Choose a discussion

North Korea

6

0 |
6

you are forgetting about the other player Russia, as china cools towards the NK Russia is picking up the slack

0 |

I mean China removing the dynasty via force. China have a better chance of getting agents close to Kim and any generals and propping up whatever government replaces it. Russia could do little to stop that scenario.

0 |

China don’t tend to get involved in shit outside of their alleged borders, they have a hands off approach to the world and in return expect everyone to stay the fuck out of theirs

0 |

Yeah, but if what's on offer is what the Chinese deem as their country, Taiwan, or the south China sea islands, that is part of their non expansionist agenda. Not suggesting it's likely to happen, but it's what some analysts are saying would be the situation most likely to "succeed" i.e. end up with fatalities not in the millions.

0 |

As I say, there's no traditional conflict that doesn't end in millions dead, a likely humanitarian crisis far beyond what Syria and Iraq have caused, nuclear fallout drifting into heavily populated parts of Asia. Nevermind substantial if not total destabilisation of the south Korean and world economy.

Total no win

0 |

short term its a clusterfuck but long term you're lifting an entire country ruled by a madman out of the dark ages, future generations will be extremely thankful for the sacrifice besides the world can't have a complete and utter fruitloop in possession of nukes capable of striking whomever he so pleases

0 |

at least if it does kick off thankfuck we have a measured, calm and intelligent president to lead the war


0 |

spastic. lol

biggest piss take ever this president

0 |

he is such a fucking blagger. I've never heard him be anything more than extremely vague on every single question that is put to him. Absolute ballroot.

0 |

0 |

that's something else. This is war now. Unless the Japs are fags.

0 |

Japan isn't allowed to have an army, so their 'defense force' is not allowed to have any offensive weapons. They couldn't wage a war by themselves.

0 |

true. But they could fire one of their missiles (pronounced 'miss/el') back over DKRP land and see what they do.

Damn, are you saying Japan cannot even fire a missile back without American say-so?
Maybe that is the price to pay for instigating a war you don't win.

OK, America should fire a fucking missile over their territory.

0 |

"Fire a missile sir!"
"what the fuck is a missile?"
"sorry, a miss-el"
"fire in the hole!"
Altogether - "may God have mercy upon us all"

0 |

May God have mercy on Seoul more to the point.

0 |

No, I'm saying Japan doesn't even have any missiles, because they are offensive weapons.

0 |

I bet there a few people there thinking thats a stupid thing to have in your laws now.

0 |

Aye well, blame Hirohito lads

0 |

Nuke Korean peninsula. so the south are good at maths. by accident they are conjoined to their retarded twin. no reason to hold the rest of us and Japan to random.

Nuke them, Donald

0 |

if they were meant to live they would have won the Korean war.

Nuke the peninsula.

0 |

NOW

0 |

ok

0 |

Japan are ranked 7th in the world militarily, www.globalfirepower.co... they have slowly been building up quite a considerable force of Offensive and defensive capabilities over the years utilizing the most modern gear out there, they could easily take it to the DPRK and win

0 |

FFS they're joint 2nd with France for Aircraft carriers

0 |

Japan doesn't have any offensive weapons?

Surely the only difference between offensive and defensive when it comes to weapons is how they're used?

And of course they've got missiles lol. How do you think they could shoot down other missiles coming at them, in defense??

0 |

Seems Matthew and Takki have contrasting views here. Who is right?

I don't mean politically Takki, we know your extreme right-wing views.

0 |

lol @ 'extreme right-wing views'

Which views are those then?

0 |

Missiles used to shoot down other missiles aren't reusable for shooting at ground targets, im fact they might not even need to have explosive payloads onboard.

Here, read this:

www.bbc.com/news/world...

"For example, Japan continues to ban "offensive" weapons such as bombers, aircraft carriers, and long-range ballistic missiles and has no plans to acquire them in the foreseeable future, since they remain unconstitutional."

"However, the truth is that Japan's military would not be able to defend Japan alone in the long-run nor go on the offensive, primarily because of its lack of offensive weapons, limited manpower and equipment pool."

0 |

There is a section of the japanese establishment that want to see the emperor back on his throne. Wont take much for them to start some fear mongering.

0 |

Japan continues to ban offensive weapons yet has 4 aircraft carriers which are also banned along with 287 "defensive" attack fighter jets and 700 "defensive" tanks... Aye Japan is all about the deeeefense

0 |

Yeah, they *do* have missiles and offensive weapons (their army is one of the most modern and well equipped), it's just they *chose* not to use them in that way. They could, if needs be, but they would probably struggle as most of the soldiers dont think they'll ever have to fight.

Matthew • 15 hours, 41 minutes ago
No, I'm saying Japan doesn't even have any missiles, because they are offensive weapons.

Matthew • 16 hours, 28 minutes ago
Japan isn't allowed to have an army, so their 'defense force' is not allowed to have any offensive weapons. They couldn't wage a war by themselves.

0 |

0 |

Lol

0 |

That's a great Twitter account. Some belters on it.

2 |

Okay takki, I'll continue to believe the BBC until you provide a source that says otherwise

0 |

You said they don't have missiles, they do. You said they don't have any offensive weapons, I said they do, it's just they chose to only use them in defence.

0 |

But saying you like BBC sources so much:

"Japan has dispatched its biggest warship, in the first such operation since it passed controversial laws expanding the role of its military."

"Pacifist Japan has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with a navy bigger and more modern than the British Royal Navy."

www.bbc.com/news/amp/w...

"Its army of some 150,000 troops is small (but still larger than that of Britain, one of Nato's middle-ranking players whose forces stand at some 84,000).

It has an impressive navy including a small helicopter carrier, two Aegis-equipped cruisers with sophisticated radars and battle management systems, and some 34 destroyers and nine frigates of various types. It also has some 80 anti-submarine warfare or maritime patrol aircraft.

Given the potential threat from North Korea's missile arsenal, Japan has a growing interest in ballistic missile defence.
The country hosts two highly sophisticated US radars to track such weapons. It currently has four destroyers capable of shooting down ballistic missiles along with land-based PAC-3 missile interceptors. More are planned."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

0 |

Like I said takki, I'm willing to believe you that they have offensive weapons, but you still haven't provided any sources for that. In my mind 'missile' refers to something designed to attack, not to shoot down other missiles.

I understand they have a large army and navy, never argued that they didn't. But BBC in the article I posted before seem to be suggesting that they'd need the US' ICBM weaponry and aircraft carriers in order to be able to actually fight a war against North Korea.

0 |

Ah, fair enough. Thought you were losing it trying to say they've no 'offensive' weapons.

That article just states they have no long range missiles eg ICBM's. Of course they'll have a plethora of other missiles. Ground to air, air to air, surface to air... it would be crazy to think a nation like Japan didn't have any. Have a gander here. Lists quite a few missiles, plus sources etc at the bottom, depending on how serious you want to take them. There's also Japanese government papers in there, but they're in Japanese - en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

1 |

Takki back on form here

1 |

Also, as I pointed out in one of those other posts with BBC source...

"It has an impressive navy including a small helicopter carrier, two Aegis-equipped cruisers with sophisticated radars and battle management systems, and some 34 destroyers and nine frigates of various types."

"The Aegis Combat System is an integrated naval weapons system developed by the Missile and Surface Radar Division of RCA, and now produced by Lockheed Martin. It uses powerful computer and radar technology to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

0 |

Sure, of course, I would definitely classify all of those under the defensive weaponry categories. I mean, I think the only way you wage a true war offensive now is with bombers and ICBMs and that. Ultimately what we're discussing here is the ability of Japan to strike North Korea, and it seems like they don't really have that capability, unless they revert to WW2 style ground invasions with no real air presence.

Anyway, this is all pure hypotheticals, I think it'd be a long long way down before we'd hear of a Japanese strike!

0 |

I find Japan fascinating. From going from being insanely committed (eg seppuku and kamikaze) and horrifically brutal (their work camps and torture techniques) pre WWII, to going to be one of the most accepting, welcoming, pacifist nations in the world. It's some turnaround.

1 |

Plus they embrace technology and the sex robot.

0 |

When you get bombed in to submission in the war to end all wars I'm sure it has an effect on the national psych.

0 |

They also make cracker rube goldberg machines

0 |

Also used pantie vending machines

0 |

Just vending machines in general. Apparently they're absolutely everywhere. Japan is def high up on my go to list. Might wait til Kim calms his whips before planning any trips, tho.

0 |

Used pantie vending machines? We haven't lived over here.

0 |

I'm heading over in a couple of weeks, great timing

0 |