Do Economic Sanctions Work

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Twitter insults?

Only works if they're bigly

[Schneed10]

I think it can work if a country has enough to lose. It did definitely influence Iran and brought them to the negotiating table with Obama. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is another discussion. But it definitely strangled Iran's capital to the point where it was willing to negotiate.

But yeah, every time a nation violates international norms or laws, you as the most powerful nation in the world have to decide what you're willing to do about it. Is the violation really worth the lives of our military?

There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

So far I would agree nothing with Russia or China has gotten me anywhere close to the point where I definitely see the red line. Syria's use of nerve gas against its own people, that was a different story. I don't think I would have been able to let that go, if I were president.

Of course, then your reward for doing the right thing would be miring yourself in a Syrian nightmare of a power vacuum.

Sometimes there's no good answer.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think it can work if a country has enough to lose. It did definitely influence Iran and brought them to the negotiating table with Obama. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is another discussion. But it definitely strangled Iran's capital to the point where it was willing to negotiate.

But yeah, every time a nation violates international norms or laws, you as the most powerful nation in the world have to decide what you're willing to do about it. Is the violation really worth the lives of our military?

There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

So far I would agree nothing with Russia or China has gotten me anywhere close to the point where I definitely see the red line. Syria's use of nerve gas against its own people, that was a different story. I don't think I would have been able to let that go, if I were president.

Of course, then your reward for doing the right thing would be miring yourself in a Syrian nightmare of a power vacuum.

Sometimes there's no good answer.

Reviving this post for the NK situation. I am curious if any here could define a line where a military solution becomes viable. I am talking about the old shock and awe type solution, not a flyover or decapitation strategy.

It's my opinion that the NK army is a straw man like the first gulf war. I believe that if you barrage the frontline artillery positions that can reach Seoul, and at the same time take out the known missile launchers, that the North soldiers would surrender en masse.

BUT, At what point is that option even viable?
Now, I don't think so.

but what if a missile lands at or near Guam? or Alaska?

What is your point of no return? As Schneed said above: There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think these missiles over Japan is enough to warrant some kind of action (from them). If Canada was constantly lobbing missiles over into the Gulf, I have a feeling we wouldn't put up with it.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think these missiles over Japan is enough to warrant some kind of action (from them). If Canada was constantly lobbing missiles over into the Gulf, I have a feeling we wouldn't put up with it.

I agree with this. The Japanese are our allies and right now they have an immediate threat not too far away that is capable of reaching their homeland.

Nukes are not the solution, the NK people deserve better especially considering the daily hell they live in. I wish we could just throw major boots on the ground and have Kim Jong Un dead in a week but I honestly have zero idea how viable that option is. And of course you'd have to think of the repercussions with China, but sooner or later they have to realize supporting a dictator will have some blowback on them when the dictator eventually falls.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Reviving this post for the NK situation. I am curious if any here could define a line where a military solution becomes viable. I am talking about the old shock and awe type solution, not a flyover or decapitation strategy.

It's my opinion that the NK army is a straw man like the first gulf war. I believe that if you barrage the frontline artillery positions that can reach Seoul, and at the same time take out the known missile launchers, that the North soldiers would surrender en masse.

BUT, At what point is that option even viable?
Now, I don't think so.

but what if a missile lands at or near Guam? or Alaska?

What is your point of no return? As Schneed said above: There's a red line somewhere. It's like porn, I don't know the definition and I don't know where the red line is, but I know it when I see it.

The issue with use of force is with first strike would have to be the biggest military coordination use of force since WW2 because of NK troop size in terms of mass installations, we would have to be sure all nuclear site would be totally destroyed and then we have knock out many leadership positions.

The biggest thing we fear is South Korea and Seoul in particular is vulnerable to the point they certainly would sustain substantial damage. If North Korea does anything first, it would be to do as much damage to SK as possible...that's their number one priority and enemy.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think these missiles over Japan is enough to warrant some kind of action (from them). If Canada was constantly lobbing missiles over into the Gulf, I have a feeling we wouldn't put up with it.

There has to be a response to Canada lobbing missiles. Maybe we could lob long underwear back at them, eh?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

As soon as I said Canada, I definitely laughed a little in my head...

And you're right about Seoul. I wouldn't want to be the first country involved in a strike that would certainly kill thousands (if not more) of South Koreans. I read this article where Kim Jong Un's main concern is staying in power. He doesn't want any part of a conflict, because we would definitely kill his ass and most of his army. I just don't see how he's so insane he keeps doing this shit. At some point SOMEONE will say they've had enough.

If South Korea is the one to do it, we need to get China/Japan on board and wipe our collective asses with them. I worry he's just crazy enough to deploy one nuclear missile in the region...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The issue with use of force is with first strike would have to be the biggest military coordination use of force since WW2 because of NK troop size in terms of mass installations, we would have to be sure all nuclear site would be totally destroyed and then we have knock out many leadership positions.

The biggest thing we fear is South Korea and Seoul in particular is vulnerable to the point they certainly would sustain substantial damage. If North Korea does anything first, it would be to do as much damage to SK as possible...that's their number one priority and enemy.

It would be massive no doubt with the focus like you said to knock out the immediate threat to Seoul, and Japan, but between our troops there and the naval and air force power we/Japan/SK could commit, an immediate blitz attack would almost certainly lead NK's surviving forces/leadership to sign a near immediate armistice. (Assuming China stays out of it).

Again, not saying this should happen, but what line would have to be crossed to make this option even viable.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It would be massive no doubt with the focus like you said to knock out the immediate threat to Seoul, and Japan, but between our troops there and the naval and air force power we/Japan/SK could commit, an immediate blitz attack would almost certainly lead NK's surviving forces/leadership to sign a near immediate armistice. (Assuming China stays out of it).

Again, not saying this should happen, but what line would have to be crossed to make this option even viable.

Seoul is so close to the border, 4th largest metro population in the world with like 25 million. They are in the kill zone range of NK weapons.

If Seoul was in the South...we would have already attacked North Korea.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Seoul is so close to the border, 4th largest metro population in the world with like 25 million. They are in the kill zone range of NK weapons.

If Seoul was in the South...we would have already attacked North Korea.

Agreed