So often in human affairs there is the cover story, and the real story.
COVER STORY: When it comes to North Korean nukes the cover story is that they want them to prevent a U.S. invasion, such as happened in Iraq. The problem with this theory is that the U.S. already tried to invade North Korea in the 1950s, and it was a disaster. A million Chinese flooded across the border and shoved the U.S. back below the 38th parallel. There is no reason to think the Chinese are any more interested in having U.S. forces on their border today.
Some people worry the North Koreans want to attack the U.S. with nukes, but that clearly would be suicide for the North Korean regime. So we can set this theory aside too.
REAL STORY: The real reason North Korea wants nukes is to neutralize the U.S. The North Korean regime’s primary goal since it’s founding has been to unify the Korean peninsula under their rule. They can’t do this now because the U.S. is involved.
But what happens to the calculation once North Korea is in a position to nuke major cities on the west coast of the U.S.? What U.S. president is going to risk those cities to defend South Korea? How many Americans could even find South Korea on a map? Once North Korea can credibly strike the U.S. the equation on the Korean peninsula changes radically in North Korea’s favor.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Imagine that North Korea was able to successfully invade South Korea, or intimidate it in to submission. Imagine the effect this would have on Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan and all the countries in the region who would then realize that the U.S. can’t protect them. U.S. influence in the west Pacific would dramatically fade, and China would fill the void.
Another cover story is that the Chinese are as annoyed by the North Koreans as everyone else. What if that’s not really true? What if North Korea is the proxy China hopes to use to shove the U.S. out of what they see as their sphere of influence. Any possible blow back falls upon North Korea, and the Chinese can stand back safe pretending to be outraged by North Korean aggression.
In the past I think China was content that North Korea serve as a buffer state. What if their emergence as a truly global power inevitably involves greater ambitions?
I don’t know Tanny, the “Cover Story” sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than some excited and somewhat paranoid conclusion
that gaining the capability to launch a missile as far as the USA west coast is going to “Neutralize” the USA.
Then again North Korea, from what I hear, has already sort of neutralized the US by virtue of all the missiles it has pointed at Seoul.
Still, there is this:
http://www.newsweek.com/what-north-koreas-military-looks-compared-us-589688 North Korea's military drill underscored that Pyongyang controls a powerful standing army despite the nation's limited financial resources. North Korea’s armed forces counts 1.19 million service members and another 7.7 million reservists. The isolated nation of 25 million people is also home to 3,500 battle tanks, 72 submarines, 302 helicopters, 563 combat aircraft and 21,100 artillery pieces, making up one of the most powerful militaries in the world. ... While North Korea remains a threat, the U.S.'s overall military capabilities are unparalleled. The U.S. ..., spending roughly $618 billion a year on arms and other military capabilities. It has nearly 8,000 nuclear warheads in reserve, 13,900 aircraft, 920 attack helicopters and 72 submarines, along with 800 overseas military bases in 70 countries scattered across strategic areas throughout the world, and roughly 150,090 soldiers stationed across 150 countries. The U.S. employs about 1,066,600 soldiers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2tv20899s
I don't know Tanny, the "Cover Story" sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than some excited and somewhat paranoid conclusion that gaining the capability to launch a missile as far as the USA west coast is going to "Neutralize" the USA.You've characterized a theory, but not rebutted it. There's a lot of confusion on forums about the difference between those two things. My understanding is the the NK may already have 5 or 6 nukes. The missile test last week shows that they will sooner or later have the ability to deliver them to the west coast of the U.S. Are you saying that a President would risk Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA, and San Diego to save South Korea? Are you saying that the American people, especially those living within range, would support such a risk? I don't mind at all if you disagree with the thesis presented here, but please make a specific case if you wish to do so.
I don't know Tanny, the "Cover Story" sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than some excited and somewhat paranoid conclusion that gaining the capability to launch a missile as far as the USA west coast is going to "Neutralize" the USA.You've characterized a theory, but not rebutted it. There's a lot of confusion on forums about the difference between those two things. My understanding is the the NK may already have 5 or 6 nukes. The missile test last week shows that they will sooner or later have the ability to deliver them to the west coast of the U.S. Are you saying that a President would risk Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA, and San Diego to save South Korea? Are you saying that the American people, especially those living within range, would support such a risk? I don't mind at all if you disagree with the thesis presented here, but please make a specific case if you wish to do so. No matter what is said about who has the most fire power we must never for NK boarders both Russia and China, her traditional allies, and we haven't a clue about what they will do if we mount an attack there. Another note, if nukes are exchanged there will be NO WINNER. IN the movie War Games, when asked tp play auke war the computer said it was useless to play because the only way you could win was not to play.
Slim chance N. Korea will reach a position where they can intimidate America like that.
I don't mind at all if you disagree with the thesis presented here, but please make a specific case if you wish to do so.What thesis, COVER STORY... REAL STORY... THE BIGGER PICTURE... ? What thesis, that Korea being able to deliver a missile to the US west coast, will somehow neutralize the US? Hell, you even make it sound like you assume precision targeting from their first try. That's a mighty big assumption.
Are you saying that the American people, especially those living within range, would support such a risk?The American leaders will go hysterical, then the people will believe and do whatever they are told, over-reactions can be expected to be the order of the day. Oh and flag sales are going to skyrocket. Me, I don't support nothing no more, I'm reduced to just watching the shit show continue it's spiral towards hell.
So often in human affairs there is the cover story, and the real story. COVER STORY: When it comes to North Korean nukes the cover story is that they want them to prevent a U.S. invasion, such as happened in Iraq. The problem with this theory is that the U.S. already tried to invade North Korea in the 1950s, and it was a disaster. A million Chinese flooded across the border and shoved the U.S. back below the 38th parallel. There is no reason to think the Chinese are any more interested in having U.S. forces on their border today. Some people worry the North Koreans want to attack the U.S. with nukes, but that clearly would be suicide for the North Korean regime. So we can set this theory aside too. REAL STORY: The real reason North Korea wants nukes is to neutralize the U.S. The North Korean regime's primary goal since it's founding has been to unify the Korean peninsula under their rule. They can't do this now because the U.S. is involved. But what happens to the calculation once North Korea is in a position to nuke major cities on the west coast of the U.S.? What U.S. president is going to risk those cities to defend South Korea? How many Americans could even find South Korea on a map? Once North Korea can credibly strike the U.S. the equation on the Korean peninsula changes radically in North Korea's favor. THE BIGGER PICTURE: Imagine that North Korea was able to successfully invade South Korea, or intimidate it in to submission. Imagine the effect this would have on Japan, the Philippines, Australia, Taiwan and all the countries in the region who would then realize that the U.S. can't protect them. U.S. influence in the west Pacific would dramatically fade, and China would fill the void. Another cover story is that the Chinese are as annoyed by the North Koreans as everyone else. What if that's not really true? What if North Korea is the proxy China hopes to use to shove the U.S. out of what they see as their sphere of influence. Any possible blow back falls upon North Korea, and the Chinese can stand back safe pretending to be outraged by North Korean aggression. In the past I think China was content that North Korea serve as a buffer state. What if their emergence as a truly global power inevitably involves greater ambitions?Why doesn't the USA want Korea reunified??
Slim chance N. Korea will reach a position where they can intimidate America like that.Another example of lazily characterizing an argument instead of addressing it. Slim chance? Ok, why? What is your argument, where is your evidence, etc. NK already has some number of nukes, and short range ballistic missiles. Everyone seems to agree that they are headed towards more nukes, and long range missiles. And so "slim chance" is based on what? Again, the question isn't who would win in a war between America and NK. The question is, would America risk some of it's major cities to defend South Korea?
Slim chance N. Korea will reach a position where they can intimidate America like that.Another example of lazily characterizing an argument instead of addressing it. Another example of lazily characterizing members instead of having an argument.
Hell, you even make it sound like you assume precision targeting from their first try. That's a mighty big assumption.The North Korea's can test their accuracy, and prove their accuracy, by firing missiles to specific spots in the Pacific. I agree that like every other country achieving accuracy will take some work, just as developing nukes and missiles involved work, failures, corrections etc. The point is, sooner or later they will get there unless somebody stops them. Why do the North Koreans want to achieve accurate long range nukes? 1) Not to avoid an invasion, as the Chinese are unlikely to tolerate a U.S. invasion of NK, and the U.S. is very unlikely to want to again fight a million Chinese soldiers, the ultimate quagmire disaster. 2) Not to attack the U.S. for that would be suicide. 3) Not to attack South Korea, as they don't need long range nukes for that, or even nukes. So why? Why are they hell bent on developing nuke and ICBM's? I don't claim to know why, I'm just offering a reasonable theory. If you want to debunk that theory, that's fine, but please offer a counter theory which explains their decision better.
Hell, you even make it sound like you assume precision targeting from their first try. That's a mighty big assumption.The North Korea's can test their accuracy, and prove their accuracy, by firing missiles to specific spots in the Pacific. I agree that like every other country achieving accuracy will take some work, just as developing nukes and missiles involved work, failures, corrections etc. The point is, sooner or later they will get there unless somebody stops them. Why do the North Koreans want to achieve accurate long range nukes? 1) Not to avoid an invasion, as the Chinese are unlikely to tolerate a U.S. invasion of NK, and the U.S. is very unlikely to want to again fight a million Chinese soldiers, the ultimate quagmire disaster. 2) Not to attack the U.S. for that would be suicide. 3) Not to attack South Korea, as they don't need long range nukes for that, or even nukes. So why? Why are they hell bent on developing nuke and ICBM's? I don't claim to know why, I'm just offering a reasonable theory. If you want to debunk that theory, that's fine, but please offer a counter theory which explains their decision better. You should offer your expertise to the Trump administration. You'll fit right in.
You should offer your expertise to the Trump administration. You'll fit right in.More lazy characterizations offered instead of reasoned arguments.
You should offer your expertise to the Trump administration. You'll fit right in.More lazy characterizations offered instead of reasoned arguments. For someone who wrote such a vague, dare I say lazy, opening post - you sure do expect a lot from others.
So why? Why are they hell bent on developing nuke and ICBM's?To gain "respect" from the super powers. pronounced with a Corleone accent.
So why? Why are they hell bent on developing nuke and ICBM's?To gain "respect" from the super powers. pronounced with a Corleone accent.I'm sure that's the real reason. I saw a piece on NK and how its missile programs are a source of national pride. They literally broadcast launchs, and keep tallies of successes in SHOPPING MALLS and on street corner screens like 5th avenue! It's almost standard issue...every David needs its Goliath to please the ladies at home. I have a feeling the best thing the US could do is embrace NK, befriend them in every way, i.e. completely take the steam out of David's engine.
So why? Why are they hell bent on developing nuke and ICBM's?To gain "respect" from the super powers. pronounced with a Corleone accent.I'm sure that's the real reason. I saw a piece on NK and how its missile programs are a source of national pride. They literally broadcast launchs, and keep tallies of successes in SHOPPING MALLS and on street corner screens like 5th avenue! It's almost standard issue...every David needs its Goliath to please the ladies at home. I have a feeling the best thing the US could do is embrace NK, befriend them in every way, i.e. completely take the steam out of David's engine. Why doesn't the USA want a reunified Korea?
Slim chance N. Korea will reach a position where they can intimidate America like that.Another example of lazily characterizing an argument instead of addressing it. Slim chance? Ok, why? What is your argument, where is your evidence, etc. NK already has some number of nukes, and short range ballistic missiles. Everyone seems to agree that they are headed towards more nukes, and long range missiles. And so "slim chance" is based on what? Again, the question isn't who would win in a war between America and NK. The question is, would America risk some of it's major cities to defend South Korea? No, but America wouldn't have to because North Korea will never attack America - ICBM's or not. We know they won't so don't worry about it.
You should offer your expertise to the Trump administration. You'll fit right in.More lazy characterizations offered instead of reasoned arguments. I know, you do that all the time. Glad to see you're finally recognizing your weaknesses. The next step is to fix them.
Attention Mods: Would you please delete this now worthless thread. Thank you.