Politics Will the US go to war against the DPRK?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Will the US and DPRK have military conflict?

  • Total voters
    22
PDXFonz

PDXFonz

I’m listening
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
20,573
Likes
17,369
Points
113
A lot of back and forth about how close the two nations are to war. This is business as usual for N Korea, threaten their enemies with words. Will Trump say enough is enough and take military action? Or will it go down as simply a war of words?

I think it is inevitable. Trumps sanctions will hit where they are supposed to, and more N Koreans will starve to death. N Korea however will still work to improve their nuclear capabilities and as soon as they conduct another nuclear test Trump will make his move.

The one thing that could end up saving the world from this atrocity is South Korea. If they reform policy with their northern neighbors it could be the beginning of bringing peace to the peninsula.
 
MarAzul said:
What exactly do you think the South Koreans need to reform?
Click to expand...
I'm not well versed on the specific political conflicts between the two countries, but I do know the lines of communication between the two have not been open. So that would be a good place to start. Softening the tension at the DMZ would probably be the next course of action. After that I'd assume they start talking about ways for the South to help provide aid to the starving citizens in the North.

What is your answer to the poll question?
 
More than 120 South Korean companies have factories at a joint industrial park at Kaesong, North Korea. The park is just north of the DMZ, and employs tens of thousands of North Korean workers.

Sorry, for the wrong date and timeline which I deleted. The joint industrial park is closed at this time. No date set to re-open which would indicate a improvement in the relations between the two countries.

Will there be a war? It is up to N. Korea.
My guess is, they are going to start playing nice soon to get more investment money into their country, and put their people back to work. Then once they get some concession/money, they will start their war talk all over again. That has been their pattern for decades.
 
Last edited:
PDXFonz said:
I'm not well versed on the specific political conflicts between the two countries, but I do know the lines of communication between the two have not been open. So that would be a good place to start. Softening the tension at the DMZ would probably be the next course of action. After that I'd assume they start talking about ways for the South to help provide aid to the starving citizens in the North.

What is your answer to the poll question?
Click to expand...

I suppose we will need to continue making them believe we will go to war with them any day they choose and on the the day we choose if they can indeed do us harm.
 
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/north-korea-says-dialogue-u-under-conditions-yonhap-041734682.html

SEOUL (Reuters) - A senior North Korean diplomat who handles relations with the United States said on Saturday that Pyongyang would have dialogue with the U.S. administration if conditions were right, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

Choe Son Hui, North Korea's foreign ministry director general for U.S. affairs, made the comment to reporters in Beijing as she was traveling home from Norway, Yonhap said.

"We'll have dialogue if the conditions are there," she told reporters when asked if the North was preparing to hold talks with the Trump administration, according to Yonhap.

When asked if North Korea was also getting ready to talk with the new government in South Korea, of liberal President Moon Jae-in, Choe said: "We'll see."

The comments by Choe, who is a veteran member of the North's team of nuclear negotiators, came amid stepped up international efforts to press North Korea and ease tension over its pursuit of nuclear arms.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned in an interview with Reuters in late April that a "major, major conflict" with the North was possible, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute over its nuclear and missile programs.

Trump later said he would be "honored" to meet the North's leader, Kim Jong Un, under the right conditions.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said the United States remains open to talks with North Korea but it would have to "cease all its illegal activities and aggressive behavior in the region."

"We have been clear over the past twenty years that we seek nothing but a stable and economically prosperous Korean peninsula," the spokesman said in an email.
 
Trump: Come alone, unarmed, honk twice and exit your vehicle.

Kim: Come alone, unarmed, stay in your car and keep your head up.
 
I don't know why we wouldn't just talk to them under almost any condition.

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to talk to him.

The tough talk is fine, it is just posturing and letting the other side know you're serious, but you still have to talk to come to a peace deal.

I don't see the harm in meeting with them to see if there's common ground.
 
Denny Crane said:
I don't know why we wouldn't just talk to them under almost any condition.

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to talk to him.

The tough talk is fine, it is just posturing and letting the other side know you're serious, but you still have to talk to come to a peace deal.

I don't see the harm in meeting with them to see if there's common ground.
Click to expand...
Would you trust them if they promised to stop the progression of their nuclear program?
 
The one way Trump can escape his "staged" military aggression is to defer this to the South Korean government. When the critical condition returns to all normal HE can say what a great job he has done to convince the North to settle down and converse with the South although the "reason" for US aggression was NK Nuke testing. He'll pat himself on his back and stir up a wasp nest in another world corner. Trump =BOZO diplomacy.
 
Meanwhile:::::Pakistan has Nukes that we granted because India had them. Pakistan may be more volatile than NK based on ISIS and other groups invading Pakistan like cancer cells into a human body.
 
HA!! At A glance ( I opened this and then had to read again)
I thought you were asking if we were gonna go to war with @jlprk

HAHAHA
 
Second missile test this week.

Will the US government look weak if we don't end up putting a stop to their nuclear development like we vowed to?
 
I voted "yes" only because I think on a long enough time horizon, the chances of a peaceful resolution seem pretty slim. The current amount of saber rattling by Kim Jong Un is pretty much par for the course and amounts to little more than extortion, and the young leader trying to put his stamp on the regime as a strong-man not to be trifled with. But then again when you are playing chicken with nuclear weapons, all it takes is one bad miscalculation or one side or the other badly mis-reading the situation and everything can go to hell.
 
Another missile launch, this time dangerously close to Japan.

US moves the third aircraft carrier to the region.

Wonder how much of this plan includes fighting China as well... Shouldn't need 3 aircraft carriers to fight the DPRK.
 
PDXFonz said:
Wonder how much of this plan includes fighting China as well
Click to expand...
no way China is that stupid...they will not sacrifice business for N Korean interests...Russia or China could walk right over that country anytime.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
NK would pound the shit out of SK with artillery.
Click to expand...
and then starve to death trying to reload......you could get that whole country to revolt by offering free food for guns and ammo at the border
 
I keep changing my mind on this question.

Logic says there is no way NK pushes us into a war, for so many reasons on so many levels. Plus it would be delusional for NK to believe they can win a war.

And then I wake up and remember who is running their country, and think it probably is more a matter of when, not if, delusional fat boy pushes us too far.
 
I'm pretty sure that since the 1950s they've scouted and prepared quite a few gameplans for taking N Korea out quickly..
 
The 59 missiles we launched at Syria cost $100 million.

I would offer NK $100 million a year for 10 years to give up their nuke program.

It would end up being far cheaper then bombing the shit out of them.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The 59 missiles we launched at Syria cost $100 million.

I would offer NK $100 million a year for 10 years to give up their nuke program.

It would end up being far cheaper then bombing the shit out of them.
Click to expand...
Let our new ally Saudi Arabia bomb them and then sell them another 100 billion worth of replacement bombs....WINNING!!!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The 59 missiles we launched at Syria cost $100 million.

I would offer NK $100 million a year for 10 years to give up their nuke program.

It would end up being far cheaper then bombing the shit out of them.
Click to expand...

The problem is, we have made deals in the past with NK for them to give up their nuke program. They take what we offer, play nice for a while. Then go back to making nukes, and talking war again.

In 1994, we gave NK aid in return for shutting down their nuke program. In 2003 NK started up their nuke factories again, and ignored the treaty.

There have been other deals made with NK. Some of them involved our removal of nuclear weapons from SK.

NK had broken every deal made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump is trying to change how the midterm elections are conducted
Replies
0
Views
100
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Politics Peter Thiel has begun tying his warnings about “the Antichrist” and an impending apocalypse to what he describes as the “end of modernity,”
Replies
5
Views
102
Strenuus
Strenuus
SlyPokerDog
Politics Musk Set to Get Access to Top-Secret U.S. Plan for Potential War With China
Replies
22
Views
1K
Hoopguru
Hoopguru
SlyPokerDog
Game Thread Beavers vs Ducks, The 129th Civil War Game! Saturday, 12pm, Autzen!
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
kjironman1
kjironman1
SlyPokerDog
OT Tucker Carlson Starstruck By Historian Who Calls Churchill, Not Hitler, the ‘Chief Villain’ of WW2
Replies
4
Views
339
julius
julius

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top