Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/03/06 02:22:58
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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.
Not that it's really a "win win situation"
2013/03/06 02:23:17
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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).
2013/03/06 02:34:53
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 02:45:57
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/06 08:36:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
2013/03/06 08:42:58
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 08:52:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/03/06 08:52:22
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
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).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/06 09:02:42
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/06 11:22:44
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
I never joke
The life of 1 US citizen > all of North Korea.
Because racism?
.
er... isn't this how every country view their soldiers?
Not my kinfolk. We were all about sending in the waves to stop the evil Hitlerites!
1,000,000 dead soldiers > 1 dead nazi?
Looks at Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration, Berlin.....thats about right.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
Let's add Nuclear Drones to the mix!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
North Koreans already work in China actually. Its really weird, they are cordoned off in little mini camps.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2013/03/06 19:46:04
Subject: Re:North-Korea threatens to end cease fire.
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 14:32:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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."
If I ever find myself at war with wax replicas of history's greatest monsters, Cpt Jake will be the first person I call for advice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/08 02:06:33
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
