How would a war between N.Korea, China and USA be fought?

[Ghostrider]

What if we just use them all at once?

We could use them to intercept S-1's Photon Bomb.

And if you never watched Uchu Senshi Baldios, I forgive you for not getting it.

 

[Urwumpe]

Exactly, I think the whole world should better decide and not those who already have them.

I don't think that anybody has a right to own them. Like other weapons of mass destruction, they should be considered criminal. Otherwise, we will soon have the problem that somebody is going to use them. Must not be a "rogue nation". The USA have also been busy finding reasons to use their nuclear weapons for less than bombing the Russians to the stone age.

 

[anemazoso]

Exactly, I think the whole world should better decide and not those who already have them.

I don't think that anybody has a right to own them. Like other weapons of mass destruction, they should be considered criminal. Otherwise, we will soon have the problem that somebody is going to use them. Must not be a "rogue nation". The USA have also been busy finding reasons to use their nuclear weapons for less than bombing the Russians to the stone age.

The absolute best use would be to convert them to fuel pellets for an Orion type inteplanetary ship. To bad thats as realistic as every country destroying there arsenal voluntarily.'

This has been a funny thread. It's unfortunate though that some of it turned to an argument about Vietnam.

But, I would like to go back to the sub-topic of the USAF/Navy airpower in regards to a Korean penisula conflict. Without invokeing American exceptionalism I would say that our hardware even excluding the F-22 and F-35 is superior as well as our pilots. Our rather large fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s would be enough. And we wouldn't need to occupy NK, just level it and kill the leaders. Also, I find it difficult to believe we would not achieve air supperiority within days of the start of a conflict.

Bombers like the B-1b and the B-2? Who needs them? Ever heard of Aegis missle cruisers?

There are many different levels of confilct though so it is hard to say what strategies would be employed. Would China enter the conflict? Would Japan? What would be the international contrabution? There should be some "ground rules" that we all agree on or accept for the purposes of this argument.

 

[markl316]

Here's a radical idea: either everyone should have nukes or no one should have them.

Great idea! Let's give Iran some of our nukes. What could possibly go wrong? :facepalm:

 

[insanity]

Great idea! Let's give Iran some of our nukes. What could possibly go wrong? :facepalm:

That's just a hyperbolic statement. Why do we get to decide who gets to have missiles in the first place?

To be honest, I'm fine with a nuclear Iran. Israel, Pakistan, and India already have the bomb, and in the rest of the region we pretty much run the show. Iran's ability to be offensive is limited. Iran should be the one's worried, because if anything is launched from the middle east, their heads will be on a platter 40 minutes later.

 

[Urwumpe]

To be honest, I'm fine with a nuclear Iran.

Me too, I would rather ban them from owning rifles and clubs, so the police can't oppress the citizens there. Nuclear weapons are pretty bad for killing demonstrations, since you create a few million martyrs and damage your cities.

 

[Ghostrider]

Great idea! Let's give Iran some of our nukes.

Why not? Just remember to set the timers right...

 

[SiberianTiger]

To be honest, I'm fine with a nuclear Iran. Israel, Pakistan, and India already have the bomb

India and Israel are most stable and powerful regional states (and probably most valuable future partners of Russia in Eurasia, but that's a different story). However, the most mysterious thing in the modern world, in my view, is why nobody sees it a problem that Pakistan has got nukes. It looks most like it had been assigned to be the US ally long ago, in ages of Iranian revolution and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. But times change, the local elites come and go, and the recent story isn't supporting Pakistan's allegiance to the role of a reliable ally of the USA very much. Is nobody afraid that some Pakistani-originated nuke may one explode in a very unexpected place?

Do I miss a knowledge of something that absolutely prevents that from happening?

 

[markl316]

Why do we get to decide who gets to have missiles in the first place?

Because we are making sure a powerful weapon does not fall into the hands of somebody who wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map, and who supports terrorism. Nukes in the US's, Israel's, and Europe's hands is not a big deal, but in the hands of Iran, that's just dangerous to the world. Besides, it's not really even up for debate, because as soon as Israel sees them getting close, they will blow the out of their nuclear manufacturing facilities.

 

[Urwumpe]

Because we are making sure a powerful weapon does not fall into the hands of somebody who wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map, and who supports terrorism.

You mean, somebody who isn't the USA, of course. But it has already fallen into your hands, so it is no problem if your leaders claim to use them against countries who don't fit into their world (like Israel for almost all Arabian countries), or if your country supports terrorism.


Don't you think it is a bit hypocritical? Out of the same reasons you want to convince the world that Iran or North Korea shouldn't have nukes, people could convince the world that the USA shouldn't own nukes. You are not more trust-worthy than other countries, despite being labeled a functioning democracy. What ever democracy does, it does not keep countries from doing bad things to other countries, for their own sake.

I think there is a lot of stuff wrong in the world, which is mostly caused because some countries think, they are more equal than others. The UN is essentially a Palestine conflict generator, which spends 99% of its effort into investigating crimes done by Israel against Palestine, and which makes sure for 50 years now, that the refugee problem does never get solved, so the many UN organizations for any and every aspect of the life of Palestine refugees can continue to exist and waste money. And that mostly, because about two dozen tyrants from Arabia have as much voting power as Europe.

 

[GregBurch]

1) The saying actually was: "Socialism is the power of Soviets plus electricity for the whole country";
2) The electrification was over by 1933 and unrelated to the famine of '33;
3) Except Ukraine, the artificially created famine struck Caucasus, the Volga, Urals, Western Siberia and Kazakhstan (and I talked to people with first-hand experience).

Education is another my duty here.

1. I was working from memory ... and, of course, probably bad translations :lol:
2,3. I actually knew that, but in the context of my earlier comment, was basically lumping the whole Stalin era together as an analogy to the situation in NK (knowing that Stalin would have envied the level of social control that the Kim regime has managed to establish there).

India and Israel are most stable and powerful regional states (and probably most valuable future partners of Russia in Eurasia, but that's a different story). However, the most mysterious thing in the modern world, in my view, is why nobody sees it a problem that Pakistan has got nukes. It looks most like it had been assigned to be the US ally long ago, in ages of Iranian revolution and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. But times change, the local elites come and go, and the recent story isn't supporting Pakistan's allegiance to the role of a reliable ally of the USA very much. Is nobody afraid that some Pakistani-originated nuke may one explode in a very unexpected place?

Do I miss a knowledge of something that absolutely prevents that from happening?

I agree with your basic ideas expressed here. Pakistan's nuclear and missile arsenal is far more dangerous to the world at large than NK's -- it's bigger and much more likely to fall into the hands of people who would use it to start a general war or at least to actually incinerate a city in the civilized world. (But of course, its development is also tied up with NK proliferation activities through the AQ Kahn network, as we now know.)

Your comment about India is very insightful ... assuming even moderate stability in the world over the next 10-50 years, India will be much sought after as an ally by Russia, Israel (if it still exists) and, should it manage to hang on to some little bit of "Great Power" status, the US.

 

[markl316]

You mean, somebody who isn't the USA, of course.

:facepalm: Because every country in the world wants Israel and the US gone, and openly supports terrorism.

No. There are a few countries who I believe if they had nukes, the world would be very dangerous. It is a vast minority of countries--Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, to name a few. Not very many countries openly support terrorism.

And you comparing the US's nuclear intentions to Iran's and NK's intentions is absurd. The US, Germany, and most other countries are more trustworthy than Iran.

 

[Urwumpe]

The US, Germany, and most other countries are more trustworthy than Iran.

Why?

What do they do what makes them more trustworthy?

Ok, Germany decided that they will never station nuclear weapons in the new states, but that law does not apply to the old states (but de facto does).

PS: The USA also supported some many terrorist groups in its history, often as official as Iran... guess why Osama does not like you. Or which countries citizens mostly financed the IRA (Iran does not spend taxes on terrorists as far as people can say. But Muslims all over the planet often donate money to charity organizations, which are actually fund-raising for terrorists - even Muslims in the USA). It is too easy to just point at the others and say: You must change, because I am already perfect.

 

[Mantis]

Quite frankly Iran is a backwards society that has yet to emerge from the dark ages. They still practice stoning for adultery (usually just for the women) and it's not unheard of for women to be stoned to death as adulterers after having been raped. They hang underage boys for being homosexual - check it out on YouTube - they don't use a long drop, they put wire around their necks and lift them off the ground with a crane so that they slowly and painfully strangle to death. There's also a video out there of an 8 year old boy being punished in Iran by having his arm driven over by a car. His crime? Stealing a loaf of bread. Also, you cannot possibly consider a nation that boasts of having a "suicide squad" of 20,000 as part of it's military to be in any way rational.

During the cold war MAD prevented nuclear armageddon for the simple reason that both sides were rational and neither side wanted to do anything that would result in a nuclear war. In the case of unstable states driven by a radical religious ideology (such as Iran), you cannot count on the same level of rationality. How can you count on it from a society that preaches the belief that dying for Allah while killing infidels is the highest honour and that those who do so will be rewarded with 72 virgins in the afterlife?

 

[Urwumpe]

Quite frankly Iran is a backwards society that has yet to emerge from the dark ages. They still practice stoning for adultery (usually just for the women) and it's not unheard of for women to be stoned to death as adulterers after having been raped. They hang underage boys for being homosexual - check it out on YouTube - they don't use a long drop, they put wire around their necks and lift them off the ground with a crane so that they slowly and painfully strangle to death. There's also a video out there of an 8 year old boy being punished in Iran by having his arm driven over by a car. His crime? Stealing a loaf of bread. Also, you cannot possibly consider a nation that boasts of having a "suicide squad" of 20,000 as part of it's military to be in any way rational.

So, equal treatment before the law should be needed? As well as gay rights? Maybe also no death penalty?

You can't complain much about the punishments, since they are just applying the existing laws...

 

[anemazoso]

You can't complain much about the punishments, since they are just applying the existing laws...

Don't you think thats a little contrite and high minded?

I don't think we should suffer that type of brutality just because it's apart of there culture or history. It's just plain wrong.

Also, ya the USA is not perfect but we have done helluva lot more good than bad. We donate more to charities and we provide aid to almost any country that experiances a natural distaster. So you can point to our past (and present) mistakes but that is by no means an indictment of our character and our heart.

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't you think thats a little contrite and high minded?

No, just analytical.

I don't think we should suffer that type of brutality just because it's apart of there culture or history. It's just plain wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because your ethics and morals tell you that it is wrong?

Also, ya the USA is not perfect but we have done helluva lot more good than bad. We donate more to charities and we provide aid to almost any country that experiances a natural distaster. So you can point to our past (and present) mistakes but that is by no means an indictment of our character and our heart.

They also donate to charity there. Maybe not Christian charity groups.

No, the indictment of your character and heart is what you are willed to do on others, what you are not willed to see done on you.


If you say that the Iran is absolutely incompatible with western values, then you are perfectly right. It is. But don't forget that we did the same things in our past only for eventually arriving at the conclusion that these things didn't work for our advantage.

I bet we would still be openly oppressing women, if these women didn't keep the countries running during the first world war. Iran will one day arrive at the same turning point. Maybe sooner than many allies of the USA, which you are not turning your wrath at.

You complain about Iran...but why don't you attack Saudi-Arabia first? They have even more of the named atrocities and distasteful culture. Iran has a huge number of female engineers and women have more liberties in Iran than in Saudi-Arabia. The UAE are full of tiny tyrants, who oppress their citizens.

Actually, why all the talking here. I just want you to admit that, by the deepest primordial instincts and emotions, you just don't like North Korea or Iran and want to see these countries wiped from the map. Its not about ethics or morals, or about liberty or democracy. They are the target of your anger and should bow before you, if they don't want to feel your arguments impact into their cities.

It's alright...don't feel ashamed of your emotions.

 

[insanity]

Because we are making sure a powerful weapon does not fall into the hands of somebody who wants to wipe Israel and the US off the map, and who supports terrorism. Nukes in the US's, Israel's, and Europe's hands is not a big deal, but in the hands of Iran, that's just dangerous to the world. Besides, it's not really even up for debate, because as soon as Israel sees them getting close, they will blow the out of their nuclear manufacturing facilities.

Why do you get to be the arbiter of who makes the world stable? The prevailing worldview in America is that its okay for our friends to have nukes and not okay for our enemies to have them. Despite the fact that friends and enemies change, this worldview is still narrow-sighted and causes a lot of problems for everyone in the world.

Also, I don't think Iran would wipe Israel off the Earth. FWIW, Israel would have a hard time launching an offensive salvo against Iran (they need to stage the intervention somewhere, and they are a bit short of friends in the region), and Iran would only lose that shield by posturing with nukes. Personally, I think both sides having the bomb might make them be serious about working out some kind of peace for the survival of themselves.

Say what you want about Pakistan, it is impossible to deny that the Kashmir conflict would be much worse if one side bullied the other with threats of superior weaponry. Much of what has moderated the conflict has been the fear of MAD.

It's a sad reflection of the world that the only thing that seems to make us be civil is the threat of killing everyone, but that is the world we live in.

On Edit:
We have to remember that the international community is inherent anarchy. There are no universal laws that humans feel compelled to bind themselves too. Sure, Iran is backwards country ran by out-of-touch religious elites in a system so antiquated that they are a blight on the world. Unless the people of Iran stand against it, then there is not much we can do. Stopping Iran from becoming nuclear is an exceptionally hard task in pragmatic terms, just as-is stopping the Koreans. All we can do is try and restrain them in to being responsible members of the global political community.

 

[anemazoso]

I just want you to admit that, by the deepest primordial instincts and emotions, you just don't like North Korea or Iran and want to see these countries wiped from the map. Its not about ethics or morals, or about liberty or democracy. They are the target of your anger and should bow before you, if they don't want to feel your arguments impact into their cities.

It's alright...don't feel ashamed of your emotions.

I don't hate the people of Iran or NK just their leaders.

And yes there are many bad people and countries in the world. We can't stop them all, only the worst (and unfortunatly only the ones in which interdiction is in our national interests).

But this notion of incpatible values is funny. If it is in ones values to stone an adultress then those values are WRONG. It's not about judging based on my value system, it's about human decency, cultures be damned.

:tiphat:

 

[Mantis]

So, equal treatment before the law should be needed? As well as gay rights? Maybe also no death penalty?

You can't complain much about the punishments, since they are just applying the existing laws...

I'm actually in favor of the death penalty done humanely as opposed to barbaricly as they do in Iran and only for the most serious crimes - e.g. first degree murder. Certainly it should never be used against minors. My point wasn't gay rights of the death penalty - it was the barbarism of the Iranian regime. It is my sincere and honest belief that you cannot deal with such regimes without understanding and accepting what they really are. You cannot pretend that they are anything but barbarians of the worst sort. You cannot pretend that they are rational when clearly they are not. You cannot pretend that they have peaceful intentions when their actions and their rhetoric are anything but peaceful.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I don't hate the people of Iran or NK just their leaders.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. The people of Iran and North Korea are, unfortuantely victims of their own leaders. Look at what happened when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad evidently stole the recent Iranian elections. It was Iranian civilians who were massacred, jailed and in some cased barbaricly executed by their own government for simply demanding that their votes actually count for something. Look at Kim Jonh Il...he lives in luxury while the people of North Korea starve and live in substandard conditions. I'm sure that people in both countries would love to see a change but there is little chance of that happening without a great deal of bloodshed.