What do we do with North Korea?

[Aldebaran]

Sorry if you missed the analogy. Allow me to help you by pointing out that while I see a lot of words flying between NK and the US, I don't see a lot of fists flying between them -- "fists," of course, being analogous for missiles in this particular context.

You seem Alde, while open war may very well be inevitable, neither side want to be seen as the aggressor.

Not to mention that it would be a world-changer, no matter who fired first. I don't think either side wants to be seen as throwing the first punch in this case. So I don't mind if it's just words flying back and forth. However, NK has been flexing their muscles with the missile flights and nuclear detonations, and they seem to be trying to push the boundaries of what it will take to get us to fire our first shots at them. First it was the missile tests into space, then toward Japan, then over Japan. Then it was an H-bomb detonated underground, now it's the threat of a detonation over the ocean. One of the things they do will be the one that triggers a response. I just hope they realize that a response will eventually happen if they keep pushing it. Perhaps they don't believe we'd respond if they detonated one over the Pacific since we haven't responded to anything else. That would be tragic.

 

[Aldebaran]

The point you don't see is that the US has firmly convinced both Iran and North Korea of an intention to destroy their governments--a decision already made to be executed at a future moment chosen at the discretion of the US. They are utterly convinced of that.

Even if that were the case, they could simply develop a nuclear program, then simply let it be known they have it in order to discourage an invasion. Not much different from the common understanding here in America that it's not a good idea to commit a home invasion of your neighbor's house because half of all households are known to be armed. It's not necessary for a homeowner to wave his guns and fire them outside his house every day and scream threats at his neighbors in order to keep them from invading his home. All that would do is invite trouble. That's pretty much what NK is doing.

 

[RDKirk]

Even if that were the case, they could simply develop a nuclear program, then simply let it be known they have it in order to discourage an invasion. Not much different from the common understanding here in America that it's not a good idea to commit a home invasion of your neighbor's house because half of all households are known to be armed. It's not necessary for a homeowner to wave his guns and fire them outside his house every day and scream threats at his neighbors in order to keep them from invading his home. All that would do is invite trouble. That's pretty much what NK is doing.

First, the US has made it clear that the US will attack the DPRK to prevent it from developing nuclear capability. That's been stated over and over again. But at the same time, the US has told the DPRK that it intends to attack anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

First, the US has made it clear that the US will attack the DPRK to prevent it from developing nuclear capability. That's been stated over and over again. But at the same time, the US has told the DPRK that it intends to attack anyway.

Well, we didn't attack them to prevent them from developing them, and we haven't attacked them afterwards either. Maybe this has caused them to no longer believe we'd attack them even if they went even further. It's almost as if not attacking them has sent them the wrong message.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not to mention that it would be a world-changer, no matter who fired first. I don't think either side wants to be seen as throwing the first punch in this case. So I don't mind if it's just words flying back and forth.

Normally, I wouldn't either -- No sane human being wants any part of a nuclear war, let alone the infamy of being the one who started it.

However, that's why this kind of saber-rattling has me concerned. Donald may be many things (and you already know I'm not shy about calling him any of them), but at the very least, he's not a lunatic.
Kim Jong Un... I'm only mostly sure that's the case.

However, NK has been flexing their muscles with the missile flights and nuclear detonations, and they seem to be trying to push the boundaries of what it will take to get us to fire our first shots at them. First it was the missile tests into space, then toward Japan, then over Japan. Then it was an H-bomb detonated underground, now it's the threat of a detonation over the ocean. One of the things they do will be the one that triggers a response. I just hope they realize that a response will eventually happen if they keep pushing it. Perhaps they don't believe we'd respond if they detonated one over the Pacific since we haven't responded to anything else. That would be tragic.

Testing nukes in the Pacific is hardly anything new... at least eight nations have already done so... the difference, of course, is that those nations did so in territory that they controlled... NK would be stepping into serious international trouble if they violated that particular protocol.

 

[Aldebaran]

Normally, I wouldn't either -- No sane human being wants any part of a nuclear war, let alone the infamy of being the one who started it.

However, that's why this kind of saber-rattling has me concerned. Donald may be many things (and you already know I'm not shy about calling him any of them), but at the very least, he's not a lunatic.
Kim Jong Un... I'm only mostly sure that's the case.

Then it seems that the real question is: How do you negotiate with a lunatic to stop him from doing what he intends to do? I think one real hope is that there are enough sane people around him that he listens to.

Testing nukes in the Pacific is hardly anything new... at least eight nations have already done so... the difference, of course, is that those nations did so in territory that they controlled... NK would be stepping into serious international trouble if they violated that particular protocol.

Especially if anyone on ships at sea were to lose their lives (or even just their eyes because they were facing the wrong direction at the time).
I'm no expert on this, but weren't tests that were done in the Pacific in the past actually done under the water as opposed to over it for the same reasons NK and other countries have been detonating them underground?

 

[RDKirk]

Well, we didn't attack them to prevent them from developing them, and we haven't attacked them afterwards either. Maybe this has caused them to no longer believe we'd attack them even if they went even further. It's almost as if not attacking them has sent them the wrong message.

What do you mean by "even if they went even further?"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then it seems that the real question is: How do you negotiate with a lunatic to stop him from doing what he intends to do? I think one real hope is that there are enough sane people around him that he listens to.

One can only hope. There's no right way to deal with a lunatic, but many wrong ones... goading him seems high on the "wrong way," list, IMO.

Especially if anyone on ships at sea were to lose their lives (or even just their eyes because they were facing the wrong direction at the time).
I'm no expert on this, but weren't tests that were done in the Pacific in the past actually done under the water as opposed to over it for the same reasons NK and other countries have been detonating them underground?

Some, but not all.

The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association

Since the first nuclear test explosion on July 16, 1945, at least eight nations have detonated 2,056 nuclear test explosions at dozens of test sites from Lop Nor in China, to the atolls of the Pacific, to Nevada, to Algeria where France conducted its first nuclear device, to western Australia where the U.K. exploded nuclear weapons, the South Atlantic, to Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, across Russia, and elsewhere.

Most of the test sites are in the lands of indigenous peoples and far from the capitals of the testing governments. A large number of the early tests—528—were detonated in the atmosphere, which spread radioactive materials through the atmosphere. Many underground nuclear blasts have also vented radioactive material into the atmosphere and left radioactive contamination in the soil.

 

[Aldebaran]

What do you mean by "even if they went even further?"

Even further than simply developing nukes. Such as increasing their yield, developing ICBMs when previously they could barely even get short or medium range missiles off the ground.

 

[RDKirk]

T
I'm no expert on this, but weren't tests that were done in the Pacific in the past actually done under the water as opposed to over it for the same reasons NK and other countries have been detonating them underground?

"Starfish Prime" was US nuclear weapons testing done in space in 1962. Here is what one test looked like from Honolulu:

 

[RDKirk]

Even further than simply developing nukes. Such as increasing their yield, developing ICBMs when previously they could barely even get short or medium range missiles off the ground.

So you're saying they can have nukes as long as they can't use them in any way that would deter the US from attacking them...as the US threatens to do anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

One can only hope. There's no right way to deal with a lunatic, but many wrong ones... goading him seems high on the "wrong way," list, IMO.



Some, but not all.

The Nuclear Testing Tally | Arms Control Association

It's a wonder that the Earth isn't completely radiated by now after all that.
One thing not shown in your link is the yields of the explosions. If they were mostly smaller ones, it wouldn't be quite as bad, if done in a controlled way. An H-bomb detonated in a haphazard way could do some real damage.

 

[Aldebaran]

"Starfish Prime" was US nuclear weapons testing done in space in 1962. Here is what one test looked like from Honolulu:

Could people have lost their eyesight if they weren't told ahead of time to not look at it? If I saw something like that unexpectedly one night, I know I'd be looking.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's a wonder that the Earth isn't completely radiated by now after all that.
One thing not shown in your link is the yields of the explosions. If they were mostly smaller ones, it wouldn't be quite as bad, if done in a controlled way. An H-bomb detonated in a haphazard way could do some real damage.

Agreed -- we can only hope the NK scientists know what they're doing. (an odd thing to hope for, I grant you...)

 

[Aldebaran]

So you're saying they can have nukes as long as they can't use them in any way that would deter the US from attacking them...as the US threatens to do anyway.

Well, there are plenty of other countries that have them and aren't threatening anyone with them. But simply having them is a deterrent that keeps the US from attacking them. We have them, and it's a deterrent against anyone else who would want to attack us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, there are plenty of other countries that have them and aren't threatening anyone with them. But simply having them is a deterrent that keeps the US from attacking them. We have them, and it's a deterrent against anyone else who would want to attack us.

Perhaps that's Kim Jong Un's problem -- he's so insecure, he doesn't think simply having them is enough of a deterrent. He flexes to make the world think he means business.

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps that's Kim Jong Un's problem -- he's so insecure, he doesn't think simply having them is enough of a deterrent. He flexes to make the world think he means business.

Yep, and that can be the real problem. Just as gun owners who own semi-auto rifles and other "scary" guns aren't a problem unless they go around threatening their neighbors to show them he means business. Not doing so doesn't make them less of a deterrent to thwart break-ins. That's when they may end up being used. Same goes for nukes.

 

[Neostarwcc]

I say we nuke them. The harder the better. I mean, they only want to nuke us so what's the difference? Someone's gotta launch the first nuke.

 

[Aldebaran]

I say we nuke them. The harder the better. I mean, they only want to nuke us so what's the difference? Someone's gotta launch the first nuke.

Doing so first would probably get us into a war with China or Russia. Maybe both.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Which is why we haven't just nuked them. We definitely do not want to get into a nuclear war with China or Russia. I mean, we could have ended the war on terror in 15 minutes instead of the what? 12-15 years we've been at war now? I was just saying, that nuclear war with NK is probably the best option to dealing with them. They're only going to become more and more of a threat as they continue to make nuclear weapons and ignore all UN warnings. But, that would start WWIII so.. I don't know.