5 ms·

With all the security experts coming out saying that it's really likely it wasn't an attack by North Korea, maybe this is one of those things they call a "false

by beaner 12y ago

With all the security experts coming out saying that it's really likely it wasn't an attack by North Korea, maybe this is one of those things they call a "false flag" operation.

ProAm 12y ago
Well with war wrapping up in Afghanistan, we need somewhere else to focus our attention. I wish I was being sarcastic.
- quonn 12y ago
  This seems unlikely. Even if North Korea would not be backed by China, could the US win a war? Probably not and they know it. North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world and they are probably crazy enough to take huge losses. This is not like Iraq at all, to say nothing of Afghanistan. There is also little to be gained. Syria would be a more obvious candidate. It's just as good for "focusing our attention", probably can get public support easily, would please both, Saudi Arabia and Israel and could even make strategic sense. (To be clear, I would oppose such a war, of course.)
  - adventured 12y ago
    When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. It becomes a question of what you're willing to do to win it. The US is one of the only countries in history to have to deal with that question. Defeat Iran? Easy: nukes, or a never-ending bombing campaign that leaves nothing left standing. Throughout most of history, the problem with defeating an enemy wasn't a question of: well, but can we do it without killing too many people. North Korea's army is worthless. They're extraordinarily backwards, poorly trained, and with mediocre equipment. The problem would be the guerrilla warfare part, much like Vietnam. Iraq had one of the largest armies as well, and the world watched in shock as the US trivially dismantled it. The US would dismantle the standing North Korean military very quickly, it would be the next stage of the fight that would be terrible. If the US had a reason to really want to topple North Korea, the easy thing to do would be to make a deal with China: they get Taiwan tomorrow morning, and they allow North Korea to collapse, don't get involved if the US fights a war with North Korea, etc. China would make that deal in a heartbeat. The biggest problem in fighting a war with North Korea, as everyone knows, is the damage that would be done to South Korea.
    - alfiedotwtf 12y ago
      > When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. What was the last war the US actually won?
      - rertrree 12y ago
        You can check for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Unit... ( 3 years ago )
        alfiedotwtf 12y ago
        > When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. The "War on Terror" started in 2001 and is an ongoing clusterfuck. As the "War on Terror" hasn't concluded, the last war that the US won was Kosovo in 1999. I think Adventured overestimates US' superiority.
        rertrree 12y ago
        I suggest you read on North Korean military equipment, supplies and operational readiness. It is all about the details: They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric. They have a couple hundred fighter airplanes, but their trained pilots get 10-20 hours of practice every year. And so on... They aren't capable of a prolonged attack as they don't have enough food( literally ). At best they can defend for a long time and cause a lot of collateral damage with chemical weapons and short range nukes, which is enough to keep their enemies away.
        alfiedotwtf 12y ago
        > They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric. What's wrong with diesel-electric submaries. Here's US superiority vs diesel-electric subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121...
  - jriley 12y ago
    I was surprised North Korea had such a large army. I checked; 48.5 active per 1000 capita, whereas US has 4.4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  Went from admissions of torturing some folks to getting hacked by the least internet connected country on the planet pretty quick.
Dylan16807 12y ago
Do you have any reason for that or are you just trying to be cheeky? Why would 'not north korea' imply the US, especially on such a simple attack? Now politicians using biased evidence to further their goals, that is far less exceptional.

by beaner 12y ago

With all the security experts coming out saying that it's really likely it wasn't an attack by North Korea, maybe this is one of those things they call a "false flag" operation.

ProAm 12y ago

Well with war wrapping up in Afghanistan, we need somewhere else to focus our attention. I wish I was being sarcastic.

quonn 12y ago
This seems unlikely. Even if North Korea would not be backed by China, could the US win a war? Probably not and they know it. North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world and they are probably crazy enough to take huge losses. This is not like Iraq at all, to say nothing of Afghanistan. There is also little to be gained. Syria would be a more obvious candidate. It's just as good for "focusing our attention", probably can get public support easily, would please both, Saudi Arabia and Israel and could even make strategic sense. (To be clear, I would oppose such a war, of course.)
- adventured 12y ago
  When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. It becomes a question of what you're willing to do to win it. The US is one of the only countries in history to have to deal with that question. Defeat Iran? Easy: nukes, or a never-ending bombing campaign that leaves nothing left standing. Throughout most of history, the problem with defeating an enemy wasn't a question of: well, but can we do it without killing too many people. North Korea's army is worthless. They're extraordinarily backwards, poorly trained, and with mediocre equipment. The problem would be the guerrilla warfare part, much like Vietnam. Iraq had one of the largest armies as well, and the world watched in shock as the US trivially dismantled it. The US would dismantle the standing North Korean military very quickly, it would be the next stage of the fight that would be terrible. If the US had a reason to really want to topple North Korea, the easy thing to do would be to make a deal with China: they get Taiwan tomorrow morning, and they allow North Korea to collapse, don't get involved if the US fights a war with North Korea, etc. China would make that deal in a heartbeat. The biggest problem in fighting a war with North Korea, as everyone knows, is the damage that would be done to South Korea.
  - alfiedotwtf 12y ago
    > When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. What was the last war the US actually won?
    - rertrree 12y ago
      You can check for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Unit... ( 3 years ago )
      - alfiedotwtf 12y ago
        > When you have the superiority the US sports, it's not hard to win a war. The "War on Terror" started in 2001 and is an ongoing clusterfuck. As the "War on Terror" hasn't concluded, the last war that the US won was Kosovo in 1999. I think Adventured overestimates US' superiority.
        rertrree 12y ago
        I suggest you read on North Korean military equipment, supplies and operational readiness. It is all about the details: They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric. They have a couple hundred fighter airplanes, but their trained pilots get 10-20 hours of practice every year. And so on... They aren't capable of a prolonged attack as they don't have enough food( literally ). At best they can defend for a long time and cause a lot of collateral damage with chemical weapons and short range nukes, which is enough to keep their enemies away.
        alfiedotwtf 12y ago
        > They have the largest submarine force in the world; but every one of them is an outdated diesel-electric. What's wrong with diesel-electric submaries. Here's US superiority vs diesel-electric subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqFVOL7mLd4 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121539-3317r/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/13/20061113-121...
- jriley 12y ago
  I was surprised North Korea had such a large army. I checked; 48.5 active per 1000 capita, whereas US has 4.4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...
throwawayaway 12y ago
Went from admissions of torturing some folks to getting hacked by the least internet connected country on the planet pretty quick.

Dylan16807 12y ago

Do you have any reason for that or are you just trying to be cheeky? Why would 'not north korea' imply the US, especially on such a simple attack? Now politicians using biased evidence to further their goals, that is far less exceptional.