What to do about North Korea?

[australopithecus]

I have split the topic seeing as it moved away from North Korea.

 

[Gnug215]

I have split the topic seeing as it moved away from North Korea.

I find your wording here offensive and insensitive... to all those people who cannot just "split" and move away from North Korea.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Speaking as a representative of North Korea's government: we're taking names.

 

[MatthewLee]

Speaking as a representative of North Korea's government: we're taking names.

Have they discussed Juche yet in this thread? any discussion of NK I feel should include a discussion of their political and propaganda philosophy. We keep talking about how to handle them but maybe we can talk about WHY to handle them and why they think like they do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCCG5qMgmBo

Does anyone know anything interesting about this?

 

[Laurens]

The problem is that allowing anyone to have nukes is going to make other people want them. The world is an uneven playing field so far as nuclear weapons go, some countries have them, some don't. So long as that scenario exists you'll always run the risk of a rogue country coming along and trying to gain some negotiating power on the world stage by developing nuclear weapons. Its also understandable that North Korea might feel threatened having seen what the US had done in Iraq. It would go a long way to solving the issue if the superpowers in the world took meaningful steps towards disarmament. How can someone quite hostile come along and tell you that you can't have any nukes while themselves sitting on a stockpile? The argument for North Korea abandoning their nuclear programme would be bolstered if other major powers were also committed to disarmament. It might seem like pie in the sky, but I think its far more sensible than playing power games with weapons that could kill everyone on the planet.

 

[Visaki]

The problem is that allowing anyone to have nukes is going to make other people want them. The world is an uneven playing field so far as nuclear weapons go, some countries have them, some don't. So long as that scenario exists you'll always run the risk of a rogue country coming along and trying to gain some negotiating power on the world stage by developing nuclear weapons. Its also understandable that North Korea might feel threatened having seen what the US had done in Iraq. It would go a long way to solving the issue if the superpowers in the world took meaningful steps towards disarmament. How can someone quite hostile come along and tell you that you can't have any nukes while themselves sitting on a stockpile? The argument for North Korea abandoning their nuclear programme would be bolstered if other major powers were also committed to disarmament. It might seem like pie in the sky, but I think its far more sensible than playing power games with weapons that could kill everyone on the planet.

I think you are overly optimistic. Even if all the nuclear powers decided tomorrow to dismantle all their nukes, there would be some country ten or twenty years from now, if not at this moment, that would try and build one. The nuclear kitten can't be put back in the box, as much as we'd like to think it would be a very good idea. There is something soothing in having the biggest stick in the neighborhood after all, specially if you are doing things other people don't like.

 

[Laurens]

The problem is that allowing anyone to have nukes is going to make other people want them. The world is an uneven playing field so far as nuclear weapons go, some countries have them, some don't. So long as that scenario exists you'll always run the risk of a rogue country coming along and trying to gain some negotiating power on the world stage by developing nuclear weapons. Its also understandable that North Korea might feel threatened having seen what the US had done in Iraq. It would go a long way to solving the issue if the superpowers in the world took meaningful steps towards disarmament. How can someone quite hostile come along and tell you that you can't have any nukes while themselves sitting on a stockpile? The argument for North Korea abandoning their nuclear programme would be bolstered if other major powers were also committed to disarmament. It might seem like pie in the sky, but I think its far more sensible than playing power games with weapons that could kill everyone on the planet.

I think you are overly optimistic. Even if all the nuclear powers decided tomorrow to dismantle all their nukes, there would be some country ten or twenty years from now, if not at this moment, that would try and build one. The nuclear kitten can't be put back in the box, as much as we'd like to think it would be a very good idea. There is something soothing in having the biggest stick in the neighborhood after all, specially if you are doing things other people don't like.

I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Visaki]

I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Only other option I can think of is that China gives NK, and more importantly Kim in person, security guarantee and a defensive alliance for giving up the nukes. But I'm not that sure it really is an option as I don't know Kim that well.

 

[Tree]

I agree that it is very optimistic. I do not see another solution though, other than North Korea has nukes and we have to accept that and whatever it might bring.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Only other option I can think of is that China gives NK, and more importantly Kim in person, security guarantee and a defensive alliance for giving up the nukes. But I'm not that sure it really is an option as I don't know Kim that well.

That would be the best non-war option if it could be done.

China's a dictatorship, but it's not crazy Kim level. They should take Kim's nukes.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You must have missed the propaganda bulletin, Tree. China's now our enemy and we're reconfiguring our military capacity to challenge them rather than focus on terrorism.

 

[Tree]

You must have missed the propaganda bulletin, Tree. China's now our enemy and we're reconfiguring our military capacity to challenge them rather than focus on terrorism.

Yeah you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

The reconfiguration is done purely as a deterrent and to keep a competitive edge, not because we're going to war. When you're a world power and you want to remain that way, you have to have the capacity to match or surpass the military capacity of other world powers. China pumps a lot of money into its military, why shouldn't the US?

Mr Mattis has unveiled a broad new strategy for the Defence Department, warning that all aspects of the military's competitive warfighting edge have eroded.

He said building a force that can deter war with established and emerging military powers in Moscow and Beijing, and US enemies such as North Korea and Iran, would require increased investment to make the military more lethal, agile and ready to fight.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yeah you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Oh Lord and Wise Master of All Navel Fluff, do decree unto me the Truth Eternal.

The reconfiguration is done purely as a deterrent and to keep a competitive edge, not because we're going to war.

Everyone can see where I said 'we're going to war'.

When you're a world power and you want to remain that way, you have to have the capacity to match or surpass the military capacity of other world powers.

Isn't it fascinating how a person so quick to tell others they don't know what they're talking about then so quickly proceeds to establish beyond doubt that they don't know what they're talking about?

Firstly, as even a reading comprehension of a 6 year old would arrive at, my point was clearly about how we're now calling China a threat to world stability, and painting them as an enemy. Ergo, them taking over the nuclear capacity of another nation necessarily indicates an increase in their influence, and a consequent decrease in ours. Yeah, you know, my argument!

Secondly, even were I to wholly ignore my own argument and join you in this nonsensical contrived diversion, it still doesn't make any actual real-world sense. In terms of military capacity, the US is clearly far beyond China's capacity, already spending nearly 4 times more on their military budget, possessing 19 times more carriers, 6 times more military aircraft, and that's not even bothering with the huge disparity in technology.

But hey, what's the point in being informed when you just emote at reality?

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=united-states-of-america&country2=china&Submit=COMPARE

China pumps a lot of money into its military, why shouldn't the US?

China pumps $161,700,000,000 into its budget while the US pumps $587,800,000,000 into its military budget. But hey, if you're up for having your taxes spent on unnecessarily beating your chest, Go America, I guess!

Mr Mattis has unveiled a broad new strategy for the Defence Department, warning that all aspects of the military's competitive warfighting edge have eroded.

He said building a force that can deter war with established and emerging military powers in Moscow and Beijing, and US enemies such as North Korea and Iran, would require increased investment to make the military more lethal, agile and ready to fight.

And thanks to having useful idiots who don't know what they're talking about and who emote reality, they can readily convince their population that up is down.

 

[Tree]

China pumps $161,700,000,000 into its budget while the US pumps $587,800,000,000 into its military budget. But hey, if you're up for having your taxes spent on unnecessarily beating your chest, Go America, I guess!

China is not the only world power and not the only country in general that the US wants to have a competitive edge over.

Maybe your point would be valid if China was the only other country on Earth.

Fail. Try again.

 

[Sparhafoc]

China pumps $161,700,000,000 into its budget while the US pumps $587,800,000,000 into its military budget. But hey, if you're up for having your taxes spent on unnecessarily beating your chest, Go America, I guess!

China is not the only world power and not the only country in general that the US wants to have a competitive edge over.

Maybe your point would be valid if China was the only other country on Earth.

Fail. Try again.

Ahhh good old Tree - even when shown wrong, he'll pretend he's right.

Feel free to inform yourself any time you like.

The USA spends more on its military budget than the next top 7 or 8 nations combined. In fact, the USA's military spending accounts for nearly 40% of the entire world's military budget!

Nevermind Tree - go back to sleep and remember to say baaaah when you're told to.

 

[Tree]

Yup, and as I said, that's to keep a competitive edge (remember, nobody has successfully invaded US soil), not just against one particular country but even coalitions of other countries and also to defend slacking allies that don't pay enough for their own military unfortunately, but it keeps the world more secure so you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds. Especially those in South Korea, be careful what you wish for because a cut in US military could be done for example by pulling out the 30k soldiers stationed in SK.

When the US spent less and cared less about foreign intervention, you got two major wars in Europe and an expanding communist threat. The US also subsidizes the defense of Europe, South Korea, Japan and a few other places it has military bases in, without which the world would be far more chaotic than it already is. If you discount US contributions for example, NATO is far less a potent force.

If you think 611 billion is too much, then please state what an "acceptable" number would be in the Gospel of Sparhafoc.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yup, and as I said, that's to keep a competitive edge...

No, you said the US needs to increase its budget in order to keep a competitive edge.

If you're spending as much as your 8 nearest competitors combined, it's not - by definition - competitive already in any business sense.

... (remember, nobody has successfully invaded US soil),...

Right, which would thereby mean that you already spend enough, no?

Why would you need to spend more to achieve the same results?

.... not just against one particular country but even coalitions of other countries...

You mean like if the next 8 top nations in terms of military spending were to somehow combine together in order to beat the USA? So where does that stop? If you're going to engage in that level of fantasy, maybe you need to spend more than all the rest of the world combined just in case they all get together to invade the USA? No?

...and also to defend slacking allies that don't pay enough for their own military unfortunately,...

Of course, the last time the US had to defend any allies, they were hardly 'slacking' having already converted most of their industry to military output.

but it keeps the world more secure so you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds.

Does it? I don't see how the US spending 40% of the world's military budget makes the world more secure? Surely it creates a scenario where other nations feel the need to spend more to keep up - you know, the same logic you used about being 'competitive'?

Especially those in South Korea, be careful what you wish for because a cut in US military could be done for example by pulling out the 30k soldiers stationed in SK.

Or it could be from any of the other 800 military bases across 70 nations and territories....

When the US spent less and cared less about foreign intervention, you got two major wars in Europe and an expanding communist threat.

That's a nice post hoc ergo propter hoc - care to draw a logical line between the 2 events?

The US also subsidizes the defense of Europe, South Korea, Japan and a few other places it has military bases in, without which the world would be far more chaotic than it already is. If you discount US contributions for example, NATO is far less a potent force.

Indeed, but that's not under the heading of the US military budget, is it?

If you think 611 billion is too much, then please state what an "acceptable" number would be in the Gospel of Sparhafoc.

No, what I will do is make my own arguments. My argument is that it's a strange notion that suggests you need to spend more on your military budget when you already spend as much as the next 8 top spending nations combined, and that amounts to nearly 40% of the entire world's military budget.

How exactly is spending more reasonable in that context?

Incidentally, when you use my own criticisms back against me, it shows that they had an impact in the first instance! Thanks for renting me space in your head. Lucky it's such a cheap property!

 

[Tree]

Okay, you don't get to make recommendations on how much the US military should spent when you don't even have a fucking clue what an acceptable budget should be and where exactly you would make those cuts if you were in charge.

You think too much is spent but you can't even give a number on how much should be spent. Exactly why I need to listen to you? You clearly don't know wtf you're talking about. I think I'll trust the generals more than I will some random leftist with a demonstrable bias against the US.


Just point out, competitive doesn't mean equal or slightly above, which, assuming the money is spent equally efficient on both sides would only ensure your victory but at a great cost, in the event of a war. It's more like overwhelming force so everyone is too afraid to fuck with you and if they try you can obliterate them and they'll barely scratch you.

Those bases in foreign countries by the way are only there cause you slack on your own defenses or aren't good enough to defend yourselves. You should be thankful for that, not resent it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Okay, you don't get to make recommendations on how much the US military should spent when you don't even have a fucking clue what an acceptable budget should be and where exactly you would make those cuts if you were in charge.

Were you under the impression I needed your permission to hold a position?

Pro-tip: pop your head out of your arse if you want to be taken seriously.

You think too much is spent but you can't even give a number on how much should be spent.

As usual, not my argument.

As even an epileptic gerbil can see, my argument was actually that your argument that the US needs to spend more is nonsensical.

But of course, you can't support your own argument, and your claims were shown to be based on utter ignorance, so rather than engage honestly you start making up strawman arguments.

Exactly why I need to listen to you?

Has anyone ever obliged you to 'listen' to me?

No, you are clearly under no obligation, just as you are under no obligation to have a clue.

You clearly don't know wtf you're talking about.

I think we've established who it is that has less of a clue in real terms here.

I think I'll trust the generals more than I will some random leftist with a demonstrable bias against the US.

Not a leftist, not any bias against the US - it's just the way you protect your fragile cognitive bias from valid, fact-based contentions.

Just point out, competitive doesn't mean equal or slightly above. It's more like overwhelming force so everyone is too afraid to fuck with you.

No, that's not what the word means. Competitive necessarily has an economic component to it. If you wanted to invade Papua New Guinea, you don't need to drag over 12 carriers, dozens of tank battalions and aerial bomb them. Overwhelming force is already overwhelming force without adding more force to it.

Those bases in foreign countries by the way are only there cause you slack on your own defenses or aren't good enough to defend yourselves.

Naive belief in a complete fiction.

You should be thankful for that, not resent it.

You should stop projecting your juvenile emotions onto others just because your arguments are shit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

As I know you like your off-the-wall analogies, perhaps I can extend one to see if I can permeate the knee-jerk denialism.

Let's imagine we're in an auto racing contest.

Our car's top speed is 4 times higher than the next fastest competitor.

In fact, our car's top speed is faster than the next 8 fastest competitors combined.

Would it be logical, when divining our strategy for the contest to say: what we need is to make our car go faster?

I submit that would not be logical in the slightest. Speed isn't the issue.

Rather, it might be a more practical solution to say: how can we do this more economically?

If we're going to be putting a development budget into future contests, I would say that the budget's portion going towards increasing speed seems rather wasteful. Rather, we might want to look at ways in which our money spent would have more impact.

 

[Akamia]

As I know you like your off-the-wall analogies, perhaps I can extend one to see if I can permeate the knee-jerk denialism.

Let's imagine we're in an auto racing contest.

Our car's top speed is 4 times higher than the next fastest competitor.

In fact, our car's top speed is faster than the next 8 fastest competitors combined.

Would it be logical, when divining our strategy for the contest to say: what we need is to make our car go faster?

I submit that would not be logical in the slightest. Speed isn't the issue.

Rather, it might be a more practical solution to say: how can we do this more economically?

If we're going to be putting a development budget into future contests, I would say that the budget's portion going towards increasing speed seems rather wasteful. Rather, we might want to look at ways in which our money spent would have more impact.

Handling would be a good place to start. There’s definitely a point where speed alone will do more harm than good; worthless and, moreso, absolutely dangerous if the driver can’t even control the car properly, unless the track is a straightaway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro