Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
An actual thought provoking article about North Korea 2017-08-12 02:17:08 Post No. 137018126
[Report] Image search: [Google]
An actual thought provoking article about North Korea 2017-08-12 02:17:08 Post No. 137018126
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: castle-bravo.jpg (450KB, 1920x1064px) Image search:
[Google]
450KB, 1920x1064px
An actual thought provoking article about North Korea
Anonymous
2017-08-12 02:17:08
Post No. 137018126
[Report]
>There is general agreement in Washington—and Seoul and Tokyo—that East Asia and the world will be a more dangerous place once North Korea achieves its declared goal of being able to hit the continental United States with nuclear weapons. But what is the danger, specifically? Many people aren’t clear.
>South Korean and Japanese security specialists point to a more serious danger. They remind us, correctly, that their countries have depended for their own security on the credible commitment of the United States to use all available means to defend them from attack by North Korea, including retaliation with nuclear weapons if necessary.
>As North Korea’s quest is getting closer to success, skepticism in Seoul and Tokyo about credibility of the American commitment is increasing. Reasonably, the skeptics ask, if North Korea attacked them, would Washington be willing to retaliate with nuclear weapons when North Korea would be able and probably willing to counter-retaliate by hitting America? Would Washington be willing to risk San Francisco in order to save Seoul or Tokyo?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/08/09/the-real-reason-a-north-korean-nuclear-weapon-is-so-terrifying-and-its-not-what-you-think/
>>
Haven't read the article, but it seems that if NK were to launch first, even at Seoul or Tokyo, then you'd have to launch at them because it's immediately clear that NK is willing to use nukes.
>>
>>137018126
>would Washington be willing to retaliate
Of course
>with nuclear weapons
Hell no
I sincerely doubt the United States will ever nuke anyone again, and if we do, it would not be on a country like North Korea. For them, MOAB and other conventional weapons are good enough.
>>
>>137018126
I think the US would be better off if it sacrificed San Fran and LA
>>
>>137018556
If you don't retaliate with nukes (we're not talking the US strikes first) then you've destroyed the underlying purpose of MAD
>>
>>137018126
im not reading your blog you faggot. nobody reads blogs so you made that yourself OP
>>
File: 1497260574710.jpg (62KB, 320x371px) Image search:
[Google]
62KB, 320x371px
>>137018720
>thought provoking article shared
>get comments like this
>>
>>137018738
Good. MAD should not apply to all cases. Nuking the Norks would be like shooting a cockroach.
>>
>>137018126
This is really interesting because the whole promise they make to cease their own programs and halt proliferation is under the guise that we will basically do it for them.
The problem is that nukes kill a shit ton of normie citizens and render former populated urban areas totally useless for years. The cost to Smart Power of appearances would far outweigh the benefit of killing some short starving norks.
But there is an obligation to do so (even at such a cost) in order to keep, day Japan and South Korea from pursing their own nuclear weapons.
Good read.
>>
>>137019013
In response to a nuclear strike, wouldn't our govt have to retaliate with nukes in order to show the Chinese, Russians, whoever that if you launch nukes at us then you'll receive nukes in return. It seems like their hands are tied.
>>
>>137018126
Makes sense. The most appropriate thing to do from Japan's and SK's perspective would be to risk a preemptive strike against Kim, but that would probably drag China along while keeping the US away from the whole ordeal, so all in all I think there are more reasons to expect status quo will be preserved than the other way around.
>>
File: KoreaIsrael.png (23KB, 583x641px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 583x641px
>>137018720
>I think the US would be better off if it sacrificed San Fran and LA
I think the US would be better off if it sacrificed Israel.
>>
>>137018126
North Korea isn't ever likely to use said missle, it's really only there to get the US to back off of it, considering it's the only military dictatorship consistently surrounded by US allies along with countries that don't have a reason to particular help it. All we're seeing is North Korea blowing hot air because the leaders of the state damn well know it will collapse from sheer economic weight eventually and the rest of the world won't allow them to pull a Chinese style economic reformation.
>>
>preventative war
We getting neoconned again
If the US simply stayed out of these countries, they'd save themselves a whole lot of money and trouble. If South Korea or Japan gets invaded, its suddenly the US' problem?
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3