Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The risks of a pre-emptive U.S. military strike on North Korea range from "Aw hell no" to "Holy Jesus H. bald-headed Christ"   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Scary, World War II, South Korea, North Korea, Korean War, Pyongyang, Cold War, Kim Il-sung, Korean language  
•       •       •

14161 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2017 at 6:49 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-19 03:21:16 AM  
Well, if you were to make such a decision to invade, the first important thing is to take out their nuclear weapons

You might get all. You might not. If you dont get them all, all hells gonna break loose.

Is that really a risk that is acceptable?

Personally, I dont think the situation has deteriorated to that point, yet. As much of an asshole Kim is, invading NK will trigger a defensive war by China. So in order to have any sort of success, the Chinese has to give Kim up, which they are not at that point.
 
2017-03-19 03:39:10 AM  
Donnie is determined to start a war somewhere.  Being the strutting tough guy is the only way to cure his impotency.

www.drugwatch.com
 
2017-03-19 03:47:36 AM  
In other words: "Find me a damn war, a new one. One that I can win and one that will be mine."
 
2017-03-19 05:43:43 AM  
Two leaders with questionable mental health status, sabre rattling surrounded by sycophants that give bad advice, both with nuclear capability. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2017-03-19 06:03:36 AM  

cman: Well, if you were to make such a decision to invade, the first important thing is to take out their nuclear weapons


And their chemical and biological weapons too. Otherwise Seoul is hosed and maybe they'll lash out at Japan too. Hopefully missile defence systems would be up to the task, but there is a reason why we're two and a half minutes to midnight.
 
2017-03-19 06:36:36 AM  
What's the endgame? Can Trump Tower Pyongyang really be worth it?
 
2017-03-19 07:03:33 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: What's the endgame? Can Trump Tower Pyongyang really be worth it?


If it gets Drumpf's name in 100 foot high letters on the side of it? Yes, it can. Unfortunately. He couldn't give a flying f#ck about America. It's whether HE comes out ahead.
 
2017-03-19 07:03:36 AM  
Tell me how Clinton was going to be just as bad again.

Go on.
 
2017-03-19 07:07:29 AM  
img.fark.net
approves
 
2017-03-19 07:07:44 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: What's the endgame? Can Trump Tower Pyongyang really be worth it?


Ryugyong Hotel -  It's primed for Trumpification...
 
2017-03-19 07:12:19 AM  

cman: Well, if you were to make such a decision to invade, the first important thing is to take out their nuclear weapons

You might get all. You might not. If you dont get them all, all hells gonna break loose.

Is that really a risk that is acceptable?

Personally, I dont think the situation has deteriorated to that point, yet. As much of an asshole Kim is, invading NK will trigger a defensive war by China. So in order to have any sort of success, the Chinese has to give Kim up, which they are not at that point.


The best plan would probably be to let China take care of it on their own terms. They don't want escalation any more than we do. War between the US and China would be economicically devastating to pretty much the entire planet.

Even if China steps aside and lets the US do the dirty work, NK could cause huge economic damage to the whole region. People dying is one thing, but countries losing massive amounts of money (and power) is quite the deterrent.
 
2017-03-19 07:16:46 AM  
Wouldn't you want the Best Korean army to unionize and go on strike?
 
2017-03-19 07:19:06 AM  

thisispete: cman: Well, if you were to make such a decision to invade, the first important thing is to take out their nuclear weapons

And their chemical and biological weapons too. Otherwise Seoul is hosed and maybe they'll lash out at Japan too. Hopefully missile defence systems would be up to the task, but there is a reason why we're two and a half minutes to midnight.


So much this. The moment anyone attacks North Korea the nukes, gas and bugs are going to be fired in any direction he can, maybe even China. Can you imagine the Chinese reaction if their citizens get killed by the reaction to a US strike.

Any strike against against China's pet madman will need the tacit approval of China to stop it being a geopolitical shiatstorm that will make the fallout from Gulf War 2 seem like raised eyebrows over a cup of tea.
 
2017-03-19 07:19:42 AM  
image.spreadshirtmedia.com
 
2017-03-19 07:19:46 AM  

Snapper Carr: Tell me how Clinton was going to be just as bad again.

Go on.


Well see there were these leaked emails, Benghazi (they made a movie about it), her likeability factor and Huma's Weiner.

/Okay, you got me
 
2017-03-19 07:22:24 AM  
Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.
 
2017-03-19 07:24:40 AM  
We should have nuked Pyongyang back in the 90's ... looks like we can finally get that long overdue job done.
 
2017-03-19 07:25:35 AM  
So, Best dictator gets to lob a nuke at us, so what?  At best, he gets a decisive hit on the Pacific Ocean again.  At worst, he manages to hit California.  Well, we can always get our avocados and almonds from somewhere else, right?  Right.  Let's do this.

I really do need to stop channeling my inner madman, er Trump, and get back on my meds.  BRB
 
2017-03-19 07:28:06 AM  

SomeAmerican: Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.


That's the problem with a war with China.  There is no winning.  Just different degrees of losing.
 
2017-03-19 07:36:38 AM  
An attack on NK would lead to millions of refugee streaming across their borders, and taking to the sea in barely floating vessels.
It would make the Syrian exodus look like people going to the Jersey shore for a weekend.
China would retaliate with trade sanctions, Japan would probably refuse to let us use our bases, perhaps shutter them.
Who know what would happen with South Korea.
What f***ing morons are whispering in our leader's syphilis ridden mind?
 
2017-03-19 07:37:15 AM  

SomeAmerican: Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.


The cost of winning a war with China? Do you not have a clue?
 
2017-03-19 07:46:15 AM  
Kim Jong-Un will eventually cross a bridge too far or the muppet-in-chief will need another useful distraction and BOOM - glass parking lot on the Korean peninsula.

/Some men you just can't reach...
 
2017-03-19 07:49:19 AM  
girltalkhq.com
 
2017-03-19 07:53:22 AM  
#3 is the worst option, so the Drumpfinator in chief will choose that option... it also happens to be option "C", so, this being Fark and all, we know for a fact that it is the correct answer.
 
2017-03-19 08:01:57 AM  

SomeAmerican: Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.


Or, we start something that will be costly to China and once they invade from the north to counter our actions (whatever they may be) from the south, we immediately stop and turn tail leaving china to deal with it.

We start auctioning off an item that China will always have to outbid us on and we drive up the price and walk away. It's part of the dealing with people, companies, and countries. Do not let your competition buy something for $500,000 when you can make them pay $5 Billion.
 
2017-03-19 08:02:13 AM  
If I had to guess..The US and South Korea would secure, by all means necessary, any
Nuclear and chemical weapons they could using SEALS,Delta Force,Special Forces, Marine Recon,etc..
If we knew we had to do something pre-emptive, those folks would go in first and try to find as much
as possible and either destroy it,sabotage it, mark it for first strike, or steal it.  If Kim so much as
opens the storage depot,or looks like he's fueling rockets without signaling he's going to test
something, I think it would be on. So far, he sends out tell-tales that he's just, "testing", before he
does something. Either directly or back channel.

We wouldn't go to war with China..I doubt China would waste any resources at all defending North Korea.
They would sit back and wait. After the dust settles, they would want us out of North Korea.
And I'm sure we could just settle our military forces right back across the DMZ and "Let the Korean people
sort it out" meanwhile the whole world is going to have to help North Korea. It's going to HAVE to be a UN
issue. It might even be a case that the U.N. basically runs the former North Korea as a neutral territory
for a while. The DMZ is UN negotiated position. It could end up being similar to Kosovo or Golan Heights
or something along those lines.Which seems to work.

China doesn't want to fight, and definitely not on their own doorstep.Having Kim use
nuclear weapons or chemical weapons downwind of Chinese territory would be really,really,really bad.
NO ONE wants that. Especially the country that was supposed to be the major influence on them.
They would look terribly stupid, not only loosing control of Kim, but then getting the downwind
effects from Kim's weapons that they let him develop under their, "umbrella".
 
2017-03-19 08:07:25 AM  
"It's a bad strategic idea, but you can understand why military planners would gravitate toward it," Mr. Lewis said, calling the plans "the best of a bad lot."

And there's the real problem.  At some point, either Lil' Kimmie is going to think he HAS to launch, or we're going to think he's about to.  God alone knows what we (or the rest of the world) could have done in the past to keep it from getting this far - Best Korea has broken every agreement it's ever signed - and it's distinctly possible at this point even the Chinese are scared of him.

IMHO - YMMV - the last hope there might be at this point is to quietly sit down with the Chinese and tell them that if they can arrange for a change at the top (which will also hand over every last damned WMD warhead and the gear to make them) we will help set up a neutral, non-nuclear Korean Republic.
 
2017-03-19 08:12:00 AM  
Yes, by all means, lets re-start the Korean war. We're not in enough of them already.
 
2017-03-19 08:19:34 AM  

Snapper Carr: Tell me how Clinton was going to be just as bad again.


Yeah, her saber rattling against Russia was so much better.

SomeAmerican: Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.


China cares less about American troops on its borders than it does about millions of NK refugees crossing into China. South Korea is worried about the same. Neither are equipped to deal with that. This would be an order of magnitude worse than the Syrian refugee crisis. Besides, a Korean reunification would probably see the American military withdraw from the peninsula anyway.

Further, nobody really knows to what extent the North Koreans are brainwashed to fight to the death for Dear Leader™. Or will they give that shiat up for a steady meal and the chance to be free?
 
2017-03-19 08:25:22 AM  
I wonder how many nuclear weapons North Korea has? The general answer seems to be "very few, perhaps just a couple, and they are big, heavy and unreliable". One of them going off somewhere is one too many, of course, but they seem to be some way away from turning the whole of Japan into glass.
 
2017-03-19 08:26:42 AM  

SomeAmerican: Interesting article, but it underestimates the risk.  The elephant in the room is China - would China go to war on the Korean peninsula to keep American troops off its borders?

In the 50's, the answer to that was yes.  If the answer is still yes and we find ourselves in a land war with China, the cost of winning that war is likely far, far higher than we are willing to pay.


China had nothing to lose in 1950.

Today they do.
 
2017-03-19 08:31:44 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: If I had to guess..The US and South Korea would secure, by all means necessary, any
Nuclear and chemical weapons they could using SEALS,Delta Force,Special Forces, Marine Recon,etc..
If we knew we had to do something pre-emptive, those folks would go in first and try to find as much
as possible and either destroy it,sabotage it, mark it for first strike, or steal it.  If Kim so much as
opens the storage depot,or looks like he's fueling rockets without signaling he's going to test
something, I think it would be on. So far, he sends out tell-tales that he's just, "testing", before he
does something. Either directly or back channel.

We wouldn't go to war with China..I doubt China would waste any resources at all defending North Korea.
They would sit back and wait. After the dust settles, they would want us out of North Korea.
And I'm sure we could just settle our military forces right back across the DMZ and "Let the Korean people
sort it out" meanwhile the whole world is going to have to help North Korea. It's going to HAVE to be a UN
issue. It might even be a case that the U.N. basically runs the former North Korea as a neutral territory
for a while. The DMZ is UN negotiated position.
It could end up being similar to Kosovo or Golan Heights
or something along those lines.Which seems to work.

China doesn't want to fight, and definitely not on their own doorstep.Having Kim use
nuclear weapons or chemical weapons downwind of Chinese territory would be really,really,really bad.
NO ONE wants that. Especially the country that was supposed to be the major influence on them.
They would look terribly stupid, not only loosing control of Kim, but then getting the downwind
effects from Kim's weapons that they let him develop under their, "umbrella".


And the Trump Administration is getting along so very, very, very well with the UN these days.
 
2017-03-19 08:33:43 AM  
NK is slowly getting closer to the point where they may have thermonuclear weapons that can reach the US. They are a risk to everyone.

They won't stop by themselves, because for Kim that's the completion of his grandfather's legacy - a NK that is owned by him, untouchable and too dangerous to be left to starve.

The question is what to do in the meantime, and it is similar to Israel facing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Israel solved it by bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor and destroying Iran's enrichment effort.

Getting China's (and Russia's) quiet approval to clean out the nuclear weapon facilities of NK isn't impossible, and isn't in itself a bad goal if NK keep stalling and playing for time.
 
2017-03-19 08:34:21 AM  
FTFA: "That officials would even raise a pre-emptive attack shows the growing severity of the crisis ..."

Yup. Utterly insane morons leading both countries is a crisis indeed.
 
2017-03-19 08:36:36 AM  

Bucky Katt: Donnie is determined to start a war somewhere.  Being the strutting tough guy is the only way to cure his impotency.

[www.drugwatch.com image 800x552]


I still think it's damn funny Trump voters voted for a draft dodger.
 
2017-03-19 08:36:47 AM  
Nah, it'll never happen. Stuff like this is onloy a possibility if the leader of the opposing nuclear power is the kind of ignorant despot who arrogantly believe that the mere mention of their country's name is enough to strike fear into the enemie's...

How's your bunker holding up?
 
2017-03-19 08:37:25 AM  

orbister: I wonder how many nuclear weapons North Korea has? The general answer seems to be "very few, perhaps just a couple, and they are big, heavy and unreliable". One of them going off somewhere is one too many, of course, but they seem to be some way away from turning the whole of Japan into glass.


NK still has enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to demolish it.
 
2017-03-19 08:40:20 AM  

Gary-L: Bucky Katt: Donnie is determined to start a war somewhere.  Being the strutting tough guy is the only way to cure his impotency.

[www.drugwatch.com image 800x552]

I still think it's damn funny Trump voters voted for a draft dodger.


Trump voters voted for a draft dodger an incompressible jizz-trumpet.

ftfm
 
2017-03-19 08:40:26 AM  

KrispykremeMcDonalds: We should have nuked Pyongyang back in the 90's ... looks like we can finally get that long overdue job done.


You're only saying that because you miss M.A.S.H.
 
2017-03-19 08:45:22 AM  
armchair generals should be the first to enlist their kids
be the first one on the block
to have your kid come home in a trump brand box!
 
2017-03-19 08:45:59 AM  
Kudos to Obama for successfully passing this buck. Bullshiat "agreements" and strongly worded letters let North Korea and Iran build better weapons and become the next guy's problem.

But, please, continue to insult Trump and make yourself feel better.
 
2017-03-19 08:48:33 AM  

RickN99: Kudos to Obama for successfully passing this buck. Bullshiat "agreements" and strongly worded letters let North Korea and Iran build better weapons and become the next guy's problem.

But, please, continue to insult Trump and make yourself feel better.


He made the mistake of thinking he was dealing with adults who would act in good faith.

Wait a second, are we talking about Korea or the Republican Congress?
 
2017-03-19 08:51:38 AM  

Plant Rights Activist: orbister: I wonder how many nuclear weapons North Korea has? The general answer seems to be "very few, perhaps just a couple, and they are big, heavy and unreliable". One of them going off somewhere is one too many, of course, but they seem to be some way away from turning the whole of Japan into glass.

NK still has enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to demolish it.


They wouldn't get off more than one or few volleys before the US and South Koreans obliterate their
firing positions. The problem with artillery the size they need to do real damage is that it's BIG and
its pretty much fixed. And I would guess we know where 99% of it is and where the shells are stored.
Here is a good article explaining just this scenario, with some numbers..

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seo​u​l/
 
2017-03-19 08:53:51 AM  

thisispete: cman: Well, if you were to make such a decision to invade, the first important thing is to take out their nuclear weapons

And their chemical and biological weapons too. Otherwise Seoul is hosed and maybe they'll lash out at Japan too. Hopefully missile defence systems would be up to the task, but there is a reason why we're two and a half minutes to midnight.


Yeah, Seoul would be hosed, if only by conventional artillery. There is no way to stop an artillery response to a US attack.
 
2017-03-19 09:00:42 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: Plant Rights Activist: orbister: I wonder how many nuclear weapons North Korea has? The general answer seems to be "very few, perhaps just a couple, and they are big, heavy and unreliable". One of them going off somewhere is one too many, of course, but they seem to be some way away from turning the whole of Japan into glass.

NK still has enough conventional artillery aimed at Seoul to demolish it.

They wouldn't get off more than one or few volleys before the US and South Koreans obliterate their
firing positions. The problem with artillery the size they need to do real damage is that it's BIG and
its pretty much fixed. And I would guess we know where 99% of it is and where the shells are stored.
Here is a good article explaining just this scenario, with some numbers..

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/03/11/why-north-korea-cant-flatten-seou​l/


Its a little easy to dismiss 2700 artillery hits per minute when its someone else's city.
That article also assumes that only conventional artillery would be used.
North Korea is suspected to have the third largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world.
 
2017-03-19 09:07:45 AM  
North Korea wasn't beatable 60 years ago and it's not beatable now. Only a fool would ignore this fact.

Fortunately, we have just such a fool handy and he's willing to sacrifice as much as needed to prove himself one,
 
2017-03-19 09:13:44 AM  

RickN99: Kudos to Obama for successfully passing this buck. Bullshiat "agreements" and strongly worded letters let North Korea and Iran build better weapons and become the next guy's problem.

But, please, continue to insult Trump and make yourself feel better.


Not willing to consider the Iran deal as an action?  It didn't involve dead children so I'm guessing your answer is "no."
 
2017-03-19 09:13:51 AM  
Don't worry, this war will pay for itself once we get control of their rice crop reserves.
 
2017-03-19 09:15:24 AM  

RickN99: Kudos to Obama for successfully passing this buck. Bullshiat "agreements" and strongly worded letters let North Korea and Iran build better weapons and become the next guy's problem.

But, please, continue to insult Trump and make yourself feel better.


But...Bill Clinton told us his deal with them would keep the Norks from getting nukes.
 
2017-03-19 09:17:21 AM  
Send in Mr. Bean. He will fark up North Korea hilariously.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report