Could an attack on North Korea trigger their allies, and then the NATO domino?

runswithascript · 22-09-2017 11:40AM #1

I have been wondering if an attack on North Korea would trigger a response from China and Russia to defend them, and in turn trigger the NATO domino... and dare I say it, a World War?

Things are really heating up, with two mad med at the helm, of which the officials for one are hinting they are going to perform an atmospheric nuclear test over the Pacific.

Nody · 22-09-2017 12:32PM

China's stance has been very clear; if NK attacks first they are on their own. Russia honestly I can't see bothering getting involved (except as vultures of fortune kind of style) as NK is to far away but they might make a push on Ukraine or similar when all else is going on. Nato is not going to get involved and honestly nukes or no nukes the simple fact Korea would be a wasteland (both halfs) means no matter the posturing there will not be a war. Trump can talk about it all he wants but it will simply not happen or he's wiping out SK in the process and his staff will stop him from that. NK on the other hand will never be attacked as long as they got nukes simply because no American president dares risking his own country (remember Americans tend to be chicken **** afraid of own losses; see for example overreaction of 9/11 and the insistence on bombing rather than ground forces to minimize losses of own lifes even if the effect is dubious at best).

So what you got in the end are two of the worlds largest **** talkers having a tough man competition on the internet basically.

blackpearl · 22-09-2017 01:29PM

America havent the balls to take on north korea they only attack countries that have little or no defence .And most of that is done from the air.

James Brown · 22-09-2017 01:31PM

Yes. Russia would use any US conflict with NK as a distraction and take sections if not most of the Ukraine. Putin is a bully and just waiting in the wings. I would expect Trump is negotiating military contracts as we speak, through his children of course.
All the unfortunate soldiers will be labeled hero's rather than the corporate victims they really are.

blanch152 · 22-09-2017 02:49PM

Nody wrote: »

China's stance has been very clear; if NK attacks first they are on their own. Russia honestly I can't see bothering getting involved (except as vultures of fortune kind of style) as NK is to far away but they might make a push on Ukraine or similar when all else is going on. Nato is not going to get involved and honestly nukes or no nukes the simple fact Korea would be a wasteland (both halfs) means no matter the posturing there will not be a war. Trump can talk about it all he wants but it will simply not happen or he's wiping out SK in the process and his staff will stop him from that. NK on the other hand will never be attacked as long as they got nukes simply because no American president dares risking his own country (remember Americans tend to be chicken **** afraid of own losses; see for example overreaction of 9/11 and the insistence on bombing rather than ground forces to minimize losses of own lifes even if the effect is dubious at best).

So what you got in the end are two of the worlds largest **** talkers having a tough man competition on the internet basically.

I thought Russia had a border with North Korea?

Phonehead · 22-09-2017 03:22PM

Russia does have a border on it's east coast with NK, in fact Vladivostok is only 400 miles away from Pyongyang. Any nuclear strike against NK will impact a very important region of Russia

Gatling · 22-09-2017 05:08PM

blackpearl wrote: »

America havent the balls to take on north korea they only attack countries that have little or no defence .And most of that is done from the air.

Like say Iraq twice wiped out one of the largest army in the world and gained total air dominance in a few days ,

recedite · 22-09-2017 05:12PM

The USA does not attack countries that possess nukes, which is why NK was obliged to develop them.
Russia may have a border, but is not really involved in this. China is the big player. They do not directly control NK, but they control a lot of trade that NK relies on, therefore any new sanctions targeting countries that trade with NK would be aimed principally at them.

There is no military solution to the issue. Steve Bannon said it all, and he was the right person to have as chief strategist. Without him at the helm, Trump is floundering around.

Gatling · 22-09-2017 05:15PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I thought Russia had a border with North Korea?

They do share a boarder in the last few months russia and China have moved close to 250 ,000 troops to their respective border areas with NK in the last few months

endacl · 22-09-2017 05:18PM

If Kim Jong Il discovers oil he's fcuked!

piplip87 · 22-09-2017 05:30PM

No there will be no war. Kim knows if he attacks the US, Japan or South Korea he will unleash the fury of NATO.

It's often over looked that NK has trouble keeping the lights on in its capital. A lot of its vast military parades are fake. Apart from the missiles Do the other weapons work?

Trump on the other hand will not want a war as his own Base is dimishing due to deals he has signed with the Democrats in recent weeks. Keeping "the dreamers" in the States has many of his voters calling for his head. He will move slightly to left as his presidency continues with the hopes to pick up votes come next time. War will not gain him votes.

James Brown · 22-09-2017 05:34PM

Make him a fortune though.

Regardless of the presidency, he's about making himself money.

Samaris · 22-09-2017 06:32PM

War sadly often gains votes, unfortunately.

I don't particularly think there will be a war, but I don't like this endless escalation via complete nonsense.

World War 1 - assassination of an Archduke
World War 2 - invasion of Poland (or not pulling out of Poland again)
World War 3 - two morons on Twitter.

Our generation has no dignity.

blackpearl · 23-09-2017 05:28PM

Gatling wrote: »

Like say Iraq twice wiped out one of the largest army in the world and gained total air dominance in a few days ,

And what came after, ISIS and the US and the BRITS they were the cause of it BUSH and BLAIR but its ok they said sorry, if any one else started a war on lies and to get their hands on oil their would be an outcry the US have caused a mess in the middle east and no one bats a eye,and by the way did you ever here of the green zone its where the american soldiers hid with their tails behind their legs afriad to even fly out of, after the americans declared the war was over in iraq the real war only started the people of iraq started to fight back ,so yes i think north korea are right they will not be bullied ,who the F--k do the americans think they are .

wasper · 02-10-2017 05:22PM

The USA has made some money selling fighter planes to Japan & Arms to South Korea.

Obvious Otter · 02-10-2017 06:57PM

Gatling wrote: »

They do share a boarder in the last few months russia and China have moved close to 250 ,000 troops to their respective border areas with NK in the last few months

Yes, to stop the inevitable exodus when Kim goes too far. Russia is as wary of North Korea as the west but your enemies enemy is your friend in politics. As South Korea would be involved in any attack on North Korea it would be interesting to see how China reacts if there is a preemptive strike without Chinese consent. The Chinese have continually outsmarted Bush, Obama and now Trump at every turn politically and economically. The only foolish enough one to take them on is Trump. If relations grow any colder the chance of a US strike on NK increases IMO.

Manic Moran · 03-10-2017 03:16AM

NATO obligations are geographically limited. I don't believe that any attacks in Asia (or in Korea specifically) are going to trigger the obligations. For this reason NATO obligations were not triggered by the Falklands War.

recedite · 05-10-2017 10:21PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

NATO obligations are geographically limited. I don't believe that any attacks in Asia (or in Korea specifically) are going to trigger the obligations. For this reason NATO obligations were not triggered by the Falklands War.

But if during a conflict NK managed to fire something at North America, then presumably it would be a trigger within the geographical limitation.

Manic Moran · 06-10-2017 05:37AM

It would.

That said, most of the NATO countries would be likely to be involved in a spat on the Korean Peninsula anyway as they were contributors to the UN mission...erm... police action... which is still, technically, ongoing. Germany being the obvious Western exception.

tedpan · 06-10-2017 06:08AM

Why worry? Your worrying or thoughts have no effect on what happens in Asia or anywhere else in the world.

Just enjoy yourself and be happy!

Could an attack on North Korea trigger their allies, and then the NATO domino?

Comments