Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
North Korea

#61
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2017, 06:26 AM by The Real Marty.)

(08-11-2017, 09:55 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 07:42 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Read Sun Tzu you fools. 

China has removed the U.S. military option without firing a shot. 

Now we are reduced to asking China how badly their rabid dog has to misbehave before they decide to stop feeding it.

If China went to war with the US, they would lose their largest market. Their factories would close and their economy would collapse.


Also, whatever debt the US owes them (trillions of dollars) would be zeroed out.

That last sentence is nonsense.   China and the US don't deal directly with each other to trade US debt.   It's bought and sold on the world financial markets.   So there is no way to "zero out" the US debt that China is holding.    

Also, if the Chinese go to war with the US, it wouldn't only hurt the Chinese economy.  It would cause a collapse of the world economy and hurt us just as badly.   A collapse of the Chinese economy would cause a worldwide depression.

(08-11-2017, 07:42 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Read Sun Tzu you fools. 

China has removed the U.S. military option without firing a shot. 

Now we are reduced to asking China how badly their rabid dog has to misbehave before they decide to stop feeding it.

Maybe China has not removed the US military option.    The key is in your last sentence.   What they have done is draw a line.   This gives us the opportunity to ask them to further define the conditions under which they will abandon NK.   And then we need to make sure those conditions occur.   Checkmate.   Kaboom.  Problem solved.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#62

Checkmate? Kaboom? You're talking about American cities nuked and a World War. Problem not solved. Problem just beginning.
Reply

#63

(08-12-2017, 07:40 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Checkmate?  Kaboom?  You're talking about American cities nuked and a World War.  Problem not solved.  Problem just beginning.

You either didn't read what I wrote, or you didn't understand it.
Reply

#64

I read it and understand it.  The key sentence is:  And then we need to make sure those conditions occur. 

Which means, we need to make sure NK attacks us first.  Now think about it from the NK perspective.  Would they give us light slap to start the war, maybe lob a bomb near Guam that does minimal damage?  Why wouldn't they unleash their best haymaker, a nuke aimed at San Francisco?
Reply

#65

So many people here have no idea about history, IE the Cuban missile crisis.

Without a strong show of force back then, none of us would be here today.
What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 




Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#66

(08-12-2017, 01:29 PM)Dakota Wrote: So many people here have no idea about history, IE the Cuban missile crisis.

Without a strong show of force back then, none of us would be here today.

I would like to politely remind the MB that the reason the world continued to exist after the Cuban Missile Crisis is that Kennedy resisted the urge (and the calls) to shoot first.
Reply

#67

Yeah but we're talking Trump here.
Reply

#68

(08-12-2017, 12:10 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: I read it and understand it.  The key sentence is:  And then we need to make sure those conditions occur. 

Which means, we need to make sure NK attacks us first.  Now think about it from the NK perspective.  Would they give us light slap to start the war, maybe lob a bomb near Guam that does minimal damage?  Why wouldn't they unleash their best haymaker, a nuke aimed at San Francisco?

Right now, the alternative to an immediate war seems to be to allow NK to continue to build ICBMs to the point where they have enough to wipe out the entire United States in a first strike.  

That's why my point of view is that we need to separate them from China so we can handle this problem.   The Chinese have given us the parameters.   They have said that if NK attacks us first, they will not defend NK.   So the sooner NK attacks us first, the better, because the longer this goes on, the more ICBMs NK will have.  

We've stated for the last 20 years, that NK having this capability is intolerable.   Trump has said "It will not happen."   Well?   Here we are.   What are we going to do about it?
Reply

#69

(08-12-2017, 06:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(08-11-2017, 09:55 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
If China went to war with the US, they would lose their largest market. Their factories would close and their economy would collapse.


Also, whatever debt the US owes them (trillions of dollars) would be zeroed out.

That last sentence is nonsense.   China and the US don't deal directly with each other to trade US debt.   It's bought and sold on the world financial markets.   So there is no way to "zero out" the US debt that China is holding.    

Also, if the Chinese go to war with the US, it wouldn't only hurt the Chinese economy.  It would cause a collapse of the world economy and hurt us just as badly.   A collapse of the Chinese economy would cause a worldwide depression.

Whatever form the debt is in, if China went to war with the US that debt would be eliminated. Do you really think that investors would buy up the Chinese-owned debt once war started and the US declared that those shares were null and void?

I never said that other countries wouldn't be hurt economically. If it came to a nuclear exchange with China there would be no winners, but I don't think China would be that crazy. I doubt that a conventional war with China would hurt us as badly as it hurt China.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#70

China has no say or control in what we do regardless. South Korea is the heavy influence in this and always has been. They are an allie and have the most to lose. Does anyone honestly think China has the ability to dictate? China loses everything if they jump in and stands to lose very little if they all but ignore Nk. No way they give up trillions in global trade for a few billion. Their livelyhood is solely dependent upon global investment and trade. Poof, gone if they interfere. No way they want to return to the days of old when the Japanese almost owned them!
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#71

Why would NK attack us now? They have total cover to develop and build all the nukes they want. And they can run their mouth endlessly because Big Daddy China's got their back.
Reply

#72
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2017, 01:52 PM by wrong_box.)

I suspect that the US will negotiate with China about a first strike, targeting specific and limited targets, such as launching sites, missile manufacturing facilities, storage facilities, research and development facilities and such rather than a full scale attack on the regime. I don't think China is so much against destroying NK's nuke program, they just don't want to have a full scale war with that crazy [BLEEP] on their border. Not to mention the amount of refugees that would flood into China...
Reply

#73

(08-13-2017, 01:51 PM)wrong_box Wrote: I suspect that the US will negotiate with China about a first strike, targeting specific and limited targets, such as launching sites, missile manufacturing facilities, storage facilities, research and development facilities and such rather than a full scale attack on the regime. I don't think China is so much against destroying NK's nuke program, they just don't want to have a full scale war with that crazy [BLEEP] on their border. Not to mention the amount of refugees that would flood into China...

I don't see that happening, at least not with a government that's better at publishing phone call transcripts than it is at getting healthcare reform passed. China has already made it know that if the US shoots first, they will defend NK. If the US shoots first and China lets it be (or worse, if the US shoots first and word is leaked that China ok'd it), China has destroyed any and all credibility it had with its allies, and any of the respect that a world-leading nation gets would be wiped out right then and there.

China is not negotiating a first strike with the US. What I suspect they are discussing is what counts as a "first shot" from NK--and possibly what they can do to facilitate such an action being taken. China does not want to lose NK. If they do, they have a sworn enemy (SK) right on their border. That said, I'm sure they also don't want Kim Jong Un bringing nuclear war to their doorstep, so my expectation is that they'll quietly work to remove the Kim Jong regime from power and institute a puppet government that China controls.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#74

(08-13-2017, 03:41 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(08-13-2017, 01:51 PM)wrong_box Wrote: I suspect that the US will negotiate with China about a first strike, targeting specific and limited targets, such as launching sites, missile manufacturing facilities, storage facilities, research and development facilities and such rather than a full scale attack on the regime. I don't think China is so much against destroying NK's nuke program, they just don't want to have a full scale war with that crazy [BLEEP] on their border. Not to mention the amount of refugees that would flood into China...

I don't see that happening, at least not with a government that's better at publishing phone call transcripts than it is at getting healthcare reform passed. China has already made it know that if the US shoots first, they will defend NK. If the US shoots first and China lets it be (or worse, if the US shoots first and word is leaked that China ok'd it), China has destroyed any and all credibility it had with its allies, and any of the respect that a world-leading nation gets would be wiped out right then and there.

China is not negotiating a first strike with the US. What I suspect they are discussing is what counts as a "first shot" from NK--and possibly what they can do to facilitate such an action being taken. China does not want to lose NK. If they do, they have a sworn enemy (SK) right on their border. That said, I'm sure they also don't want Kim Jong Un bringing nuclear war to their doorstep, so my expectation is that they'll quietly work to remove the Kim Jong regime from power and institute a puppet government that China controls.

I disagree...China is more worried about an influx of refugees, and most certainly isn't real comfy with NK having nukes...I see China's stance as "IF" we unleash the military and start bombing the [BLEEP] out of NK, causing lots of civilian casualties and tons of collateral damage and trying to oust the current regime they would protect NK. Now if the US were to only take out targets that directly related to NK's nuke program and it's infrastructure, rather than power plants, and industries that would affect the people of NK, China just might agree to a preemptive first strike...
Reply

#75

Fat boy backed down like we all knew he would.
Reply

#76

(08-15-2017, 08:40 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Fat boy backed down like we all knew he would.

for now maybe
Reply

#77

China won't support an attack unless in defense. China doesn't even like NK. They only support them because they share a kind of similar political system. South Korea won't absorb them because they'd be too much of a burden on their economy.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#78

(08-15-2017, 11:22 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: China won't support an attack unless in defense. China doesn't even like NK. They only support them because they share a kind of similar political system. South Korea won't absorb them because they'd be too much of a burden on their economy.

China imports a lot of their coal from NK.  

Interestingly enough, the bobble headed dictator has put his plans to launch missiles at Guam on hold a day after China said they would enact sanctions that cut off importation of coal from North Korea if they don't knock it off.  

Trump has been pressing China harder than any president in the past 4 decades to step up and deal with North Korea.  Nobody wants to go to war with this lunatic, and even China has their limits to what they'll turn a blind eye to, and it appears their movement yesterday on potential sanctions brought about a temporary moment of sanity in North Korea.
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=59]
Reply

#79

(08-15-2017, 11:22 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: China won't support an attack unless in defense. China doesn't even like NK. They only support them because they share a kind of similar political system. South Korea won't absorb them because they'd be too much of a burden on their economy.

China likes NK having nukes even less than they dislike the fat kid
Reply

#80

I was told by the MSM that Trump was just looking for a photo opportunity with NK, but the fact that he walked away from the meeting yesterday shows that just isn't the case. Once again, the MSM look like fools.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!