N. Korea building missile launch pad capable of aiming at U.S.

[derspiess]

Wait is North Korea under the impression they can win a war?

Most of the country surely does.  I'm also sure a good portion of the army & leadership believes it as well.  Whether the Fat Kid believes it, dunno-- hopefully not.

[LaCroix]

I don't think anybody expects them to.  They just expect them to cause trouble and proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

Wait is North Korea under the impression they can win a war?

i think a number of people believe NK is the type to be the aggressor in a full out war

there are probably elements in the military that feel they might stand a chance of quickly defeating south korea, even though they're wrong. how much of a minority that element is, i dunno. there was a time where north korea knew/highly suspected it had a stronger military yet did not act, even during crises that severely affected south korea's ability to fight off an invasion (i think it's the may 16 coup that i'm thinking about, but it might have been another in the 70s)

[Berkut]

Sure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys.  They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.

well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea

The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.

When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.

How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?

[celedhring]

Sure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys.  They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.

well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea

The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.

When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.

How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?

You have pretty much just described the offset of WWII, for starters.

[The Brain]

Sure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys.  They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.

well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea

The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.

When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.

How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?

You have pretty much just described the offset of WWII, for starters.

They could have backed down easily. Poland, so fucking what.

[Razgovory]

North Korea has engaged in more then just bluster.  They've killed a fair amount of people.  For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.

[Valmy]

North Korea has engaged in more then just bluster.  They've killed a fair amount of people.  For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.

But were those full scale invasions?  No, so therefore not aggressive.

[LaCroix]

The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.

When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.

How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?

their style seems to be more causing an incident every now and then just to show they're to be taken seriously, then talking their way out of international outrage. so far it has worked. from their perspective, they could be attacked at any time, and their enemies are just waiting for them to show a moment of weakness before they strike. that makes military preparations, especially those they know/figure the enemy will likely discover, fairly reasonable when looking at it through the eyes of a NK military leadership - make it so that it would be far costlier for the enemy to invade than it would to leave them alone. plus, i wouldn't be surprised if some of these little attacks by NK are to appease some element within the leadership... or seen as a rite of passage (wasn't that what the latest boat attack was for kim jong-un?)

But were those full scale invasions?  No, so therefore not aggressive.

that would be a fair jibe had i not explained what i meant when i initially said "aggressive." as it stands, it's kinda unfair, imo

North Korea has engaged in more then just bluster.  They've killed a fair amount of people.  For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.

i know. see above comments

[Razgovory]

Your definition of "aggressive" sucks.  I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".

[LaCroix]

Your definition of "aggressive" sucks.  I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".

it's not my definition of aggressive. it was poor choice of wording to describe what i meant to originally convey, which i corrected in my second post

[CountDeMoney]

N. Korea building missile launch pad capable of aiming at U.S. 

I'm sure they can build plenty of missile launch pads that are capable of aiming at the U.S.

[celedhring]

I just aimed a nerf gun towards the US 

[CountDeMoney]

I just aimed a pencil at Canada.  Beware, you curling fuckers.

[Razgovory]

Your definition of "aggressive" sucks.  I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".

it's not my definition of aggressive. it was poor choice of wording to describe what i meant to originally convey, which i corrected in my second post

Oh, has your definition been modified again?  My understanding was from your second post where you said "The aggressor in a full out war".  As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.

[LaCroix]

Oh, has your definition been modified again?  My understanding was from your second post where you said "The aggressor in a full out war".  As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.

ah, i misread your post

the united states invaded iraq and afghanistan

but if your point is to eventually ask: "why would NK think the U.S. & co. would be aggressive toward them, given... etc. etc. etc.?" - does NK seem like a reasonable country to you?

edit: you mistook what i meant by "full out war." i was using the general definition, not legal