Generalpsyduck
Banned
Does Japan have THAAD?
-
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.
North Korea May Have Tried to Provoke Japan, Kim Jong Un Missile Launch Photo Shows
- Thread starter Justified
- Start date
Poor innocent North Korea, the big bad U.S is being mean to them. That's why they've attacked SK throughout the years, continuously talk about how they are going to destroy neighboring countries and intentionally test weapons like this in a provocative way.
The Communist partisans that became NK leadership cut their teeth fighting the Japanese in North Korea and Manchuria, so fighting the Japanese is part of their founding myth.
SDCowboy
Member
He is well aware if they ever attacked anyone, that NK would be wiped off the map.
Gai Murakumo
Member
I am not defending North Korea in the slightest it is just that the U.S. is not helping the situation either at least with Trump and his big mouth at the helm.
Just more ignorant US bashing, pay it no heed.
Again, the previous strategy of appeasement seems to be failing. It does not appear as if NK is going to halt their weapons program and may one day kill millions of people.
Perhaps it was time for the US (and by extension, the world) to change their strategy.
Imperfected
Member
....I was just doing a Batman V Superman thing.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
lol. you realize we already have nuclear players in volatile situations, right?
NK is the geopolitical equivalent of a shitposter.
Abstrusity
Member
We move on the Kims and they will level Seoul.
How many millions are you prepared to sacrifice for this?
We could do it tomorrow, I just want you to find a directory of names in Seoul and read out every single one of them. Almost 10 million people, but it's okay, because they're not all adults, so it should be easier than 10 million names.
Say the word Slimysnake! Let's do it, let's sentence millions of citizens of an allied country to death to stop the madman. We can be the heroes, right?
And then you have to deal with the millions of North Koreans who have been brainwashed from birth who are at best passively hostile toward every country around them, even the ones that prop them up. If even 1% of them looks for revenge, how many more will die? Does it even matter, anymore? It's just a statistic, right?
And sure, everything can and will be quantified, but the reason we haven't done this yet is that nobody wants to pull the trigger. Nobody wants to look our allies in the face and say "If you're held hostage, we'll shoot through you to kill them."
It takes someone whose hands are bloody enough to do it with no remorse, someone desperate enough to succeed at all costs, or someone insane enough to believe that the certainties are merely risks.
Trump might get credit for doing it, because he's all three. But history will remember him and remember us as a result as war criminals in a nation of war criminals. We will lose every ally we've ever had.
So it's better to go slow, to mitigate the certainties into high risks, to help South Korea shore up their defenses and perhaps evacuate people away from North Korea. But if NK even gets a whiff of something to come they will take Seoul with them.
Sometimes, especially in politics, and even moreso in international politics, you have to take a step back and look at the big picture. And the big picture is that we'll be letting millions of people die to get at one psychopath and his forced cult. We are not ready to do that.
Coriolanus
Banned
sorry b's. I don't watch shitty films so that went completely over my head :/
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I agree that you are secretly the winner for not catching the reference.
Guess you should have thought your answer through before replying.
Coriolanus
Banned
That's pretty good!
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The CIA needs to run an op delivering as much high fat cheese into the Dear Leader's hands on as possible - and then let nature take its course.
There`s much bigger resolution online. Quick photoshop, still, need that enhance magic tough.
edit: Globe on bottom and trajectory i guess. Not sure about blurred parts.
I have so many questions about this photo, besides the obvious "what the fuck is he looking at?"
Why is a (not terribly fancy) wooden desk and computer setup outdoors?
Why are the telephones so far away? Shouldn't they be on the desk?
Is that an ashtray? Why does an ashtray deserve a space and not the computer monitors or telephones? Or hell, a pen-holder?
Why does the stubby pointer need a holder? Why doesn't he use a laser pointer instead? And for that matter, what does he need to point at?
Nydius
Member
The laissez-faire attitude hasn't worked for THIRTY YEARS. We haven't fundamentally altered our attitude toward North Korea since the early 1990's. It's always been a strategy of containment, acceptance, and appeasement. North Korea has continued to grow bolder every administration. Bush and Trump exacerbate it with their rhetoric but North Korea has been thumbing their nose at international diplomacy and sanctions for decades.
It also does not help that over the last 30 years China's prominence in the world has escalated while the United States has committed a series of international blunders that has diminished our standing. Consider: If the United States had intelligence regarding the activities of Kim Jong Un and took it before the United Nations, do you think they'd be much inclined to believe it after the United States deliberately misled the United Nations with bad intelligence to justify Iraq?
E:
How'd the strategy of appeasement to keep a similar psychopath and his cult contained work out for Europe in 1938? I realize there's a fundamental nuclear difference at play this time around but the underlying issue is the same. Stepping back and doing nothing is hardly a good solution either because there's no guarantees Kim Jong Un won't just go full-on batshit and toss one of his nuclear missiles at Seoul or Tokyo anyway especially if he thinks he can provoke a full US response by doing so.
Mortimer Brewster
Member
Yeah sure, let's wait for the paranoid little pissant to get the capability to use nuclear weapons and then in a fog of paranoia Kim pops off at Japan and South Korea and we watch Seoul and Tokyo both get destroyed in nuclear attacks. Then the US has to retaliate and nuke Norh Korea back to the stoneage and make that entire country unhabitable for anything other then cockroaches for decades. Oh but then there is more. Prevailing winds then send devastating nuclear fallout right into Shanghai and Beijing killing millions more from indirect fallout.
I
Smiles and Cries
Member
the whole photo is propaganda
fancy computer monitors outdoors where you can barely read it due to the sun is proof enough that it is all bullshit
How?
Once they get miniaturized nukes, and reliable ICBMs which seems like a couple of years away at most there is no way to stop them from doing enormous damage if they decide to do something.
Epsilon-delta
Banned
So NK is that dumb afterall.
Smiles and Cries
Member
this whole thing sucks and now we have the worst person to 'take care' of it
I mean, that's the argument here.
Do you pre-emptively strike once they have nuclear launch capability? Or do you wait for them to make the first move?
Because that first move can kill millions... And unfortunately, this 'kick the can down the road' strategy from the NATO countries has helped bring us to this point.
Yup, those monitors are as real as those IKEA display TVs and computers.
Abstrusity
Member
Very well, actually. As much as people like to say it was cowardly, Britain needed more time. More time to prepare, to build up, in preparation to fight. Because when Hitler was rearing and ready to go, Britain was still reeling from WW1 and aftereffects of the Depression -- If they hadn't, the whole of Europe would have been overtaken by the Nazis and many more millions of people would die.
Because, at the time, nobody quite knew that Hitler's Germany was rounding up Jewish folk to slaughter them wholesale. Britain was also mostly alone. You had France and Britain, Italy looked to be joining Germany, Spain, as well. The US was doing business with France, Britain, and Germany for sure, in weapons, automobiles, and the like but were not likely to join in on the war effort -- and for a time, that's how it was boiling down. So if France and Britain were going to fight Germany, Spain, and Italy, they needed time. For France's part, they built weapons of war and the Maginot and Alpine Lines. Britain did much the same, and both went to the US for more weapons, ammunition, bombs, automobiles.
Without appeasement, it's fully possible that Nazi Germany would have started absorbing more territory years earlier, when neither Britain nor France were in a position to begin to defend themselves.
There is not a right answer to this. There are only wrong answers, and some of them more wrong than others.
We need more time. Time to position THAAD, time to reinforce bunkers in Seoul. Many people will die no matter what we do. I am not opposed to war, I'm opposed to jumping into war without doing our due diligence, and I guarantee you that the Joint Chiefs and their strategists are telling him that a strike against NK will kill more of our allies immediately after than we'll kill of them, and it wouldn't even be guaranteed to stop the Kims or NK's military from launching everything they have at anything else.
I sympathize with people who say we have to move now, we have to smack them down now, we have to wipe up the little shitstain. It's easy to say that, though, because if anyone deserves the like, it's people like him. But we're trying to save lives here. That's the most important thing. Otherwise, why would we get rid of him?