Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 70

On August 15 2017 19:05 Spitfiree wrote: His original response was quite late, seemed insincere and absolutely weak. He's indeed the president and there are probably hundreds of other shit he s handling and that doesn't directly mean he s thinking what the other media are saying he s thinking, but it was a pretty poor execution on his side nevertheless. Also it's much easier to tell a reporter to write something in a piece of paper and print it, quite another to go out in public and address the world. Apart from I hope he listens to someone adequate about the NK "crisis" as going to war would mean the death of millions in South Korea. Doesn't even matter if they are able to use their nukes or not. It seems like there is no global villain in the world atm as ISIS is pretty much done and North Korea is the only suitable one. With that in mind, China will certainly not be happy with a unified Korea and the crisis could spin way out of NK/SK. That zone of influence is the only territory in the world which the USA doesn't fully control and hopefully, they'll give up on it. The only "peaceful" solution would be to finance some kind of an opposition, but my mind can't even bear the possibility of such thing developing enough to have an impact in the next 10 years.

no way millions of southkoreans die that is a huge exageration, naturally you can't ask other states to not develop nuclear weapons if you hold literally thousands... either the US make a world-wide effort where eveyyone destroy and stop all nuclear-weapon programs or they should shut the fuck up about North Korea.

A world-wide accord about nuclear weapons would be amazing for everyone, there isnt an impending doom at the push of a button and any crazy dictator refusing to abide gets invaded by the entire world with no backup whatsoever North Korea would also lose all leverage

i cant believe normally intelligent people are going at it again with the "punch a Nazi" thing, how can they be that dense, so I guess it also is ok to "punch a Commie" so then we watch as it quickly degrades into "beat the living shit of a Nazi/Commie" to "kill a Nazi/Commie" and all based on subjective personal categorizatino of somebodys ideas, for fucks sake.

Baalim - u guys gonna pay for that wall trump promised? lol

On August 15 2017 21:08 Ryan Neilly wrote: Baalim - u guys gonna pay for that wall trump promised? lol

? welcome to the discussion 8 months later.

As I've said many times, only the most ignorant of rednecks believed that for a second, not only Mexico has no reason to do so, it would be political suicide, is as if the U.S. build nuclear missiles for North Korea, so even if Trump threatened to dissolve NAFTA badly hurting all the southern states economy badly, still no Mexican politican would bite the bullet and put a single dime thowards building the wall, which obviously in no way reduces migration.

That being said I think its perfectly reasonable for a state to protect its borders especially a welfare state, the wall is just not a cost/effective way and even if i'm in general for a no-border stateless society and against welfare.

On August 15 2017 20:44 Baalim wrote: i cant believe normally intelligent people are going at it again with the "punch a Nazi" thing, how can they be that dense, so I guess it also is ok to "punch a Commie" so then we watch as it quickly degrades into "beat the living shit of a Nazi/Commie" to "kill a Nazi/Commie" and all based on subjective personal categorizatino of somebodys ideas, for fucks sake.

Ehm, I'm fine with other nations developing nukes as that creates balance, not saying that the US should do anything, however, everything points to them going to war there. There s no reason to think otherwise atm, and if they're going to do it, might as well do it smart.

and all based on subjective personal categorizatino of somebodys ideas, for fucks sake

The regime is completely fucked up, that not a subjective categorization, you can't invest in weapons while your population literally starves to death, obviously thats reason 1 out of 10000

On August 10 2017 05:46 Baalim wrote: And that is Malaysia, the shining example of Islam according to Reza Aslan lol

yeah lol. The same thing going on in Morocco according to BrotherRachid

On August 15 2017 19:05 Spitfiree wrote: His original response was quite late, seemed insincere and absolutely weak. He's indeed the president and there are probably hundreds of other shit he s handling and that doesn't directly mean he s thinking what the other media are saying he s thinking, but it was a pretty poor execution on his side nevertheless. Also it's much easier to tell a reporter to write something in a piece of paper and print it, quite another to go out in public and address the world. Apart from I hope he listens to someone adequate about the NK "crisis" as going to war would mean the death of millions in South Korea. Doesn't even matter if they are able to use their nukes or not. It seems like there is no global villain in the world atm as ISIS is pretty much done and North Korea is the only suitable one. With that in mind, China will certainly not be happy with a unified Korea and the crisis could spin way out of NK/SK. That zone of influence is the only territory in the world which the USA doesn't fully control and hopefully, they'll give up on it.

war or military action in north korea doesn't necessarily mean regime change, or unified korea, and no the DPRK isn't capable of killing millions of anyone without nukes with the exception of its own people over a measly sevens decades

On August 15 2017 19:05 Spitfiree wrote: The only "peaceful" solution would be to finance some kind of an opposition, but my mind can't even bear the possibility of such thing developing enough to have an impact in the next 10 years.

NK isn't the middle east, this isn't possible, in fact this is so far from possible it's stupefying to see someone try to talk about it

Trump is just trolling ?

The way he handled this nazi-march and the attack with car... It was just some kind of a joke right ? He is handling the event like how the left handles islamic terrorist attacks just to point that out ?

No way he is serious ? lol

On August 16 2017 06:10 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On August 15 2017 20:44 Baalim wrote: i cant believe normally intelligent people are going at it again with the "punch a Nazi" thing, how can they be that dense, so I guess it also is ok to "punch a Commie" so then we watch as it quickly degrades into "beat the living shit of a Nazi/Commie" to "kill a Nazi/Commie" and all based on subjective personal categorizatino of somebodys ideas, for fucks sake. Ehm, I'm fine with other nations developing nukes as that creates balance, not saying that the US should do anything, however, everything points to them going to war there. There s no reason to think otherwise atm, and if they're going to do it, might as well do it smart.   and all based on subjective personal categorizatino of somebodys ideas, for fucks sake The regime is completely fucked up, that not a subjective categorization, you can't invest in weapons while your population literally starves to death, obviously thats reason 1 out of 10000

lol I think you got confused, im talking about punching Nazis not anything about nukes and NK

On August 16 2017 21:09 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is just trolling ? The way he handled this nazi-march and the attack with car... It was just some kind of a joke right ? He is handling the event like how the left handles islamic terrorist attacks just to point that out ? No way he is serious ? lol

He handled it poorly, his intent was to denounce both sides, but he should have denounced specifically Nazis, then ANTIFA, but he made a general statement which gave the media more than enough to crucify him.

He doesnt seem to be very good at being coached, that was part of his "charm" to get elected but its costing him dearly now.


Oh the bright side he mentioned the alt-left that has been running amock with no attention whatsoever from the public, they are socially far more dangerous than some pathetic bunch of white supremacists

What you Said + i think it was a semi-parody on how the left handles islamic terror too

On August 16 2017 21:09 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is just trolling ? The way he handled this nazi-march and the attack with car... It was just some kind of a joke right ? He is handling the event like how the left handles islamic terrorist attacks just to point that out ? No way he is serious ? lol

the pic I linked is not real if that's the response you were talking about

On August 16 2017 16:06 Santafairy wrote: war or military action in north korea doesn't necessarily mean regime change, or unified korea,

That's true, that's why there should be a solid military plan beforehand, otherwise, we'll have post-Russia Afghanistan at our hands, except this time they ll have nukes.

On August 16 2017 16:06 Santafairy wrote: and no the DPRK isn't capable of killing millions of anyone without nukes with the exception of its own people over a measly sevens decades

Pretty sure they are, I'm not talking about US citizens, I'm not even talking about utilization of nukes, they could simply bomb the shit out of South Korea. I might be overexaggerating with millions indeed, but there would be an excessive amount of casulties nevertheless.

the whole how many south koreans will die if north korea goes all out with artillery fire is a pretty impossible endeavor, but from what I've seen, it'd definitely be a 6 figure number within the first week. 25 million people live in the greater seoul area. I think it's impossible to state with any type of confidence, and millionS seems like an exaggeration, but either way, aside from trump being elected (;-) ), it'd be the greatest tragedy to hit a developed country since ww2.

On August 17 2017 12:16 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On August 16 2017 21:09 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is just trolling ? The way he handled this nazi-march and the attack with car... It was just some kind of a joke right ? He is handling the event like how the left handles islamic terrorist attacks just to point that out ? No way he is serious ? lol the pic I linked is not real if that's the response you were talking about

i was not

On August 17 2017 14:44 Liquid`Drone wrote: the whole how many south koreans will die if north korea goes all out with artillery fire is a pretty impossible endeavor, but from what I've seen, it'd definitely be a 6 figure number within the first week. 25 million people live in the greater seoul area. I think it's impossible to state with any type of confidence, and millionS seems like an exaggeration, but either way, aside from trump being elected (;-) ), it'd be the greatest tragedy to hit a developed country since ww2.

Impossible endeavor and then you go on to calculate a range between 100k to 1M


I'm talking out of my ass but those numbers sound crazy, it would require weeks of non-stop artillery and it would take a very short time for the US to take the artillery out

That is a pretty wide range.. ;p I've googled some and read a couple articles, including some wargames scenario in the atlantic from 2005. The latter stated that likely casualties of war against north korea, and this was before they got nukes, would be in the several hundred thousand south korean civilans and military personell. And having been to seoul and seen how densely populated it is (I remember a taxi driver pointing towards what looked like a couple apartment complexes and going '100000 people live there'), I can easily see how 100k+ people die pretty much immediately. When the US bombed Tokyo in 1945, they killed 100k people in one day, this was also without nukes, and Tokyo only had like 5 millionish people living there at that time, as opposed to Seoul's current 25 million..

Furthermore, my understanding is that there's no taking out the artillery pointed towards seoul. It's mounted far inside mountains with no possibility of changing the direction. Even those MOABs wouldn't do much against them. A lot of it is pointed towards military targets, but enough is pointed towards civilian areas that it largely constitutes some degree of MAD - if at any point americans or south koreans or whoever had tried to topple the kim regime, then the cannons would go a'blastin. This is one of the primary reasons why there was never really an option to first strike to stop them from getting nukes in the first place.

On August 19 2017 14:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: That is a pretty wide range.. ;p I've googled some and read a couple articles, including some wargames scenario in the atlantic from 2005. The latter stated that likely casualties of war against north korea, and this was before they got nukes, would be in the several hundred thousand south korean civilans and military personell. And having been to seoul and seen how densely populated it is (I remember a taxi driver pointing towards what looked like a couple apartment complexes and going '100000 people live there'), I can easily see how 100k+ people die pretty much immediately. When the US bombed Tokyo in 1945, they killed 100k people in one day, this was also without nukes, and Tokyo only had like 5 millionish people living there at that time, as opposed to Seoul's current 25 million..

it's true that tokyo was bombed without nukes but it's not true that it was a bunch of artillery pieces shooting shells that weigh even less than DPRK soldiers themselves, it was hundreds of airplanes dropping huge incendiary bombs accurately, and also buildings today in seoul are not buildings in tokyo in 1945, as you mention high rise apartments for example, as I recall tokyo was a lot of wood, similar to kyoto which was really bad and if the US had nuked would have killed 1 million people easily

you keep repeating this grave number 25 million but most of those people aren't in range of anything, it's like going to the beach and saying a quadrillion gallons of water are in range of you, like you say greater seoul area but that's an area full of lots of empty things, like between 1 and 2 artillery pieces in the entire DPRK per square kilometer of greater seoul, it's true where people are is densely packed but moot when they're out of range. artillery is not super effective, and they don't have infinite ammo, and it's spread along the border (not uniform but at the same time not all pointed at seoul), but most importantly it just can't really reach where the people actually are

think V-2 and London

if you want to talk about DPRK planes bombing ROK civilians it would be something else, but the problem is the air force is small and old and would hopefully not get the chance

first of all the ROK air force wins anyway, but add parts of the US air force and navy and it's a wipeout, look at the six day war, it's just almost instant wrecking

on the other hand I don't think you can exaggerate nuclear strikes, by plane or missile or even some jackass in one of those mini subs floating somewhere or something although they probably wouldn't trust something as valuable as the dear leader's nuclear bomb to one of those. nuking the population destroys the future of korea almost entirely, even in an unrestrained conventional war the ROK takes some damage and has to commit strongly to a war effort, but comes out the other side, if ROK is nuked out of spite then it means postwar crippling on both sides, which means something like china having to take more of the mantle of governing postwar north as protectorate because weaker south and then worse reunification and eventually philippinification of the country or something

also remember anytime you estimate dead people, some multiple of that is also going to be wounded but not dead

On August 19 2017 14:17 Liquid`Drone wrote: Furthermore, my understanding is that there's no taking out the artillery pointed towards seoul. It's mounted far inside mountains with no possibility of changing the direction. Even those MOABs wouldn't do much against them. A lot of it is pointed towards military targets, but enough is pointed towards civilian areas that it largely constitutes some degree of MAD - if at any point americans or south koreans or whoever had tried to topple the kim regime, then the cannons would go a'blastin. This is one of the primary reasons why there was never really an option to first strike to stop them from getting nukes in the first place.

there was always the option of preemptive surgical strikes but nobody wanted to be responsible for making that call, not because of any truth to flattening of Seoul propaganda by the DPRK, but because politically if just one person dies (which they assuredly would) it's your ass and you get rewarded for kicking the can down the road instead, so it's deterrent but MAD interpretation is DPRK lies, also because president clinton claimed to have halted nuclear weapons development by coming to an agreement with inspections, and because kim dae-jung was busy shining sunshine on the DPRK and so wouldn't have struck it, and because the bush administration was busy distracted in iraq and afghanistan and anyways jaded enough from the fallout of those perceived quagmires, and because roh moo-hyun was worried about domestic issues and getting impeached and so forth, the fact that nobody did it doesn't mean it wasn't and isn't still an option, although I guess gets more complicated now because you have to have intel to know where absolutely everything is so you don't miss something

I just skimmed/read the majority of 'http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/', after first reading http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-...late-seoul-its-artillery-20345?page=2

Seem like the most trustworthy sources I've seen on the subject. And they largely back up what you are saying. Artillery only covers like one third of seoul, and the more densely populated areas are generally out of reach, artillery and mortars and rockets miss frequently, and kim regime definitely exaggerates their ability to reduce seoul to rubble. But still, that first link, which seems as thoroughly researched as can be, puts an estimate of 30k fatalities with the first volley of artillery fire and 64k the first day, 80k in one week. Another quote says 'many tens of thousands'.

So I agree that the millions is exaggerated and that I've had some misconceptions of how much damage they could do myself, but that there would be more than 100k south korean civilian deaths in a war and that that's a completely unacceptable figure, still seems fair enough.. That also doesn't factor in biological/chemical weapons, of which north korea apparently has a decent amount, nor the damage from conventional fighting - and north korea certainly has a large standing army. Not like North Korea is an existential threat without nukes, but they kind of are too much of a threat to be able to stop before they become an existential threat with nukes.

On August 17 2017 03:20 Baalim wrote: [QUOTE]On August 16 2017 21:09 VanDerMeyde wrote: [QUOTE]He doesnt seem to be very good at being coached, that was part of his "charm" to get elected but its costing him dearly now.

So true ! Before the staff could somehow control the press release and other public statement but now, the morron in charge can just take his phone and reach out to the whole world in seconds, to let everyone realise their mistake days after days.
What a great time we are living in !