this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
-22 points (26.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

37030 readers
951 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Nato chief is saying that North Korea is getting access to Russian missile and nuclear technology, in exchange for troops. If this is true, should South Korea launch a preemptive attack on North Korea before these new technologies are properly integrated and utilized?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No. NK has a bunch of artillery hidden in the forested mountains just north of the border. And and SK has a lot of population centers within within firing distance. And this includes rockets/missiles with some rather spicy warheads.

And rough terrain ensures that a quick blitz to topple the government and their nuclear arsenal won't work.

Sure, NK will not be able to hold off SK in the long run, especially if SK invites friends. But Seoul will be leveled.

Plus, China really does not want a US ally on its border, and are likely to intervene.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I guess the counter argument would be that the situation will only get worse the longer you wait. That argument has been used many times in history.

[–] Hyperlon 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why do you think the situation can only get worse given more time?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think so. Probably not. It's a classical argument when starting a war (Germany/WW1 and Japan/WW2), that's why I brought it up.

I.e. if you believe there is a very high risk for war at SOME point, then you probably want to take control of the situation and start the war at a time and place of your choice. If you can destroy 90% of NKs ICMBs (or other kinds of carriers) today, it's better to start the war now, if the new technology will bring that number down to say 50% by tomorrow.

The conspiracy theorist in me says that it's not impossible that the recent coup attempt in SK was somehow related to this kind of thinking. This is how the military tend to reason after all.

Interesting related video: https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU

[–] Carrolade 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

War is very seldom inevitable. We tend not to focus much attention on wars that never started, because that does not make for very engaging history content. It happens far more frequently than a war actually starting though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It kinda can't, though. 'South Korea will be leveled' is basically the worst imaginable outcome, unless you're saying they'll nuke the friends SK invites. Realistically, 'no nukes/missile strikes at other countries' is probably going to be China's only requirement for assistance. Which would make it a horrible grueling land war. Which is going to suck with or without Russian ICBMs in NK.