- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
AP 4:30 pm EST-
South Korea won U.S. support Monday for slashing trade to North Korea and vowed to haul its communist neighbor before the U.N. Security Council for a torpedo attack that sank a South Korean warship and killed 46 sailors.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he expects the Security Council to take action against North Korea, calling the evidence that the North was responsible "overwhelming and deeply troubling."
The U.S. and South Korea are planning two major military exercises off the Korean Peninsula in a display of force intended "to deter future aggression" by North Korea, the White House said.
I tend to think this is about the most that can realistically be done. SK and the US are not going to invade NK, but you cannot allow a nation to sink one of your ships without some sort of response.
While this is true, I don't think it bodes well for the future. Mostly because NK is insane.
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.
Why would we have to support them?I suspect a blockade would increase the likelihood of open warfare. We would have to support SK, and right now our military is just too stretched to want that.
Why would we have to support them?
Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?
Don't we do that in Africa?
Naval blockade would work fine untill the first interception
When fighting would break out, and then Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells
So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?
I think the South Koreans would rather not see Seoul blown up, and as it was a South Korean ship that was sunk, I think they should be the ones to determine what is done in response
Because I don't think abandoning an ally is something we would want to do.
Well..... unless it was Iraq or Afghanistan of course.
Where have we abandoned them?
Haven't you been paying any attention to the left for the last few years? :roll:
Why would we have to support them?
Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?
Don't we do that in Africa?
I tend to think this is about the most that can realistically be done. SK and the US are not going to invade NK, but you cannot allow a nation to sink one of your ships without some sort of response.
There really is nothing to be done with North Korea. We have already inflicted every punishment we have short of full scale invasion. Unless they decide to truly cross the line, all we can do is make some pointless condemnations and wait it out.
Why would we have to support them?
Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?
Don't we do that in Africa?
Why would we have to support them?
Can't we just let countries fight each other without getting involved?
Don't we do that in Africa?
Just to toss this out.... Naval blockade.
So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?
Ya its easy to call for war when you aren't going to be affected, frankly I think its smarter and more appropriate to let the South Koreans make the call on this one. They are the ones truly affected and are the ones with the most to lose, it should be their call.
It is right for the United States to be involved in the decision making process. If South Korea is planning on a form of retaliation that could draw us into a war (potentially against China), you better believe that the US is going to have a say in the matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?