![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 166
![]() |
![]()
At least, we should according to Michael Savage.
I was listening to the Savage Nation last night, and he was pushing hard for the US to lob missiles into NK while the world is "distracted" with everything going on with Israel. At the same time, he wanted Israel to lob missiles into Iran to take out anything dealing with nuclear activity. Is he an idiot? In his words, he said that those actions would "fix everything." Where does he get that from? Here is what happens if we attack North Korea: 1. they will immediately invade S. Korea. 2. Our 30,000 troops stationed on the N. korea border will be caught in the middle of the fight; many of them will die. 3. There is NO WAY we can stop an advancing N. Korean army from reaching Seoul in a matter of days. We will then be in a protracted war with N. Korea to recover S. Korean territory and institute regime change. 4. Assuming we can beat the N. Koreans and remove Jong-Il, we will then find ourselves rebuilding two countries simultaneously (when we aren't exactly finding smashing success doing only one at a time). 5. We will have lost ALL credibility with foreign powers as well as the moral high ground on future issues. By the way, the above analysis doesn't even involve what would occur when (not if) N. Korea lobbed missiles into Japan. China would also be a huge wild card, as would Russia. If you think they would be willing to sit by and allow the US to build a pro-US regime in N.K you are insane. Would China attack Taiwan in the middle of the chaos? Would Russia and China funnel weapons to N. Korea? Would they engage in open hostilities against the US or S. Korea? Would the attack on Japan prompt a renewed Japanese effort to militarize? Seriously, this is the WORST idea I have heard on radio in who knows how long. I haven't even begun on what happens if Iran gets pulled into this conflict with Israel (which Savage thought should happen concurrently with a N.K. conflict). The world is a powder keg at the moment. We need astute diplomacy to keep someone from lighting the fateful match, not cowboy politics. Last edited by El Guapo; 07-15-2006 at 03:50 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
![]() |
![]()
I hope that North Korea never decides to invade. They have an army of over 1 million and we would be hopelessly out manned. In that scenario, I think we would have absolutely no choice but to unleash tactical nukes all along the DMZ because I see no way we would simply abandon South Korea.
I can't think of any other way to hold the North Koreans back.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
![]() |
![]() Quote:
The question is China. If China jumps in and backs North Korea, then it is going to be really nasty business. I am not in favor of a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Posts: 3,126
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Is that what Macarthur wanted to do?
__________________
Its all about the suit |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 166
![]() |
![]() Quote:
I would take issue with your "have no choice" language. We do have a choice- DON'T bomb North Korea. Because if that occurs, then we really are screwed and involved in another Asian war with no support at home (and even less support abroad). Imagine if we preemptively bombed N Korea and then dropped nukes to prevent their retaliation (with radiation floating into China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, and who knows where else- maybe even LA). We would deserve all the contempt directed towards us at that point. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Again, not the big bombs and not on poplations centers, but battle field tactical nukes on an invading military force. As an aside, I don't care particularly care what the world thinks because Russia and China a self interested to the point of being caricatures and no one in Europe has provided for its own security for generations. What I care about is keeping us safe. I'm not saying that what I forcast might happen will do that or even that I advocate it, just that I don't care what the rest of the hypocrital world thinks.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 166
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Sounds like you are a bit of an isolationist. I don't think nuclear weapons are a viable option. I agree we would be presented with a VERY difficult choice if N Korea tried to invade S Korea. But that is exactly why we shouldn't bomb N Korea- it forces us into making an impossible choice- allow S Korea to fall and fight to recapture it or nuke the border with all its horrible consequences. Isn't the answer to not bomb N Korea in the first place? As far as the rest of the world goes, I think we need to be careful about disregarding their opinions. We are part of a global community today. Our success is very much tied to theirs and vice versa. Too much contempt for the US throughout the world will only create serious problems for the US (reducing our safety and ability to act in our best interest). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Europe generally doesn't in its heart believe that any thing bad will happen and that there is nothing that can't be worked out through diplomacy; a false lesson that their experience with each other living under the artificial umbrella we provide has taught them. The problem is we ARE economically interdependent and we cannot ignore threats the way they do, one because we know better, and two because we can't afford to have them or anyone else learn the lessons of Munich a second time. Sooo..... the only way we appease the world is being lying down and becoming weaker, literally. That would make them happy. Is that what we really want or should we just ignore them since by and large they are never going to help us in any case? BTW, isolationism is staying home. That is not what I am advocating. I do think that we should go through international organizations when that is useful for us to do. Cynical you say? That is what every other county in the world does too. We live at a time in history where these nations maximize their power in this way. We almost invariably are weaker when we interact with these institutions. There is no higher principle here of international unity and compromise that every one adhears to but us. These things are simply tools that every nation uses selectively when it suits their purpose. We are no different nor should we be. No one else in the world does things counter to their interests and neither should we.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 07-16-2006 at 01:42 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Posts: 3,126
![]() |
![]() Quote:
__________________
Its all about the suit |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
![]() |
![]() Quote:
It should not be our responsibility to ensure peace throughout the world? Screw the rest of the world. If they kill each other off, so be it.
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|