North Korea threatens the US with a Nuclear War.

[Ramses the Third]

Its not because of the war excercises its because of Justin Bieber. North Koreo doesn't want Bieber fever so they will nuke the US to stop it.

 

[hawkeye52]

this like the standard american foreign policy that is also there military policy i.e. shock and awe

 

[BabySinclair]

In actuality the US is still at war with North Korea. There never was a peace treaty so they could technically bomb each other and nothing technically changes on the books. The torpedoing was a break of the cease fire, not a declaration of war.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I really don't want to see nuclear war...even though the days of M.A.D. are officially gone, a nuclear war could very easily and quickly escalate to that.

Based on what I've seen in the news [mostly NHK because American News doesn't mention it] investigations have shown the torpedo attack a couple of months ago was unprovoked and was carried out by the North Koreans.

I live very close to DC so, when the bombs do start falling, I'll likely be one of the first people vaporized (unless of course Obama hits the button first: in which case I'll be one of the first people vaporized in the retaliatory strike)

 

[ImpostorZim]

Wow, 15 pages, please forgive me for not reading to check if this has been pointed out, but - North Korea CAN'T nuke America. It doesn't have the capability to develop warheads. At most all it can do at the moment is induce a nuclear explosion, and perhaps strap one to a rocket. To get that rocket across the Pacific is beyond their means right now. They could however, nuke South Korea.

As with all insane regimes, you've got to hope their desire for self-preservation outweighs their desire to massacre their enemies.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is more pointless sabre-rattling. The North is too weak to launch a profitable invasion of the South, and the US is too bogged down in the Middle East to take any military action.

That's something I was just thinking about. Considering the whole "War on Terror" thing, would the US even be able to spare enough troops for a confrontation? Personally I just think this is a bunch of crazy speculation and nothing's really gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[TimeLord]

So basically, America and South Korea are poking North Korea with a big stick to see if it will attack them or cower back in fear!

Do you live in North Korea?

No, do you?

If not, you really need to not post such rubbish

Why? I mearly stated my view on the matter

if you are then it's understandable since your basically a prisoner.

How so? I mean apart from crazy dictator leader part

So America and South korea are the ones poking North korea when North korea is the one threatening nuclear war?

The first line of OPs none spoiler tagged post says:

"The US and South Korean governments are going to do military exercises to deter North Korea's agression. I suspect that they are trying to scare North Korea with their military force into stopping them from taking any further actions against South Korea."

So the US and S Korea are testing N Korea by poking them with a military controlled stick!!

 

[Subzerowings]

No. You're putting forth a motivation for the US that is unsubstantiated. There is nothing unfair about doing military exercises, which will serve as practice if shit hits the fan, in waters which allow it.

It DOES serve as practice. Your claim is neither correct or incorrect, its your opinion, and that does not render me wrong at all.

Do you seriously have even a shred of support for NK? If you do I'm appalled.

My claim is not unsubstantiated, it was confirmed by reporters from my country who interviewed Hilary Clinton.
I'm not saying that military exercises are wrong, I'm saying that doing them even though the lives of a lot of people are potentialy at stake is irresponsible.
North Korea could do a lot of damage to the areas closely surrounding them and I don't think that practice is justifiable when those people's lives could be at stake.
I do believe that they're taking a big risk due to the mental instability of NK's leader.
To answer your question, yes.
I do support NK.
Not it's leader, nor they that are extremely loyal to him, but to those who are caught in the crossfire.
If Kim was a bankrobber and stealing money would equal threatening with a nuclear war, then NK's citizens are his hostages.
I think that SK and the US should stop their exercises for Kim, thus giving in to his demands and threats even though that's horribly wrong.
One day North Korea will be liberated, but it won't be by (IMO) reckless behavior, but by diplomatic solutions or stealth operations.

 

[Double A]

If they fire even ONE nuke, our Airforce will make SURE that there is nothing living in that country. And then after WE'RE done with them, the combined UN force will be there to make sure they don't come out of their underground for another 50 years.

North Korea is an insignificant mouse compared to America.

Them taking over South Korea is about as likely as Canada taking Texas.

Is that a challenge?

They aren't much of one, no.

 

[Choppaduel]

The nukes aren't supposed to fall for another two years at best, 67 years at worst. Oh well, time to prepare for Yao Guai now.

I've already leveled my Animal Friend perk twice.

 

[martin's a madman]

If they fire even ONE nuke, our Airforce will make SURE that there is nothing living in that country. And then after WE'RE done with them, the combined UN force will be there to make sure they don't come out of their underground for another 50 years.

North Korea is an insignificant mouse compared to America.

Them taking over South Korea is about as likely as Canada taking Texas.

Is that a challenge?

Haha, it was a joke about the Texas thing.

They aren't much of one, no.

 

[etherlance]

That is rather absurd, everyone who goes in country knows to shake with your right hand.

Well I guess the stories I heard about the USA kicking out all left handed people must be true.

Instead of being silly, your just being a troll, please stop.

Trust me if my intention was to troll, you would certainly know about it.

And I didn't start this. I made a comment, you decided to be offended and made a rebuke, I replied simple as that. let me just add that you obviously haven't read the whole thing because if you did you would see that I also made a comment about it being an X-box related joke.
But this is starting to bore me. If I wanted to get into an aguement over a petty comment I would go to youtube where I am certain someone would argue with me if I called the sky blue.

 

[Valiance]

What are you talking about?

The US Air Force also operates a strategic nuclear bomber fleet. The bomber force consists of 94 B-52 Stratofortresses, and 19 B-2 Spirits.

In addition to this, the US armed forces can also deploy smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons either through cruise missiles or with conventional fighter-bombers. The U.S. maintains about 400 nuclear gravity bombs capable of use by F-15, F-16, and F-35.

And the US Navy currently has 18 Ohio-class submarines deployed, of which 14 are ballistic missile submarines. Each submarine is equipped with a complement of 24 Trident II missiles, and some Trident missiles are equipped with the W88 warhead. Approximately 12 U.S. attack submarines are equipped to launch, but do not currently carry nuclear Tomahawk missiles.

I realize this. Well, most of it. I know we've had nuclear subs and tactical nukes. For decades we've had a "strategic nuclear bomber fleet" on standby near Alaska, ready to go if the command was given, or as some might say, "if the button is pushed..."

That said, didn't know about the gravity bombs. Those sound pretty sweet.

But no one wants a nuclear war, no one wants it to escalate to that, we don't have missile defense -everywhere-, we can't protect ourselves from -everything-, and there would be collateral damage that some might deem acceptable and some might not. I don't wanna sound like a little *****, but I doubt we'd really use it unless it was some kind of drastic measure.

I know it's obvious and stupid to state this, but there's a lot of bad politics involved in wiping a country off the map, even if it is to protect ourselves or our allies.

 

[Tsaba]

Wow, 15 pages, please forgive me for not reading to check if this has been pointed out, but - North Korea CAN'T nuke America. It doesn't have the capability to develop warheads. At most all it can do at the moment is induce a nuclear explosion, and perhaps strap one to a rocket. To get that rocket across the Pacific is beyond their means right now. They could however, nuke South Korea.

As with all insane regimes, you've got to hope their desire for self-preservation outweighs their desire to massacre their enemies.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is more pointless sabre-rattling. The North is too weak to launch a profitable invasion of the South, and the US is too bogged down in the Middle East to take any military action.

That's something I was just thinking about. Considering the whole "War on Terror" thing, would the US even be able to spare enough troops for a confrontation? Personally I just think this is a bunch of crazy speculation and nothing's really gonna happen anytime soon.

There is about 30,000 US troops in S. Korea at the moment.

 

[Subzerowings]

Furthering your analogy.

the bank robber is killing his hostages. He is also threatening the police on the outside if they don't back away further and lower all their weapons. Then China is standing by supporting his actions.

So, we give in to his demands and we remove one immediate threat and allow a future threat to exist?

Are you a supporter of preventing climate change? Said prevention will damage the economy. Should we allow climate change to grow harder to reverse so that the immediate threats are reduced?

Of course I am a supporter of the people of NK, I just disagree with the idea that these military exercises are threatening them in any way.

What reasoning would the US have to invade/liberate/destroy NK?

Well, if we do give in to the bankrobbers threats, then we have a good chance of saving a lot of the hostages and the ability to make a surprise attack when there's no immediate danger.
As soon as the immidiate threat is over, we could start thinking about a way to destroy the threat once and for all.

I don't believe that China would support NK when they'd initiate war though.
Sure, they are the only ones still trading with NK but they're not nearly as crazy/stupid as them.

I'm not saying that I'm not selective in the thought of taking care of immidiate threats without destroying the source.
You have to take the different factors into consideration.
In this case they're:
BENEFITS: The US and South Korea have the opportunity to train their armies.

RISKS: NK could start a war against (either) the US and(/or) South Korea.
NK could sacrifice more of it's population or bombard Seoul, resulting in a massive loss of life.

CONCLUSION: Either lives or military training are at stake.

I'd rather go with the potential of saving lives than with the continuation of military training.

Furthermore, the US has reason to liberate the NK population because NK is a direct threat to SK, which is an American ally.
They are, however, endangering the lives of both North and South Koreans by training.
This way, the US and SK are showing that they reject the threats of NK, which could prove to have been the right decision, but a decision that had a high risk.

That's why I sided with the idea of stopping their military exercises.

 

[technoted]

Kin Jong Il is very ill, even possibly dying he was never really afraid of anything before but what does he have to lose now if he does engage in nuclear warfare with America?

 

[Subzerowings]

I would add to the benifits:
Not showing weakness. Reality check for NK.
Being better prepared for future attacks.

I agree that there was a threat, but I think its far less than you imagine.

You also clearly have a higher opinion of China then I do.

I know China is still very oppressive, but I don't think they'd be stupid/ignorant enough to attack at least one military superpower, let alone multiple if Europe gets involved.
I do think that there's a legitimate threat to SK though since NK has enough missiles pointed at Seoul to pulverise it, which would mean about 24 milion deaths.
Couple that with their ability to march across the border with their 2 milion soldiers and we'd be looking at a death toll that's comparable to WWI (even though death tolls in WWI border from 10 mil to 60 mil).
I'd say that's a pretty considerable risk.