Its time for North Korean regime change.

[columbus]

If they used nukes on South Korea, they wouldn't be able to invade, and the nuclear winter would most likely harm the north as well. How could they use nuclear weapons on their neighboring nation?

The thing about nukes is that you don't have to explode them to use them.
Lots of conventional military options are neutralized simply by a credible threat of the nuclear response. It's just part of the calculus of military and diplomatic strategy.

Tom

 

[leibowde84]

The thing about nukes is that you don't have to explode them to use them.
Lots of conventional military options are neutralized simply by a credible threat of the nuclear response. It's just part of the calculus of military and diplomatic strategy.

Tom

Obviously, that is what they have been doing for decades. But, I was responding to the claim that they would use nuclear weapons on the south.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our toppling of Saddam Hussein, who clearly had the weakest military on the "Axis of Evil" hitlist from Bush. We ignored NK, after they made it known that they had a nuke program. And we're still attacking Iran.
Of course the NK regime wants credible nuclear weaponry. I would if I were them.
Tom

We tried attacking NK once before.
It turned out poorly.
Some differences......
- The mid-east is more accessible for non-nuclear attack than Asia.
- The mid-east calls to us because of Israel's wants.
- The PRC (NK's ally) is far stronger than back when we first attacked NK.
- Our regime change failures in the mid-east are very recent history, & would drive policy.
- NK really doesn't matter to us, so it's ironic that it's nuclear weapons ambitions are the very cause of NK's need for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

If they used nukes on South Korea, they wouldn't be able to invade, and the nuclear winter would most likely harm the north as well. How could they use nuclear weapons on their neighboring nation?

Nuclear winter is a global phenomenon...not something
precipitated by nuking one small country.
Or do you envision global nuclear war resulting?

 

[Revoltingest]

Saddam and Gadaffi. If they really had nuclear weapons and threatened to use them if threatened, they would probably still be in power.

That is speculation, not evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

That is speculation, not evidence.

Not to Kim Jung Un. To him, it is clear evidence that he has to keep his nukes in order to perserve power.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to Kim Jung Un. To him, it is clear evidence that he has to keep his nukes in order to perserve power.

You speculated that if some countries had nukes, we wouldn't have attacked.
Notice the "if"....it denotes speculation.
It just isn't "evidence".
KJU likely believes as you say, but based upon reasoning.

 

[esmith]

If they used nukes on South Korea, they wouldn't be able to invade, and the nuclear winter would most likely harm the north as well. How could they use nuclear weapons on their neighboring nation?

You misunderstood I do believe. NK would not put forward the use of nukes on South Korea but would put forth the idea that if they invaded South Korea that anyone opposing that action would be subject to nuclear retaliation. Remember Kim has at least 50 years that he will be in power. All he has to do is wait for a US President that would knuckle under to his threat.

 

[leibowde84]

You speculated that if some countries had nukes, we wouldn't have attacked.
Notice the "if"....it denotes speculation.
It just isn't "evidence".
KJU likely believes as you say, but based upon reasoning.

You used the word "if", not me. To Kim Jong Un, he will not be able to retain power without nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

And, I'm not the only one who thinks so:
For Kim Jong Un, nuclear weapons are a security blanket. And he wants to keep it.
Why Kim Jong Un Needs Nuclear Weapons

 

[leibowde84]

You misunderstood I do believe. NK would not put forward the use of nukes on South Korea but would put forth the idea that if they invaded South Korea that anyone opposing that action would be subject to nuclear retaliation. Remember Kim has at least 50 years that he will be in power. All he has to do is wait for a US President that would knuckle under to his threat.

But, South Korea would be able to hold off an invasion with the troops that are available to them. So, his plan wouldn't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

You used the word "if", not me. To Kim Jong Un, he will not be able to retain power without nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

And, I'm not the only one who thinks so:
For Kim Jong Un, nuclear weapons are a security blanket. And he wants to keep it.
Why Kim Jong Un Needs Nuclear Weapons

I agree with your assessment of KJU's motives.
I only objected to your 'evidence'.

We're both pretty good at wringing contentious argument out fundamental agreement, eh.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree with your assessment of KJU's motives.
I only objected to your 'evidence'.

We're both pretty good at wringing contentious argument out fundamental agreement, eh.

I agree. It isn't valid evidence. It's just what KJU sees as evidence and sufficient reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. It isn't valid evidence. It's just what KJU sees as evidence and sufficient reasoning.

Close enuf for detente!
I'm recalling the missiles.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nuclear winter is a global phenomenon...not something
precipitated by nuking one small country.
Or do you envision global nuclear war resulting?

As a side note, we would have global cooling.

 

[BSM1]

The thing about nukes is that you don't have to explode them to use them.
Lots of conventional military options are neutralized simply by a credible threat of the nuclear response. It's just part of the calculus of military and diplomatic strategy.

Tom

Well, duh, maybe this is Trump's thinking as well when he let's KJU know in no uncertain terms what his fate will be if Kim drops the hammer.

 

[columbus]

Well, duh, maybe this is Trump's thinking as well when he let's KJU know in no uncertain terms what his fate will be if Kim drops the hammer.

The whole problem here is that Kim is also letting everyone know what will happen if anybody drops the hammer on him.
"Regime change" could result in nuking Seoul or Japan, if Kim has nothing more to lose. And if NK is even more belligerent in some way, conventional options are more limited.

What do you think Hitler would have done in that bunker before he pulled the trigger if he had had nukes?
Tom

 

[esmith]

We tried attacking NK once before.
It turned out poorly.
Some differences......
- The mid-east is more accessible for non-nuclear attack than Asia.
- The mid-east calls to us because of Israel's wants.
- The PRC (NK's ally) is far stronger than back when we first attacked NK.
- Our regime change failures in the mid-east are very recent history, & would drive policy.
- NK really doesn't matter to us, so it's ironic that it's nuclear weapons ambitions are the very cause of NK's need for them.

Rev not sure if I understand exactly what you are putting forth in the above.
If you consider our actions during the Korean war as attacking North Korea I would say that it is somewhat inaccurate. First North Korea attacked South Korea as you are well aware. In the process of defending South Korea against this attack Gen MacArthur did pursue the North Korean Army across the 38th parallel hence into North Korea and up to the Yalu River. Myself I would not consider this as attacking North Korea, just to be technical/trivial

 

[BSM1]

The whole problem here is that Kim is also letting everyone know what will happen if anybody drops the hammer on him.
"Regime change" could result in nuking Seoul or Japan, if Kim has nothing more to lose. And if NK is even more belligerent in some way, conventional options are more limited.

What do you think Hitler would have done in that bunker before he pulled the trigger if he had had nukes?
Tom

But no one was threatening NK before this blatant chest thumping began.

You second statement, however, is more thought provoking. I believe that Hitler's command base was so beaten by this time that I don't think anyone would have obeyed his destructive order. But this is just my opinion.

 

[columbus]

But no one was threatening NK before this blatant chest thumping began.

President George Walker Bush put North Korea on the "Axis of Evil", and started attacking and invading the other two .
The two that got attacked had no nukes. Kim's father did have nukes and he died peacefully in bed, passing his power on to his son.
Those are basic historical facts.

Bush started this, not Kim.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Rev not sure if I understand exactly what you are putting forth in the above.
If you consider our actions during the Korean war as attacking North Korea I would say that it is somewhat inaccurate. First North Korea attacked South Korea as you are well aware. In the process of defending South Korea against this attack Gen MacArthur did pursue the North Korean Army across the 38th parallel hence into North Korea and up to the Yalu River. Myself I would not consider this as attacking North Korea, just to be technical/trivial

My post wasn't about who attacked first. (Each side mounted attacks.)
It's about history which would influence NK's perception of things.