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.

 Bromsy wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

Piracy by it's definition must be carried out by a non-state actor.

Tell that to William Kidd. or Sir Francis Drake. or the Dey of Algiers. or any number of Somali warlords who's armies are financed by piracy and have pretensions of rule.

Hell, if you want to get American, I might draw your eye toward the infamous CSS Alabama.

The only definition of pirate that holds any water is the first one. Hostis humani generis. 'Enemy of Mankind'

Privateers are not pirates. That's why there is a different word for it.

Also, some of the folks you brought up are just straight up non- state actors... so I would 'tell that to them'.

Whether someone is a privateer or a pirate very much depends on which side you are on. Just ask the many privateers hung for piracy by other states. Its like with terrorists and freedom fighters.

 Bromsy wrote:

What exactly do you think the world at large would do if we walked nukes down the entire northern half of the Korean peninsula? Would China cripple their own economy to spite us? Or would Europe stop shipping us automobile parts, liquor and furniture? I think we'd survive.

Also, if you launch nukes in the general direction of China and Russia (both of which border North Korea), then they'll do a lot more than cripple the economy. Likely, they will walk nukes down the entire US from coast to coast. I don't think you (or me, or many people in general) would survive that.

Morkphoiz wrote:
The brainwashed cattle will never be able to open their minds for the rest of the world. They will fight and die for nothing and the survivors will have no place in this world. I hope i'm wrong tho.

Yeah, just like we exterminated all the Germans and Japanese after the war because they clearly had no hope of turning in to productive nations in the global community after being brainwashed by their leaders.

But seriously WTF, it scares me that anyone would say what you just said. I doubt you even know what the NK people think about or care about on an individual level.

 Bromsy wrote:

Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.

And have lots of loopholes for a government to pretend there is no problem, such as the issue of Chinese naval vessels committing acts of piracy off Australia without going though the trouble of mutiny.

 Bromsy wrote:

Privateers are not pirates. That's why there is a different word for it.

Also, some of the folks you brought up are just straight up non- state actors... so I would 'tell that to them'.

Kidd was hung out to dry for piracy, despite working on behalf of representatives of the Crown. The Dey of Algiers did not issue letters of Marque. Drake was pretty questionable and had to be pardoned. And as for the Somalis, just ask them if they're the government.

 Bromsy wrote:
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.

Fair enough, point taken.

It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.

Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.

It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.

This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.

Fair enough, point taken.

It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.

Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.

It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.

This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.

Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"

I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.

Fair enough, point taken.

It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.

Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.

It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.

This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.

Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"

I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.

Pretty sure a blockade doesn't have to allow anything through. Thats the point of a blockade.

You can have a limited blockade where you only disallow certain things, or you can have a total blockade.

The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

The only possible international rules on blockades I could find is the San Remo Manuel(which is not ratified by the way, so there is no need to even follow this). And even it only says you can't Blockade an area if it's sole purpose is to starve people out. You can however starve them out if there is enough military presence in the area to justify a total blockade.

North Korea would certainly qualify as they have the largest army in the world. Roughly 30% of their total population is either active or part of their reserves.

 feeder wrote:
The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...

The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Article 15 of the Geneva Convention of the High Seas and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both define piracy as an act carried out by a private ship.

Fair enough, point taken.

It's still inane though, because it now reduces the discussion down in to definitional nonsense about private and governmental actors, and completely misses the point that blockades and piracy are simply different things.

Sorry that that really pisses you off for whatever reason, but it's hardly an 'absurd' position for me to argue.

It pisses me off for a reason I've already explained quite clearly - a blockade and piracy are very obviously different things because it's a plain and obvious reality that roaming the seas looking for boats to attack and capture is totally different to announcing to the world that no boats will be allowed to pass through a given area and will be stopped if they tried to do so.

This should annoy everyone. It's like if someone claimed team A won on the weekend, and someone responds by saying team B won, and started showing pictures of team B's fans looking happier after the game, and showing fantasy football rankings where team B's players went up more than team A's... and doing everything but showing a scoreboard where team B finished with a bigger score than team A.

Shiver me timbers! This 'ere be a good excuse next time I be seizin' a ship! "Arr me hearties, we not be robbin' ye, we be simply blockadin' this 'ere old port!"

I agree that piracy and a blockade are different things though, and afaik in international law blockades are a legal method of warfare as long as things like food and medicine are still allowed through.

Pretty sure a blockade doesn't have to allow anything through. Thats the point of a blockade.

You can have a limited blockade where you only disallow certain things, or you can have a total blockade.

You can, but it would make you a war criminal. Blockading food and medicine is prohibited by the laws of war. The concept of 'total war', in which the combatants make no distinction between military and civilians (such as happened in WW2) is forbidden. So basically any military action that deliberately harms civilians (such as trying to starve them to death by blocking their food supply) is outlawed.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...

The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.

Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...

The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.

This is where it gets odd...there is no declared state of war between NK and the US. The US is there under the auspices of the UN to protect SK, not in a formal state of war.

This means that the UN would have to do the blockade, I think, which also means getting that through the voting and Security Council.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This means that the UN would have to do the blockade, I think, which also means getting that through the voting and Security Council.

I believe it's already allowed under the UN's SK/NK resolutions... as a blockade was implemented at the start of that war.

If the UN didn't want that... they can certainly pass another resolution to update that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...

The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.

Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.

I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.

The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.

 whembly wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This means that the UN would have to do the blockade, I think, which also means getting that through the voting and Security Council.

I believe it's already allowed under the UN's SK/NK resolutions... as a blockade was implemented at the start of that war.

If the UN didn't want that... they can certainly pass another resolution to update that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
The Captain is referring to the legality of a blockade during warfare. Is this theoretical blockade following the rules of war?

Blockades in most sense is casus belli for war...

The thing is, we're technically AT war with NK... so in terms of international law, this would seem to be kosher.

Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.

I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.

The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.

A modern blockade could be maintained further back if you can get a accurate track and intercept further out.

No need to enter arty range.
No modern ship is built to take arty fire.

Have to be on a Iowa to find a ship designed to take that kind of punishment and shrug casually at it.

A blockade!?!

What are you trying to get the Jedi involved or something!?!

 Easy E wrote:
A blockade!?!

What are you trying to get the Jedi involved or something!?!

Only the Sith trade in absolutes!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
A blockade!?!

What are you trying to get the Jedi involved or something!?!

Only the Sith trade in absolutes!

Well if we give kim a lightsabre it's only matter of time before he managed to kill self with it

 whembly wrote:

I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.

The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.

Smart? In what way is it smart to escalate tensions with a failing corrupt nuclear state?

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.

The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.

Smart? In what way is it smart to escalate tensions with a failing corrupt nuclear state?

Either you demand that they make some changes...

...or, you simply *deal* with the fact that NK becomes a fully armed and operationally-toting nuke nation.

There are no good options... but, you'd think it'd behooves the rest of the world to try convince NK to stop being a bitch.

No amount of external pain is going to stop NK's nuclear program. As Putin said, theyll starve before they give it up.

The Kim regime sees it as an ironclad guanatee of safety (Im sure they recall Hussein and Gaddaffi), it gives them meaningful retaliatory capability beyond just levelling Seoul, as well as a major bargaining chip depending on how it is used, and offers a nationalistic icon to rally the patriotic masses behind.

There are no sanctions or actions that are going to get NK to give that capability up voluntarily, at least none that other parties (US, China, Russia, SK) wont sink for their own reasons (e.g. the US is not going to withdraw from SK with the current regime in place even if it gave up its nuclear arms).

Is there an option to remove that capability? Many. The trick has always been, how do we do that without the 5 digits worth of big guns within range of Seoul and its suburbs providing a counter-retort, and now, what happens to such nuclear weapons of the Kim regime is brought down or severely disrupted?

That's ultimately what it comes down to, and is why the situation has been allowed to develop as it has. There just isnt a terribly great and clear cut answer :(

 Vaktathi wrote:
No amount of external pain is going to stop NK's nuclear program. As Putin said, theyll starve before they give it up.

The Kim regime sees it as an ironclad guanatee of safety (Im sure they recall Hussein and Gaddaffi), it gives them meaningful retaliatory capability beyond just levelling Seoul, as well as a major bargaining chip depending on how it is used, and offers a nationalistic icon to rally the patriotic masses behind.

There are no sanctions or actions that are going to get NK to give that capability up voluntarily, at least none that other parties (US, China, Russia, SK) wont sink for their own reasons (e.g. the US is not going to withdraw from SK with the current regime in place even if it gave up its nuclear arms).

Is there an option to remove that capability? Many. The trick has always been, how do we do that without the 5 digits worth of big guns within range of Seoul and its suburbs providing a counter-retort, and now, what happens to such nuclear weapons of the Kim regime is brought down or severely disrupted?

That's ultimately what it comes down to, and is why the situation has been allowed to develop as it has. There just isnt a terribly great and clear cut answer :(

They will starve.,run out of power and have half the country dead of famine before they give anything up.
The die hards, are exactly that and will sacrifice however many millions to keep this nuclear program funded.

Though i also forsee another issue, if kim does get nukes and does have delivery.
if they keep up the threats, with VERY real ability to kill many many thousands of people in countries across the globe. his threats might have far more serious conquenses when someone is going up defcon levels and preparing potential counter strike protocols and targeting data.

North Korea just fired a missile at Japan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41275614

Jesus...

Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over your country?

I think Japan needs THADD batteries installing and not just south Korea.

This has to stop. Japan's citizens should demand their government take firm and required actions to do there duty and protect there people.

Tolerate. No.
If I had safe room to do so, the weapons capable and the systems to track the estimated trajectory post intercept I'd blast it out of the sky to prove a point.

Though a thought. The amount of intelligence gained on there capacity and ranges, angles, speeds etc must be pretty extensive. Launch sites. Maybe rough set up times.

Kim is giving away alot of info if you can gather it.

Easy E wrote:A blockade!?!

What are you trying to get the Jedi involved or something!?!

Viceroy, I want this stunted slime out of my sight.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, a blockade would be totally allowed. Thing is, would it be smart? Do you really want to park your ships in range of NK's anti ship missiles and coastal artillery? A naval blockade would be a huge escalation.

The issue isn't NK response. For starters the blockade won't be run within 20-30 kms of the coast, so coastal artillery is not a factor. And NK doesn't have the massive stockpile of anti-ship missiles it would take to do serious damage to a meaningful number of US ships.

But there are three big reasons a blockade won't happen;
1) A complete blockade, that prevents any supplies, except perhaps food and medicine, would be putting NK in to a corner where they will be pressured in to firing the nukes and unloading all the conventional arty on Seoul.
2) A blockade limited to inspecting for military supplies, ie a quarantine, would be insanely expensive but put no pressure on NK to come to the table. It's an open ended commitment to tying up a huge number of warships possibly forever.
3) If China and Russia aren't on board with the blockade, then it's meaningless thanks to the land borders shared with those two countries. If China and Russia are on board then all major countries can just agree to stop their boats traveling to NK, without a military presence being needed.

 whembly wrote:
I think it's totally smart to rachet up the pain a bit.

The hope is that NK backs down... because the alternative is simply fugly.

Of course then you also need to blockade China who wouldn't be blockading NK so anybody could get food etc to NK via China anyway. You want to start war with China?

And alternative ugly? Alternative happens to be status quo as usual. They keep saying harsh words, west says harsh words, nobody shoots a gun at the other. Whopedoo. It's starting war with China by trying to forcibly prevent them from providing NK(which would require sending armed troops INTO either NK or China) that would be ugly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

...or, you simply *deal* with the fact that NK becomes a fully armed and operationally-toting nuke nation.

There are no good options... but, you'd think it'd behooves the rest of the world to try convince NK to stop being a bitch.

We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.

tneva82 wrote:
We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.

Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.

This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.

So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
We have plenty of nuke armed nations as well. What's one more? They are less likely to use them than Trump is so...And as it is first strike at NK will result in war with China which has enough firepower for mutual wipeout and likely rest of the world. So that's not really an option.

Your assumption that China is so protective of NK that they'll go to war with the US and risk global annihilation is more than a stretch. China's days of seeing NK as a nation to protect as one of their only friends is literally generations out of date. The situation now is China now has a large international footprint and a lot of countries who want to be in China's good graces. NK is a historical legacy, an issue they want solved, but not in a way that puts a triggers a refugee flood in to China.

This is why China pass the latest UN sanctions, though only after reducing their severity. They want NK to move back from the brink, but they don't want to create a refugee crisis that they will have to clean up.

So obviously a shooting match would piss China off, but the US isn't starting shooting match out of nowhere, despite what some people on dakka seem to want.

If US sends in armed troops into China to enforce blockade you really think China will just pat their head for what amounts to act of war?

How you think US would react if China sent their troops into US? Not well I suspect...

And China has already said they will defend NK if US strikes first. They aren't abandoning NK so attempt to starve country to death by blockade won't be met with China's approval there.

 whembly wrote:
Jesus...

Would you tolerate any nation just lobbing a nuke-capable ICBM over your country?

Does it really matter? Over is not the same as into, the missile passed 500 miles above Japan (well into space), on a trajectory that couldn't possibly hit Japan. It's a symbolic statement to provoke everyone again, but in practical terms it was not even close to being a threat.