Time for a regime change? N. Korea....
Discussion
Andy Mac said:
I think the US/UK, et al are more dangerous than NK will ever be.
Yes. Yes we are. Far more dangerous. And, despite our paltry military capability being nothing compared with the Americans, we're a LOT more dangerous than most countries. We've got knives, sharp sticks, and nuclear missiles that, when tested last time, actually went where they were supposed to go and warheads, that when tested last time, went off reliably with a whopping great bang filled with nuke-tastic, world-dominating, countryside
ing goodness. Its a lot nicer being the lot with the big
ing stick than it is being the lot having the stick waved at you. I'm all for the status quo. Its keeping it that's going to be difficult. What's necessary is that all the really dangerous countries out there agree on what they're going to do to the less dangerous ones if they step out of line. For example - we could agree to raze their entire country to ground level and nuclear wasteland. Lets hope we can agree to something a little less drastic, eh?
Jaglover said:
The problem is that even without Nuclear weapons the North Koreans would be able to inflict massive damage on an American ally, South Korea, should it come to armed conflict.
Not if the Yanks obliterate their major population centres and military strike facilities.
Cripes I hope the Americans don't think of that!
Andy Mac said:
. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on.
What sabre rattling? the North Koreans began their Nuclera programme back in the 90s they were at no threat of invasion but simply wanted to extort money out of the west to prop up their failing economy. Which they succeeded in doing (1/2 a billion worth of fuel every year if I remember correctly) but they still kept on developing their weapons figuring when they actually HAD Nuclear weapons they would be able to extort even more money.
Jaglover said:
Andy Mac said:
. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on.
What sabre rattling? the North Koreans began their Nuclera programme back in the 90s they were at no threat of invasion but simply wanted to extort money out of the west to prop up their failing economy. Which they succeeded in doing (1/2 a billion worth of fuel every year if I remember correctly) but they still kept on developing their weapons figuring when they actually HAD Nuclear weapons they would be able to extort even more money.
Quite right. The only sabre-rattling - save GWB's inelegant "Axis of Evil" comment - has come from Kim, Jong-Il.
Jaglover said:
Andy Mac said:
. All this sabre rattling from the west has brought this on.
What sabre rattling? the North Koreans began their Nuclera programme back in the 90s they were at no threat of invasion but simply wanted to extort money out of the west to prop up their failing economy. Which they succeeded in doing (1/2 a billion worth of fuel every year if I remember correctly) but they still kept on developing their weapons figuring when they actually HAD Nuclear weapons they would be able to extort even more money.
1/2 billion in fuel a year? And you want to kick off a war for the sake of that? iraq has cost significantly more than that. The sabre rattling from the West IS going to cause another conflict, and it will cost a damn sight more than 1/2 billion. The trade war with Japan, and the US cost more than that. A little perspective would be sufficient. They are doing the same with iran, and NK, and if we were being 'threatened' would you not want to shore up your defenses?
Edited by Andy Mac on Thursday 5th October 15:14
Andy Mac said:
1/2 billion in fuel a year? And you want to kick off a war for the sake of that? iraq has cost significantly more than that. The sabre rattling from the West IS going to cause another conflict, and it will cost a damn sight more than 1/2 billion. The trade war with Japan, and the US cost more than that. A little perspective would be sufficient. They are doing the same with iran, and NK, and if we were being 'threatened' would you not want to shore up your defenses?
"If you pay the dane the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane".
I think you should examine what you are saying. We should pay an evil dictatorial regime 1/2 a billion to leave us alone and thus help prop up their regime.
I say no way. Don't attack North Korea by all means but don't pay tribute either. Leave Kim to rot in his hermit kingdom, pay him no aid and ensure he cannot make money from criminal activities.
In time his corrupt evil regime will collapse.
I don't think anyone can say with certainty what NK wants, they are, technically, still at war with SK and it's not unusual to see military exercises in downtown Seoul. The people of NK have been encouraged to believe SK want to attack them, as far as i can see Kim Jong Il wants is to be a world player which is why he keeps polishing his rockets
Jaglover said:
Andy Mac said:
1/2 billion in fuel a year? And you want to kick off a war for the sake of that? iraq has cost significantly more than that. The sabre rattling from the West IS going to cause another conflict, and it will cost a damn sight more than 1/2 billion. The trade war with Japan, and the US cost more than that. A little perspective would be sufficient. They are doing the same with iran, and NK, and if we were being 'threatened' would you not want to shore up your defenses?
"If you pay the dane the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane".
I think you should examine what you are saying. We should pay an evil dictatorial regime 1/2 a billion to leave us alone and thus help prop up their regime.
I say no way. Don't attack North Korea by all means but don't pay tribute either. Leave Kim to rot in his hermit kingdom, pay him no aid and ensure he cannot make money from criminal activities.
In time his corrupt evil regime will collapse.
I agree.. leave them alone. if they do something stupid, then by all means act. But with Afghanistan/Iraq we cannot afford another 'war' with anybody else, especially NK. Too many people postering, and it's all spiralling downhill.
Witchfinder said:
twit said:
Hmmm... What gives us the right to change regimes cos we don't like them?
Not because we don't like them, because they are dangerously unstable and agressive, and dangerous to our safety, freedom and way of life.
"Rather them than us" is what gives us the right.
So how the
are they dangerous to your safety, freedom and way of life in Manchester? Do you think Kim Jong II has aspirations to conquer the world?Andy Mac said:
Again we are at the old chestnut, we can have them, but others can't. The US, and Russia had the Cold war for many years, and were on the brink at one point, yet no-one says lets destroy them, or they are the enemy, and lets invade/sanction, etc. The hypocricy we have nowadays is unreal.
We can have them because we live in a democracy, and can hold our government accountable for their actions.
North Koreans can't.
Jaglover said:
I think you should examine what you are saying. We should pay an evil dictatorial regime 1/2 a billion to leave us alone and thus help prop up their regime.
I say no way. Don't attack North Korea by all means but don't pay tribute either. Leave Kim to rot in his hermit kingdom, pay him no aid and ensure he cannot make money from criminal activities.
In time his corrupt evil regime will collapse.
I say no way. Don't attack North Korea by all means but don't pay tribute either. Leave Kim to rot in his hermit kingdom, pay him no aid and ensure he cannot make money from criminal activities.
In time his corrupt evil regime will collapse.
I tend to agree. Some might try to argue that without the food aid his starving people will be even worse off...but I gather the food aid just goes towards feeding the armed forces anyway.
The only risk, I suppose, is that without the aid he actually becomes so desperate that he actually does attack...but as I mentioned earlier, I can't see where he is going to attack that will not guarantee his total annihilation. Perhaps a loss of food aid and the subsequent anger of a hungry military might provoke a coup? Or might he use his total control of information with Korea's borders to imply that the situation is all America/South Korea/Japan's fault, and get the army to move against them? Who knows.
It's not the ideal situation, is it?
Jaglover said:
"If you pay the dane the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane"
Nice quote, where's it from?
Oakey said:
Ahh from the same people who made the excellent Darwinia! I think I might buy that, on Steam I presume?
Parrot of Doom said:
Oakey said:
Ahh from the same people who made the excellent Darwinia! I think I might buy that, on Steam I presume?
Yep.
Oakey said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Oakey said:
Ahh from the same people who made the excellent Darwinia! I think I might buy that, on Steam I presume?
Yep.
I got that the other day. My first game I won by killing 56 million people in Asia & 'only' losing 48 million in the US. Haven't played a proper 6 way online one yet as I've got activation key issues, but it looks good.
Sound effects & soundtrack make it very atmospheric & scary!
big_treacle said:
Oakey said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Oakey said:
Ahh from the same people who made the excellent Darwinia! I think I might buy that, on Steam I presume?
Yep.
I got that the other day. My first game I won by killing 56 million people in Asia & 'only' losing 48 million in the US. Haven't played a proper 6 way online one yet as I've got activation key issues, but it looks good.
Sound effects & soundtrack make it very atmospheric & scary!
It's so so, you're right, it is atmospheric but it does tend to get a little boring after a while, and it's rather slow. I mean, there's only so many times you can nuke the world before you get bored. It's also not as easy as it looks, the computer opponents always seem to do things easier. Ie, destroying your nukes before they hit their targets, destroying subs (how the hell do you do that?), launching legions of planes onto you, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ko
"President George W. Bush insists that diplomacy is key but a military strike (or any thing else) cannot be ruled out. Days later, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il threatened a nuclear war if a preemptive strike is launched and warned that any sanctions against North Korea will be taken as a "declaration of war."
"President George W. Bush insists that diplomacy is key but a military strike (or any thing else) cannot be ruled out. Days later, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il threatened a nuclear war if a preemptive strike is launched and warned that any sanctions against North Korea will be taken as a "declaration of war."
Assuming that NK has long range missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead their first target would be Japan if attacked, this would cause tremendous global economic uncertainty. China would probably go to their aid very quickly as the last thing they want is a US base country installed right next to their borders, SK is bad enough but they live with that as reunification is still possible.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff