Korea

[Don]

You can assume what ever you want. You back up your claims as to how to handle the Korean problem with 20 years in the military service. I hardly see how that is an asset.

Who better to know the horrors of war, than those that have endured it?

When I ask for your background, here's why: If you've been military, then you've had the opportunity to think about these situations, study them, and/or actually experience them yourself. If you've had some civilian job that required you to think about, study, and/or experience these situations, then your opinion is based on knowledge that I may not have. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of government personnel whose only job is to analyze data regarding Korea, China, and the rest of Asia. They've never been in the military; but I bow to their opinion because of their knowledge.

It is possible that if you have information, other than a simple "here's the way things have been for 60 years," that you can change my mind. Seriously. As I mentioned before, I'm intellectually flexible enough, when presented with new/additional information, to admit when I've made a decision based on inaccurate, incomplete, or faulty information.

If you're simply an armchair quarterback, your opinion still has merit if it's based on facts. While you cite past history, you haven't cited any understanding of the politics, social implications, and possibilities of human error (mainly based on fear) that also apply to this situation.

Here's where your opinion fails: The mass slaughter of civilians should never be an option. The condemnation of an entire people--in this case, North Koreans--is akin to saying all Baptists are homophobic anti-government bigots, because Fred Phelps has claimed he's a Baptist.

I'm not ready to kill North Korean children. If that makes me less of a person in your eyes, so be it.

 

[freeatlast]

Who better to know the horrors of war, than those that have endured it?

When I ask for your background, here's why: If you've been military, then you've had the opportunity to think about these situations, study them, and/or actually experience them yourself. If you've had some civilian job that required you to think about, study, and/or experience these situations, then your opinion is based on knowledge that I may not have. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of government personnel whose only job is to analyze data regarding Korea, China, and the rest of Asia. They've never been in the military; but I bow to their opinion because of their knowledge.

It is possible that if you have information, other than a simple "here's the way things have been for 60 years," that you can change my mind. Seriously. As I mentioned before, I'm intellectually flexible enough, when presented with new/additional information, to admit when I've made a decision based on inaccurate, incomplete, or faulty information.

If you're simply an armchair quarterback, your opinion still has merit if it's based on facts. While you cite past history, you haven't cited any understanding of the politics, social implications, and possibilities of human error (mainly based on fear) that also apply to this situation.

Here's where your opinion fails: The mass slaughter of civilians should never be an option. The condemnation of an entire people--in this case, North Koreans--is akin to saying all Baptists are homophobic anti-government bigots, because Fred Phelps has claimed he's a Baptist.

I'm not ready to kill North Korean children. If that makes me less of a person in your eyes, so be it.

First I don't mean to question your honesty about why you asked about my past military experience, but in all honesty I don't believe what you have stated above. It sounds nice, but rings of un-truth. I of course ask for forgiveness if I am wrong, but I seriously doubt I am. The analogy you gave about Baptists and North Korea is one of the most limp excuses that I have ever read. There is simply no comparison. As to how I hold you in my opinion I have no particular disregard for your thoughts or person. I simply believe you to be wrong. Wrong because of government propaganda brain washing.

We are in this mess because of it and I for one am not interested in sending more of our people into war to be killed when there is another solution and that is to take them out first instead of putting up with the constant threats and even murderous actions taken by the North. If not stopped they will eventually move first and that WOULD bring a nuclear war from all sides. Also they are giving and selling nuclear information to Iran and Syria and this is simply not tolerable. Waiting is simply far too dangerous.
I think that your enormous compassion for the children in the North is admirable, but not when it means that you are willing to give up the children of the South or the young men and women of the US which would be the first to be slaughtered by the North in an attack.
The reason for the type of attack that I am posing is because we do not have good Intel on the North as to where all their nuclear weapons are and how to take them out if we have to go to war in a conventional fashion. Also even if we did it is highly probable that a conventional strike could not take them all out. This is not Iraq who had no Nuclear weapons and the leaders of the North are far more brain washed into insanity then anyone in Iraq.

The North can now hit Japan, Europe and possibly the West cost of the US. With a swift and decisive first strike with nuclear weapons of varying sizes the threat of a launch from the North could be made almost impossible and batteries of anti missile weapons could finalize any slim possible threat.
So like I have been saying all along. For everyone who wants to spare the North or portions of it they need to move to the South with their families next to the front line and become the first that the North murders in their attacks.

I stand on what I have said and honestly feel it is the best and safest way to insure the least causalities for the people of South Korea and the soldiers of the US. At the same time in all honesty I do not see it happening. Not because of sound judgement but because of the lack of it. I believe that your method will be followed but at great cost. I am simply not one who is willing to follow in that cost.

 

[Don]

First I don't mean to question your honesty about why you asked about my past military experience, but in all honesty I don't believe what you have stated above. It sounds nice, but rings of un-truth. I of course ask for forgiveness if I am wrong, but I seriously doubt I am.

If you do a search of this site for my name, and if possible, do an advanced search for the words "sorry" or "apologize," I think you'll find that I have done what I claim on more than one occasion. Some of those go back several years.

If you provide the information I've requested, and your opinion is based on experience that I didn't realize you had, and I still hold on to my viewpoint--then I've publicly proven you correct, that I'm untrustworthy, and nothing I ever say after that is worthy of consideration. In other words, I've given you a huge opportunity to completely discredit me; but you're hiding behind "I don't trust you" as an excuse to not allow me to prove myself trustworthy.

That, sir/ma'am, is what rings of "untruth." Not my professed willingness to hear you out and possibly change my mind, but your unwillingness to allow me that opportunity based on...nothing.

The analogy you gave about Baptists and North Korea is one of the most limp excuses that I have ever read. There is simply no comparison.

Care to actually describe why the analogy is limp, rather than simply proclaim it to be? Here's why I chose that analogy: You've claimed a status for all North Korean people based on the public persona of Kim Jong Il. That's like saying all Baptists are a certain way, because the most public person right now calling himself a Baptist is Fred Phelps. If you disagree with the analogy, then explain why; not simply that you don't like it.

The North can now hit Japan, Europe and possibly the West cost of the US.

Using your premise that if we strike fast, there will be no retaliation from anyone else: if North Korea strikes the South unexpectedly, do you believe we or anyone else will not strike back? Do you believe that we and/or our allies will simply write South Korea off as a "loss," shrug our collective shoulders, and say, "Oh, well"?

 

[billwald]

If we are "trusting God" as you all want printed on our money and our nation is "under God" then if the North Koreans nuke us then it must be God's will in the same way that it was God's will for the Assyrians and Babylonians to enslave Judah and Israel. If God is truly running the show then he should be given credit for the bad stuff.

 

[freeatlast]

Using your premise that if we strike fast, there will be no retaliation from anyone else: if North Korea strikes the South unexpectedly, do you believe we or anyone else will not strike back? Do you believe that we and/or our allies will simply write South Korea off as a "loss," shrug our collective shoulders, and say, "Oh, well"?

Come on! North Korea has already stricken the South unexpectedly. Your completely missing the point. It is not IF we would strike back if there was an all out attack on the South the problem is that we would but it still leaves the innocent South Koreans and US military people dead from the South's first strike, again.
If we did a first nuclear attack they would be alive.
Now understand something. I am not suggesting doing it right now. I am saying that the next time that the North pulls something like they did a week ago that everything should be in available to carry out within a few hours and hit them when they are not expecting it.

 

[Don]

Come on! North Korea has already stricken the South unexpectedly.

My apologies for not being more clear; since we were talking about nuclear first strikes, I made an assumption that you would understand my question was in relation to North Korea launching a nuclear strike.

Your completely missing the point. It is not IF we would strike back if there was an all out attack on the South the problem is that we would but it still leaves the innocent South Koreans and US military people dead from the South's first strike, again.
If we did a first nuclear attack they would be alive.

This is where your argument falls apart.

You admit that if there was an all-out attack (assuming you mean nuclear) by the North on the South, that we and others would retaliate.

Why do you assume that if we do an all-out attack (again, assuming we both mean nuclear) against the North, that there would be no retaliation by anyone?

 

[freeatlast]

My apologies for not being more clear; since we were talking about nuclear first strikes, I made an assumption that you would understand my question was in relation to North Korea launching a nuclear strike.


This is where your argument falls apart.

You admit that if there was an all-out attack (assuming you mean nuclear) by the North on the South, that we and others would retaliate.

Why do you assume that if we do an all-out attack (again, assuming we both mean nuclear) against the North, that there would be no retaliation by anyone?

Your still missing the point. I was not trying to cover every contingency or scenario of what if. I was and am stating what I feel needs to be done to keep from there being an exchange of nuclear weapons. In other words I am saying that if what I suggest was followed it would be totally one sided. No exchange. As for another nation getting involved I do not believe that there is any love lost between China and the North. In fact I believe that China is sick and tired of the North. If the North was swiftly taken ( about 30 minutes) I do not think that China would even flinch. Perhaps for political reasons they might whine for a while but even that would be brief. Would there be civilian causalities, YES, many. However anytime I weigh the them or us, they lose if possible.

 

[Don]

Your still missing the point. I was not trying to cover every contingency or scenario of what if. I was and am stating what I feel needs to be done to keep from there being an exchange of nuclear weapons. In other words I am saying that if what I suggest was followed it would be totally one sided. No exchange. As for another nation getting involved I do not believe that there is any love lost between China and the North. In fact I believe that China is sick and tired of the North. If the North was swiftly taken ( about 30 minutes) I do not think that China would even flinch. Perhaps for political reasons they might whine for a while but even that would be brief. Would there be civilian causalities, YES, many. However anytime I weigh the them or us, they lose if possible.

Not missing your point at all. You believe no one would be upset (or upset enough) and there would be no retaliation from anyone if we just nuked North Korea. If that's incorrect, then please clarify further.

Now here's my point, just so we're clear: If there's even one iota of a chance that someone will respond in like manner (again, we're talking nuclear exchange), I'm not willing to gamble/play the odds/take a risk. Why? Because that gamble isn't on poker chips or toothpicks; it's millions, possibly/probably billions, of human lives. Those same sons and daughters you keep talking about.

From what you've stated here, you're obviously more willing to risk those odds than I ever will be.

 

[Rippon]

Your belief flies in the face of reality, and that's why I've labeled it "insane." In all reality, you don't know what you're talking about.

The above was in reference to the mentality of FAL's remarks on the subject. I agree with Don.

 

[Don]

The above was in reference to the mentality of FAL's remarks on the subject. I agree with Don.

I think perhaps I was too harsh, and perhaps letting too much emotion intrude into the conversation....

I find your location very interesting.

 

[freeatlast]

Not missing your point at all. You believe no one would be upset (or upset enough) and there would be no retaliation from anyone if we just nuked North Korea. If that's incorrect, then please clarify further.

Now here's my point, just so we're clear: If there's even one iota of a chance that someone will respond in like manner (again, we're talking nuclear exchange), I'm not willing to gamble/play the odds/take a risk. Why? Because that gamble isn't on poker chips or toothpicks; it's millions, possibly/probably billions, of human lives. Those same sons and daughters you keep talking about.

From what you've stated here, you're obviously more willing to risk those odds than I ever will be.

I am not talking exchange. I am talking one sided. Also if your asking for an absolute impossibility of China entering after a nuclear strike on the North, and they are the only ones, then no one can give such a thing. That being said I believe that the possibility of them responding in a conventional war is highly probable and with the case of the North even if it started conventional it would be highly probable of turning into a nuclear one so with those odds, since we are talking odds, I would choose the lower possibility over nuclear exchange and nuke the North first and complete leaving China no face to save and no reason to enter in.

 

[Don]

I am not talking exchange. I am talking one sided. Also if your asking for an absolute impossibility of China entering after a nuclear strike on the North, and they are the only ones, then no one can give such a thing. That being said I believe that the possibility of them responding in a conventional war is highly probable and with the case of the North even if it started conventional it would be highly probable of turning into a nuclear one so with those odds, since we are talking odds, I would choose the lower possibility over nuclear exchange and nuke the North first and complete leaving China no face to save and no reason to enter in.

I've been researching on the side, but haven't found the info yet; are you familiar with North Korea's launch detection capabilities? Response times? If we launch nukes first, will North Korea be able to detect the launch, and initiate a counter-launch?

There's limited information available; are you familiar with where North Korea has their launch facilities? Do they have mobile launch vehicles, similar to what both the U.S. and Russia were using throughout the 70's and 80's? If they do, do we have a good idea on where those mobile launch vehicles are located, so that we don't have to worry about them launching a counter-attack?

See, here's the thing: There's a better-than-average possibility that North Korea will be able to launch a response within the 30 minutes from our launch to impact.

If you don't think so, consider this: Our own U.S. nuclear response is built on the same time-table. Why should North Korea, China, or anyone else be different?

If we can't negate their counter-launch capability, then we have to face the reality that they might get at least one nuke fired off. The question will be, where is it aimed?

It's those odds that I can't gamble on.

 

[Don]

You know what? We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I apologize for dragging this on as far as it has.

 

[freeatlast]

You know what? We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I apologize for dragging this on as far as it has.

Even that is not biblical. Scripture says;
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

So I say we just disagree and go our way becasuse there is no agreement at all.

 

[Rippon]

Even that is not biblical. Scripture says;
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

So I say we just disagree and go our way becasuse there is no agreement at all.

I haven't read every post in these 16 pages -- but I doubt that anyone else here has agreed with your irresponsible positions on the subject.

 

[freeatlast]

I haven't read every post in these 16 pages -- but I doubt that anyone else here has agreed with your irresponsible positions on the subject.

I can see you are a true baptist.

 

[Don]

Rippon - Proverbs 26:4

We've already tried Proverbs 26:5, but....