• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fox News: General Keane says US needs to consider a preemptive strike on North Korea

Status
Not open for further replies.

kess

Member
What happened the last time we listened to a general in attacking North Korea above the 38th parallel?

Oh right, MacArthur brought about China's formal introduction to the war and forced the UN's force to retreat for nearly a year.

Why do you think conservatives have been trying to rehabilitate MacArthur and destroy Truman's global consensus for the last 60 years? Check out the "relief of General MacArthur" Wikipedia page, which is full of apologia and featured insight from none other than Samuel "Clash of Civilizations" Huntington.
 
Right. This is pretty the standard position the US has always held towards North Korea. I don't think anything new is particularly being said here, as much as it is being reiterated given North Korea's recent activity.

This is just a "remember, kids" to North Korea. Their rhetoric has been escalating over the decades and every administration has tried to do something a out it, but someday it's going to need to be dealt with, and hopefully that's with north Korea finding itself without friends and being squashed utterly.

At some point the us can't be blamed for north Korea holding South Korea hostage if NK has legitimate threats or actions against us. That's on NK and China if they don't work with us against them.
 
For all of you saying this will fuck things up, what do you want the US to do in this situation? Of course if there is no imminent threat,a move like this would be foolish, but if NK was seriously poised to launch an ICBM why should we not launch a preemptive strike?

Of course it won't be pretty , but what nation would just take that?
 
It's almost certain that SK will not survive if any attack is made on NK. Fuck ALL of you idiots who decided to either not vote at all or voted for Trump. Seriously.

And yes, it's because of Trump and his admin's completely reactionary comments about NK that it's moving all of this bullshit forward!
 
Tick...tick...tick...fuck.


Once again GOP wants war only a buffoon is leading and even worse than the last one.

Nobody in this administration wants a war with nk any more than the people in Obama's admin wanted it.

They've just been passed the torch of diplomatic finger wagging and looking real sternly at North Korea for another 4 years.
 

Zeus Molecules

illegal immigrants are stealing our air
For all of you saying this will fuck things up, what do you want the US to do in this situation? Of course if there is no imminent threat,a move like this would be foolish, but if NK was seriously poised to launch an ICBM why should we not launch a preemptive strike?

Of course it won't be pretty , but what nation would just take that?

We would have too. I think the consensus has always been "they can't be that crazy.... right". The flip side is our side is now crazy enough to think "fuck you, NK we're Americuh"
 
lol...why not spend resources on getting the missile defence up to 99% accuracy instead of waging what will turn out to be a nuclear war.
 
At some point the us can't be blamed for north Korea holding South Korea hostage if NK has legitimate threats or actions against us. That's on NK and China if they don't work with us against them.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Who's blaming the US for NK holding SK hostage nowadays?

What they US will be blamed for, and with good reason, is for trying to intervene in what has been (in spite of everything) a rational actor for more than five decades. Because the consequences of that intervention, unless it is pulled off absolutely perfectly, will be absolutely horrendous. To that one adds that the countries in the region have very little to nothing to gain from an intervention, and fuckloads to lose.

Yall can think of going solo on shit like this when you fix your track record of fucking up nearly all your interventions in recent history.

For all of you saying this will fuck things up, what do you want the US to do in this situation? Of course if there is no imminent threat,a move like this would be foolish, but if NK was seriously poised to launch an ICBM why should we not launch a preemptive strike?

Of course it won't be pretty , but what nation would just take that?
Why would NK ever do that? They know perfectly well that any real act of aggression would mean their end. Its how MAD works.
Either way, end of the day the contry most likely to be damaged by NK is SK, and thus such decisions should be left to it.
 
lol...why not spend resources on getting the missile defence up to 99% accuracy instead of waging what will turn out to be a nuclear war.

The Chinese view installing a missile defense that can actually protect South Korea and Japan in a reasonable fashion as an act of war, in and of itself.
 

Xe4

Banned
Given that Republicans couldn't even repeal the ACA (aka number one hated republican policy), I don't see how an authorization of force could ever possible pass the house and senate. Shit, the only reason we were able to drum up the support to enter Iraq was the fact we were still reeling from 9/11.

Maybe we could engage NK enough to have them attack SK, then authorize force in order to defend an ally. Or maybe we don't have to because of the ongoing conflict between NK and SK? I don't know.
 
The Chinese view installing a missile defense that can actually protect South Korea and Japan in a reasonable fashion as an act of war, in and of itself.

Thats a simplification. If the US builds a missile defense umbrella it means radar that will cover part of China and there is no way to prove it isn't linked into the US defense network.
Would america allow China to install a high powered far seeing radar system in Mexico? that can see stuff moving in Texas? no way.

I don't think China objects to SK being defended -it just doesn't want the US to use South Korea as a giant aircraft carrier. That's why it would be much better for the region if South Korea decided to swap US protection for Chinese. As much as that hastens the end of US geo-political power, it seems to be the only way out of this.
 
Given that Republicans couldn't even repeal the ACA (aka number one hated republican policy), I don't see how an authorization of force could ever possible pass the house and senate. Shit, the only reason we were able to drum up the support to enter Iraq was the fact we were still reeling from 9/11.

Maybe we could engage NK enough to have them attack SK, then authorize force in order to defend an ally. Or maybe we don't have to because of the ongoing conflict between NK and SK? I don't know.

I assume all of this is predicated first on some pretty serious cassus beli being manufactured, at some point. At a minimum, North Korea would have to step up to the next level of provocation while simultaneously showing evidence of hitting their ICBM development goals, and even then it seems unlikely, given that he'd be trying to secure funding for a war while also blowing an epic amount of fraud and waste spending on his stupid wall and existing plans for military spending expansion.

Basically, he'd have to pull a few trillion dollars straight out of his ass. Particularly given how thin NATO support would be considering his recent behavior.
 

Balphon

Member
A preemptive strike on the DPRK needs to be an option, but only in the sense that it should be kept as a last resort.

I'm not sure what the upside of this sort of aggressive posturing is. Do they think Jinping is afraid to call Trump's (increasingly frequent and shaky) bluffs?
 
China is not going to aid NK because right now they are in better standing in the world than the US with Trump. They would stay out the way with the occasional hands off proxy campaigns and pretty much have their dream come true of the US eroding even more of it world standing pretty much letting us slit our own necks. More blood and gold with a fight that will destroy lives, countries and their economies. Meanwhile China and Russia sit back and grow with power without ever lifting a finger. If its a wag the dog Trump wants he is barking up the wrong tree in NK.
 

Joezie

Member
The only one who want to are those who say our military is weak or depleted.

Because there's only 1 way to find out

Well, no. This actually is a very legit concern. Moreso the Depleted than the weak part. Then again 15 years of constant warfare will tire just about any military out to some degree.

Airmen, Sailors and Marines are being hurt or outright dying in record numbers on simply training missions because maintenance has fallen short for these platforms.

The Navy has just grounded it's T-45 trainer fleet because the instructor pilots literally refuse to fly them.

Maintenance falls short on these platforms because of a lack of skilled enlisted, as the more experienced enlisted leave the force because they aren't going to deal with rank fuck-fuck games from their superiors.

Sub gaps, Cruiser gaps as shipyard burden grows. These are very real issues.

The problem on the Republican side is that they want to relive the glory WW2 days of having the biggest physical dick while not understanding how they're almost single handedly responsible for the Military having budget issues in the first place.

They insist on simply throwing more money at the problem while not realizing that 15 years of war and mission creep have and continue to eat more money away from the modernization they want more than any welfare or "Entitlements" ever will. The trillions of dollars spent since then could've easily paid for all they wanted and even some civilian infrastructure on the side. Instead however now they have to justify everything with more spending increases in a stupidly circular spending cycle. Give more money ---> Mission Creep the Military ---> Military has no money because Creep now ---> Give more money.

That's not to say that the Military itself is entirely innocent. Especially in Afghanistan, the amount of Military theft of aid money is horrendous.
 

samn

Member
The title is misleading. You're making a ballyhoo over nothing.

Therefore if an ICBM attack was imminent the president would have to conduct a preemptive strike.

Well DUH. Clinton, Bush, and Obama would all be doing the same thing.
 

StayDead

Member
"US needs to consider a preemptive strike on North Korea"

Why? NK leaders are never going to actually bomb anyone, why the fuck would they? They live lives of luxury and gods at the expense of their own people. They're never going to throw that away.
 
Honestly I think it would be a good thing if they just stepped in and said we got this and stomped it out instantly like a bug.

Edit, but in a subtle way... like we got this, for get about it....

China is the superpower of the 21st century. There is no better way to demonstrate their power to the rest of the world than taking care of the NK problem.
 

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
The US invading NK would be like China invading Mexico. No way you can pull something like that off without getting China's blessing, publicly or no.
 
Republicans are in charge for less than a year so of course we are talking about preemptive war.

tumblr_inline_nn6676QsmN1s6xs69_500.gif
 
on the flipside the people of North Korea are locked into this terrible reality

I wish there was a better way to liberate and save as many of them as possible

As people said already in this thread war is going to kill so many people including those in South Korea


But a fight might be inevitable especially if Kim makes good on his threats someday
 
It's almost as if a man who sits on the board of General Dynamics and consults for Blackwater might have some interest in increased military spending and conflict.
 

fireflame

Member
There is something that is always hard for me to figure. When a country is ruled by a dictator, is it better to:

_wait for people in the country to revolt?

_Get rid of the dictator through a military intervention?

_Fund rebels group inside the country?

I mean, if you do nothing people suffer, if you do something people die.

I am aware that if US acted, it would not be a decision based on selfless feelings. But yet, i can't help but wonder what is worse.

If you declare war you may be guilty in a way, causing deaths. But if you do not act, you may be guilty by omission, for not dooing anything.
 
There is something that is always hard for me to figure. When a country is ruled by a dictator, is it better to:

_wait for people in the country to revolt?

_Get rid of the dictator through a military intervention?

_Fund rebels group inside the country?

I mean, if you do nothing people suffer, if you do something people die.

I am aware that if US acted, it would not be a decision based on selfless feelings. But yet, i can't help but wonder what is worse.

If you declare war you may be guilty in a way, causing deaths. But if you do not act, you may be guilty by omission, for not dooing anything.

I know!

when it comes to taking down dictatorships its incredibly difficult

The interventions by the US and UN over the past 50years are all the proof you need

I think what we need is our own societies to reach the point where basic human needs can be fulfilled so easily that a populance can focus less on survival and combatting blight and more time on policy

Try running and rebuilding a war torn but liberated nation when sharks are in the water eyeballing your resources after a war
 
D

Deleted member 30609

Unconfirmed Member
This might be a naive question, but is there a decent write up on the scenario that lead to NK being able to build nuclear weapons in the first place?
 
This might be a naive question, but is there a decent write up on the scenario that lead to NK being able to built nuclear weapons in the first place?

I mean, it can basically be summarized completely and singularly with the word "China".

That's barely even an over-simplification, even.
 

dan2026

Member
What is the the other option?

We just wait until NK finally goes full crazy and attacks a neighbouring country?

They are literally ruled by a madman remember.
 
They are going to start a war, only to deflect attention from other scandals... great for all involved...

Trump has so many options open:

Syria: "crossed many lines...changed my opinion about Asshat" (lol, as if he were an angel before Trump got to the White House...).

North Korea: All those rocket tests, need to attack them first to protect the USA

Iran: worst deal ever, financing terrorists, Israel would be glad...

With the way he was talking about winning again, blowing up the military budget even more and his abysmal ratings, it's almost a given that he'll want to stir up shit. Thought it would be later in his presidency, but who knows.
 
What is the the other option?

We just wait until NK finally goes full crazy and attacks a neighbouring country?

They are literally ruled by a madman remember.

The best option is to make it clear that an attack on the US via North Korea would be considered the same as if China itself attacked us. They need to deal with this problem, not the United States.
 
What is the the other option?

We just wait until NK finally goes full crazy and attacks a neighbouring country?

They are literally ruled by a madman remember.

What military action has actually worked in the past two decades, where the west felt country x needed a regime change? The middle east should be a lesson that you just can't bomb away the worlds problems.
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
I feel like maybe our generals and politicians should consult the South Korean government before saying things like this...
 

Nivash

Member
The best option is to make it clear that an attack on the US via North Korea would be considered the same as if China itself attacked us. They need to deal with this problem, not the United States.

Horrible suggestion. You're basically handing North Korea the power to end the world. North Korea isn't a Chinese puppet or even much of a proxy, they're a lesser evil that's constantly a thorn in China's side almost as much as they're one in the side of the US. China can influence North Korea, true, but only to a degree. They've already expressed their opposition to North Korea's nuclear tests without any real impact.

The reason they haven't "dealt" with the problem is the same reason as for why the us hasn't either - as long as the current regime stands, it can't really be done without massive loss of life and without a major humanitarian disaster on China's doorstep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom