By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you agree on a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

 

A pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

Avoid loss of human lives at all costs! 128 28.64%
 
NK will never use those w... 147 32.89%
 
We should stop them befor... 71 15.88%
 
We should stop NK before NK causes a tragedy. 101 22.60%
 
Total:447
Nautilus on 04 September 2017

At the very least, I wouldnt blame if the UN did it.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
AbbathTheGrim on 04 September 2017
p0isonparadise said:
I want a nuclear war to break out.

I doubt is gonna be any way as cool as in Mad Max and Fallout games so I see the temptation of the idea but then realize the delusion. :P



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Qwark on 04 September 2017

No, because China won't tolerate that and such an action might have dire consequences eve though they will be mostly economical.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

VGPolyglot on 04 September 2017
AbbathTheGrim said:
VGPolyglot said:
1. No, because the threat is greatly exaggerated, it will involve a lot of innocent deaths, and the United States would be doing it with their own interests in mind rather than out of pure benevolence.

2. I highly doubt this will happen, as North Korea would lose their deterrence, as they'd be showing that they'll attack either way. If North Korea strikes first, they'll get destroyed, end of story.

The thing though is that nobody knows exactly what NK's Kim wants, but some of the previous demands from NK are that the US leaves the region and that NK wants an unified Korea.

If de-escalating the situation is entering negotiations that lead the US to leave there, nothing is stopping NK from threatening an invasion of the South by menace of nuclear warfare.

I am all up for negotations that will make this Kim guy happy and stop with the threats, but if what he wants is for the US to disappear from the region and gain power there and maybe even allow China to have more power there, that would be bad for our allies and I doubt the US will agree to any of it.

So I suppose the only answer would be to not do anything, get used to threats and hope for the best.

What North Korean officials want is for the regime to survive. They want to make threats, then have negotiations that will try to ensure that. They don't want a war that will surely end them.



Qwark on 04 September 2017
Nautilus said:
At the very least, I wouldnt blame if the UN did it.

That would be preferable since China is cool with it than. If not I would like to avoid WW3 starting in South East Asia.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network
Qwark on 04 September 2017
AbbathTheGrim said:
p0isonparadise said:
I want a nuclear war to break out.

I doubt is gonna be any way as cool as in Mad Max and Fallout games so I see the temptation of the idea but then realize the delusion. :P

The Nuclear winter should solve our global warming problem though ;)



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

p0isonparadise on 04 September 2017
AbbathTheGrim said:
p0isonparadise said:
I want a nuclear war to break out.

I doubt is gonna be any way as cool as in Mad Max and Fallout games so I see the temptation of the idea but then realize the delusion. :P

WW3 or a nuclear war is going to happen eventually, might as well get it over and done with. 



Qwark on 04 September 2017
CaptainExplosion said:
Qwark said:

That would be preferable since China is cool with it than. If not I would like to avoid WW3 starting in South East Asia.

It'll start there anyway if we don't kill fatso and his legion of psychotic retards.

China has stated very clearly that it will withdraw any form of support if NK chooses to strike a target. So it will be effectively 200 countries vs 1. So that will be a very quick world war, with a low number of casualties. Although WW3 will start there due to a higer demand than availability of food and frsh water in the region. Since that corner of the world is very much overcrowded and poluted. I will give it another 75 years at best before those countries will attack eachother.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

VGPolyglot on 04 September 2017
Mar1217 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Right now it's them or us. For too long they've been practically putting a gun to our head and bragging about how they're going to pull the trigger.

A pre-emptive strike on those nuclear communist pigs is self-defense. Just make sure to hit fatass himself first.

Hah ... that commentary is just disgusting to be honest, but if I were to suggest my opinion, people would only go in the way of saying that's a necessary evil.

Anyway, even with the demonstration of their "power", I'm pretty sure they won't even try cuz as VGP said, it would be the beginning of their demise, and I'm pretty sure their "o great leader" wants to keep his place in his dystopian society, so might as well look good in appearance but do nothing otherwise.

I didn't even bring up the "communist pigs" part myself But it shows just what he thinks of the North Korean civilians I guess, he doesn't view them as humans, he views them as pigs so it's OK to kill them.



TK-Karma on 04 September 2017

Kim surely has to realise that no matter how far he catches up to the rest of the world with respect to defense technologies, he can never win. He may be a crazy dictator, but he still wants to make sure that his position remains and that it's comfortable/low risk as possible.

This is all a facade, in order to scare the world into responding with a "oh yes sir, we respect you now ... Now, how much money/resources would you like?" Of course this won't happen, but it's the end game that he has to play for. There's no other way, the PDRK would eventually fall, it's just a matter of time in this modern and highly connected world.

If violence is the only answer in the end, it should only be directed at a small handful of people. It would undoubtedly spill over to more than just that, but large scale warfare isn't the way.

Just my two cents :)