HorrorMovieFans.com

I am curious about a strategy to deal with North Korea and I admit I don't have one so I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

Having been there, the only solution in my mind is sanctions and diplomacy. The sheer military might they have pointed right at Seoul, and now Japan, would make for a hideous hideous conflict with murder on all sides. I also think people credit the "mad Leader" narrative way too much. Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong-Il and Kim Jong-Un all basically crave and cling to power using an anti-US narrative that only grows stronger the more military might is mentioned. They don't want to nuke the US. but they want to be seen as able to. Which is terrible, but ultimately it's s selfish regime and not a terror cell with no base. They cling to power and the best change must be from diplomatic solutions.

The concrete solution is through Sweden too.

How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

Just destroy their military bases. They are so far behind technologically it would take them 80 years to build a plane.

Tiggnutz wrote:How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

For me, it won't be warranted. Unless they actually attack first. Not Fire their posturing warning shots into the sea. Actually directly attacked someone.

I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Tiggnutz wrote:How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

The mere intent to intimidate is enough. By the rationale of some, a criminal shooting at you and missing is not enough to fire back.

Jason wrote:Just destroy their military bases. They are so far behind technologically it would take them 80 years to build a plabe.

This would not work. Several reasons really.

1. Most of their stuff is underground
2. Other stuff is basically always being moved around.
3. Tons of stuff is already on the DMZ ready to fire at Seoul and other border points.
4. They have the second largest army I think. It's huge. Not just one you can take out with a few well-placed missiles.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

The mere intent to intimidate is enough. By the rationale of some, a criminal shooting at you and missing is not enough to fire back.

It's not that it's not justified. It is fully justified. It's just not a likely successful strategy in my mind. Or in the mind of those involved in the security in South Korea or in the diplomatic corps in the North Korean embassy. It seems like they'd know more than you or I. But they definitely don't advocate a military solution based on empty provocation.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:Just destroy their military bases. They are so far behind technologically it would take them 80 years to build a plabe.

This would not work. Several reasons really.

1. Most of their stuff is underground
2. Other stuff is basically always being moved around.
3. Tons of stuff is already on the DMZ ready to fire at Seoul and other border points.
4. They have the second largest army I think. It's huge. Not just one you can take out with a few well-placed missiles.

None of that really matters if you have resolve. The might of your army is no longer measured in terms of troop numbers. Keep in mind, a single US air craft carrier group is more powerful than their entire army.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

The threat continues to grow. What do you think is going to happen when they get a cache of nuclear weapons?

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

The mere intent to intimidate is enough. By the rationale of some, a criminal shooting at you and missing is not enough to fire back.

It's not that it's not justified. It is fully justified. It's just not a likely successful strategy in my mind. Or in the mind of those involved in the security in South Korea or in the diplomatic corps in the North Korean embassy. It seems like they'd know more than you or I. But they definitely don't advocate a military solution based on empty provocation.

Sometimes you have to end the threat. Imagine you have a child and your neighbor's dog is constantly threatening them. Growling, snarling, snapping, lunging. You don't wait until it bites.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

The threat continues to grow. What do you think is going to happen when they get a cache of nuclear weapons?

They finally feel safe and start becoming a normalized nation state.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:How close would a missile from North Korea need to come to people before a military reaction would be warrented?

The mere intent to intimidate is enough. By the rationale of some, a criminal shooting at you and missing is not enough to fire back.

It's not that it's not justified. It is fully justified. It's just not a likely successful strategy in my mind. Or in the mind of those involved in the security in South Korea or in the diplomatic corps in the North Korean embassy. It seems like they'd know more than you or I. But they definitely don't advocate a military solution based on empty provocation.

Sometimes you have to end the threat. Imagine you have a child and your neighbor's dog is constantly threatening them. Growling, snarling, snapping, lunging. You don't wait until it bites.

All your analogies are oversimplified and fail to understand that you can't penalize or attack or "deal with" without catastrophic consequences for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. That's my point. You can do a Trump and gesticulate all you want about how strong your army is or how swift your missiles. But it would be a catastrophe. It does not need a military pre-emotive strike.

That's great. So keep doing the same thing. In fact, we should just start selling them nuclear weapons.

Trump did not let it get to this point. Weak people who refused to stop it did.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:I think when they are firing over you or into your waters, you take that as an act of war. Acting cowardly while they continue to develop technology with the sole intention of blackmailing you with the later cannot be tolerated.

If an enemy aggressor fired at my home, I would demand the threat be ceased. These sanctions have accomplished nothing over the years and people still act like they are meaningful. Demolish every single military installation and vehicle. When they are ready to surrender on your terms, stop. If they do not surrender, start hitting the government buildings, then the infrastructure. Stop, let them rebuild and hit it again when it is 80% complete. There is your sanctions.

At what cost? What's an acceptable loss of life on this for you? And I mean among your allies and your soldiers.

Unfortunately the lives lost today pale in comparison to the lives lost tomorrow to a nuclear weapon. Folks in the military volunteer to serve. Their loss of life is always tragic, but they do it to save innocent lives who have no choice when the bomb falls on their city.

I think it's a rash and unwise choice. For a start, your military may be sacrificed in your eyes but Seoul and other SK cities would surely not be as willing to be sacrificed.

The threat continues to grow. What do you think is going to happen when they get a cache of nuclear weapons?

They finally feel safe and start becoming a normalized nation state.

There you go. We should just give every one nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction is the way to happiness.