- If everbody lets NK continue doing what they do now they will gave effective ICBMs with nuclear warheads in a while, and will be able to pressure the US and other countries. This is unacceptable for many countries and can't happen, since it would be a point of no return.
- If NK gets invaded to disable the nuclear program chances are high Seoul, one of the biggest cities in the world, would be laid to ashes either by a nuke or artillery. Same goes for other cities and bases in Japan. This is also unacceptable.
- A regime change can't be done for the same reasons: As soon as the leaders of NK would realize their end is coming they would go batshit crazy.
- Same goes for trade pressure from China e.g. since again, when the NK government would realize their reign is coming to an end they would probably kamikaze the whole country.
I don't really see an option to get out of this without loosing Seoul and without a long, bloody conflict BUT nuking NK straight ahead. Preemptive nuclear strike disabling any chances to react. But this again is impossible, since it would draw the attention of the whole world, anger many countries, make China go batshit crazy and has overall horrible implications since millions of civilians would die.
would probably need a team of 100 ninjas to kill all leading personell and kim simultaneously before anyone can react...
so yeah, I think seoul is pretty much done, just a question of time
Caleb Hernandez
Why do you give a fuck? Are you afraid that NK tries to nuke Germany?
William Cruz
To be honest it is my curiosity. I want to know if I get to see a nuclear attack in my lifetime, on US soil or NK soil, or both.
Also: The fuck why do you ask why I care, this is a political board so people here are interested in politics?
Isaiah Turner
>I want to know if I get to see a nuclear attack in my lifetime, on US soil or NK soil, or both. Unlikely, at least I believe so. Nuclear weapons are only good for deterrence, not for actually being used.
> this is a political board so people here are interested in politics? Yeah, but you gotta pick your fights. I couldn't care less about muh human rights violations or famine or dictatorship in Korea, I couldn't care less if NK bombs Seoul or US bombs NK. The shit going down in the Middle East if of far bigger concern for us, for example, and the fact that Merkel and Gabriel are supporting Trump's attack there is enough to worry about right now.
Elijah Lee
You know that Trump just sent a carrier to NK and Tillerson stated they want to clear the country of nuclear weapons?
David Ramirez
Maybe bomb all their power plants or something? Make it so that they can't fire nukes. Then use counter-artillery on their artillery. After that's gone, move in with ground troops. Sound good?
Only issue would be China getting upset, then Russia getting upset because China is upset.
The biggest thing with nukes is that while a few are devastating, its mostly when you use enough to cause Nuclear winter that there is a problem. You also don't want to set a precedent of nukes being ok to use in regular warfare. That is a slippery slope.
William Ortiz
The main problem is time again. If you want to take out the whole nuclear program AND disable the artillery you would have to do so in a very short time frame before anyone can react. We are talking as short as one hour probably.
And another problem: Afaik NK has pretty good air defense and the positions of the nuclear silos are not known in detail.
Jayden Diaz
Best I can think of is evacuating Seoul and then striking them. The issue there is that China doesn't want a war on it's doorstep.
Grayson Rivera
There is only one man who can help us in these dire times of strife
Nathan Cook
I fully agree about evacuating Seoul, the problem is that 10mio people live there. It's fucking huge.
Charles Russell
Not possible, there is no scenario where Seoul survives. We're just not fast enough to disable all that arty. Mass evacuation is possible but that tips your hand that it's coming, possibly starting the the war before the evac can take place. It's also ignoring that China might be fighting you there too, happened last time. If we go with the nuke option, it is very likely that we'll end up in a confrontation with china.
Jaxson Davis
It's a strong enough signal that theres about to be some shit that NK will start the arty.
Jacob Diaz
Seems we have our hands on a very fluid situation here ...
If Trump wants to do something it will probably happen soon, before NK can prepare?
Daniel Anderson
Fuck it, just nuke them both. Theres too many gooks anyway and they arr rook the same
Angel Bell
My only wonder is, does Trump care enough about the gooks to really give a fuck whether Seoul is rubble or not?
Jayden Rodriguez
Just EMP them
Mason Howard
Just dropping SK would be a perfect opportunity for China and Russia to make a big propaganda move against the US and probably even take action to claim more land in asia.
Hudson Sanders
...
Nathaniel Sanders
Jesus, they should move the capital to Busan ffs
Lucas Howard
And then the US loses and the white race is saved. I see no problem in destroying the cancer of Western civilization.
China and Russia are only Allies of convenience anyway. They'll turn on each other soon enough.
Daniel Kelly
...
Cooper Taylor
>This is unacceptable for many countries and can't happen, since it would be a point of no return.
What does this mean?
Parker Flores
Why would you want to get rid of North Korea? Are you a kike faggot?
Charles Jones
I think the best option would be to destabilize NK's military and political system from within, then invade while they are at their weakest and hopefully try and minimize any damage to South Korea and Japan.
Isaac Scott
>Feels good man
Jacob Morales
I meant that the moment NK is able to nuke the US west coast they would be a global player and the would hold the world hostage, forcing everyone to play along while they fuck up SK, than Japan etc. etc.
If you don't get rid of them above happens.
Luis Baker
Do nothing. Let kim have his Wonderland.
Christian Miller
I don't see how that would be any different to what the USA does? I mean, they invaded a country because of "weapons of mass destruction". Like.. what are you talking about? How is North Korea going to be different to other nuclear countries?
Josiah Walker
>implying I think the nuclear destruction of the West coast is bad. Yeah, I'm sure going to miss all of those kikes and spics.
Kayden Harris
>not on my fucking watch!
James Peterson
What could they possibly pressure anyone to do? If someone tells them to fuck off they cant do anything because of mutual destruction. Nukes will only make it so they cant get invaded for freedom.
Jeremiah Thomas
it doesn't have nuclear warheads that can be carried on any of those missiles yet
Jayden Morris
The difference would be that they would take over SK, then Japan, this would cause massive suffering in the area, and diminishing US influence. The US would NEVER allow this. I get your point that it would ne no different from what the US is doing, the main problem is the US will NEVER allow that to happen. Therefore this scenario right now.
Liam Williams
I find it absolutely hilarious that NK of all places is about the reach dont-fuck-with-them tier. Reality is the best joke sometimes.
Luis Reyes
>TO GET RID OF NORTH KOREA I find it funny that NK not actually bothers it's neighbours besides SK and always hysterical USA. Calm down, you can't beat them. Yes you can't. Bomb some shit at max to ease your ego.
Benjamin Kelly
Going to war with NK before they have the capability to nuke Commiefornia would be a huge waste.
Nicholas Foster
>they would take over SK, then Japan t. 13 year old with no understanding of geopolitics
Josiah Parker
This is where I absolutely agree.
Daniel Lewis
NATO probably has anti-missile bases everywhere around NK capable of destroying hundreds of top of the range modern missiles. The shitty NK missiles wouldn't stand a fucking chance. North Korean artillery would be bombed into oblivion overnight from the air, where NK stands no fucking chance.
Cooper Gray
no it's not they have no successful nuclear or missile tests to show.
NK isn't even a nuclear threat until they test 6 nukes with the warhead being in greater than a few kilotons,
that's actually the criteria for a country to be recognized as a nuclear capable country
Cameron Flores
>On September 9, 2016 a 5.3 seismic tremor was detected by seismograms in surrounding countries, after which North Korea confirmed it conducted another nuclear test. North Korea stated that this test has enabled them to confirm that its warhead can be mounted to a missile and to verify the warhead's power.
Bentley Roberts
>wanting to attack one of the 3 countries left without a rothschild bank
Gabriel Roberts
>probably What if they load their artillery with a nuke?
David Gomez
Belive me, once they get close to becoming a problem someone will take care of them. You overestimate their current stength...
Joshua Mitchell
China also doesn't want NATO military bases on their doorstep, which would happen if NK were allowed to fall
They still can't take over South Korea even if they have nuclear weapons. South Korea has an army, as does Japan.
Sebastian Bell
Pretty sure they have contingents to base at busan in case of conflict. But nk is a meme. Therea no war on the horizon
Henry Russell
and that's hardly anything to go by
Matthew Sullivan
Let's nuke best Korea and be done with.
Dominic Ward
let korea burn then reclaim it as the white ethnostate locale
Thomas Rivera
I doubt that noone in NK believes that they're a match against SK and the US. But I think they DO believe that they can turn SK into a radioactive wasteland.
Wyatt Fisher
Fuxk China. The scumbag chinks and Russian subhuman commies are why the Norks even exist.
I hope we 1st strike with so many nukes that China and Russia experience birth defects for generations from the fallout.
Let them reap what they have sown, fucking scum.
Angel Phillips
>The difference would be that they would take over SK, then Japan Nigga Japan would shit all over them if they tried. NK are irrelevant, the only reason anyone is paying any attention to them is the thought of a literally madman obtaining a global range nuke.
Luis Taylor
Kim Jong UN will win the war. North Korea is Best Korea!
>North Korea is known to have the world's largest artillery force.
>South Korea's capital city is only 35 miles from the border.
>Although the range of Kim Jong-il's arsenal is fodder for debate, it's certain the rogue dictator could hit Seoul with many shells in a matter of hours. He did take a few potshots last January. This threat is a key reason North Korea can bully its neighbor and stand up to US intervention.
>Our Map Of The Day shows artillery range projections by an amateur researcher at MilitaryPhotos.net.
Jack Hernandez
They can, but it will result in their own country turning into a crater, so it is pointless.
Matthew Evans
>so it is pointless. Subjective. They have nothing to lose.
Ryder Williams
Someone call the Bogs. They'll have the answers.
Isaac Carter
>iran doesnt even have nuclear weapons >shitty shit poor nk has nuclear weapons
kys
Julian Carter
Wow
Chase Torres
NK's only profitable industry is meth and there's a huge demand for South Korean pop culture. The CIA needs to start covertly trading meth for k-pop and South Korean soap opera DVDs. The South Korean media will rot NK from within because the NK people will realize they're getting screwed.
It sounds stupid, but bootleg VHS copies of Dallas and Levi's blue jeans were big parts of why the USSR fell.
Jordan Stewart
HOW ABOUT GET RID OF KEBAB FROM YOUR COUNTRY! FUCKING SANDNIGGER LOVER
Oliver Gonzalez
Global alliance against them.
If the major powers combined they could stop missiles from leaving the country easy enough, at which point they'd have to start listening to demands rather than threatening nukes.
Liam Collins
Wait for the regime to collapse and invade at the right time
Christian Miller
...
Robert Reyes
>U.S. aircraft carrier may cause Pyongyang's hasty responses: Russian official
>MOSCOW, April 9 (Xinhua) -- A Russian official expressed worries on Sunday that the deployment of a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group near the Korean Peninsula may push the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to respond hastily.
>The U.S. Carl Vinson Strike Group has departed from Singapore and sailed northward to the Western Pacific ocean near the Korean Peninsula, the United States Pacific Fleet Commander announced Saturday.
>The deployment came amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula after the DPRK test-fired a ballistic missile on Wednesday.
>If Pyongyang sees the deployment as a threat to its security, it may rush into actions in response, said Victor Ozerov, chairman of the Russian Federation Council's Committee on Defense and Security, according to a RIA Novosti report.
>Ozerov said international law does not prohibit the U.S. navy forces from shipping toward the Korean Peninsula, but its military presence will not be good for maintaining dialogue with Pyongyang.
>It is even possible that the United States could launch sudden strikes against the DPRK just as it did to Syria, he added.
>Pyongyang has carried out a number of missile launches and nuclear tests, incurring worldwide criticism and tighter United Nations sanctions.
Jeremiah Hernandez
Is there any evidence they have the capacity to do that? It's not just a matter of shoving the war-head into a cannon.
Dominic Thomas
They already have nukes. What young Kim wants now and what Obama, Abe and now Trump did not/does not want is a dependable delivery rocket.
Historically, there has never been a single state that has reached a successful nuclear weapon test stage and had their weapons disarmed/confiscated/or even conventionally invaded. All conventional military conflicts between at least two nuclear states occur in buffer zones. This is a basic international politics redpill any credible commenter sooner or later has to swallow.
This is the point of difference between Obama's Iran deal that halted their enrichment program and the DPRK program, Iran didn't have one functioning weapon while Kim has made that crucial breakthrough and tested, according to varying anglo-language channels, somewhere between 3-5 bombs this decade.
Some americlap pundits in realist circles are now putting forward the notion to allow Kim his rocket development so when his nuclear security toy is complete, he can finally calm down and be tractable.
Bonus: the higher the volume a state's info operations are against another state, the weaker the starting negotiating position is of the attacker state. Loudest in the room is always the weakest.
Xavier Reed
Hm as I was researching your question I found this:
>The report also found that "North Korea probably could employ CW agents by modifying a variety of conventional munitions, including artillery and ballistic missiles. In addition, North Korean forces are prepared to operate in a contaminated environment; they train regularly in chemical defense operations."[6] The report indicated that North Korea "continues to develop its biological research and development capabilities" and "may consider the use of biological weapons as an option, contrary to its obligations under the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention."[6]
So it seems we don't know about nuclear artillery, but we know about chemical artillery.
Luis Martinez
>Is there any evidence they have the capacity to do that? Is there any evidence they have not the capacity to do that? It's a very risky and dangerous game, especially when a metropolis is at stake.
Aaron Bennett
Not exactly a clear cut situation then! Thanks for looking into it user.
Another (potentially retarded) question, what's stopping air-force strikes on the artillery? If it'd take some working around for NK to have nuclear artillery, you could bomb them to oblivion before they were a threat. Most of them are either stationary or rail-mounted so they'd be easy enough to make inert if that became a possibility.
>Surround NK with a missile defense system >At the same time aircraft carriers take out artillery stations preemptively >NK left with no sabers to rattle while we talk it all through
Oliver Sanders
Agreed, I was just curious. Better to assume they did, but I still think it would be possible to deal with.
See and
Gabriel Gutierrez
Underrated post.
The only reason NK is allowed to get away with this is that China wants to keep it as a buffer state. Deposing the regime in NK will mostly likely be an act of war against China, unless negotiations can put a Chinese puppet in charge and they abandon the nuclear program.
Matthew Bailey
...
Easton Jones
>especially when a metropolis is at stake. again, I'd like to point this out
>they're only chinks there's literally billions of them
Nolan Adams
Don't confuse isolationism for ignorance. Don't ever be willfully stupid, cuck. I'm
Aaron Adams
That requires that the airforce takes out every single artillery piece before they fire at least one shell. Its impossible.
Cooper Bell
LOL no one in this thread knows shit about geopolitics. Just a bunch of 12 yr old faggots circlejerking each other like redditors. These idiots actually believe that NK has a missile capable of being carried to the US. How fucking dumb are you people?
Landon Hall
>(((HOW TO GET RID OF NORTH KOREA?)))
you made another thread already, my (((German))) friend
Isaiah Barnes
Really? Coordinated attacks from multiple air forces couldn't hit every target at once? I mean I know nothing about the military so if you're saying that's not an option I'd believe it, I just figured that was the go-to method for dealing with stuff like this. Hit them hard and fast so they can't respond.
Surely we have enough of a tech advantage on NK to get them before they saw it coming if Russia/USA/Europe/China etc all got on board.
Hunter Jones
The problem is that NK has a pretty decent air defense AND is full of mountains where you can camouflage those defenses and other devices like artillery easily.
NK is more capable of defending themselves as Iraq was back then.
Jeremiah Watson
Thanks for clearing that up. Like I said I know nothing about the logistics of all this but that makes sense.
Got a bit of a pickle on our hands with this one, eh?
Jack Lewis
I don't personally want them to touch Japan and risk hitting squareenix. That's honestly it though.
James Gonzalez
>NK=buffer state This is obsolete thinking now. Possession of nuclear arms upgrades Kim's state from former buffer state into a true actor somewhat more free to chart its own destiny.
This effect is the major reason why nukes are so coveted by non-nuclear states and why nuclear states are keen on preserving or stalling the degradation of their monopoly.
On top of that, China still wouldn't want US bases and silos (Nato doesn't apply to the Pacific) on their doorstep, the rational behind their entry into the Korean War, still holds true.
Benjamin Sanchez
>nuking Alaska
The poor trees and like 22 people
Benjamin Wood
Only way to avoid nk taking out seoul would be huge premptive nuclear strikes which wont happen
Isaiah Stewart
As soon as they start evacutaing seoul nk would know whats up and attack
Carson Jackson
I support this. I was just talking to my brother since we both moved out of that area within a year ago and he was worried about nukes falling and I'm like "Nah bro, we're not in range of shit, nobody's gonna drop nukes in our area"
Owen Jenkins
You convince the populace to revolt. International pressures to trade military arms and ammunition in exchange for food/ammenities for the populace. Drop flyers all over the country in order to ensure everyone gets the message.
Allow tensions to rise inside the country and if there's no revolt do your attack anyway. Odds are it'll spur riots and reduce their military response time.
Christian Hall
This Norks are just the buffer country between Chino Russia and USA. This is usual spring time activity and posturing by the North Koreans...5d chess time
Grayson Foster
How on earth can anyone influence the North Korean populace exactly?
Brayden Hall
>You convince the populace to revolt. Makes you the "bad guy".
Jaxon Brooks
By posting on 4pol.
John Wilson
You present them something they want in exchange for something they have, in this case all they have is their ability to do work. Starving to death in a hole of a country's got to bother at least someone reguardless of all the propaganda.
Dylan Morgan
>You present them something they want in exchange for something they have You mean death to America?
Brayden Garcia
Sure, you could tell them anything you want. If they knew the truth about their governments collusion with the US in the past it'd just make the whole process easier.
Wyatt Price
Reminder that they don't have minuturized warheads and would need to drive a truck past the DMZ minefields to actually nuke somewhere outside NK since they don't have any bombers
