About North Korea - Locked

[Rickshaw]

Peace in our time worked well in 1938, except it didn't.

"Peace in our time" was blamed by Adolf Hitler as the reason why he was defeated.

What everyone forgets is that while Chamberlain was mouthing those words, the British Armed Forces were undergoing a massive re-armament process which resulted in the largest Air Force, the best equipped navy and army in the world. Appeasement was undertaken for a reason - a reason that too many don't understand it seems.

 

[Jemiba]

I have the vague feeling, that some participants in this discussion are in real danger
to let themselves get carried away by there opinions!
A reminder : According to the title, this is a discussion about nuclear weapons, NOT
about the relations of North Korea to to the US and the rest of the world. Because it
would be a political discussion then and you all know the forum rules, don't you ?

So a last appeal :

- Answer the arguments, not the way, they are expressed !
- Sarcasm and irony aren't always well understood by some people, so especially in such a
discussion it's better to eschew it. Too easy it could be regarded as insulting or offensive.
- If you aren't good with one of the participants in this discussion, you simply should
ignore them ! Wouldn't it be a pity, if in the end both would be given a time out ?
And if you cannot eschew to talk to those people, please use the PM function then !

The way some here seem to be inconvincible is beginning to become a bit tedious and the
recycling bin already is full with posts of this thread !

 

[sferrin]

I'm probably as guilty as the next guy when it comes to responding to political posts. Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian. Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions. Second offense is a banning. I could definitely get behind that.

 

[kaiserd]

A serious question for you - do you prefer the idea of a war, a possibly nuclear war over the idea that diplomacy might work? Does anybody? I don't and no one I know does.

Sanctions have worked. They have curbed the DPRK's ability to build and militarise their nuclear weapons.

My question is. why does the DPRK feel the need for nuclear weapons?

Could it be because they remember the events of 1950-53 slightly differently to how the West does?

Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, not first resort. The DPRK is seeking a means to prevent "regime change". Your country has a long history of attempting "regime change". If the US stopped threatening the DPRK what do you think the outcome might be? If the US actually honoured it's promises regarding the DPRK's energy needs, what do you think the outcome might be?

Yes, I prefer war, including the possibility of a nuclear one. You seem to proceed from the assumption that North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are purely defensive. However, the end game of these programs is the unification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim regime. I am not prepared to throw South Korea under the bus as the price of your peace.

Well said.

You say you don't want want to throw South Korea under the bus.
You are proposing as a choice instigating military action that would likely see them heavily bombarded with conventional, chemical/ biological and potentially nuclear weapons to forestall a scenario where the continental US comes within range of nuclear tipped North Korean ICBMs.
You are joined in this argument by other contributors, some of whom have previously argued for the withdrawal of the US nuclear umbrella from many of its allies, including South Korea.
Have you any idea or care what the South Koreans themselves actually want?
They want increased capabilities to help deal with a potential North Korea attack but the last thing they want is to instigate a conflict with North Korea.
I don't think South Korea's interests or wishes are actually that high in your priority list.

 

[bobbymike]

I'm probably as guilty as the next guy when it comes to responding to political posts. Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian. Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions. Second offense is a banning. I could definitely get behind that.

I also put myself in this category but the problem is that this prescription can be so subjective as politics is so intertwined with defense decisions. You might be making a very important and valid point and someone yells POLITICS at you and gets you banned.

 

[sferrin]

I'm probably as guilty as the next guy when it comes to responding to political posts. Perhaps a solution going forward would be for the mods to get downright draconian. Anybody even hints at politics, be it between countries or different political parties' stewardship of nuclear forces, they get a one-week timeout, no exceptions. Second offense is a banning. I could definitely get behind that.

I also put myself in this category but the problem is that this prescription can be so subjective as politics is so intertwined with defense decisions. You might be making a very important and valid point and someone yells POLITICS at you and gets you banned.

I'd be willing to give it a go and let the mods be the arbiter, and be looking at the spirit as well as the letter. We know there are those who will skirt as closely as possible and then claim ignorance in an attempt to get somebody else banned. It's not difficult to spot those. The original intent of this thread was to discuss systems, their utility, and whether or not they were technically feasible/useful.