• lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    If they do, I’d say it would be okay to strike on NK territory, because with 100k troops they basically entered the war. It’s a lot. It’s not just a few tanks, an instructor and a repair crew or so.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The moment the west strikes NK is the moment Seoul will be bombarded out of existence. Seoul is right across the border and on NK’s side near Seoul there are hills where heavy artillery is stationed. Hidden under the trees and bushes.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      I don’t think anyone wants a hot war in NK, and I’m not sure what good it would do.

      Europe needs to (and should have) get off their butts and send every piece of hardware they have to Ukraine though, even cutting edge ones. Maybe even enforce a no-fly zone. As I keep asking, what are they waiting for… Spain to invade France? No, they built all this stuff to deter Soviet aggression, and its just sitting there, rotting instead of doing its job. If Ukraine would have stayed secure, they basically would never have to worry about this again.

      Now they have no excuse. Russia clearly has no shame. And it’s almost (but not quite) too late.

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Bombing a few prominent military installations in NK could teach their leader a valuable lesson and cause dissent among his sheeple. They probably think they can be safe while joining the war and need a wake up call

        • Vilian@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Nah, their leader don’t give a shit for their population, if something killing the leader would be more efficient

        • Maalus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          And then they bomb SK in retaliation and cause a huge mass casualty event, along with a war in Asia.

          • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Why would they retaliate against SK when the US, Europe or Ukraine bomb them for basically attacking Ukraine. That would be useless.

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              12 hours ago

              Because they hold SK hostage with the amount of artillery they have. Same for SK holding NK hostage. It’s a mexican standoff that has been in place for decades. Once you start attacking NK, they have nothing to lose. So they make the decision to attack them an even costlier one.

              • Vilian@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 hours ago

                To be fair they never moved their artillery location since forever, SK could steam roll over them faster than desert storm, they aren’t afraid of NK winning, they are afraid of them losing and SK fucking their economy for a hell hole full of malnourished and ignorant people with their entire world revolving around their worshiping their leader, bombing Kim Jong-un would be faster tho, but they would have to put a puppet government there for decades

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Because placing putin in a completely unwinnable position will greatly increase/hasten the likelihood of nuking Ukraine and possibly other areas of Europe into a sheet of glass.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Yeah, well, this is what everyone thought in Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014.

          He’s not going to change. His chosen successor probably won’t either.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            It’s the weirdest philosophy. Can’t shoot the grizzly bear, that might enrage it and cause it to maul us faster.

            • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              With the only saving grace being that he’s actually like a hesitant coyote not big enough to take a combined Europe, but with a bomb strapped to its chest.

        • Siegfried@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You are right, we have to give putin more ground so next time he does this shit he will… have more power? Are you sure this math of yours is working?

          • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            What’s your solution then? It’s a fair enough concern that Putin backed in to a corner is going to become even more unhinged and throw some nukes around, no?

            It seems the only option down that path is to accept that the endgame here is having all of Russia, and at least one other country, nuked.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              13 hours ago

              I doubt there’s an easy solution. Right now the play is squeezing Russia at a slow pace, hopefully causing the country to bleed itself dry and most of its people there calling for a war to fizzle out and running them out of a fighting force. Continue keeping Russia in a state of hardship.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Can they even accomplish the logistics of this? I wouldn’t be surprised if only 60,000 make it and they arrive starving.

        • ManixT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Real in-depth take. Thank you for making time for this analysis so quickly after huffing glue

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Sure, but Ukraine has neither the means nor the desire to attack North Korea.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Not on North Korean territory, but on North Koreans in Ukraine? Why not.