Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 181
Thanks Tree56Thanks

Thread: I have an actual serious question

  1. #21
    No mercy for losers Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    46,326
    Thanks
    23146

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    No one has been that bold. This would be a test. If North Korea were to do it with no consequences, who would try it next?
    And if we respond with less than overwhelming force, what will NK do in response to that?

    And so on. I sure hope someone in this administration knows what the fuck they're doing.

  2. #22
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,934
    Thanks
    6855

    From
    A Month Away
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    true that.. but yet, WHAT would be the consequences ?

    A military response onto NK's territory, will only put South Korea in harms way.. that can neither be the goal, nor anything that can be justified. There lies the dilemma.. so if you want to protect South Korea from military aggression, one can only appeal to the UN, sanctions etc.

    Just that NK has not ever responded in a positive way to such steadily expanded sanctions.

    IDK. The only alternative would be one massive strike against NK, before they can even reach to their weapons against South Korea. Don't even want to think about it.
    That is the problem. If we struck back at North Korea it would have time to hit Seoul and Tokyo before becoming a smoking disaster of a mess.
    Thanks from Blueneck and bajisima

  3. #23
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    42,060
    Thanks
    24789

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    I bet you guys know what I'll say... but yes, I'd say him taking a shot at us means war, whether he misses or not. Absolutely I would call on any treaty that's relevant. I would expect NATO and South Korea to join. I'd invite China to ally with us for this self defense war too. Why not give them the chance?
    We would have to. Up until now Lil Kim has been bluster. Now that intel reports he has a nuke and an ICBM, we cant fool around. You can bet Canada would be right there with us since they are in the crosshairs as well.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    42,060
    Thanks
    24789

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    true that.. but yet, WHAT would be the consequences ?

    A military response onto NK's territory, will only put South Korea in harms way.. that can neither be the goal, nor anything that can be justified. There lies the dilemma.. so if you want to protect South Korea from military aggression, one can only appeal to the UN, sanctions etc.

    Just that NK has not ever responded in a positive way to such steadily expanded sanctions.

    IDK. The only alternative would be one massive strike against NK, before they can even reach to their weapons against South Korea. Don't even want to think about it.
    Would imagine if NK lobbed one for real, their total annihilation is on the table. Wouldn't surprise me to find out our military has a plan in place. China would probably begrudgingly allow it at that point. What other choice would they have?
    Thanks from Amelia

  5. #25
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    26,196
    Thanks
    6796

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    That is the problem. If we struck back at North Korea it would have time to hit Seoul and Tokyo before becoming a smoking disaster of a mess.
    I wonder if it would make sense for our folks and the South Korean army in Seoul to strike NK at the same time as strikes in other areas, so that the opposing force facing them doesn't get the first clean and unopposed attack, and perhaps multiple fronts could create confusion and disorder in NK's forces.

    Not that I'm a strategist, but just armchair quarterbacking for our discussion.

  6. #26
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18,734
    Thanks
    15045

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    That flight was approved under a long-standing global treaty. So what is your point? Are you saying that Russia was attacking us?
    And all these things too? Trump doesn't think Russia is testing him which is so innocent and cute:

    Russian spy ship Viktor Leonov off US coast near Georgia Navy submarine base - CBS News

  7. #27
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,912
    Thanks
    17391

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Depends on what happens. If we just roll through and bomb missile sites like Japan wants, then it might not be full blown war. "Get on board or else" is pretty typical for the US isn't it?
    Really? You really think we could do that, and NK would respond with escalation?

  8. #28
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,301
    Thanks
    7884

    From
    New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Okay, so two things have happened in the last couple of days, L'il Kim has threatened to bomb Guam, and Lord Dampnuts has promised "fire and fury", like the world has never known - not necessairily in that order.

    So, here's my question. Let us say that we detect a North Korean missile launched in the general direction of Guam. Let us further imagine that said missile falls rather short, and drops relatively harmlessly into the sea. So. Do we just assume this was another of L'il Kim's missile tests, or do we assume that it was L'il Kim attempting to follow through on his threat, and failing? And, if we assume the latter, what do we do about it? I mean, we don't have a lot of historical precedence for a failed attack on the US, or one of its territories.

    Take Pearl Harbour, for instance. Had the attack from Japan been a miserable failure, would we have still entered into WW II? I'm not being sarcastic, here. This really is a plausible suggestion of things to come. So, if L'il Kim attempts to attack us, and fails, what would our likely response be?
    Tough call, especially because one (a test)could easily be mistaken for the other( failed launch).

    Add to that, should it not matter which one it is and retaliate.

    Now we have to define our boundaries as to what that entails.


    Conclusion: I have too many questions and too few answers...

  9. #29
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18,734
    Thanks
    15045

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    That hasn't worked for 3 administrations. He still has nukes and is threatening us.
    Yes it has. He will always threaten. Always has and always will. In the past the global conclusion was this is how he demands attention and tries to force negotiations. They ignored him. It worked.

    Note how things have changed now that Trump changed that policy. Now it is dangerous because the two crazy leaders are taking each other on.
    Thanks from Czernobog

  10. #30
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    18,734
    Thanks
    15045

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    They have been doing that each year since 2002.

    "Far from a surprise though, the Russian Air Force Tupolev Tu-154 overflight is agreed thanks to a mutual arrangement which Russia, the U.S. and a handful of other militaries are part of. The agreement, called the Treaty on Open Skies, ensures 34 states have an equal right to periodically fly unarmed surveillance aircraft above one another's territories."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies
    This too: Russian spy ship Viktor Leonov off US coast near Georgia Navy submarine base - CBS News

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What? The actual? Fuck?!?!
    By Czernobog in forum Current Events
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 8th September 2016, 01:42 PM
  2. What the actual fuck?!?!?
    By Czernobog in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 17th August 2015, 01:21 PM
  3. Is it an actual brainwashing?
    By Donald Polish in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 16th February 2015, 07:35 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed