shelter is unimaginable. It becoming common would be... more unimaginable.
Click to expand...

The phone alert wasn't the worst part for me. It was the freaking loudspeaker air raid sirens that were going off outside. So annoying. Managed to get back to sleep soon enough though.
 
Occam said:
It absolutely is an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.
Anyway, what we have here is a Kobayashi-Maru scenario. There is no good outcome.
You think doing nothing is the best move, I think deposing North Korea's leadership before they can create a larger nuclear arsenal of greater reach is what should be done because doing nothing while the military dictatorship of a country on the brink of economic collapse creates a global threat is worse than the alternative.
Click to expand...

But the math is this:

The weapons he's amassing are only there to prevent regime change. If an invasion is commenced to depose him, he has nothing to lose and the weapons will fly. Tens of millions of people will die, or more. That's South Koreans, Japanese, Americans and whoever else they can reach. That is virtually a certainty.

Or we can continue doing what we're doing, and things probably keep going along just as they have. Maybe things get worse and he is left with no options and attacks, but that doesn't seem likely. But even if it were only a bit less likely than the death that follows from invasion, it's still our moral obligation to pursue that instead.
 
KHarvey16 said:
But the math is this:

The weapons he's amassing are only there to prevent regime change. If an invasion is commenced to depose him, he has nothing to lose and the weapons will fly. Tens of millions of people will die, or more. That's South Koreans, Japanese, Americans and whoever else they can reach. That is virtually a certainty.

Or we can continue doing what we're doing, and things probably keep going along just as they have. Maybe things get worse and he is left with no options and attacks, but that doesn't seem likely. But even if it were only a bit less likely than the death that follows from invasion, it's still our moral obligation to pursue that instead.
Click to expand...

It does seem very likely these provocations continue to escalate further and further... why not? No one has stopped NK... At least until NK goes too far and someone does, and the longer a wait that is, the more damage will be caused as they stockpile more weapons and develop better missiles.
 
Occam said:
It absolutely is an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe (hundreds of thousands of North Koreans have been murdered in concentration camps, millions have died of famine).
Anyway, what we have here is a Kobayashi-Maru scenario. There is no good outcome.
You think doing nothing is the best move, I think deposing North Korea's leadership before they can create a larger nuclear arsenal of greater reach is what should be done because doing nothing while the military dictatorship of a country on the brink of economic collapse creates a global threat is worse than the alternative.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I must have been unclear.

Your solution that we accept the deaths of millions as inevitable and necessary means your motivations are ultimately not humanitarian in nature but rather self-serving toward your own perception of safety and comfort (based on a hunch), despite experts advising otherwise. That's not particularly rational.

You keep choosing to be vague about the "alternative" but what you are talking about is the eradication of entire nations. You're speaking as though South Koreans are already doomed and ultimately expendable. That's why this is not a discussion about a humanitarian cause, despite the crisis in North Korea.

This isn't an abstract thought puzzle from an aspirational TV show. We're talking about millions of real lives.

Hazelhurst said:
Is China not North Korea's big brother?
Click to expand...

China uses them as a resource, primarily for leverage. They're not going to take on the world on their behalf.
 
reckless said:
It does seem very likely these provocations continue to escalate further and further... why not? No one has stopped NK... At least until NK goes too far and someone does, and the longer a wait that is, the more damage will be caused as they stockpile more weapons and develop better missiles.
Click to expand...

NK's goal is to keep people out and their leaders in power. Attacking someone does the opposite of that, and that's why they won't do it. And everyone knows it, so they just wave their dick around once in awhile and that's it.
 
KHarvey16 said:
NK's goal is to keep people out and their leaders in power. Attacking someone does the opposite of that, and that's why they won't do it. And everyone knows it, so they just wave their dick around once in awhile and that's it.
Click to expand...
I think as long as they're just flinging missiles into the water, yeah the status quo will not change.

But if they launch a missile that flies over Japan and it's janky/malfunctions and detonates over the country, what do you propose happen?
 
KHarvey16 said:
NK's goal is to keep people out and their leaders in power. Attacking someone does the opposite of that, and that's why they won't do it. And everyone knows it, so they just wave their dick around once in awhile and that's it.
Click to expand...

NK has attacked SK in the past through shelling and attacking ships, those could have escalated into full blown wars, but SK had a very limited responses. Next time it might not be so limited.

There's more to it then just keeping people out and leaders in power, they want the U.S out of Korea, for example. The main point is, doing nothing lets NK grow bolder in their provocations, until there is a military response, will it be like in the past limited responses or will it escalate into wars.
 
Etrian Oddity said:
I think as long as they're just flinging missiles into the water, yeah the status quo will not change.

But if they launch a missile that flies over Japan and it's janky/malfunctions and detonates over the country, what do you propose happen?
Click to expand...

They aren't firing missiles with warheads on them so I don't think it's a possibility.

reckless said:
NK has attacked SK in the past through shelling and attacking ships, those could have escalated into full blown wars, but SK had a very limited responses. Next time it might not be so limited.

There's more to it then just keeping people out and leaders in power, they want the U.S out of Korea, for example. The main point is, doing nothing lets NK grow bolder in their provocations, until there is a military response, will it be like in the past limited responses or will it escalate into wars.
Click to expand...

It only escalates into a war if we escalate it into one. I can't see any scenario where they attack anyone in any significant way. It's suicide.
 
stupei said:
Sorry. I must have been unclear.

Your solution that we accept the deaths of millions as inevitable and necessary means your motivations are ultimately not humanitarian in nature but rather self-serving toward your own perception of safety and comfort (based on a hunch), despite experts advising otherwise. That's not particularly rational.

You keep choosing to be vague about the "alternative" but what you are talking about is the eradication of entire nations. You're speaking as though South Koreans are already doomed and ultimately expendable. That's why this is not a discussion about a humanitarian cause, despite the crisis in North Korea.

This isn't an abstract thought puzzle from an aspirational TV show. We're talking about millions of real lives.



China uses them as a resource, primarily for leverage. They're not going to take on the world on their behalf.
Click to expand...

But you are the one who assumes Kim to be rational. What purpose would destroying South Korea (possibly using nuclear weapons) serve in case of an international attack on North Korea?
On the other hand, how do you know Kim won't escalate his threats further and further while his country's economy collapses (=his own end draws nearer) and as a final act of desperation attempt to annex South Korea after he has created a large amount of nuclear weapons? And why not, no one opposed him before when his arsenal was small, so why would they do so then?
 
Well, let's see if Xi says anything. If they consider it an attack on Japan, then Japan and allies can go in without China interference.

Honestly, China is just worried about US presence in South Korea. If US pulls out of South Korea to appease China if they go and liberate North Korea, then it would be the best thing to do, but of course there's Trump.
 
KHarvey16 said:
It only escalates into a war if we escalate it into one. I can't see any scenario where they attack anyone in any significant way. It's suicide.
Click to expand...

So its already changed from NK won't attack to they won't attack in significant way that's a pretty big escalation. Although I'd say a country launching an artillery strike on another is a significant attack. It's also important to note that attack was before they felt confident in their safety from major responses due to having nuclear tipped ICBMs.

So next time NK attacks someone say SK, SK will either have to do nothing in response or be at risk of a nuclear response. I'd bet they will do nothing at least the first time, which would play great in propaganda for NK which seems to be enough of a reason to attack in the past.

On the other hand If SK does respond even like they have in the past, then who knows what will happen, having nuclear weapons and the assumed safety due to them open up a lot more possibilities for NK.
 
KHarvey16 said:
It only escalates into a war if we escalate it into one. I can't see any scenario where they attack anyone in any significant way. It's suicide.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'm not really a fan of the crazy Kim narrative that tends to creep into these threads. Especially since it's completely circular logic. How do we know that Kim Jong-Un is willing to/building up to an eventual attack on the US/Japan? Because he's crazy. And how do we know that he's crazy? Because he's definitely willing to launch an actual attack on United States/Japanese soil (which would be complete suicide and result in the destruction of his country). Completely circular logic, and using the potential loss of hypothetical lives to justify thousands of certain deaths that would occur in South Korea/Japan were to launch any type of military offensive against Pyongyang.

If we're talking about taking any type of military action against the DPRK, and in doing so condemn thousands of people to death for sure, it better damn well be based on more than circular logic about whether Jong-un is insane or not and hypothetical lives that may or may not be lost. Need more than a gut feeling that he's insane and that he might do this or he might do that if we're going to take action that will result in thousands of death for sure. I'd want to know that it's saving lives--not just think so, not have a gut feeling, but actually know.

What I don't think a lot of people realize is that the exact train of thought that those beating the war drums in this thread are following would have resulted in the United States declaring actual war on the USSR during the Cold War (and indeed, there were people making those kind of arguments at the time!). You could have used the exact same justifications about how war with the Soviet Union is inevitable, and therefore why not get it over with? Why just keep letting them get stronger? Why let them keep testing more and more types of nuclear weapons? When will this end? Thankfully, cooler heads managed to prevail and neither D.C. or Moscow took that course of action. I can only hope the same happens here.
 
stupei said:
China uses them as a resource, primarily for leverage. They're not going to take on the world on their behalf.
Click to expand...
They might take on the world on behalf of not wanting to have a border with an unified Korea full with American troops.
 
Kim didn't need to do this if this was just a play for don't fuck with us. In fact, doing nothing would have worked more favorable if he wants others nation to back away from the peninsula. Of course there is calculation involved in doing this, but more so, I think he's just crazy and of the same ilk of someone like Hitler.
 
NK is a full on communist state.

China is a authoritarian capitalist state. The two states are worlds apart now with different ideologies.

One is thriving at the top and the other is at the bottom.

They don't align and it'd be lunacy if China sided with them.
 
brian577 said:
No point in doing it other than as a warning to NK. Now they'll be even more emboldened.
Click to expand...

Interceptors don't work 100% of the time, if they tried to intercept it and failed that would embolden NK a hell of a lot more and would be terrifying for everyone that depends on those BMD systems.
 
Kusagari said:
Abe is likely going to try to use this to his advantage.
Click to expand...

This is the worst part and the most realistic consequence of shit like this.

Despite some of my grievances with Japan's post-war constitution and how it was put together, Article 9 (peace clause), could have been a blueprint for the world at large to move away from militarization and towards world peace.

But at this point, it's going to be all but erased and Japan will move towards being just another heavily militarized nation. I doubt they will ever become very interventionist but who knows with Nippon Kaigi fuckwads running the country.

Taking this chance to post what I consider to be one of the most moving speeches in history that we seem to have learned nothing from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIotBp0TQEk
 
reckless said:
No point in it, the missile wasn't going to hit anything. While a failed interception would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Why did they send out warnings to head to bunkers if they were certain that the missile wasn't gonna hit?

Gotta remember, this all happened over 15 minutes. Figuring out the trajectory, payload and intent, is time consuming. I dunno, kinda feels like our defenses should have come into play, but hey, maybe we could detect that it was safe.

Edit: Weird completely unrelated aside, I just told my Mum something like "NKs kicking up trouble again", and she said something like "Ah, they fired a missile over Japan or something". I was like "... that's actually exactly right". NK is getting weirdly predictable apparently... how did she guess that!?
 
Attacking NK would be stupid. I'll make that clear. My biggest fear is in these dick waving contests is that a missle fails and causes some deaths. If one lands in Japan, even if by accident, what will happen? I don't see Japan keeping their head straight if civilians die.
 
Uhyve said:
Why did they send out warnings to head to bunkers if they were certain that the missile wasn't gonna hit?

Gotta remember, this all happened over 15 minutes. Figuring out the trajectory, payload and intent, is time consuming. I dunno, kinda feels like our defenses should have come into play, but hey, maybe we could detect that it was safe.
Click to expand...

Better to be safe than sorry. There was still a slight chance the missile may have malfunctioned over Japan and caused some casualties. It was the right call to get people ready even if you were sure it wasn't going to make landfall.
 
Uhyve said:
Why did they send out warnings to head to bunkers if they were certain that the missile wasn't gonna hit?

Gotta remember, this all happened over 15 minutes. Figuring out the trajectory, payload and intent, is time consuming. I dunno, kinda feels like our defenses should have come into play, but hey, maybe we could detect that it was safe.
Click to expand...

I mean if the missile defense systems can't do that then they are completely useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

George Foreman passes away at 76
43
2K
MrA replied
US Oil tanker and Portuguese cargo vessel collide in North Sea
2
79
4K
Wildebeest replied
South Korea in chaos as President orders martial law
News  2
61
5K
DeafTourette replied
Trades that were supposed to put teams over the top but didn't
20
925
StreetsofBeige replied
2025 Movies - North American Release Schedule
4
2K
dispensergoinup replied
Top Bottom