Welp, this just in, the land of our glorious leader is really going for the deep end. If sanctions continue they want to end it on the 10th.
This is the cease-fire with South-Korea that was signed in 1953. The war never ended, a peace treaty was never signed.
Just google North korea threatens to end cease fire and you should find 5 billion reports on it. But that's all it really comes down to, they want war as usual.
So... will this be another empty threat or might this be a real one?
But who wants to fight the US army? I just saw a thing that showed off their completely automated supply truck. It drives itself, scans terrain, and can deliver things to the front lines without the risk of losing any lives. What country would willingly take on a military with technology such as this?
China and the US just agreed up to more sanctions against North Korea ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21665380) and the final stage of the once-a-decade leadership change in China just commenced so maybe I'm being cynical when I see North Korea's announcement as suspiciously well timed.
But who wants to fight the US army? I just saw a thing that showed off their completely automated supply truck. It drives itself, scans terrain, and can deliver things to the front lines without the risk of losing any lives. What country would willingly take on a military with technology such as this?
More to the point, do they really want to piss off China, who want stability and continued trade with the US without war or threats?
China feeds North Korea, also, should the unthinkable happen, fallout would drift across China from North or South Korea...
North Korea threatens and we listen. It has to be this way just in case that one in a million chance they actually do do something stupid, we'll be there to clean up the mess.
The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
Soladrin wrote: Welp, this just in, the land of our glorious leader is really going for the deep end. If sanctions continue they want to end it on the 10th.
This is the cease-fire with South-Korea that was signed in 1953. The war never ended, a peace treaty was never signed.
Just google North korea threatens to end cease fire and you should find 5 billion reports on it. But that's all it really comes down to, they want war as usual.
So... will this be another empty threat or might this be a real one?
Its an empty threat, BUT if they try anything we should respond in kind by 30x strength.
North Korea would look sweet glowing green.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
Just nuke them. No full scale war needed. ENough with these guys. We're still at war with them. Show them what war with a nuclear power really is.
Formosa wrote: The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
South Korea seems pretty formidable and capable. Add in the fact that its soldiers and population aren't malnourished and I think they should be able to handle themselves if push came to shove
Formosa wrote: The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
If North Korea invades South Korea or attacks through proxy missiles, America has troops stationed there and weapons to strike back.
Our action would be no more than what we did in the Balkans during the '90s. We cannot afford to do more on several levels but we do have an obligation to protect South Korea.
Formosa wrote: The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
South Korea seems pretty formidable and capable. Add in the fact that its soldiers and population aren't malnourished and I think they should be able to handle themselves if push came to shove
True, but they are fanatics, and look what happened last time we attacked a country that was malnourished, under trained and I'll equipped...oh yeah were still there, neither of our countries has the money to go and sort out the issues of the Koreans, now if the UN want to get a coalition together so some other countries can help foot the bill, well.. Let's do it.
Formosa wrote: True, but they are fanatics, and look what happened last time we attacked a country that was malnourished, under trained and I'll equipped...oh yeah were still there, neither of our countries has the money to go and sort out the issues of the Koreans, now if the UN want to get a coalition together so some other countries can help foot the bill, well.. Let's do it.
I don't see many wealthy Emirates, religious schools or Asian countries hostile to the US enabling North Korea in a similar way to the help received by various groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not saying I want war, or for the US to get involved. What I am saying is that South Korea should be able to handle things should the situation escalate.
Formosa wrote: True, but they are fanatics, and look what happened last time we attacked a country that was malnourished, under trained and I'll equipped...oh yeah were still there, neither of our countries has the money to go and sort out the issues of the Koreans, now if the UN want to get a coalition together so some other countries can help foot the bill, well.. Let's do it.
I don't see many wealthy Emirates, religious schools or Asian countries hostile to the US enabling North Korea in a similar way to the help received by various groups in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not saying I want war, or for the US to get involved. What I am saying is that South Korea should be able to handle things should the situation escalate.
That I agree with, they should handle it themselves
This would be okay with me, so long as China and the US can agree that after the DPRK is demolished the peninsula will be reunited under South Korean leadership.
Well, that and the fact that Seoul would be shelled to rubble in minutes if war broke out.
China would benefit if one of their major trading rivals was demolished, and open up expansion of the Sealanes. Sure NK would be deccimated, but it would hobble a Greater Korea for decades.
Easy E wrote: it would hobble a Greater Korea for decades
Greater Korea has already been hobbled for decades. The ideal path to reunification, although it sickens me to say given the people suffering in the North, is detente and especially disarmament. But the DPRK will never disarm because the war remains to this day the center of their political culture. And this further means that the North Koreans are in their own minds already fighting. Think about the significance of that: imagine yourself as a soldier on the battlefield encountering an enemy soldier -- killing him is a matter of course for you, whether sooner or later is secondary. Now imagine yourself encountering that same soldier outside of a war -- killing him is basically unthinkable. North Korea looks at the world from a battlefield. The rest of the world is looking at this situation as something other than a war. Even in the case of siege warfare, is detente possible? I think that is the hard question for the US and China: is military intervention in North Korea actually inevitable?
Formosa wrote: The US cannot afford a full scale war, nor can it afford another 10 years of guerilla warfare, will it still get involved? Almost certainly, and it will drag us along for the ride, on the plus side I may finally get to use my tropical sleeping bag...
South Korea seems pretty formidable and capable. Add in the fact that its soldiers and population aren't malnourished and I think they should be able to handle themselves if push came to shove
I think the issue is not so much a conventional war, which the South could easily win, it's worry over North Korea dropping a dirty bomb on Seoul or Tokyo. That would suck for them but wouldn't really affect me so I can't say I much care either way
Easy E wrote: Well, that and the fact that Seoul would be shelled to rubble in minutes if war broke out.
China would benefit if one of their major trading rivals was demolished, and open up expansion of the Sealanes. Sure NK would be deccimated, but it would hobble a Greater Korea for decades.
War is a Win/Win for China.... or not.
And open up further potential conflict with Japan and possibly Russia. Both have disputes with China over territorial waters. And if anything happens with Taiwan then the US may be obliged to act, and that possibility is not in anyone's interests.
Easy E wrote: Well, that and the fact that Seoul would be shelled to rubble in minutes if war broke out.
China would benefit if one of their major trading rivals was demolished, and open up expansion of the Sealanes. Sure NK would be deccimated, but it would hobble a Greater Korea for decades.
War is a Win/Win for China.... or not.
Naw... I remember there were tactical discussions that if war does break out, we'd level those areas having those rockets pointed at Seoul.
Re-read that to yourself and consider how you might be coming off to reasonable people.
My wages are going down by 1% in real terms. Gas and electricity are up 8%. Rent and council tax consume half of my pay packet. Food prices have gone up around 12%. Tobacco is also now obscenely expensive.
Remind me why I should care about a possible war in a far-away country?
Re-read that to yourself and consider how you might be coming off to reasonable people.
My wages are going down by 1% in real terms. Gas and electricity are up 8%. Rent and council tax consume half of my pay packet. Food prices have gone up around 12%. Tobacco is also now obscenely expensive.
Remind me why I should care about a possible war in a far-away country?
He has a point. We are all driven by our own interests and direct concerns. Your mom's death would be terrible for you and slightly sad for me. But th inverse holds true as well. Each step away garners less and less concern.
BryllCream wrote: Remind me why I should care about a possible war in a far-away country?
Cigarettes have gone up so if Tokyo gets nuked it's all the same to you? I was going to remind you of human decency but the effort is clearly a waste.
How do you define human decency? Do you mean reducing the aggregate amount of suffering in the world, or do you mean pandering to whatever is in the media at any given moment?
Frazzled wrote: Your mom's death would be terrible for you and slightly sad for me.
Frazz, when your mom was sick I never said nor even thought "why should I care?" Even if I didn't know you at all, as opposed to knowing you only very, very slightly via this site, such an attitude is pretty unworthy of a decent man.
I think folks underestimate the Norks. I suspect they are more than capable of having learned valuable lessons about how the US and thier allies fight over the past couple of decades. There is adequate proof they have shared intel with nations that collect against us in the various conflicts. We k now they have a darned good HUMINT/Clandestine SpecOps capability in SK and Japan. They have logistics to support conventional ops prepositioned and under darned good cover. They will benefit from a cyber war capability that will be used against SK, Japan and the US and other allies.
I ave no doubt they get curb stomped in the end, but it won't be a clean, short, or easy war. Add in SK frankly is not economically ready to handle reunification especially after a destructive war.
China stands to gain as SK and their allies are forced to absorb a complete economic and ecological disaster while they no longer have to assume responsibility for feeding and heating the Norks. Yes, they lose a buffer but the destabilization of the peninsula opens opportunities for them in several ways.
I've been in jobs where the Nork problem was one I had to be very familiar with. I am convinced we can thrash them, but not without a lot of mess and pain. Which probably why we haven't told them to pound sand over the last couple decades.
I don't think we need to get into philosophy to understand that professing indifference to major losses of human life is lowdown, scummy talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I am convinced we can thrash them, but not without a lot of mess and pain.
No doubt, them building their infrastructure entirely underground if nothing else would make things extremely problematic. I wonder though what could be achieved with aggressive counter propaganda.
Frazzled wrote: Your mom's death would be terrible for you and slightly sad for me.
Frazz, when your mom was sick I never said nor even thought "why should I care?" Even if I didn't know you at all, as opposed to knowing you only very, very slightly via this site, such an attitude is pretty unworthy of a decent man.
And neither would I. But unles you knew me it would be a minor thing to you.
Get off the high horse. Only one person could care that much for every person on the planet, and he ended up nailed to a stick.
I don't think we need to get into philosophy to understand that professing indifference to major losses of human life is lowdown, scummy talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I am convinced we can thrash them, but not without a lot of mess and pain.
No doubt, them building their infrastructure entirely underground if nothing else would make things extremely problematic. I wonder though what could be achieved with aggressive counter propaganda.
But that philosophy is detatched from the actual emotion of compassion.
If I see a man huddled in the street and homeless, I'll give him a couple of quid, because it's my instinct to alleviate his suffering. But I will never visit these places, they will never ilicit an emotional response from me. Therefore you are advocating a philosophy, and not an emotional response.
If I expressed indifference to suffering and death that I witnessed, you would have good cause to call me a savage. But I have not. I am simply not of the same mind to you in abstract matters, and while you're free to keep your own counsel, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning behind it.
Frazzled wrote: Get off the high horse. Only one person could care that much for every person on the planet, and he ended up nailed to a stick.
I'll get off the high horse if you agree to take your head out of its ass. You don't need to be good friends with every citizen of Tokyo to get that them getting massacred by a DPRK dirty bomb is a very bad and sad thing of greater important than a few more pence for your cigarettes.
Frazzled wrote: Your mom's death would be terrible for you and slightly sad for me.
Frazz, when your mom was sick I never said nor even thought "why should I care?" Even if I didn't know you at all, as opposed to knowing you only very, very slightly via this site, such an attitude is pretty unworthy of a decent man.
And neither would I. But unles you knew me it would be a minor thing to you.
Get off the high horse. Only one person could care that much for every person on the planet, and he ended up nailed to a stick.
>_> two sticks...
But I think that most people can say, all out war with anyone can be bad, and that it should probably be avoided at almost all costs (invasion being probably the only acceptable reason).
BryllCream wrote: If I expressed indifference to suffering and death that I witnessed, you would have good cause to call me a savage.
You've expressed indifference to suffering and death that you can imagine. Or maybe the issue is that you lack the empathy to imagine what it would be like for Seoul or Tokyo to get nuked. Either way, it's savage.
Alfndrate wrote: But I think that most people can say, all out war with anyone can be bad, and that it should probably be avoided at almost all costs
Not to these jokers. Frazz and Bryllcream don't personally know and value some of these millions of potential casualities so it's no big deal to them.
BryllCream wrote: If I expressed indifference to suffering and death that I witnessed, you would have good cause to call me a savage.
You've expressed indifference to suffering and death that you can imagine. Or maybe the issue is that you lack the empathy to imagine what it would be like for Seoul or Tokyo to get nuked. Either way, it's savage.
And you under-state the cost and risk of action that stems from that empathy. If we allow ourselves to be outraged and shocked by it, that will trigger action, probably a military response. So Britain finds herself in a war with a country twenty times her size on the other side of the earth. And what would we get out of it? Nothing. No good could come of it whatsoever.
Frazzled wrote: Get off the high horse. Only one person could care that much for every person on the planet, and he ended up nailed to a stick.
I'll get off the high horse if you agree to take your head out of its ass. You don't need to be good friends with every citizen of Tokyo to get that them getting massacred by a DPRK dirty bomb is a very bad and sad thing of greater important than a few more pence for your cigarettes.
I'll admit to haveing a gigantic ass, but thats just not going to work...
I never said otherwise. However I can understand people being less humanly attached the further they are down the old 6 steps to Kevin Bacon tree.
BryllCream wrote: So Britain finds herself in a war with a country twenty times her size on the other side of the earth
So you saying you don't care whether Japanese or Korean people die in the millions keeps Britain out of wasteful wars? I'll save you the brain cells: No, being a lout is not what keeps Britain safe. No one is advocating the UK act unilaterally against the DPRK -- or, at this point, that the UK should consider any military intervention. Moreover, whether or not individuals have a humane concern for the fate of others is not determinative of whether a government commences war.
Frazzled wrote: However I can understand people being less humanly attached the further they are down the old 6 steps to Kevin Bacon tree.
Obviously you care more about your kids than somebody else's kids especially if you never met nor even were particularly aware of the existence of that someone else. And there's nothing wrong with that. But none of that translates into BryllCream's statements ITT.
BryllCream wrote: If I expressed indifference to suffering and death that I witnessed, you would have good cause to call me a savage.
You've expressed indifference to suffering and death that you can imagine. Or maybe the issue is that you lack the empathy to imagine what it would be like for Seoul or Tokyo to get nuked. Either way, it's savage.
And you under-state the cost and risk of action that stems from that empathy. If we allow ourselves to be outraged and shocked by it, that will trigger action, probably a military response. So Britain finds herself in a war with a country twenty times her size on the other side of the earth. And what would we get out of it? Nothing. No good could come of it whatsoever.
Too late to be having this conversation. Your country already committed itself to South Korea, the United States and the UN goals in the Koreas. You don't get to enter into treaties and then later say "what do we get out of it?"
BryllCream wrote: If I expressed indifference to suffering and death that I witnessed, you would have good cause to call me a savage.
You've expressed indifference to suffering and death that you can imagine. Or maybe the issue is that you lack the empathy to imagine what it would be like for Seoul or Tokyo to get nuked. Either way, it's savage.
Alfndrate wrote: But I think that most people can say, all out war with anyone can be bad, and that it should probably be avoided at almost all costs
Not to these jokers. Frazz and Bryllcream don't personally know and value some of these millions of potential casualities so it's no big deal to them.
I didn't say that. I said he had a point, in that pragmatically we are less concerned about people on the other side of the world then we are with people we know.
Now I'm down with nuking them, but thats just because they are at war with us and directly threaten the lives of Americans.
Frazzled wrote: However I can understand people being less humanly attached the further they are down the old 6 steps to Kevin Bacon tree.
Obviously you care more about your kids than somebody else's kids especially if you never met nor even were particularly aware of the existence of that someone else. And there's nothing wrong with that. But none of that translates into BryllCream's statements ITT.
So what are we arguing about? I'm just saying as a general statement thats a truth about the human condition.
BryllCream wrote: So Britain finds herself in a war with a country twenty times her size on the other side of the earth
So you saying you don't care whether Japanese or Korean people die in the millions keeps Britain out of wasteful wars? I'll save you the brain cells: No, being a lout is not what keeps Britain safe. No one is advocating the UK act unilaterally against the DPRK -- or, at this point, that the UK should consider any military intervention. Moreover, whether or not individuals have a humane concern for the fate of others is not determinative of whether a government commences war.
Isn't it more important to have an emotional connection to human life, rather than an intellectual one? My concern for humanity stems from my own experience of the world, not some arbitrary notion of importance.
The fact is that a disconnect between emotion and intellect is nessesary - a child dies of malnutrition every 3.6 seconds, if I were to see such a thing it would undoubtidly move me to tears. And yet it happens constantly and relentlessly, and I go about my life quite happily without thinking of the world's poor. Does that make me a monster?
Do you care about those starving children? Does it occupy your every waking moment with concern? Or do you just drop a few coins in a charity box every now and then and get on with your life, like the rest of us?
BryllCream wrote: Does it occupy your every waking moment with concern?
We don't need to talk about every waking moment. When the moment is at hand, when someone brings up a grave subject, one demonstrates nothing but vulgarity by professing indifference to human suffering.
BryllCream wrote: Does it occupy your every waking moment with concern?
We don't need to talk about every waking moment. When the moment is at hand, when someone brings up a grave subject, one demonstrates nothing but vulgarity by professing indifference to human suffering.
Expressing indifference at a hypothetical tragedy is one thing. It's another thing if it actually happened and I was talking to a friend all "LOL WHY SHOULD I CARE". I think you may have read too much into my initial comment.
Enough with the Nuke comments guys, as bad arse as it sounds it is a pointless route to go down. You only have to see what happened when Chernobyl & Fukushima spat out radioactive particles. A couple of Nukes would spread a hell of a lot further and contaminate more than the target. This is what the people in power realised, it's a lose lose situation, it will effect the whole world,. better to beat your enemy economically than with radiation.
Wolfstan wrote: Enough with the Nuke comments guys, as bad arse as it sounds it is a pointless route to go down. You only have to see what happened when Chernobyl & Fukushima spat out radioactive particles. A couple of Nukes would spread a hell of a lot further and contaminate more than the target. This is what the people in power realised, it's a lose lose situation, it will effect the whole world,. better to beat your enemy economically than with radiation.
Wolfstan wrote: Enough with the Nuke comments guys, as bad arse as it sounds it is a pointless route to go down. You only have to see what happened when Chernobyl & Fukushima spat out radioactive particles. A couple of Nukes would spread a hell of a lot further and contaminate more than the target. This is what the people in power realised, it's a lose lose situation, it will effect the whole world,. better to beat your enemy economically than with radiation.
And yet the nuke the Norks recently popped off wasn't quite as messy as the meltdowns....
You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.
So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.
Wolfstan wrote: You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.
So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.
If you understand military targeteering (pairing munitons/delivery systems and targets to achieve a desired effect) you would probably not think about nuking PyongYang. What you COULD see would be nuking the 'scud basket' to make the launch zones unuseable, or much more likely, deep penetrating nukes to take out critical hardened/underground facilities that other munitions can't touch. Chances of careful targeted use of nukes by UN/NATO forces 'screwing us all' due to fallout are pretty slim.
Not saying we would or should use nukes, but I am saying you overestimate the effect. Again, the one the Norks recently pooped, and hundreds of others popped by several nations testing their munitions haven't been as damaging as uncontrolled meltdowns you mentioned.
EDIT: Remember, SK and their allies are going to end up bearing the cost of cleaning NK and trying to turn them into an economically viable part of a reunited Korea. The North is an ecological and economic nightmare right now. Indiscrimiante use of nukes or other targeting of certain types of infrastructure will not be helpful and no one serious is advocating that. That doesn't mean that in some very specific cases nukes are not useful or are worse than some other (as yet unoffered) alternative. Some of the hardened/underground facilities that will need to be destroyed/neutralized are going to be very tough targets. I'm sure the pros are gonna hit them with the best munitions they can in order to achieve the needed effects on those targets. In a perfect world that is done without nukes, and we've worked hard to develop non-nuke alternatives to taking out those types of facilities.
Hopefully we never have to find out... A war on that peninsula will not be limited to Korea, and as I've said, it will be messy. Several scuds (or similar) missiles with chem warheads hitting Seoul is a real possibility for example.
Urg just wait for them particles to float up north and watch the real mess begin (internationally)
Edit: also wernt most of those nuke tests underground tests? (honestly don't know but if they where underground it would be far easier to contain than a surface test. also have no idea what the wind stream is like up there) also i would hate for something like this to start considering my other office in Seoul)
But who wants to fight the US army? I just saw a thing that showed off their completely automated supply truck. It drives itself, scans terrain, and can deliver things to the front lines without the risk of losing any lives. What country would willingly take on a military with technology such as this?
Hehe, someone watches Top Gear
Ultimately I think it's also saber rattling, but I hope that they don't go all crazy and start shooting, our speed bump force there SHOULD bring up enough public outcry that we have to do something, if it happens of course.
Easy E wrote: Well, that and the fact that Seoul would be shelled to rubble in minutes if war broke out.
China would benefit if one of their major trading rivals was demolished, and open up expansion of the Sealanes. Sure NK would be deccimated, but it would hobble a Greater Korea for decades.
War is a Win/Win for China.... or not.
Naw... I remember there were tactical discussions that if war does break out, we'd level those areas having those rockets pointed at Seoul.
Ideally yes. However, there are a lot of rockets and guns pointed at Seoul, I doubt we can instantly destroy them all with a wave of our hand.
However, you do know that our troops in SK are not meant to stop an invasion right? They are suppose to die. If the NK attack and American soldiers are killed, then you can guarartee US intervention. It's called a tripwire in diplomatic/strategic circles.
Desubot wrote: Urg just wait for them particles to float up north and watch the real mess begin (internationally)
Edit: also wernt most of those nuke tests underground tests? (honestly don't know but if they where underground it would be far easier to contain than a surface test. also have no idea what the wind stream is like up there) also i would hate for something like this to start considering my other office in Seoul)
I submit any used against the Norks would most likely be underground detonations too....
Wolfstan wrote: You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.
So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.
Better than 100,000 US casualties.
You're a comedy genius.
If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.
Wolfstan wrote: You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.
So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.
Better than 100,000 US casualties.
You're a comedy genius.
If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.
Everyone knows we're each worth 10 of you! Unless they're royalty, then it's only 5
Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.
D'you know who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?
Albatross wrote: Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.
D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?
Americans. Duh.
We have a shield over the entire important part of the continent.
Wolfstan wrote: You drop a nuke on a city and BANG, wide spread dispersal of radioactive particles. We had the ennvironment Agency in the UK picking up on the Chernobyl stuff in the grass over here. Okay it wasn't life threatening but it was at higher levels and this is from something which threw out the same sort of contamination as a dirty nuke.
So yeah big bad kick arse drop the bomb is cool when talking about it, but the reality is it would screw us all.
Better than 100,000 US casualties.
You're a comedy genius.
If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.
I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote: Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.
D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?
Americans. Duh.
Then you'd love how I view my family vs. the rest of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote: Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.
D'you who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?
Americans. Duh.
AWhat nuclear exchange? This is NK and the US.
Alternatively I'ds be just fine with the US pulling up stakes and telling SK, "Yep its been 60 years. You're 20 more powerful than NK. You deal. We're outta here."
If war does kick off between NK and SKwounld'nt the first few days be brutal with massive loss of life because its going to be lots of massed artillary,infantry and armour engagments untill the US can get forces mobilised and into korea to end/stop north korea.Also does anybody now exact military strenths of the NK compaired to the Sk plus the stationed US troops?because i feel this would mean alot to wether the north koreans could get a serious foot hold in the south and drag the conflict out obviously with massive losses once the US(plus any other nations who feel the NK are best stopped) beats the gak out of them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But who wants to fight the US army? I just saw a thing that showed off their completely automated supply truck. It drives itself, scans terrain, and can deliver things to the front lines without the risk of losing any lives. What country would willingly take on a military with technology such as this?
Don't worry, Ripley. Me and my team of ultimate badasses will protect you. Check it out. Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. WHAP! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks.
Well the Sunshine Policy failed to do anything other than buy North Korea time, so maybe the Chinese need to slap the spoiled child they've been coddling for so long.
commisar rhodes wrote: If war does kick off between NK and SKwounld'nt the first few days be brutal with massive loss of life because its going to be lots of massed artillary,infantry and armour engagments untill the US can get forces mobilised and into korea to end/stop north korea.Also does anybody now exact military strenths of the NK compaired to the Sk plus the stationed US troops?because i feel this would mean alot to wether the north koreans could get a serious foot hold in the south and drag the conflict out obviously with massive losses once the US(plus any other nations who feel the NK are best stopped) beats the gak out of them.
This is why in my previous post, I mentioned that the existing forces are a "speed bump" force.... From what I understand of that situation (which isn't much), the US forces there are purely there to slow down enough of the NK advance to allow the "cavalry" to arrive. Had a PLT Sgt who was a former combat engineer, stationed there, and his company's task, should NK come to SK, was to blow up all bridges after the Americans went through to slow down the NKs.
I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.
Because racism?
What nuclear exchange? This is NK and the US.
Says who? You have no idea how this whole thing is going to pan out. In your lunatic fantasy, the USA can unilaterally perform a nuclear strike against a much weaker adversary and everyone gives the US the big diplomatic 'thumbs-up'?
Come on now. You can't actually be that infantile. A Global war would break out.
War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'
Spyral wrote: War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'
You do know that we're still technical at war with them... dontcha?
Spyral wrote: War might shake things up a bit. For the heck of it I'll root for north korea. Why not- they are crazy communists where the regular man is oppressed. To me sanctions read 'bullying by the international community'
Wow. Well, now I've seen it all on the OT Forum. Someone actually coming out in support of North Korea.
Says who? You have no idea how this whole thing is going to pan out. In your lunatic fantasy, the USA can unilaterally perform a nuclear strike against a much weaker adversary and everyone gives the US the big diplomatic 'thumbs-up'?
Come on now. You can't actually be that infantile. A Global war would break out.
It's pretty clear NK would be starting this party off. The US, and everyone else's long standing policy is thou who plays with nukes dies by nukes isn't exactly new, if it hasn't been dusted off ever. So if NK decides to launch on Seoul or Japan, after it's missiles are shot down it's open to nuclear retaliation. Only time it would expand globally would require China to back it's rabid dog.
I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.
Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?
Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
Ouze wrote: I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.
Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?
Impossible.
And we won't nuke them, either.
We might reveal some of our other secret weapon programs, but we're not going to nuke them.
Ouze wrote: I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.
Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?
Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
Ummm... I think the China would actually invade NK if they knew we'd be deploying nukes.
Ouze wrote: I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
I think the American people would be more willing to accept the horror of a one-sided nuclear exchange then they would the cost in American troops.
Also, what about the possibility of China pre-emptively invading? Unlikely, impossible?
Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
From a US Military historical standpoint, this is the best time for our troops to invade NK... If you look at our history, we'll settle into a non-wartime state (massive personnel cuts, etc.) get rid of the best combat vets and leadership, get brought into another conflict, sustain rather large casualties in the first year to year and a half, then we start to really kick arse again. Whereas we are coming down from a long period of war, our troops are at their finest in terms of combat vets and training goes, so we'd be better prepared to go into another country and NOT sustain the "early war casualties" that we normally do.
Ouze wrote: I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
If conflict did break out I would imagine that most of those deployed would be "advisers" sent over to help South Korea.
Ouze wrote: I think such a conflict would really have to go nuclear, right? I mean, I cannot imagine the United States deploying the personnel for such a conflict, not in 2013.
If conflict did break out I would imagine that most of those deployed would be "advisers" sent over to help South Korea.
Probably minimal infantry. I would imagine that most US support would be in the air as well as naval support.
d-usa wrote: Probably minimal infantry. I would imagine that most US support would be in the air as well as naval support.
What I meant by advisers is either Special Forces Operators and/or CIA deployed to assist S. Korean forces, mercenaries with the necessary skills and experience to assist S. Korean forces, or Special Forces Operators temporarily discharged from active duty and re-hired as mercenaries to assist S. Korea for plausible deniability (the UK's SAS is rumoured to favour this last option under certain circumstances).
Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
\
We've shot down several NK test launches for funsies.
Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
\
We've shot down several NK test launches for funsies.
They were test launches after all, why can't we test our defenses with them.
Wolfstan wrote: Enough with the Nuke comments guys, as bad arse as it sounds it is a pointless route to go down. You only have to see what happened when Chernobyl & Fukushima spat out radioactive particles. A couple of Nukes would spread a hell of a lot further and contaminate more than the target. This is what the people in power realised, it's a lose lose situation, it will effect the whole world,. better to beat your enemy economically than with radiation.
OffTopic but so far everything released by the ICRP about Fukushima points to no quantifiable dose to world public at all. None. Due to the prevailing winds the impact on Japan was a lot less than people were making it out to be. If anyone wants I can attach the articles later but people really need to stop comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima. It wasn't a comparable explosion in any sense.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: More to the point, do they really want to piss off China, who want stability and continued trade with the US without war or threats?
China feeds North Korea, also, should the unthinkable happen, fallout would drift across China from North or South Korea...
The greater concern to China is if war broke out the NK regime would collapse, and refugees would flood across the border into China. Millions of starving NK citizens in refugee camps with absolutely no useful skills is a recipe for a problem that will likely last generations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: This would be okay with me, so long as China and the US can agree that after the DPRK is demolished the peninsula will be reunited under South Korean leadership.
That's kind of why the US is involved. It wants any resolution to be the resolution that best suits the US (united government under SK control). If the US steps back and says 'SK has this' then the Chinese will step in to resolve it to their preference, which frankly could be anything (Chinese politics when it comes to Korea is centuries old and very weird).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Even in the case of siege warfare, is detente possible? I think that is the hard question for the US and China: is military intervention in North Korea actually inevitable?
Peaceful resolution happens, and sometimes it comes very quickly. As much as it looks right now as though internal regime change in North Korea is impossible, it has happened and happened very quickly in regimes that looked far more stable. USSR, for instance. Portugal. Spain.
I think from the outside looking in we often miss the subtleties of the various factions involved. The leadership class is well travelled, they know how the rest of us live, and plenty of them must see that there's a better way for themselves and their country, that might be achieved if the current regime ever wobbles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Naw... I remember there were tactical discussions that if war does break out, we'd level those areas having those rockets pointed at Seoul.
Sure, but it's an issue of how fast you can do it, and how much devestation that artillery can do in that time. How long does it take to knock out 1,500 artillery pieces? And how much damage can that many artillery pieces do to a city of millions in that time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I think folks underestimate the Norks. I suspect they are more than capable of having learned valuable lessons about how the US and thier allies fight over the past couple of decades. There is adequate proof they have shared intel with nations that collect against us in the various conflicts. We k now they have a darned good HUMINT/Clandestine SpecOps capability in SK and Japan. They have logistics to support conventional ops prepositioned and under darned good cover. They will benefit from a cyber war capability that will be used against SK, Japan and the US and other allies.
Dude, their primary logistics are the same trucks the Russians gave them to fight the last war. Most of them have been scrapped for parts to keep the rest running. They march almost everywhere because fuel supplies are so tight.
I ave no doubt they get curb stomped in the end, but it won't be a clean, short, or easy war. Add in SK frankly is not economically ready to handle reunification especially after a destructive war.
Economics matter when the war is on a distant shore, over some vague political goal. When the war involves invasion of your coutnry, economics don't mean gak. You use whatever you have, borrow whatever you can. Every bit of industry and economy switches to the war effort.
China stands to gain as SK and their allies are forced to absorb a complete economic and ecological disaster while they no longer have to assume responsibility for feeding and heating the Norks. Yes, they lose a buffer but the destabilization of the peninsula opens opportunities for them in several ways.
No. China gets the border collapse of an impoverished neighbour and the refugee problem that will inevitably produce.
Albatross wrote: Well, my point was that it being OK for the entire WORLD to be fethed, just as long as 100,000 Americans don't get killed in combat, reads like someone doing a satirical impression of a right-wing American lunatic.
D'you know who lives in the World, the world that would be fethed in the event of a nuclear exchange?
Americans. Duh.
Your idealism, while admirable, does not reflect how competing nations behave in these type situations.
The worlds governments are in competition with one another. Not the silly everyone who participates gets a trophy kind of competition. Rather, competition as described in Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Tsung Tzu's "Art of War".
Both Philosophies I mentioned advocate avoiding war for the most part. This means that the good statesmen (Leaders) will see the problem beforehand and take action to prevent a war if such is not in the best interest of "The State",
When war does occur the government has a duty to preserve "The State". This preservasion means to:
1)Not lose standing/position in regards to "The States" peers.
2)Not be drawn into a protracted war(End the war as quickly as possible)
3)If possible advance "The States" standing amoungst its peers
4)If "The State has to do something considered immoral in order to meet these aims then it should do so.
By these aims listed, one can see that it would not be in the US's best interest to use WMDs....unless it is in retaliation. Even then it might be better for the US or Japan to take a hit in order to gain international support. Then again, could be just as advantageous to show that the US will not shrink from the hard decision. This is why such comments about nukes are applicable.
Now what is interesting is that when viewing this situation using these philosophies, a certain nation could be possibly noted as a behind the scenes instigator. What I mean is, that when you look at who would benefit from such a war, the discussion here has already pointed out that China doesn't really stand to lose either way.
Now if it did come down to the west needing to respond to a Nork nuke attack, a measured tactical nuclear response could be seen as preferable to some of the other alternatives.
Point here is that:
It is not the equation of one life being more important than the other, its "How does sending 100,00 American soldiers in to die along with the enemies soldiers make it any more moral?"
Seems like wasting lives when there is an alternative would be the worse course of action. Really, should not the preservation of the most lives would be the ultimate goal.
Note- not advocating nuclear war, just breaking it down from "The States" point of view.
If you actually were joking. If not? Well, I suppose that would make you the other thing.
Fraz's relationship with numbers is kind of strange.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
commisar rhodes wrote: Also does anybody now exact military strenths of the NK compaired to the Sk plus the stationed US troops?
From the 1960s South Korea began to develop into a modern industrial country. Increasing interaction with the rest of the world increased this growth, liberalisation led to democracy in the 1980s. They are presently the 15th biggest economy in the world, and have the military to represent that.
Following the war, North Korea's economy has only declined, as the increasingly poorly administered state planned economy has crushed production, and diplomatic isolation has led to acute resources shortages. They have the military to represent that - basically it's still dependant on vehicles that were given to them by the Soviets sixty years ago. A few years ago they actually lowered the minimum height requirement for infantry to 5 foot, because there weren't enough potential recruits over five foot tall.
In short, the war will be bloody, but very one sided. Exactly how long it will take to finish will depend entirely on whether the North Korean regime holds together or collapses as soon as the war goes badly. Exactly how many South Koreans will die will depend on how quickly the NK artillery around Seoul is taken out, and how many dirty tricks the NK's have planned actually work (they spend a lot of time digging tunnels in the de-militarised zone).
At this point, I think they are doing it just to remain relevant. After all, there are plenty of poor countries with loony leaders that don't make headlines. North Korea has the distinction of being a loony country that makes headlines every time it sneezes and I don't think it wants to lose that.
Albatross wrote: Wow. Well, now I've seen it all on the OT Forum. Someone actually coming out in support of North Korea.
Skarka rule. No matter how ridiculous, on the internet someone will always try to defend it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What I meant by advisers is either Special Forces Operators and/or CIA deployed to assist S. Korean forces, mercenaries with the necessary skills and experience to assist S. Korean forces, or Special Forces Operators temporarily discharged from active duty and re-hired as mercenaries to assist S. Korea for plausible deniability (the UK's SAS is rumoured to favour this last option under certain circumstances).
If hostilities broke out the US will have assets in the air taking out NK targets before the South Korean military is fully mobilised.
Spec ops and the like will be in there almost as quick, and maybe even before, depending on how the built up to the war develops.
Whether or not conventional troops from the US/UK/whoever else are put in will depend on a lot of things. The biggest is whether there's enough lead up time for the troops to be put there, and how long the ground war lasts (the second one is a two parter - too short a time and the war will be over before NATO can actually deliver troops, but if the war bogs down they might prefer to avoid casualties and just blow gak up with planes while the SK troops do the work on the ground).
d-usa wrote:The drones are getting lots of practice flying through mountains, they should be able to handle things.
They can't carry the types of weapontry needed to penetrate to many of the targets.
Ouze wrote: Also, can we shoot down incoming ICBM's targeting Japan? I thought we only had a missile shield for Poland, and unfinished at that. But who knows what sort of secret squirrel stuff we have, stealth-Blackhawk style.
We deploy some of the same ships we do every time the Norks test a missle. the same kind we used to hit that falling satelite a few years back. They have an anti-ICBM capbility.
CptJake wrote: I think folks underestimate the Norks. I suspect they are more than capable of having learned valuable lessons about how the US and thier allies fight over the past couple of decades. There is adequate proof they have shared intel with nations that collect against us in the various conflicts. We k now they have a darned good HUMINT/Clandestine SpecOps capability in SK and Japan. They have logistics to support conventional ops prepositioned and under darned good cover. They will benefit from a cyber war capability that will be used against SK, Japan and the US and other allies.
Dude, their primary logistics are the same trucks the Russians gave them to fight the last war. Most of them have been scrapped for parts to keep the rest running. They march almost everywhere because fuel supplies are so tight.
Which is exactly why I said 'prepositioned'. They have huge caverns and smaller caches of needed supplies prepositioned to support their war plans so that they do not rely on conventional transport. Again, you are wrong.
I ave no doubt they get curb stomped in the end, but it won't be a clean, short, or easy war. Add in SK frankly is not economically ready to handle reunification especially after a destructive war.
Economics matter when the war is on a distant shore, over some vague political goal. When the war involves invasion of your coutnry, economics don't mean gak. You use whatever you have, borrow whatever you can. Every bit of industry and economy switches to the war effort.
China stands to gain as SK and their allies are forced to absorb a complete economic and ecological disaster while they no longer have to assume responsibility for feeding and heating the Norks. Yes, they lose a buffer but the destabilization of the peninsula opens opportunities for them in several ways.
No. China gets the border collapse of an impoverished neighbour and the refugee problem that will inevitably produce.
Again, the South is not economically ready to handle reunification especially after a destructive war. That sentence and the concept it attempts to convey are not too hard to grasp for most folks. Economics means an aweful lot when planning for how to handle saber rattles from the Norks, and when deciding what actions to take. The South actually has funds set aside for reunification, and planning done to help get it started, and they admit the funds are woefully inadequate and that the plans will also prove inadequate as well when faced with actual reunification, especially after a messy war.
The refugee problem China would face, China would handle. The clean up and integration of the North will weaken the Southand their allies, and China has much to gain from that. Again, not a hard hard concept.
sebster wrote: The greater concern to China is if war broke out the NK regime would collapse, and refugees would flood across the border into China. Millions of starving NK citizens in refugee camps with absolutely no useful skills is a recipe for a problem that will likely last generations.
Not to mention all those suffering mental distress from the years of propaganda and the stress of the collapse of the regime.
sebster wrote: If hostilities broke out the US will have assets in the air taking out NK targets before the South Korean military is fully mobilised.
Spec ops and the like will be in there almost as quick, and maybe even before, depending on how the built up to the war develops.
Whether or not conventional troops from the US/UK/whoever else are put in will depend on a lot of things. The biggest is whether there's enough lead up time for the troops to be put there, and how long the ground war lasts (the second one is a two parter - too short a time and the war will be over before NATO can actually deliver troops, but if the war bogs down they might prefer to avoid casualties and just blow gak up with planes while the SK troops do the work on the ground).
I'd hope that the UN either doesn't get involved, or only gets involved with China's blessing. If China sees it as a hostile action then they may start putting their forces on alert and it could all escalate very quickly.
This thread made me think of the possibility of nuclear armed drones.
It remind sme of all the "nuclear" weapon experiment sin the 50's. Things like Nuclear torpedoes, Nuclear artillery shells, Nuclear mines, Nuclear anti-aircraft missiles, etc.
I remember when people were freaking out about a 2nd Korean War in 2010, guess what?It didn't happen then. It won't happen now. North Korea is bluffing, they are the "tough guy" of the international community
MeanGreenStompa wrote: More to the point, do they really want to piss off China, who want stability and continued trade with the US without war or threats?
China feeds North Korea, also, should the unthinkable happen, fallout would drift across China from North or South Korea...
The greater concern to China is if war broke out the NK regime would collapse, and refugees would flood across the border into China. Millions of starving NK citizens in refugee camps with absolutely no useful skills is a recipe for a problem that will likely last generations.
.
On the plus side massive new labor pool, and they don't have to feed them much, NKers are used to starving.
China doesn't want a war there... North Korea says this kind of thing at least 3-4 times a year... move along..
After living in SK for a number of years, it never ceased to amaze me how much bigger things got made out to be by the Western press, when something like this isn't even front page news in the country it is meant to be concerning. When NK tested their bomb a few weeks ago, in amongst all of the UK press going on about the concerns of a nuclear warhead*, the news in SK itself was talking about concerns that the underground bomb had caused the previously dormant Mt Baedku to start letting out clouds of gas again, and potentially an eruption. Seriously.
I suppose as a wargaming forum it's fun postulating about what might happen if there was a war (after all.. such a thing is at the heart of tabletop wargaming, and one of the main reasons for its invention) but its' important to remember that it's just a fantasy. Short of there being an absolutely appalling catastrophe, that simply can't be ignored (I'm thinking about something along the lines of someone making a mistake with a nuke), every confrontation ends with old men coming out from both sides to energetically shout at each other for a few days, make a bit of a show, and then life goes back to normal.
* Aside from the fact that a US commissioned intelligence report, revealed as part of the wikileaks business previously, had postulated that NK is at least 25-30 years away from the capability of mounting a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. These things are a big feat of engineering and technology, and are not achieved easily.
CptJake wrote: Which is exactly why I said 'prepositioned'. They have huge caverns and smaller caches of needed supplies prepositioned to support their war plans so that they do not rely on conventional transport. Again, you are wrong.
Yeah. Static infantry lines with WWII level tech. That's totally what you need to over run a modern nation state.
text removed. No need for comments like this.
Reds8n
Again, the South is not economically ready to handle reunification especially after a destructive war. That sentence and the concept it attempts to convey are not too hard to grasp for most folks. Economics means an aweful lot when planning for how to handle saber rattles from the Norks, and when deciding what actions to take. The South actually has funds set aside for reunification, and planning done to help get it started, and they admit the funds are woefully inadequate and that the plans will also prove inadequate as well when faced with actual reunification, especially after a messy war.
It doesn't matter if they're economically ready. It's an issue of viability as a state, and so they will just do it. Dollar costs are the kind of thing that matter when there's an alternative.
The refugee problem China would face, China would handle. The clean up and integration of the North will weaken the Southand their allies, and China has much to gain from that. Again, not a hard hard concept.
Of course China will handle it. The point is they don't want to handle it, it will cause problems they'd rather just get along with not having. Just like South Korea will handle the war, and the subsequent re-unification, but would rather not if they don't have to.
This idea in your head that China will 'win' because they suffer less is just screwy. And that's without considering the fact that China went to war once already to prevent a united Korea, the idea that they'd be pleased if it happened now because South Korea and the US would lose troops & money is silly.
Your entire frame of reference for this reads like someone who learnt geo-politics from playing Risk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Not to mention all those suffering mental distress from the years of propaganda and the stress of the collapse of the regime.
There'd be a lot of very fragile people, that's true. Though it is something of a myth that people in NK genuinely believe the crazy gak spouted by the regime. There is a massive amount of black market* trade into China, and the people aren't idiots, they know the regime is bad news. The point is that given the network of secret police and informants, they don't dare say anything unless they're really, really comfortable around you.
Which is the kind of thing that will mess you up seriously, just ask the the East Germans (who's situation was awful, but nowhere near as severe what the NKs suffer through).
Also the hunger. Just being hungry as a matter of course kind of feths people up, long term.
*A mate went to China, and visited near the Southern border as that's where his defacto's family is from. Brought me back some NK cigarettes, which were quite easily the worst thing I've smoked in my life. I mean, I'm not a smoker so don't take my opinion as gospel or anything, but holy gak they were awful.
I'd hope that the UN either doesn't get involved, or only gets involved with China's blessing. If China sees it as a hostile action then they may start putting their forces on alert and it could all escalate very quickly.
UN can't get involved without China's say so. They've got veto, and unlike 1950 it's actually the PRC that has it, not the KMT hiding out in Taiwan.
Nor would the UN get involved without China's say so, even if they didn't have veto. You don't feth around on the doorstep of a nuclear power without their explicit approval.
But China is very unlikely to prevent a combined operation to swiftly resolve the war, especially if its very clear the war was an unprovoked attack from NK (which it almost certainly would be). I have no clue if China would want to deploy serious air assets, but they'd certainly secure their border, and deploy troops as part of the peacekeeping operation. They'd do that to ensure a strong say in the eventual resolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: On the plus side massive new labor pool, and they don't have to feed them much, NKers are used to starving.
The last thing China needs is more unskilled labour. There's a pool of about 500 million still outside the cities.
And when that unskilled labour is displaced & homeless, and speaks a different language... that is not a useful asset. Seriously, my final paper in economic history was on the economic impact of the Palestinian refugee crisis in Jordan. Long story short, even with massive amounts of charity funding from both the West and the ME states, it is not a problem you want, and one with likely a multiple generation economic drain.
sebster wrote: There'd be a lot of very fragile people, that's true. Though it is something of a myth that people in NK genuinely believe the crazy gak spouted by the regime. There is a massive amount of black market* trade into China, and the people aren't idiots, they know the regime is bad news. The point is that given the network of secret police and informants, they don't dare say anything unless they're really, really comfortable around you.
Which is the kind of thing that will mess you up seriously, just ask the the East Germans (who's situation was awful, but nowhere near as severe what the NKs suffer through).
Also the hunger. Just being hungry as a matter of course kind of feths people up, long term.
Yeah, I just posted on this in the other thread. There are probably true believers there, but I suspect they're outnumbered 100:1 by the people who just live in fear and/or use the system to get "ahead."
gorgon wrote: Yeah, I just posted on this in the other thread. There are probably true believers there, but I suspect they're outnumbered 100:1 by the people who just live in fear and/or use the system to get "ahead."
Well they're constantly ready to get moving if needed any way, and NK makes threats like this constantly... you can't be jumping in the fox holes every time they say boo.
Soladrin wrote: Well, they just ended the cease-fire treaty and cut the emergy telephone line to south-korea. Extreme sabre rattling or will there be actual action?
SK are scrambling troops as we speak.
I haven't heard anything about scrambling troops. We were engaging in an exercise with them that already had troops mobilizing. That was unrelated to this though.
The most telling thing that I've seen with this situation is China's backing of the sanctions. They've offered no resistance to it, even supported it. N. Korea is probably seeing the writing on the wall right now...
SK and US forces Korea isn't scrambling, nor is 7th fleet. Per an intell buddy this is being treated as saber rattling for the time being, the next couple days will be telling though so stand by for things to get interesting.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un today told his troops to be ready for 'all-out war' and instructed them to 'make the first gunfire' if tensions with South Korea boil over.
He also promised a 'great advance' over the border between the two nations, shortly after the North announced that it had abandoned its peace treaty with the South.
The pariah state has launched a new round of warlike rhetoric in anger over tough new sanctions imposed on it.
The UN Security council voted to impose the fresh round of sanctions targeting North Korea's economy and leadership in the wake of the country's third nuclear test.
The most telling thing that I've seen with this situation is China's backing of the sanctions. They've offered no resistance to it, even supported it. N. Korea is probably seeing the writing on the wall right now...
China was actually responsible for drafting the latest set of resolutions along with the US.
Spoke to a friend in SK today though and she wasn't worried about this at all. She thought it was probably just an excuse to rally people around a common enemy (there are some big rallies going on) and try and take the onus away from domestic troubles. As per normal, in fact.
I do think though that the big joint US/SK military manoeuvres might be ill-advised though. As we saw last time with the sinking of the Cheonan a few years ago, having masses of military hardware milling around on the border opens the door for itchy trigger fingers to get the better of people, and for mistakes to be made.
Thats an interesting thought. The NK is so focused on charging south, what if the US/SK invaded first, or even pulled Inchon II This Time Its Personal?
Soladrin wrote: Do you believe for a second that he actually has any power at all in that country?
Yes I do, however he is replacable. Thing he has too many puppetmasters, which gives him a lot of levity. He will do Chinas bidding, up to a point, and that of the generals, up to a point, and his family, up to a point. He has levity by playing one off against other, the nice way, that is by prioitising what he does on their behalf in his order and to his degree As a result he becomes the powerbroker in his own country
Kim Jong Un knows that when he has got nukes he will be left alone, and thats all he wants. Sanctions actually help him, as he can bunker down rely on China for essential supplies and defer any reform pressures from south of the border.
