Statistically how much of a risk is North Korea?
Explain your method/models in your analysis.
Statistically how much of a risk is North Korea?
Christopher Jackson
Other urls found in this thread:
Andrew Martinez
100%
yankee pigu go home
Jonathan Rodriguez
The risk/actuarial models would probably be really low.
Adrian Diaz
They are a real risk to South Korea, being able to attack them directly with artillery. To Japan, they can launch a few missiles and basically bomb a couple areas inaccurately. To America they are no threat at all, except for any bases and ships within range of their missiles, and it would be more accurate to say Nkorea should be the one afraid of being in range of those military assets.
Nkorea can only make about a kilo of plutonium a year, and they don't have missiles that can target locations as far away as continental USA, let alone get through her missile interception system.
Source is /k/.
Adrian Baker
>Have N. Korea ever fired a nuke?
No.
>Apart from S. Korea, have N. Korea ever gone to war?
No.
Alexander Lee
Bayesian models would be really low.
Jose Allen
>Have the US ever started a war for no reason?
Yes.
It's the Americans you wanna worry about, not the Koreans
Connor Reed
>implying Russia wants another war and NATO member at it's border
>implying current administration would ever go against Russia's interests
Benjamin Ramirez
absolutely zero
They're too bloody incompetent to actually be a threat, and if they ever became one, China would just knock their teeth out and take their clay
Xavier Hughes
This, except they indirectly pose a risk to the US because they can make other countries in the region nervous and could indirectly cause a much bigger conflict. It's very very bad to have a lone wolf authoritarian regime basically immune to international sanctions have nuclear weapons.
The latest analysis that I read is that North Korea is stepping up it's missile and nuclear program to basically make the US say "the risk of attacking you or having an internal regime change is too risky, we'll just keep the status quo." The longshot goal is for the US to stop supporting South Korea (not gonna happen). The much more likely thing to happen is the US lifting some sanctions if North Korea agrees to just giving up nuclear weapons.
Of course it could backfire on them and the US could decide that military action is required, but I don't see that as likely.
Pic somewhat related, kimchi fries I had a couple days ago.
Noah Wood
Landon Hill
You killed the probiotics
Dylan Collins
Worth it.
Gavin Wright
When you're in the business of war then everything is a security threat.
Jaxon Wright
that video was retarded
James Butler
>The much more likely thing to happen is the US lifting some sanctions if North Korea agrees to just giving up nuclear weapons.
lol
Asher Cruz
They have a lot of submarines, though. The idea is they would surface right off our coast and launch nuclear/ chemical/ biological weapons at us.
The news won't talk about this though, because muh American superiority.
Lincoln Cruz
Most of their subs are little midget things that could barely make it to japan before running out of fuel. They don't have nuclear power, they have to burn diesel, which gives them limited range and no ability of reaching the US without having to stop somewhere along the way. Except there is nowhere they can stop because no one will let a North Korean sub into their harbor, much less give the norks any fuel. Their submarines are purely defensive. They just go out to sea a little bit, sit there until the food runs low, then come back to refuel.
Joseph Taylor
They are surrounded and cornered by hostile states.
This alone makes them very dangerous.
Military capability means shit when they can go with the terrorist route. US has a fragile power grid I heard.
Jeremiah Hall
Everyone is saying hypotheticals of the official narrative. I swear being scared is a leisure activity in the US.
Liam Walker
They can't go that route. They've set themselves up that way. The people are brainwashed into thinking only the Kim government can lead them. Without him as a figurehead, they would not know what to do. Military strategists often theorise that any real conflict would be ended almost immediately by China stepping in to set up a more compliant puppet leader. China doesn't want to deal with millions of starving, brainwashed peasant refugees. Neither does South Korea. They all just want them to stay where they are and for N.Korea's government to stop being a bitch.
Adrian Taylor
America is a much bigger threat. Fuck them
Ian Miller
North Korea is at least 30 risk
Alexander Harris
The biggest risk is that a nuclear exchange could fuck up the atmosphere.
Grayson Jones
Not a risk
>Artillery
Most of Korean artillery is short ranged and cant reach major population centers. The few 200 and 300mm that can reach Seoul are in constant tracking and would be neutralized by counter battery operations rather quickly.
Nork air forces arent even worth discussing and the Army would be broken with superior tactics, vehicles, heavy weapons and air supremacy.
Nork navy and special forces is a huge problem. Highly motivated force with multilple ways of insertion into south korea. These guys are a fucking nightmare when they get among civilian population.
The main threat of NK is the humanitatian disaster and the fact that the place is a money sinkhole.
But yeah, North korea isnt a risk. THAAD and CIWS can deal with north korean missiles that might attack civilian or military targets. Only option for nuclear delivery is a bomber/cargo plane that isnt going to be allowed to fly close to SK forces/cities
NK isnt a threat because war against them is hard, its because the bill is enormous.
Liam Roberts
North Korean is a threat to the Asian economy, which is a big source of cash for the global elite right now.
Its not that Korean could actually do much damage to any of its neighbors, but even if they were dumb enough to try something, the economy would go on the spritz for a bit, and potentially some bad effects could happen. The Asian economies are not entirely stable, and in countries like China they are essentially a work of fiction, so stability is very important if you have investments there.
Eli Jackson
I don't know, but, I would drop college right away to join the N. Korean volunteer corps. My gap year in Rojava was the best thing I ever did tbqh
Christopher Carter
>Statistically how much of a risk is North Korea?
Zero.
If they do anything they will get destroyed. China doesn't want that because the gooks are a buffer between them and us forces.
The gooks in charge don't wan't to see that because instability is bad for them, it's quite hard to live in comparative luxury when you're being invaded/bombed.
We don't care either way, but we like the idea of excavating an inland sea a couple dozen miles across in less than an hour.
Noah Gutierrez
statistically NK doesn't do anything.
the country 7,000 miles away and complains about NK the most has a higher risk factor.