Best policy against North Korea?

N

Nammy

Guest
We know that we've already settled our disputes with North Korea by giving them energy supply and telling them to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

However, do you think that this was the best policy?

Should we have just attacked North Korea?

Should we attack them NOW since they've dismantled their nuclear weapons?

I mean, in the long run, they're going to keep doing this over and over again...

We need to take action and change them once and for all.

Your take?
 
Werbung:

ArmChair General

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
687
Location
www.spamwebsite.com
We know that we've already settled our disputes with North Korea by giving them energy supply and telling them to dismantle their nuclear weapons.

However, do you think that this was the best policy?

Should we have just attacked North Korea?

Should we attack them NOW since they've dismantled their nuclear weapons?

I mean, in the long run, they're going to keep doing this over and over again...

We need to take action and change them once and for all.

Your take?

Well its not like the North Koreans are shy about what they're doing. They've said over and over that their plan is to develop nuclear weapons and the ICBMs to send them toward US cities. They hate us like poison, and they're not shy about announcing that either.

The North Korean military threat is serious. Saddam never posed a threat to the American homeland; but North Korea is crazy enough, smart enough and tough enough to press that nuclear trigger as soon as it's operational.

The world may be turning to chicken**** woofing and whitecollar crime, but up there in Pyongyang there are people who'd just as soon bite your windpipe open as look at you, real berserkers with red stars on their caps. Our last decent chance for a classic full-on war.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
Stupid. American Special Forces missions have less than a 50% success rate.

That's partly because some of their objectives are literally impossible. More often than not, the SF are not allowed to complete their mission or have their hands severely tied to the point of impotence by the brass.
 

drippinhun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
224
That's partly because some of their objectives are literally impossible. More often than not, the SF are not allowed to complete their mission or have their hands severely tied to the point of impotence by the brass.

So if what you are saying is true, why recommend the same remedy for dealing with North Korea's refinement facilities? That defies logic.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
So if what you are saying is true, why recommend the same remedy for dealing with North Korea's refinement facilities? That defies logic.

Choosing the option of deploying Special Forces naturally follows the decision to competently back them up. The choice is therefore to send them in and not dick up their operation. That is the logical course of action.
 

drippinhun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
224
Choosing the option of deploying Special Forces naturally follows the decision to competently back them up. The choice is therefore to send them in and not dick up their operation. That is the logical course of action.

Logical course of action is to butt out and allow Russia, China, South Korea and Japan deal with this. When are we ever going to learn? When we are too bankrupt to field a military when needed?
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
Logical course of action is to butt out and allow Russia, China, South Korea and Japan deal with this. When are we ever going to learn? When we are too bankrupt to field a military when needed?

When I said "logical course of action" I meant that it would logical to support Special Forces in case of their deployment, not necessarily that deployment of Special Forces was the logical course of action. I am sorry for the mix up.
 
Werbung:

drippinhun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
224
When I said "logical course of action" I meant that it would logical to support Special Forces in case of their deployment, not necessarily that deployment of Special Forces was the logical course of action. I am sorry for the mix up.

Egos in a top down command structure will always have to wipe their weinies to show they "managed the successful operation." Of course if it goes sour, the kick down method is rapidly deployed.
 
Top