North Korea threatens strike on Guam

Status
Not open for further replies.
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
This is something that will likely result in greater than 10x more deaths than 9/11 and y'all are joking about it. If 9/11 jokes aren't funny, I'm not sure why it's acceptable to joke about this. Hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives are likely to be taken and y'all are laughing about it. This is a serious topic, so I would greatly appreciate it if y'all didn't crack jokes about it. If any of y'all made a serious thread about 9/11 I wouldn't go on there and crack jokes,so I would appreciate it if y'all would do the same for me. Thanks.
Click to expand...


It would result in far more deaths than 10x 9/11.

This isn't anymore serious today than a week ago. The irresponsible part is CNN airing a segment about how Hawaiians could survive, filming in a bunker.
 
Have you taken a class that included military ethics yet? "Preventative" nuclear war runs into some serious problems ethically as well as pragmatically.

Conventional war would result in the loss of Seoul, and likely hundreds of thousands of civilians, as well as several thousand (minimum) US military members. Under existential threat, the DPRK regime is reasonably likely to use chem/bio and potentially nuclear weapons. Are you willing to assume responsibility for that, or do you think continued, slow economic strangulation of the DPRK and eventual overthrow of their dictatorship is a better plan?
 
raimius said:
Have you taken a class that included military ethics yet? "Preventative" nuclear war runs into some serious problems ethically as well as pragmatically.

Conventional war would result in the loss of Seoul, and likely hundreds of thousands of civilians, as well as several thousand (minimum) US military members. Under existential threat, the DPRK regime is reasonably likely to use chem/bio and potentially nuclear weapons. Are you willing to assume responsibility for that, or do you think continued, slow economic strangulation of the DPRK and eventual overthrow of their dictatorship is a better plan?
Click to expand...
We have never once gotten a country overthrown through sanctions... Who are you expecting to overthrow the government? This is the country where a man and his entire family was sent to a prison camp because he absentmindedly mopped up a spilled drink with a newspaper featuring a picture of Kim Jong Un. Who would have the balls to risk their entire family at something that has a 99.999% chance of failing, especially when anyone in the position to overthrow the government is probably already fairly well off. If you actually believe North Korea is going to be overthrown by its people, you simply haven't read enough about the place. The people over there believe this man is a God.

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for hundreds millions of people dying because we failed to fight North Korea before they obtained advanced nuclear technology?
 
Last edited:
Hey guys,

Thought I could put in my, well, thoughts about this. I'm a nobody; not a cadet or midshipman, service member, just a NROTC college pranced, so you don't have take my comment as serious. In American and World History class, I thought that the UN had more say about sense they declared the Korean War. So wouldn't the UN have the only say? If that is true, then if they threatened the US, wouldn't a lot of other countries participate in deterring the threat?

Just curious and confused.
 
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
Are you willing to assume the responsibility for hundreds millions of people dying because we failed to fight North Korea before they obtained advanced nuclear technology?
Click to expand...

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for thousands, possibly millions of Koreans and Americans dying because we fought North Korea unnecessarily? No, you're not, because it's not your responsibility to assume, thankfully. As unfortunate as it is for you to read about in books and on the internet, the responsibility for hundreds of millions of North Koreans dying is not our responsibility to assume.

There are terrible things happening around the world on a daily basis, that's the reality of this world. Unless our interests outweigh our risks, we don't get involved. As a future officer, you need to understand that we don't just watch sobby commercials or news stories on some sad part of the world and decide to organize a militarized mission trip to make all the bad things go away. It just doesn't happen like that. And your oath will be to the U.S Constitution, not that of North Korea, Russia, or some other far off land where bad men are doing bad things to other people. Our interests trump all others, regardless of how that makes you feel.

I've been outside the US for almost a year now for work and it's made me more "pro-American interests before we act." The countries I've been in are the same way, they are concerned with what's best for them and nobody else, that's the end game. None of this is meant to say that the US should stay out of everything, simply that we MUST put our interests first. MY Soldiers are not numbers on a screen you can just send over to the Korean Peninsula to do bidding on your behalf because you read something in a book. They are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. And until its decided that they are needed on the Peninsula, I like them where they are (well, I prefer them back in the states, but soon enough). I hope you think about this before you take charge of Soldiers.

I've finally read all these associated threads and this is exhausting.
 
Wcyeung123 said:
Hey guys,

Thought I could put in my, well, thoughts about this. I'm a nobody; not a cadet or midshipman, service member, just a NROTC college pranced, so you don't have take my comment as serious. In American and World History class, I thought that the UN had more say about sense they declared the Korean War. So wouldn't the UN have the only say? If that is true, then if they threatened the US, wouldn't a lot of other countries participate in deterring the threat?

Just curious and confused.
Click to expand...

Awesome question!

The United Nations isn't a country, with it's own foreign policy, authority to tax, raise armies, etc. It's basically a forum where countries send their ambassadors to represent their own nation's interests.

Sort of like this forum here. We're all members of it right? But no one else is going to pay my mortgage - that's my responsibility. Maybe, just maybe, if it's in another member's interest to pay my mortgage for me, that will happen (think UN intervention in Korean War of 1950 and Persian Gulf War of 1990), but those circumstances are quite rare. Even rarer is when everyone on the forum agrees we should all vote together to pay Day-Tripper's mortgage.

Technically, the UN never declared war in 1950 after North Korea invaded South Korea. They did authorize UN forces, under American leadership ('cause UN members might have had troops to offer, but the US had all the ships and planes to get 'em to the Korean peninsula, plus the greenbacks to pay for the war), to intervene on South Korea's behalf. But that was only because Red China had not yet been admitted to the Security Council (so they couldn't veto the measure) and the USSR, as a result of Red China's snub, was boycotting the Security Council meetings (they never made that diplomatic faux pas again).

Too many people criticize the United Nations for inaction ("Why doesn't the UN do something?) as though it were a nation state. It isn't. And it doesn't act like one, most of the time. Accordingly, it's pretty weak in matters of international security. Joe Stalin once dismissed criticism of his policies in Poland by remarking "How may divisions does the Pope have?" Similarly, defying the UN has few military costs.

Big, rich powerful nation states are all that really matters in this world. Kind of like corporations. Might makes right. Ain't fair, but get used to it.
 
raimius said:
Have you taken a class that included military ethics yet? "Preventative" nuclear war runs into some serious problems ethically as well as pragmatically.

Conventional war would result in the loss of Seoul, and likely hundreds of thousands of civilians, as well as several thousand (minimum) US military members. Under existential threat, the DPRK regime is reasonably likely to use chem/bio and potentially nuclear weapons. Are you willing to assume responsibility for that, or do you think continued, slow economic strangulation of the DPRK and eventual overthrow of their dictatorship is a better plan?
Click to expand...

My vote would go to option #2. The slow, continued strangulation of the regime. Hell, it worked over 45 years with the Soviet Union and their empire. Anyone think Cuba and Venezuela will be ruled by non-democratic dictatorships in ten years? I wouldn't take that bet. North Korea is perpetually one pissed-off general's pistol shot to the head of the latest Kim family despot from developing into a more open dictatorial regime (like, say, China or Vietnam). Once that happens, the corporations, cell phones, computers (sorry, I mean't to say tablets - I'm old), flat screen TVs, privately-owned cars, nightclubs, etc. move in and the days of Marxist-Leninist rule are numbered.

If you look at the newly-developed suburbs of Beijing, they appear to be carbon copies of those built around Los Angeles. Their lifestyle emulates our own. Their political system, slowly and over time, will one day also.

North Koreans are no different than South Koreans, Chinese, Japanese or even Texans. Once the family dynasty gives way (as they all do, eventually) in North Korea things will change for the better.

In the meantime, North Korea doesn't seriouisly threaten anyone. Their soldiers are more malnourished that most of those of African armies. Apart from an initial flurry of explosive ordnance (artillery, gas, even nukes), which would indeed be terrifying deadly, this regime isn't nearly as strong as it's counterpart in 1950, which very nearly defeated South Korea and the United States over six weeks in the summer of 1950.
 
Day-Tripper said:
Awesome question!

The United Nations isn't a country, with it's own foreign policy, authority to tax, raise armies, etc. It's basically a forum where countries send their ambassadors to represent their own nation's interests.

Sort of like this forum here. We're all members of it right? But no one else is going to pay my mortgage - that's my responsibility. Maybe, just maybe, if it's in another member's interest to pay my mortgage for me, that will happen (think UN intervention in Korean War of 1950 and Persian Gulf War of 1990), but those circumstances are quite rare. Even rarer is when everyone on the forum agrees we should all vote together to pay Day-Tripper's mortgage.

Technically, the UN never declared war in 1950 after North Korea invaded South Korea. They did authorize UN forces, under American leadership ('cause UN members might have had troops to offer, but the US had all the ships and planes to get 'em to the Korean peninsula, plus the greenbacks to pay for the war), to intervene on South Korea's behalf. But that was only because Red China had not yet been admitted to the Security Council (so they couldn't veto the measure) and the USSR, as a result of Red China's snub, was boycotting the Security Council meetings (they never made that diplomatic faux pas again).

Too many people criticize the United Nations for inaction ("Why doesn't the UN do something?) as though it were a nation state. It isn't. And it doesn't act like one, most of the time. Accordingly, it's pretty weak in matters of international security. Joe Stalin once dismissed criticism of his policies in Poland by remarking "How may divisions does the Pope have?" Similarly, defying the UN has few military costs.

Big, rich powerful nation states are all that really matters in this world. Kind of like corporations. Might makes right. Ain't fair, but get used to it.
Click to expand...

Okay, then to answer the OP question, from a political standpoint from what you say. I think that it is best to keep quiet about it but listen in on the North. As the saying goes, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. It doesn't seem that our interests are at stake. I mean, if you consider Samsung and Kia automotives our interest, then maybe. Other than that, our interest is unharmed until they threaten us directly.

Edit: "Keeps your friends close but your enemy closer." Sorry.
 
Last edited:
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
We have never once gotten a country overthrown through sanctions... Who are you expecting to overthrow the government? This is the country where a man and his entire family was sent to a prison camp because he absentmindedly mopped up a spilled drink with a newspaper featuring a picture of Kim Jong Un. Who would have the balls to risk their entire family at something that has a 99.999% chance of failing, especially when anyone in the position to overthrow the government is probably already fairly well off. If you actually believe North Korea is going to be overthrown by its people, you simply haven't read enough about the place. The people over there believe this man is a God.

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for hundreds millions of people dying because we failed to fight North Korea before they obtained advanced nuclear technology?
Click to expand...
Kim wants to stay in power. Starting a nuclear war that he will lose does not achieve that. Thus, we end up in that war by mistake or by our action. He may or may not make that mistake. Why would you want to force his hand? You are arguing that sacrificing up to a few million lives now is better than the possibility of sacrificing a few more million lives later. Guaranteed loss now vs. potential loss later seems unwise at this point. Further, instigating that war will be viewed unkindly...
 
-Bull- said:
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
Are you willing to assume the responsibility for hundreds millions of people dying because we failed to fight North Korea before they obtained advanced nuclear technology?
Click to expand...

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for thousands, possibly millions of Koreans and Americans dying because we fought North Korea unnecessarily? No, you're not, because it's not your responsibility to assume, thankfully. As unfortunate as it is for you to read about in books and on the internet, the responsibility for hundreds of millions of North Koreans dying is not our responsibility to assume.

There are terrible things happening around the world on a daily basis, that's the reality of this world. Unless our interests outweigh our risks, we don't get involved. As a future officer, you need to understand that we don't just watch sobby commercials or news stories on some sad part of the world and decide to organize a militarized mission trip to make all the bad things go away. It just doesn't happen like that. And your oath will be to the U.S Constitution, not that of North Korea, Russia, or some other far off land where bad men are doing bad things to other people. Our interests trump all others, regardless of how that makes you feel.

I've been outside the US for almost a year now for work and it's made me more "pro-American interests before we act." The countries I've been in are the same way, they are concerned with what's best for them and nobody else, that's the end game. None of this is meant to say that the US should stay out of everything, simply that we MUST put our interests first. MY Soldiers are not numbers on a screen you can just send over to the Korean Peninsula to do bidding on your behalf because you read something in a book. They are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. And until its decided that they are needed on the Peninsula, I like them where they are (well, I prefer them back in the states, but soon enough). I hope you think about this before you take charge of Soldiers.

I've finally read all these associated threads and this is exhausting.
Click to expand...

Exhausting, but very interesting. Reads like an airport page-turning Grisham novel.

I'm with you when it comes to being hesitant to enter war as though it were some kind of video game. The all-volunteer armed forces, where it's always someone else's kids marching off to get their limbs blow off, and the era of relative peace and easy victories (1975-2003) contributed to a rather casual attitude when it came to initiating war about a decade and a half ago. I'd thought the nightmare of Iraq would have tempered the return of this attitude a litter longer, and I think it has.

Also, remember the enthusiasm of the young. Phillip Caputo, a US Marine lieutenant in 1965, wrote in "A Rumor of War" how he and his fellow junior USMC officers were delirious with joy, likes kids on Christmas morning, when they got orders to be the first ground troops sent to South Vietnam. "We're going to war!" they giggled to themselves with glee. My how those attitudes changed just a few months (weeks? days?) later after arriving in-country.

As an eighteen year old US Marine private I wrote "Pray For War" on my helmet cover. It was juvenile and childish, but I was, as they say, "Gung Ho!" Thankfully, in the first half of the 1980s there were no wars for me to fight or die and I matured. That's why we are supposed to have our elders, wise in their years, serve as our leaders. Even President Trump, for all his numerous failings (too many to list here), appears genuinely reticent when it comes to ordering hostile military actions.

The fire-breathing young men and women in Service Academies, ROTC or the enlisted ranks today will no doubt look back in about five years and shake their heads at the younger version of themselves.
 
@-Bull- ,

I'm glad you showed up.

I think you're the only FA person on this forum and isn't DPRK is all about FA plus some nukes maybe? Amirite?

Have always appreciated your contributions. Look forward in the future to hear where you've been.
 
Look guys, we can go back and forth with this argument of what we "should" do. In the end, it's not our decision, it's the Commander-in-Chief's. I don't know how of you many are in the Academies, ROTC, or planning to commission, but the men and women you command is your priority. Do I agree that the North continued with an unpopular nuclear program? Yes. Do I know exactly what they plan to do with it? Not really, but my assumptions are not positive. But I do agree that we need to keep a close eye on them

I may not be on a commissioning path, and you may criticize me for not knowing the training of an officer. I'm just a guy who wants to know the well-being of my fellow Americans. But I know that as a leader the people you lead are what matters. So if we don't go to this big war you can express your opinions all you want but don't make your subordinates suffer. And if we do, well, we do, all you can do as an officer is take care of the men and women on your left and right, and your best to bring them home back to their mothers. The last thing you want are a group of unhappy mothers in front of you.
 
Isn't youth great? Let's march off to war and solve all the world's problems. BeachedWhale, careful what you wish for, you may just get it. Get back to those of us who have been there when you return from the shooting match and give us an update on your thoughts. Appeasement doesn't work but neither does starting a shooting match without a clear game plan , the odds that you will come out the other end with minimal harm and the ability to absorb YOUR casualties after it starts. (Absorbing your casualties being the key phrase in that sentence). I don't believe in getting bullied but I also don't believe in getting into a fight that I'm not fairly certain I can win going in. Talking about hundreds or thousands or more being killed is easy on here. Trying to stop your buddy from leaking out in your arms while ignoring the roar of the firefight is a whole different ballgame. Relax and study. Your time will eventually arrive.
 
Wcyeung123 said:
Day-Tripper said:
Awesome question!

The United Nations isn't a country, with it's own foreign policy, authority to tax, raise armies, etc. It's basically a forum where countries send their ambassadors to represent their own nation's interests.

Sort of like this forum here. We're all members of it right? But no one else is going to pay my mortgage - that's my responsibility. Maybe, just maybe, if it's in another member's interest to pay my mortgage for me, that will happen (think UN intervention in Korean War of 1950 and Persian Gulf War of 1990), but those circumstances are quite rare. Even rarer is when everyone on the forum agrees we should all vote together to pay Day-Tripper's mortgage.

Technically, the UN never declared war in 1950 after North Korea invaded South Korea. They did authorize UN forces, under American leadership ('cause UN members might have had troops to offer, but the US had all the ships and planes to get 'em to the Korean peninsula, plus the greenbacks to pay for the war), to intervene on South Korea's behalf. But that was only because Red China had not yet been admitted to the Security Council (so they couldn't veto the measure) and the USSR, as a result of Red China's snub, was boycotting the Security Council meetings (they never made that diplomatic faux pas again).

Too many people criticize the United Nations for inaction ("Why doesn't the UN do something?) as though it were a nation state. It isn't. And it doesn't act like one, most of the time. Accordingly, it's pretty weak in matters of international security. Joe Stalin once dismissed criticism of his policies in Poland by remarking "How may divisions does the Pope have?" Similarly, defying the UN has few military costs.

Big, rich powerful nation states are all that really matters in this world. Kind of like corporations. Might makes right. Ain't fair, but get used to it.
Click to expand...

Okay, then to answer the OP question, from a political standpoint from what you say. I think that it is best to keep quiet about it but listen in on the North. As the saying goes, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. It doesn't seem that our interests are at stake. I mean, if you consider Samsung and Kia automotives our interest, then maybe. Other than that, our interest is unharmed until they threaten us directly.

Edit: "Keeps your friends close but your enemy closer." Sorry.
Click to expand...
 
But prepared to go to the mattresses if Kim & his crew won't listen to reason.......have China set up a meeting in Brooklyn where South Korea can leave an untraceable gun in the men's room......and Trump (maybe send The Mooch for this job, though) will take of everything - all family business.
 
Wcyeung123 said:
Look guys, we can go back and forth with this argument of what we "should" do. In the end, it's not our decision, it's the Commander-in-Chief's. I don't know how of you many are in the Academies, ROTC, or planning to commission, but the men and women you command is your priority. Do I agree that the North continued with an unpopular nuclear program? Yes. Do I know exactly what they plan to do with it? Not really, but my assumptions are not positive. But I do agree that we need to keep a close eye on them

I may not be on a commissioning path, and you may criticize me for not knowing the training of an officer. I'm just a guy who wants to know the well-being of my fellow Americans. But I know that as a leader the people you lead are what matters. So if we don't go to this big war you can express your opinions all you want but don't make your subordinates suffer. And if we do, well, we do, all you can do as an officer is take care of the men and women on your left and right, and your best to bring them home back to their mothers. The last thing you want are a group of unhappy mothers in front of you.
Click to expand...

None of us are at Academies, in ROTC, or planning, because with the exception of BeachedWhale, everyone in this thread is past college, a few commissioned officers, experienced and distinguished enlisted members or just grown ass adults that have orbited the sun a few times. We know what leaders do.

And more than not wanting unhappy mothers, I don't want my Soldiers to die because the internet wants them to go fight Kim Jong Un.
 
cb7893 said:
@-Bull- ,

I'm glad you showed up.

I think you're the only FA person on this forum and isn't DPRK is all about FA plus some nukes maybe? Amirite?

Have always appreciated your contributions. Look forward in the future to hear where you've been.
Click to expand...

Artillery in DPRK is their main event, much like Russia and other nations in the east, they integrate large amounts of indirect fire and air defense with maneuver. In the US we call Field Artillery "King of Battle." In Russia (and DPRK bases much of their structure off of them) they call Field Artillery "God of War."

True capabilities is something, however, we'll have to leave to what Google says as we can't really go down that path to far.
 
We have found our new Thomas Aquinas for justification of just war, maybe.
 
-Bull- said:
1337BeachedWhale1337 said:
Are you willing to assume the responsibility for hundreds millions of people dying because we failed to fight North Korea before they obtained advanced nuclear technology?
Click to expand...

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for thousands, possibly millions of Koreans and Americans dying because we fought North Korea unnecessarily? No, you're not, because it's not your responsibility to assume, thankfully. As unfortunate as it is for you to read about in books and on the internet, the responsibility for hundreds of millions of North Koreans dying is not our responsibility to assume.
Click to expand...
When I said that quote, I was simply paraphrasing what @Raimus said since he asked me the following question:
raimius said:
Are you willing to assume responsibility for that, or do you think continued, slow economic strangulation of the DPRK and eventual overthrow of their dictatorship is a better plan?
Click to expand...
-Bull- said:
There are terrible things happening around the world on a daily basis, that's the reality of this world. Unless our interests outweigh our risks, we don't get involved. As a future officer, you need to understand that we don't just watch sobby commercials or news stories on some sad part of the world and decide to organize a militarized mission trip to make all the bad things go away. It just doesn't happen like that. And your oath will be to the U.S Constitution, not that of North Korea, Russia, or some other far off land where bad men are doing bad things to other people. Our interests trump all others, regardless of how that makes you feel.
Click to expand...
And I believe that it is our interest to preemptively strike North Korea. It is not my decision to do that, and if the US decides not to do that I will continue to give my best effort to serve the US, but I believe that the correct decision is to attack. The human rights issues are not the reason I believe we should attack. I am sure there were many people in the military in the Vietnam-era that did not agree with the war, and I am sure many of them still did their jobs fine. I don't see why it isn't possible for me to do the same, to have my own opinion but still fight for the United States in whatever course of action they elect to take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top