Support NeoGAF

[superdeluxe]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.a5efa80b7df0


Shit just got all kinds of real.

We are quickly reaching a point where we need the least horrible option, because as I see it, there are no good options left.

 

[MetatronM]

NK has 3 major enemies, and they simply want to "checkmate" them all.

They've checkmated South Korea for 60 years, with huge amounts of artillery aimed at Seoul. Any attack on NK can trigger retaliation that can level Seoul.

Now they've checkmated Japan and America with ICBM nukes. Any attack on NK can trigger retaliation on Japan and America (shaky missile shield tech aside).

It doesn't mean anyone is actually going to aggress on either side. In fact, it's the opposite. Like chess, there are no more rational moves to play.

The NK regime can sleep soundly knowing no one can move them from their spot. That's what this is about. Regime preservation.

There's a key word in this post that all of this hinges on.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Of course North Korea is going to nuke us even though we have 6,000 nukes to retaliate. Makes perfect sense. Yall are a bunch of suckers. If you are going to be worried about any country having nukes it should be Pakistan. 1 coup away from crazy religious people having nukes.

This. If anyone in this thread seriously thinks NK ever plans to use any nuke at any point they need to reassess their world view.

 

[Steel]

The same logic can be applied to the US once NK has enough nukes to level it. The US isn't suicidal either. NK knows this. So who's to stop them from a little land grab?

That's all the more reason why the U.S. would act quickly to take out their nuclear capabilities, which we are capable of doing from the air. Granted, they have nowhere near enough nukes to level the U.S.

 

[TetraGenesis]

Donald Trump launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike and triggering global nuclear holocaust from his golf club in New Jersey while he's on vacation is exactly how I thought I'd die.

This made me sad-laugh.

 

[NullPointer]

QFE

Even with Trump at the helm, the likelihood of war is low or nil.

Yeah, why would a corrupt authoritarian with dwindling support and no accomplishments besides Syrian air strikes take military action against a regime who crossed their red line?

 

[Nydius]

I'm with those who are cynical on the timing of this discovery and the supposed intelligence sources behind it. The whole thing conjures up images of a similar incident from 14 years ago.

There is no denying that war boosts presidents' approval ratings. Not only that but there's this long standing (and, frankly, idiotic) romantic belief that "we shouldn't change presidents in time of war". That was a major campaign point for Bush back in 2004 and was also used for McCain's run in 2008, trying to expand the notion from "president" to "party".

There's a major narcissist running the country who has the ultimate power to ignore his joint chiefs (hell, he could dismiss them at will if he so chooses) who is currently embroiled in a whole lot of scandals while his popularity continues to drop. Pretty soon his popularity numbers will match the same voting percentage as the Republican base. People saying "oh there won't be war", you don't think Trump would gladly Wag the Dog so he could become more popular as the clichéd "War Time President" and almost guarantee a second term?

Some of the comments in this thread are maddeningly infuriating. He's going to listen to more even-tempered Joint Chiefs? Since when? Trump listens to Trump and his closest inner circle and that's it. He fires people who isn't loyal. He ostracizes people he can't easily fire but wants to be rid of. And his CLOSEST adviser is a war mongering xenophobe. You'll have to pardon me if I don't have the same level of confidence that he won't launch a military campaign on a whim if it means appeasing his own narcissistic desires.

E:

This. If anyone in this thread seriously thinks NK ever plans to use any nuke at any point they need to reassess their world view.

Even at the height of Soviet hubris, they weren't teaching their elementary school children about killing American soldiers nor did they have murals plastered everywhere showing major American landscapes in flame with their leader constantly on state TV talking about leaving America in fire and rubble.

We know Kim Jong Un's regime does this thanks to North Korean defectors. NK's entire society has spent the last 6 decades spinning a narrative and brainwashing their people with the very idea of destroying the United States, even if doing so is merely a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[LizardKing]

That's all the more reason why the U.S. would act quickly to take out their nuclear capabilities, which we are capable of doing from the air. Granted, they have nowhere near enough nukes to level the U.S.

They would wait until they do in this scenario of course. And no you can't just take out all their icbm sites simultaneously before they have a chance to press a button. Once they have a few thousand icbm nukes there is no threatening them. Best we could do is fight a defensive war in SK and hope they don't resort to nukes.

 

[BocoDragon]

There's a key word in this post that all of this hinges on.

I'm curious which country you think would be the irrational one.

For my money, NK have been very rational actors in their self-interest, every step of the way.

 

[O_Atoll]

I'd like to think that and normally I'd agree with you. But there's this guy you might have heard about who complicates this situation immensely.

His name is Trump.

Trump is a loose cannon but there are generals in the military who will stop this. This would be a war against an enemy with nuclear bombs and they are crazy enough he launch it. It will be more of a sanction deal.

 

[Xyrmellon]

Do we know which cities NK is planning to aim for?

Lol, I believe NK's long range missile strategy is: launch and cross your fingers it lands within 100 miles of it's target.

 

[Draper]

Eh, they just stonewall'd us, which is what they want- preservation security.

 

[Wvrs]

Is there any way military action can be taken at this point without SK being a sacrificial lamb? No way Seoul can be evacuated on some other pretext? It doesn't seem like a diplomatic solution is going to be possible, and every day this is allowed to go on the threat just becomes more and more existential.

 

[Steel]

They would wait until they do in this scenario of course. And no you can't just take out all their icbm sites simultaneously before they have a chance to press a button.

I know that, they know that, but it would be the only option available and better than abandoning an ally and setting a terrible precedent.

 

[Dopus]

The same logic can be applied to the US once NK has enough nukes to level it. The US isn't suicidal either. NK knows this. So who's to stop them from a little land grab?

North Korea's interests are keeping the North Korean regime in power. That's not going to happen if they decide to pursue an expansionist policy. Posturing isn't the same as an invasion.

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/894974385051897861

How disappointing.

 

[superdeluxe]

Really our only hope is that China putting and end to this, but I'm not 100% confident that even they can real kim Jong un in.

 

[O_Atoll]

If the US managed to justify war in Iraq by using their apparent ownership of WMD's, which turned out not to be true. How can we accept NK actually having them, with concrete evidence.

Middle east had oil and opium. NK has nothing. Unless US wants to add NK refugees. Its not worth.

 

[LizardKing]

I know that, they know that, but it would be the only option available and better than abandoning an ally and setting a terrible precedent.

It's happened many times throughout history unfortunately. And would it really be worse than having many US cities leveled and millions dead?

North Korea's interests are keeping the North Korean regime in power. That's not going to happen if they decide to pursue an expansionist policy. Posturing isn't the same as an invasion.



How disappointing.

They've been interested in South Korea for decades. Why are we pretending they don't want that now? It's been that way for 60+ years. That said I still think the most likely scenario if NK invades SK is a conventional defensive war. But NK having nukes only ensures that the US couldn't invade NK and topple their regime as a result of them invading SK. So that makes an invasion much more likely.

 

[kmax]

Is there any way military action can be taken at this point without SK being a sacrificial lamb? No way Seoul can be evacuated on some other pretext? It doesn't seem like a diplomatic solution is going to be possible, and every day this is allowed to go on the threat just becomes more and more existential.

The whole region is fucked if somebody flinches.

That's why China has always wanted for the U.S to sit down while they try to mediate with NK. NK, as the cold calculative bastards they are, perfectly knows the risk they pose and burden that they put on the region, and are acting decisively because they know that nobody can fuck with them without catastrophic consequences.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Donald Trump launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike and triggering global nuclear holocaust from his golf club in New Jersey while he's on vacation is exactly how I thought I'd die.

I wouldn't worry until he starts vacationing underneath a mountain in Yosemite.

 

[Kthulhu]

I'm with those who are cynical on the timing of this discovery and the supposed intelligence sources behind it. The whole thing conjures up images of a similar incident from 14 years ago.



There is no denying that war boosts presidents' approval ratings. Not only that but there's this long standing (and, frankly, idiotic) romantic belief that "we shouldn't change presidents in time of war". That was a major campaign point for Bush back in 2004 and was also used for McCain's run in 2008, trying to expand the notion from "president" to "party".

There's a major narcissist running the country who has the ultimate power to ignore his joint chiefs (hell, he could dismiss them at will if he so chooses) who is currently embroiled in a whole lot of scandals while his popularity continues to drop. Pretty soon his popularity numbers will match the same voting percentage as the Republican base. People saying "oh there won't be war", you don't think Trump would gladly Wag the Dog so he could become more popular as the clichéd "War Time President" and almost guarantee a second term?

Some of the comments in this thread are maddeningly infuriating. He's going to listen to more even-tempered Joint Chiefs? Since when? Trump listens to Trump and his closest inner circle and that's it. He fires people who isn't loyal. He ostracizes people he can't easily fire but wants to be rid of. And his CLOSEST adviser is a war mongering xenophobe. You'll have to pardon me if I don't have the same level of confidence that he won't launch a military campaign on a whim if it means appeasing his own narcissistic desires.

Things are different now. Trump has a massive disapproval rating and the American people aren't calling for blood like they were after 9/11.

 

[Lombax]

I'm with those who are cynical on the timing of this discovery and the supposed intelligence sources behind it. The whole thing conjures up images of a similar incident from 14 years ago.



There is no denying that war boosts presidents' approval ratings. Not only that but there's this long standing (and, frankly, idiotic) romantic belief that "we shouldn't change presidents in time of war". That was a major campaign point for Bush back in 2004 and was also used for McCain's run in 2008, trying to expand the notion from "president" to "party".

There's a major narcissist running the country who has the ultimate power to ignore his joint chiefs (hell, he could dismiss them at will if he so chooses) who is currently embroiled in a whole lot of scandals while his popularity continues to drop. Pretty soon his popularity numbers will match the same voting percentage as the Republican base. People saying "oh there won't be war", you don't think Trump would gladly Wag the Dog so he could become more popular as the clichéd "War Time President" and almost guarantee a second term?

Some of the comments in this thread are maddeningly infuriating. He's going to listen to more even-tempered Joint Chiefs? Since when? Trump listens to Trump and his closest inner circle and that's it. He fires people who isn't loyal. He ostracizes people he can't easily fire but wants to be rid of. And his CLOSEST adviser is a war mongering xenophobe. You'll have to pardon me if I don't have the same level of confidence that he won't launch a military campaign on a whim if it means appeasing his own narcissistic desires.

I think your reasoning is sound. I still do not think this is going to lead to war. While the GOP does control Congress, they seem to not not have 45's back as much as they did months ago, and honestly constituents are pissed off at the administration. There is also 0 national outcry for a war with NK. If anything I think his approval would go down more if we got into war over this.
I'd also like to think that our military and intelligence communities would make themselves heard.

 

[superdeluxe]

No one wins with American nuclear strikes.

 

[NullPointer]

Things are different now. Trump has a massive disapproval rating and the American people aren't calling for blood like they were after 9/11.

Yes, but the ONE popular action he took was striking Syria. He gained points from both parties and left the media breathless with their repeated video loops of missile launches.

 

[Xyrmellon]

Middle east had oil and opium. NK has nothing. Unless US wants to add NK refugees. Its not worth.

Except Iraq never threatened to nuke our cities and kill us all. Saddam only threatened our troops once they were there.

 

[Frozenprince]

Thank you. I was about to type that word for word. There ain't no war coming, people. All of this is just political moves.

And it gains Kim nothing. His position is just as tenuous as it was yesterday. All he gets is people telling him too his face "no".

 

[MIMIC]

Crazy how quickly this has developed over the last few months. Although this situation has been bubbling for years, just in the last few months we learned that they had ICBMs and could miniaturize nukes.

 

[XOMTOR]

Why do you claim this. What is your evidence.

NK has a no-use unless regime stability is threaten "imminently" (AKA a US attack)

North Korea has given no signs it would attack SK or Japan unless the US first attacked.

When have we heard something like that before? Hmmm...

 

[Dopus]

It's happened many times throughout history unfortunately. And would it really be worse than having many US cities leveled and millions dead?

They've been interested in South Korea for decades. Why are we pretending they don't want that now? It's been that way for 60+ years.

Posturing. An ICBM is deterrence. Attacking South Korea is suicide. What is there to gain?

 

[tkscz]

NK has 3 major enemies, and they simply want to "checkmate" them all.

They've checkmated South Korea for 60 years, with huge amounts of artillery aimed at Seoul. Any attack on NK can trigger retaliation that can level Seoul.

Now they've checkmated Japan and America with ICBM nukes. Any attack on NK can trigger retaliation on Japan and America (shaky missile shield tech aside).

It doesn't mean anyone is actually going to aggress on either side. In fact, it's the opposite. Like chess, there are no more rational moves to play.

The NK regime can sleep soundly knowing no one can move them from their spot. That's what this is about. Regime preservation.

We have Kim Jon Un, an over weight man-child who is as about as rational as a two year old, and we have Trump, who you can basically repeat the same thing. Rational is neither of strong suits.

 

[kiunchbb]

Hey look, a war just in time for Trump to boost his rating.

Who the fuck is giving them the technology?

 

[Nydius]

Trump is a loose cannon but there are generals in the military who will stop this. This would be a war against an enemy with nuclear bombs and they are crazy enough he launch it. It will be more of a sanction deal.

This shows a basic lack of understanding of U.S. military structure and precedent.

Those Generals have sworn an oath to follow the chain of command and their Commander in Chief. They are free to question orders but not free to disobey them unless they can prove beyond doubt that the order was illegal (good luck with that). In addition, those very Generals can be removed from their position by their Commander-in-Chief for literally any reason, at any time.

In the military, the chain of command is sacrosanct and much of the military supported Trump. If Trump orders a military action, the Joint Chiefs will either obey the order by their Commander-in-Chief or they will be replaced with those who will.

 

[superdeluxe]

I was in Korea back in 1993, there was serious talk of war. I made sure to make a copy of my passport and knew exactly how to get to the embassy. On the armed forces TV, there was warnings on the daily where the violent demonstrations were going to be, walked by riot vehicles and police every where I went for a few weeks

 

[Kthulhu]

Yes, but the ONE popular action he took was striking Syria. He gained points from both parties and left the media breathless with their repeated video loops of missile launches.

Bomb =/= full on war. His base also hated that he did that.

 

[Xyrmellon]

Also, keep in mind these leaked reports could be on purpose by the administration to justify action.

 

[RPGCrazied]

This is happening and Trump is worried about Hillary and her emails. lol

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

E-mails show that the AmazonWashingtonPost and the FailingNewYorkTimes were reluctant to cover the Clinton/Lynch secret meeting in plane.

 

[LizardKing]

Posturing. An ICBM is deterrence. Attacking South Korea is suicide. What is there to gain?

Well since the US invading NK and toppling the regime is off the table because they won't risk nuclear retaliation a Vietnam situation comes to mind. So best case for NK is to gain SK and even if they fail and there is support in the US for a conventional defensive hands tied vietnam like war, they don't have anything to lose. They could fight that war for decades.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We have Kim Jon Un, an over weight man-child who is as about as rational as a two year old, and we have Trump, who you can basically repeat the same thing. Rational is neither of strong suits.

This is a meme that literally all evidence doesn't support. Its incredibly dangerous that we don't think Kim is rational because of internet jokes

 

[Monkeyball]

So how many times has GAF declared war by now? Every time North Korea is in the thread title.

By North Korea thread #10003434 there actually might be war.

 

[Dopus]

Well since the US invading NK and toppling the regime is off the table because they won't risk nuclear retaliation a Vietnam situation comes to mind. So best case for NK is to gain SK.

This is absurd. China have distanced themselves in the last year. An attack on South Korea would effectively be an attack on the United States. It's not going to fly.

 

[MadJackChurchill]

Nah to hit the US


They had atleast 2 successfull ICBM tests we know of.


Redline has been crossed.
Will the US accept this or will they sacrifice Seoul?

That's not what a nuclear test is though.

GAF's foreign policy analysis being "wow they're all mental" is so disappointing.

 

[LizardKing]

This is absurd. China has distanced themselves in the last year. An attack on South Korea would effectively be an attack on the United States.

Do you think US citizens view New York being nuked in the same vein as Seoul being captured? They aren't the same no matter how much you want to believe it. No way under any circumstances that the US will invade NK once there are enough nukes to cripple it short of NK attacking US soil itself. That includes invasion of SK.

 

[tkscz]

This is a meme that literally all evidence doesn't support. Its incredibly dangerous that we don't think Kim is rational because of internet jokes

My mistake, but these choices he's making aren't the most rational. He's causing paranoia in other countries that have less ration people ruling them.

 

[NullPointer]

We have Kim Jon Un, an over weight man-child who is as about as rational as a two year old, and we have Trump, who you can basically repeat the same thing. Rational is neither of strong suits.

Trump is the one I'm worried about.

Kim is acting rationally in building up his nuclear deterrence. Trump is an ignorant moron with power fantasies and crumbling support. I worry both that he has an overly simplistic view of the situation on one hand, and that he's easily swayed by those who have their own agendas on the other.

Its certain that we have military plans for various NK contingencies, and probably some support for some kind of action. And we're left is to hope that Trump has the wherewithal to handle this, and thats fucking terrifying.

 

[Bad_Boy]

every time one of these threads pops up i keep having the worse thoughts.

man i chose a real bad time to live in south korea

 

[Nydius]

Things are different now. Trump has a massive disapproval rating and the American people aren't calling for blood like they were after 9/11.

About that... WaPo: A majority of Americans favor deploying U.S. troops if North Korea attacks South Korea, poll finds

The headline focuses only on the poll'sNK invasion of SK question but the poll looks at more than just that issue. The numbers they found sound an awful lot like people calling for blood to me. Or, at best, they're right on the edge of calling for blood.

The poll, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, offers a glimpse of how Americans are responding to the rapidly evolving tensions with Pyongyang. Just two years ago, 55 percent of Americans listed North Korea as a critical threat facing the United States. Now 75 percent do, making it among the greatest perceived threats in the poll.

And, notably, though many analysts now suggest that persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons may be impossible, few Americans are willing to accept allowing North Korea to keep the nuclear weapons it already has. Only 21 percent say they would support an agreement in which North Korea halted its nuclear program but did not give up its existing weapons (17 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of Democrats).

Even fewer — 11 percent — say they would be willing to accept a deal that would allow North Korea more nuclear weapons.

 

[Dopus]

Do you think US citizens view New York being nuked in the same vein as Seoul being captured? They aren't the same no matter how much you want to believe it. No way under any circumstances that the US will invade NK once there are enough nukes to cripple it short of NK attacking US soil itself.

Honestly, this hysteria is too much for me.

 

[dinoric]

not taking out the North Korean government was a failure by all the previous administrations.

America has no right to think it can just go and take out other country's governments.

 

[Kthulhu]

About that... WaPo: A majority of Americans favor deploying U.S. troops if North Korea attacks South Korea, poll finds

The headline focuses only on the poll'sNK invasion of SK question but the poll looks at more than just that issue. The numbers they found sound an awful lot like people calling for blood to me. Or, at best, they're right on the edge of calling for blood.

That doesn't mean they will accept a declaration of war from. An unpopular president without provocation. Even the Iraq war had to be sold on the idea that they were involved in 9/11.

America has no right to think it can just go and take out other country's governments.

It's never stopped us before. We've done it for most of our existence.

 

[Lombax]

This is a meme that literally all evidence doesn't support. Its incredibly dangerous that we don't think Kim is rational because of internet jokes

Very good point made here.