Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on May 02, 2005, 08:36:35 am
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7696261/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7696261/)
Throw another logg in the fire!
It was not a nuke capable missile, but still... Launching them into the Sea of Japan tends to make the japanese and south koreans a tad nervous.
Why didn´t Bush got rid of that madman instead? He would have got much less flak from international community, and probably much more support! So why didn´t he?
Oh yeah... no oil! I forgot that little detail...
:doubt:
-
Let's be honest, though; short of turning the place to glass, the US would have not real chance of sucesfully invading N.Korea. Even if they got enough troops to defeat the NK army, and miraculously avoided flattening the country doing so, they'd still have a reconstruction job that makes Iraq look like a lego set........
-
They don't have to invade, they could in theory do an airstrike on the offending reactor(s) and call it a day. But that would of course invite a reprisal against Seoul and the US troops stationed in the DMZ bla bla bla.
The US would win, no doubt about it, but with huge losses to their own military (I heard some Clinton politico say that 100k was their best estimate) not to mention the civilian casualties, which would of course be much greater. Regardless of my opinion of NK, I actually get quite a bit of perverse pleasure watching the US trash around and throw a hissy fit, but knowing full well they can't do a damn thing about it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Let's be honest, though; short of turning the place to glass, the US would have not real chance of sucesfully invading N.Korea. Even if they got enough troops to defeat the NK army, and miraculously avoided flattening the country doing so, they'd still have a reconstruction job that makes Iraq look like a lego set........
Perceptions of what it could be like are always over-estimated. Not many people thought defeating Saddam´s army in 91 would be as easy as it turned out to be. Saddam bolstered his forces with words, but not with deeds. Everybody thought he had a million men army, thousands of tanks, etc etc. And what did we find? That half of those tanks were made of cardboard.
North Korea is the same. After decades of isolation, it is virtually impossible for them to support a modern army. North Korea´s strenght lies in its numbers of infantry, not much else. I´m sure with the latest technological advancements, the US Air Force would be able to knock NK´s air force out of the sky in a week. And after that, they own the entire conflict.
The problem here is political, not military. The US has little to gain from such an intervention. They know China would vetoe any UN resolution. And they are scared of a nuclear reprisal, that i believe would never happen. The koreans are fanatics, but they are not stupid. They know very well that for every nuke they drop they get 20 in return. Only a raving lunatic would do it, and if Kim hasn´t done yet, chances are he will never do it.
Then there´s the issue of wether they really do have nukes. I suspect they want us to believe they have, but really don´t have. A nuke program costs billions, wich NK doesn´t have. It needs scientists, wich they lack, and it needs resources, that they can´t get. If they had nukes, you can bet they would have made a nuclear test for the world to see. But they haven´t.
-
"..every nuke they drop they get 20 in return.."
you forgot a zero or two, remember, we've had this huge stokpile a long ****ing time, if we get a 'nuke nation for free' card we arn't going to wast it on a measaly 20 nukes.
NK is a lot thornier than Iraq, and if we did anything we'd get masses of protests around the world again, and we arn't going to go through that again for a few years, if we piss too many people off enough they might start shooting at us, that's prety much the end of it. now if we can get a bunch of nations to say "ok, go get 'em" we probly would, you know how Americans love war and all.
-
If you had gone after NK in the first place, you wouldn´t have gotten 1/10 of the criticism you got for Iraq.
-
we should have gone after them first, I agree. unfortunately Bush had talked himself into a corner by the time it became obvius.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Perceptions of what it could be like are always over-estimated. Not many people thought defeating Saddam´s army in 91 would be as easy as it turned out to be. Saddam bolstered his forces with words, but not with deeds. Everybody thought he had a million men army, thousands of tanks, etc etc. And what did we find? That half of those tanks were made of cardboard.
North Korea is the same. After decades of isolation, it is virtually impossible for them to support a modern army. North Korea´s strenght lies in its numbers of infantry, not much else. I´m sure with the latest technological advancements, the US Air Force would be able to knock NK´s air force out of the sky in a week. And after that, they own the entire conflict.
The problem here is political, not military. The US has little to gain from such an intervention. They know China would vetoe any UN resolution. And they are scared of a nuclear reprisal, that i believe would never happen. The koreans are fanatics, but they are not stupid. They know very well that for every nuke they drop they get 20 in return. Only a raving lunatic would do it, and if Kim hasn´t done yet, chances are he will never do it.
Then there´s the issue of wether they really do have nukes. I suspect they want us to believe they have, but really don´t have. A nuke program costs billions, wich NK doesn´t have. It needs scientists, wich they lack, and it needs resources, that they can´t get. If they had nukes, you can bet they would have made a nuclear test for the world to see. But they haven´t.
You're not talking a conventional conflict dominated by airpower; ever since Vietnam, these types of conflict have been turned into guerilla wars intended to sap the enemies strength - just look at the problems the Soviets had in Afghanistan despite complete air domination (and a distinct lack of care about civvie casualties). Vietnam itself, of course, is an example of that - the Viet Cong / NVA moved into guerilla war after suffering at the hands of US airpower. AFAIK, the North Korean climate is sufficiently temperate & mountainous to offer that same sort of cover (arguably unlike the drier areas of Iraq).
At the moment, the US is stretched even with 150,000 or so deployed to Iraq, and (?)a few thousand more in Afghanistan... a war against NK would be against a fully indoctrinated military of 6 million plus; even assuming desertion, you'd still need a ****load of troops (well over a million?), especially if the civillian populace get involved.
And the further problem comes if you want to impose regime change; quite simply, you can't save a populace by killing it - IMO part of the political unwillingness is down to the acceptance that to beat the North Korean army would entail massive and ultimately self-defeating civillian casualities.
It's maybe also worth noting that the 91 Gulf War involved heavy bombing of Baghdad - 100,000+ were killed IIRC. The US, etc, also promised not to enter Iraq, and informed Saddam that use of chemical/biological weapons would be countered by nuclear weapons. In short, it was a very different war than one that could be afforded for regime change.... and UN sanctions meant the 'latest' Gulf war would take place against a near dismantled Iraq military.
In a total war, I think the US would win - they can simply flatten the country from the air. But that sort of war can't be legally justified unless NK itself attacks one of their neighbours. And the 'regime change' type war would be militarily infeasible without massive coallteral damage IMO. As far as I'm concerned, that is why there is no political will.
And, of course, lets not ignore China........
-
You are forgeting Bosnia. A perfect example of an air campaign, with little ground envolvment of troops, that achieved a regime change.
To change the regime in NK, it has to come from within, not from without. I honestly believe that as soon as hostilities begin, you would see large chunks of the NK army rising against the govt. After decades of hunger and mass murder (to a level that puts Iraq to shame), there aren´t many true supporters of the regime. It´s a fear ruled regime.
If, like Servia and Milosevicz, the NK air capability is knocked out, you can perform surgical strikes at all the military targets, and bring it to it´s knees without a single foot soldier setting foot inside NK. And after the NK govt´s repression tool is eliminated (the army, the police forces), the north koreans would take the job in their own hands.
The servians had the best anti-air defense in Europe, the iraqis had the 3rd largest army in the world, and the most defended city on Earth. And both fell in matter of days, using a good air campaign. It can be done. The only "what if" is the NK´s nuclear capability, and even that can be countered.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
You are forgeting Bosnia. A perfect example of an air campaign, with little ground envolvment of troops, that achieved a regime change.
To change the regime in NK, it has to come from within, not from without. I honestly believe that as soon as hostilities begin, you would see large chunks of the NK army rising against the govt. After decades of hunger and mass murder (to a level that puts Iraq to shame), there aren´t many true supporters of the regime. It´s a fear ruled regime.
If, like Servia and Milosevicz, the NK air capability is knocked out, you can perform surgical strikes at all the military targets, and bring it to it´s knees without a single foot soldier setting foot inside NK. And after the NK govt´s repression tool is eliminated (the army, the police forces), the north koreans would take the job in their own hands.
The servians had the best anti-air defense in Europe, the iraqis had the 3rd largest army in the world, and the most defended city on Earth. And both fell in matter of days, using a good air campaign. It can be done. The only "what if" is the NK´s nuclear capability, and even that can be countered.
Bosnia didn't involve a regime change (technically, that was Yugoslavia, which later become Serbia & Montenegro); the regime change was caused by a popular uprising. All the Kosovan air-campaign involved and achieved was installing a peace-keeping province in Kosovo. The Yugoslav army never fought a conventional war and never had to; it's notable that estimated ground casualties from the air campaign (in terms of armour) were probably far higher than in actuality, owing to a combination of high altitude bombing (as the US did not wish to have any casualites) and use of decoys for Yugoslav tanks et al.
Neither did Iraq fall; Iraq was never in any danger of falling, as President Bush (snr) had already promised not to enter Iraqi territory as a condition of being allowed to use Saudi Arabia as a base.
Neither of these wars, as such, saw a situation which forced the enemy to fight intense ground or guerilla style combat. The Yugoslav air campaign didn't see any ground campaign atall....and it also lasted 2 months, not days. And Milosevic was not ousted until a year (plus) after that.
Remember that North Korea has been a stalinist totalitarian dictatorship for over 50 years - the population there have been fully indoctrinated by the ruling ideology, to an extent that means the Chinese are relatively 'free'. Even travel outside the country is banned; it's not a situation where any dissenting viewpoint is allowed in to inspire the masses to rise against the rulership; in fact it's more likely that 'provocational' military action would strengthen the leadership, given the emphasis on casting the US as a brutal, antagonistic enemy to the Korean people.
If you look at Iraq, for example - how many people actually rose in rebellion when the invasion began? None. And these people had a hell of a lot more freedom of information than your average North Korean.
-
On the other hand, the Iraqis weren't starving either.
North Korea is going to collapse of its own accord sooner rather then later. Militarily they barely even rate consideration: they can put an impressive number of troops in the field, but these are poorly equipped and even more poorly trained. They are poorly paid. Poorly fed. Indoctrination or not, they are incapable of effective guerilla action. They can barely sustain themselves in garrison; prolonged time in the field is beyond their capablities.
North Korea's nuclear capablity is not impressive. They have never actually detonated a weapon. Considering the current state of their military, whether they actually have the capablity to deliever a warhead to Seoul, let alone Japan or Guam (the only US territory within the theoritical range of their missiles) without a few weeks to prepare is questionable. They like to show off those Nodong-1 and Nodong-2 missiles, but how many of them actually work? Probably not many. Those that do are almost certainly not kept fitted with nuclear warheads considering the level of paranoia the regime has about its own citizens. They would need at least a few hours to get the warheads out of storage, fit them to a missile, and launch them. Whether they'd have any missiles left by that point is questionable.
Even assuming the Nodongs launch with nuclear warheads attached, it's questionable they'd actually reach their target. South Korea has long been interested in missile defense, for obvious reasons, and the Nodong series lies within the "theater ballistic missile" realm: a realm that the Patriot missile can intercept. After the Gulf War upgrades were made to the Patriots so that they would offer a better showing in this role, and South Korea has a lot of Patriot batteries. So does Japan, and the JSDF's navy has a number of Aegis-equipped destroyers as well. Aegis could always intercept TBM missiles; they tested that in the '80s. Upgrades to the SM-2 missile after the Gulf War increased its capablities in this role. The SM-2-ER Block IV was specifically developed for the purpose of intercepting a ballistic target. Japan eagerly bought about a hundred of those.
The real danger lies not in their nuclear capablity, but in their much less publicized but much more extensive chemical arsenal. This is not a serious threat militarily; the US and South Korean armies have trained for a generation and more to operate effectively on a battlefield saturated by chemical weapons. The problem is that they could potentionally kill most of the civilian population of South Korea, and maybe even a sizeable chunk of Japan's civilian population to boot, with those weapons. Their delivery systems are much less complicated, much more reliable, and much more numerous. The North Koreans have thousands of FROG-series rockets, cheap and reliable in function if not accuracy, and hundreds of older, lesser ballistic missiles that were made to carry chemical warheads.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
You are forgeting Bosnia. A perfect example of an air campaign, with little ground envolvment of troops, that achieved a regime change.
To change the regime in NK, it has to come from within, not from without. I honestly believe that as soon as hostilities begin, you would see large chunks of the NK army rising against the govt. After decades of hunger and mass murder (to a level that puts Iraq to shame), there aren´t many true supporters of the regime. It´s a fear ruled regime.
If, like Servia and Milosevicz, the NK air capability is knocked out, you can perform surgical strikes at all the military targets, and bring it to it´s knees without a single foot soldier setting foot inside NK. And after the NK govt´s repression tool is eliminated (the army, the police forces), the north koreans would take the job in their own hands.
The servians had the best anti-air defense in Europe, the iraqis had the 3rd largest army in the world, and the most defended city on Earth. And both fell in matter of days, using a good air campaign. It can be done. The only "what if" is the NK´s nuclear capability, and even that can be countered.
OK, here's the thing:
Bosnia is a former Yugoslav republic, where a war was waged between Bosnian Serbs (Christian Orthodox), Bosnians (Muslims) and Croats (Catholic) for control of territory. The war went on from about 1991 to roughly 1995. It ended with the pseudo partition of Bosnia into Bosnia and Herzegovina (primarily Bosnian muslim) and Republika Srpska (an autonomous territory made up of Bosnian Serbs). Both are ruled by international powers, currently headed by Paddy Ashdown, which dictate most of the policies without much consultation with the local authorities.
Kosovo is an automonous zone (or something like that. Legally, it's a bit less than a republic) within Yugoslavia (now called Serbia and Montenegro) where a guerilla war was waged by Albanian separatists (KLA) against Serb military and police forces, going on in some way or another throughout most of the 90s, but becoming serious around 1998. In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days. Rather than weaken Millosevic, it strengthened him (when under attack, you always stick by your country and whoever happens to be ruling it). He was overthrown in 2001, more than a year after the end of the bombing, in a civil uprising (with the "help" of various foreign NGO, notably George Soros, as well as the support of the German and American government). After establishing Kosovo as a NATO protectorate, the KLA was given more or less free reign, and has since succeded in kicking out most of the non-Albanians (Serbs, gypsies and the like). Most likely, the power-that=be will declare it fully independent in the near future, and Kosovo will possibly link up with Albania.
Bombing didn't achieve ****. Well, that's not entirely true. It managed to justify ther invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, strengthen the existing authorities, kill a couple thousand civilians (Serb as well as Albanian) and create a mass exodus of both Serbs (into the interior of Serbia) and Albanians (into Macedonia). Oh and, of course, it justified the existance of NATO a decade after the purpose for it's existance collapsed. The "regime change" was much closer to the current series of colour-revolutions (Ukraine, Georgia etc) then it was to Iraq or Afghanistan, in fact it was the test-bed for the current form of "regime change" and the basic structure has since been exported to several ex-Soviet republics.
To compare North Korea to Kosovo is absurd. If Serbia had 1/10th of the military that NK does, there would have been no bombing and no occupation. Think back to every place attacked by the US (as well as various Western powers) since Vietnam. All of them, down to the last, have been more or less defenceless. The policy is: never attack someone who can fight back.
ahem
/derail
-
actualy I beleve NK and serbia had (have?) the same... style of defences, lots of natural barriers, massive under ground tunnel systems, there is a reason why we bombed from high altitude. the two main diferences between them being 1) North Korea has nukes, oh and a generaly larger military as well and 2) we don't think they'd ever turn on there leader.
-
1) Like said before, do they actually work? We won't necessarily have to worry about NK's nukes if they can't do anything to harm anybody.
2) While I see your point, revolution is all-too likely. It's an oppressive government that has done little to ease the suffering of its civilians, using their money instead to build up a large military and a nuclear program. It's just a pattern of history: when people live under such conditions, they'll want a change. No matter how much they support Kim Jong-Il, they'll want a regime change as well; look at France's revolution and see how they replaced one revolutionary form of government with another when they began to starve.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
On the other hand, the Iraqis weren't starving either.
Arguably, they were; UN sanctions. I'd imagine the regimes in charge at both countries would blame the economic / food problems on the US, anyways. It's arguable that, in N.Korea this would be more persuasive due to the personality cult they developed around the 'glorious leader' (of course, I recognise it's impossible to judge how pervasive that cult is, given the lack of free press to gauge opposition, and the oppression of those who do, would).
North Korea is going to collapse of its own accord sooner rather then later. Militarily they barely even rate consideration: they can put an impressive number of troops in the field, but these are poorly equipped and even more poorly trained. They are poorly paid. Poorly fed. Indoctrination or not, they are incapable of effective guerilla action. They can barely sustain themselves in garrison; prolonged time in the field is beyond their capablities.
North Korea's nuclear capablity is not impressive. They have never actually detonated a weapon. Considering the current state of their military, whether they actually have the capablity to deliever a warhead to Seoul, let alone Japan or Guam (the only US territory within the theoritical range of their missiles) without a few weeks to prepare is questionable. They like to show off those Nodong-1 and Nodong-2 missiles, but how many of them actually work? Probably not many. Those that do are almost certainly not kept fitted with nuclear warheads considering the level of paranoia the regime has about its own citizens. They would need at least a few hours to get the warheads out of storage, fit them to a missile, and launch them. Whether they'd have any missiles left by that point is questionable.
Even assuming the Nodongs launch with nuclear warheads attached, it's questionable they'd actually reach their target. South Korea has long been interested in missile defense, for obvious reasons, and the Nodong series lies within the "theater ballistic missile" realm: a realm that the Patriot missile can intercept. After the Gulf War upgrades were made to the Patriots so that they would offer a better showing in this role, and South Korea has a lot of Patriot batteries. So does Japan, and the JSDF's navy has a number of Aegis-equipped destroyers as well. Aegis could always intercept TBM missiles; they tested that in the '80s. Upgrades to the SM-2 missile after the Gulf War increased its capablities in this role. The SM-2-ER Block IV was specifically developed for the purpose of intercepting a ballistic target. Japan eagerly bought about a hundred of those.
The real danger lies not in their nuclear capablity, but in their much less publicized but much more extensive chemical arsenal. This is not a serious threat militarily; the US and South Korean armies have trained for a generation and more to operate effectively on a battlefield saturated by chemical weapons. The problem is that they could potentionally kill most of the civilian population of South Korea, and maybe even a sizeable chunk of Japan's civilian population to boot, with those weapons. Their delivery systems are much less complicated, much more reliable, and much more numerous. The North Koreans have thousands of FROG-series rockets, cheap and reliable in function if not accuracy, and hundreds of older, lesser ballistic missiles that were made to carry chemical warheads.
All the (US) wargame simulations have predicted (in an NK invasion started war) that the North Koreans could be repulsed prior to reaching Seoul, then defeated, but only at the cost of massive casualties. that's my point; I'm not saying the US couldn't win a war, but that to do so would effectively destroy the purpose of that war - i.e. a war of regime change that more or less destroys a country is not one that is politically viable.
What I mean by militarily infeasible, is that it's impossible (IMO) to determine a military strategy that would result in a politically acceptable victory. I think the US knows this, and hence would not attack North Korea unless provoked (and properly provoked, i.e. by an NK attack, not by some made-up provocation).
Whilst the entire NK military might not be technically adept, I believe that the sheer numbers would be enough for damaging human wave style attacks; and that there would be a sufficient number of hard core, dedicated fanatacists to run a damaging guerilla campaign post-war.
I don't know if the higher-up commanders are sufficiently indoctrinated or loyal to use NBC weapons; but at the same time, you can't plan a war based on the assumption the enemy will not use their most powerful weapons. That's another reason why I don't believe a military option is feasible.
Finally, I don't think the US has enough spare troops, or had enough, to fight a war and occupy the country (even before the Iraq war), given the difficulties in post war Iraq (which had a smaller military).
-
Would it be infeasible to just hold an extremely large Bomb (Not large enough to affect South Korea) over North Korea's capital and say "Surrender immediately or we will obliterate you."?
-
And risk enormous civilian casualties? Well...good luck telling them it was "collateral damage" afterwards....
-
Originally posted by kietotheworld
Would it be infeasible to just hold an extremely large Bomb (Not large enough to affect South Korea) over North Korea's capital and say "Surrender immediately or we will obliterate you."?
Ask China for permission.........
-
aaannd the saber-rattling continues
it's the cold war all over again, people.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"..every nuke they drop they get 20 in return.."
you forgot a zero or two, remember, we've had this huge stokpile a long ****ing time, if we get a 'nuke nation for free' card we arn't going to wast it on a measaly 20 nukes.
LMAO :) and agreed. The USA would send them back to the stone-age due to so many nukes raining down on them. And also you have to remember, the USA is the only country to date that has actually used a nuke weapon on another country, this might well be a psychological deterrent as well.
In total war (especially a with a wartime draft and allies assisting) the US would be quite capable of defeating NK in a military confrontation due to its vast technological and industrial superiority. Yes the NK troops would be tough but that would be no match for a well trained completely modern army. You have to remember that troop #'s are becoming less and less decisive in deciding the outcome of modern wars.
-
yea the 38th paralell is about the same as the berlin wall in my book. an old line drawn because of an old war. all koreans, regaurdless of north or south want a unified korea but neither side wants to convert there government over to the others. there is a good chance the tensions could end peacfully. though north korea's stroking of their nuclear phallus isnt helping much but they will get over that phase eventally. they will one day see unification as the way to go. i really dont care if they have nukes or not. they deserve to have them as much as we do. nuclear wars in the future will probibly be smal scaled battles between small countries. messing with the big dogs is suicide.
-
How's NK's economy as compared to SK's?
I mean, NK makes nukes.... but SK makes technology and automobiles. Ne?
-
IIRC, SK's Economy was Far, far superior to NK.
-
another paralell to the berlin wall
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
IIRC, SK's Economy was Far, far superior to NK.
:nod:
That's my understanding of it; North Korea is basically a basketcase economy.... there's a potential for complete collapse, but I'm not sure if there's the communications freedom for an organised 'peoples revolution'.
-
Kim is just so misunderstood...
"I'm so wonrey! - Kim Il, Team America World Police
nuff said
oh yeah, "god damn you Alec Baldwin!" - Kim Il
-
You guys are under-estimating the possibility of a revolution coming from within. Maybe because, to your good fortune, you haven´t lived under a dictatorship. Take my country for instance:
We were under a harsh dictatorship for decades. The govt´s secret police would arrest anyone who even mentioned the word democracy. We had no newspapers, no TV, no media, except the official one. The country was runned by an iron fist. Pretty much like North Korea is now. The majority of our people was dirt poor, starving. Yet look at us! We had our revolution, and it came from within. After the war in Africa, even the military had enough. They formed a secret movement, and one day made their move. It was a practically bloodless revolution, only a handfull of people got killed, at the hands of the diehard secret police.
The point is, it can be done! After decades of opression, no matter how indoctrinated the people are, there comes a time when they just can´t take it anymore.
The reason why you didn´t see a popular uprisal in Iraq is because they had been left hanging before. No one knew wether the US would go all the way or not. And plus, there was a large portion of the population who did not wanted to see the regime gone. Not to mention that the US isn´t exactlly loved in the region, and they weren´t starving to death.
But in NK it´s a diferent story. There is even canibalism going on there, from the starvation. It´s hell on earth. Not even the few middle class and party officials have it easy. They know darn well that all it takes for them to be killed along with their families is a slip of the tongue. They know they fall from favour all too easy.
Hence, if an oportunity presented itself, like a new war with the west, chances are the generals and other high up people would take the chance and start a coup.
PS: I wasn´t comparing the Balcans with North Korea. All i was saying is that an air campaign can effectivelly bring even the most well armed army. The serbians had the best air-defence in Europe, yet it was all destroyed within weeks. So was Iraq´s defenses.
-
Well, firstly - where are your from? (War in Africa... I'm guessing Portugal?) Is it a valid analogy - were you denied telephone access, electricity, i.e. any form of cross-country communications? Could you go abroad and see other countries (travel abroad is banned in NK, so they only can see what the government tells them - for example, they're taught BMWs are made in Korea, the engine was invented there, etc)? Was there a cult of personality developed by the leadership?
Now, I'm not saying a revolution is impossible - far from it - but you cannot make any assumptions about if, where and when it may occur. I'm not sure whether or not revolution is inevitable with totalitarian / undemocratic / dictatorship government, but it definately IMO is unpredicatable.
So, I reckon, any attack reliant upon sparking some form of popular revolution is far too risky and unproven to be a serious military option; especially when such an attack is valuable propaganda material to a regime that has used the 'evil America' to try and garner patriotic support for itself.
In terms of the Generals launching a coup.... I think it's more likely they'd slip away into the night than do that; there's also no guarentee such a coup would lead to democracy.
Incidentally, AFAIK there's a debate over how effective NATO was in elminating the Serbian air defenses. Firstly, their air capability (in terms of interceptors) was certainly not europes best; they had something like 9 squadrons of antiquated Mig-21s and maybe 10-17 Mig-29s (some of which were lost to Croatia in the yugoslav civil war). Secondly, the post Soviet era had led to a lack of experienced officers and crew; there was a lack of financing, fuel and spare parts.
In terms of ground-based air-defense, their main/primary missiles were all old Soviet tech (again depleted due to the civil war) - SA-2s (1958-ish), SA-3s (1961), and SA-6s (1970). Many Serb missiles were simply hidden during the initial stages of the air campaign, and were later optically fired in volleys later on. The Serbs had just about enough AAAf to protect Belgrade, hence the NATO campaign was designed to try and spread them out and make them even more ineffective.
(there's incidentally a side arguement that the Serbs changed tact and used their air-defense as a type of guerilla unit, regularly shifting into areas for opportunist shots. Also one that the primary effect of Serb air defense was - due to a long range - to force NATO craft to fly high-altitude bombing missions due to the pathological fear of losing an aircraft)
i.e. it wasn't anywhere near the best air-defense in europe; I'd imagine most european NATO countries had/have far better. And even at that, there were significant concerns about the interoperation of the NATO airforces afterwards (poor communications, equipment, slow deployment). Also, the air war actually required 700 aircraft - the original plan was 150.
All of which is beside the point, because it wasn't the air war that removed Milosevic from power; if anything, it gave him some added support, at least in the short term. In terms of air-power versus armies, both Vietnam and Afghanistan have shown the extreme difficulty of using air-force against an enemy who is willing to fight using irregular measures and tactics, and who has the advantage of local movement and knowledge.
EDIT; or look at the insurgencies in Iraq / Afghanistan, or the difficulties the Columbians have with jungle based FARC guerillas.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Is it a valid analogy - were you denied telephone access, electricity, i.e. any form of cross-country communications? Could you go abroad and see other countries (travel abroad is banned in NK, so they only can see what the government tells them - for example, they're taught BMWs are made in Korea, the engine was invented there, etc)? Was there a cult of personality developed by the leadership?
We had phones, just as NK does. The thing is, only the middle class has them. And to that respect, the majority of our people did not have phone. Suffice to say that Portugal was 30 years behind from any other european nation, in terms of development. Mainly because the govt prefered to deal with an iliterate population. Our levels of literacy were the lowest in Europe.
Could we go abroad? I think we could, after all we migrated all over.
Was there a cult of personality? Definitelly! Salazar is one of the most infamous dictators of the 20th century, he was our version of Mussolini or Franco.
Could we speak out? Negative. Any word of "dissent" would get you thrown in jail, or you would simply vanish.
Could we freely assemble? No, we could not. All political parties, especcially the Comunist Party were illegal. All political leaders were arrested, or exiled.
In every aspect, we were just like any other regime out there. Yes Korea is even worst. But think about it, if we that had it bad managed to uprise and turn our country around, imagine how the N Koreans feel, when they have it even worst than we did!
PS:
The serbs power was in ground based air defense, not in airplanes. They had the highest concentration of AAA and ground-to-air SAM sites in Europe. But they avoided to turn them on because they were afraid of NATO´s anti-radiation missiles. NATO flew countless Wild Weasel missions, trying to get them to turn on their radars. Because they knew NATO would only commit air power, they prefered to hide the AAA and wait it out, since they knew there wasn´t going to be a ground invasion.
I´ll see if i can look up a couple of articles about that.
-
Swamp_Thing, the problem with that analogy is that in Portugal, the war in Africa was creating unrest inside the military due to conscription that made those who were forced to serve to get higher ranks than those who served as a career option (mostly captains) that made a military coup possible.
NK is not at war with anyone, they have a stable military (from what we know).
-
Also, much of North Korea believes that everywhere else in the world is poorer than them and are jealous countries inhabited by barbarians and animal-people.
With a bit of intelligence, this could be turned and used against him more effectively than any number of missiles and tanks.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
We had phones, just as NK does. The thing is, only the middle class has them. And to that respect, the majority of our people did not have phone. Suffice to say that Portugal was 30 years behind from any other european nation, in terms of development. Mainly because the govt prefered to deal with an iliterate population. Our levels of literacy were the lowest in Europe.
Could we go abroad? I think we could, after all we migrated all over.
Was there a cult of personality? Definitelly! Salazar is one of the most infamous dictators of the 20th century, he was our version of Mussolini or Franco.
Could we speak out? Negative. Any word of "dissent" would get you thrown in jail, or you would simply vanish.
Could we freely assemble? No, we could not. All political parties, especcially the Comunist Party were illegal. All political leaders were arrested, or exiled.
In every aspect, we were just like any other regime out there. Yes Korea is even worst. But think about it, if we that had it bad managed to uprise and turn our country around, imagine how the N Koreans feel, when they have it even worst than we did!
NK has a very small number of phones; about 2.10 per 100 (in 2002; the trend was declining from 2.5 in about 1998 or so). The majority are almost certainly tapped (as the now banned government owned mobile phone network would have been), and can be cut off by the state at any time. also consider that the infrastructure means that those phones are more concentrated in certain areas than, for example, in the farming / rural areas.
North Koreans are not allowed to leave the country; the government seeks to block any foreign contact. This, combined with the complete lack of free internet or phone communications, makes it very hard for NK citizens to become aware of just how ****ty the conditions they live under are. As far as they know, the rest of the world is worse, and is being ruled by a tyrannical United States.
The situation in NK and Portugal are IMO vastly different; the Portugese revolution/coup-d'etat took place after the death of Salazar, and after the new ruler failed to perform expected democratic reforms; insofar as I know, the N.Korean people never expected the same of Kim jong-Il; they don't even know what democracy is. Also, insofar as I know, Salazar never had a personality cult of the Stalinist style seen in NK (neither did Franco, Mussolini or Hitler AFAIK, although the latter definately tried to achieve it by stamping our potential religious opposition); i.e. where the population are encouraged to revere the leader (literally) religiously, to the extent of stamping out other religions.
What I think you forget, is that the North Korean regime is probably the most repressive in the world. Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, etc were relatively modern societies, they had contact with the rest of the world and knew what democracy was. North Korea doesn't even have that contact; they don't know what democracy is, all they know is that dissenters who object to the glorious leader are taken away in the night.
It's a country where communications & geography mean the vast majority of the population probably aren't aware of the famines, the vast brownouts; where a single flashpoint doesn't have the far-reaching impact it does in more 'modern' countries (and that includes those in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc... IIRC N.Korea is not far about the 50s, and even fuedal in the rural areas).
IMO, it's not likely there will be a revolution in anything like the short order you predict, after some form of surgical strike. It's possible the groundwork is being slowly laid by the policy of (attempted) reconciliation by the South, and those Chinese who travel into the country, but I don't think its anywhere near on the edge of bubbling over. I'm not even sure if there has even been a country equivalent to NK; Soviet Russia in the 60s maybe, although the sheer size of that country possibly prevented the state being quite so pervasive.
In terms of a military coup d'etat - what would the leaders have to gain? Most of them probably get there by being local sycophants anyways.... I doubt they'd do better with a democracy than as loyal (and appropriately priveleged) servants of the regime.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
PS:
The serbs power was in ground based air defense, not in airplanes. They had the highest concentration of AAA and ground-to-air SAM sites in Europe. But they avoided to turn them on because they were afraid of NATO´s anti-radiation missiles. NATO flew countless Wild Weasel missions, trying to get them to turn on their radars. Because they knew NATO would only commit air power, they prefered to hide the AAA and wait it out, since they knew there wasn´t going to be a ground invasion.
I´ll see if i can look up a couple of articles about that.
Firstly, concentration means nothing if the vast majority of your SAMs are ****e. The SA-2, for example, was used by the NVA in the Vietnam war - before the end of that war, it was so ineffective B-52s were striking Hanoi with impunity. Offhand, about a quarter or so of the Serbian SAMS were SA-2s (about 60 IIRC).
Not to mention the aforementioned chronic shortage of parts, finances to upgrade, and experienced officers/crew to operate (which AFAIK applied as much to SAMs as conventional air defence).
Secondly, you've gone from the NATO airstrike devastating the Serbian air defence, to the Serbians willingly hiding that air defence. It's scarcely a fair way to evaluate the NATO airstrike effectiveness.
AFAIK the Serbian air defence was never classed as 'europes best', but rather as an outdated yet capable force which seemingly failed to fire during the NATO air campaign.
-
The question remains, what's to be done? This is something that not only this region, not only the US, but the entire free world has to decide on. We can't sit back and let this little arrogant bastard continue what he's doing. We should not, and simply cannot, accept the situation of a country where millions of people are unaware of basic facts about the current state of the world. I don't care if the answer is military, economical, or political; someone has to come up with a plan and follow it. The nation of every person on this forum claims to value freedom; we need to back these claims up. There's no easy answer, but we can't continue to sit on our hands and do nothing.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
The question remains, what's to be done? This is something that not only this region, not only the US, but the entire free world has to decide on. We can't sit back and let this little arrogant bastard continue what he's doing. We should not, and simply cannot, accept the situation of a country where millions of people are unaware of basic facts about the current state of the world. I don't care if the answer is military, economical, or political; someone has to come up with a plan and follow it. The nation of every person on this forum claims to value freedom; we need to back these claims up. There's no easy answer, but we can't continue to sit on our hands and do nothing.
The problem is that you need an answer that won't do more damage to the people than the regime... military is out IMO because you can't guarentee it won't rally support for the regime, and odds are it'd see thousands or even millions killed in a worst-case scenario war. And that's assuming China doesn't assist its neighbour and ally (or even take the diversive opportunity to start its own war, perhaps on Taiwan).
Similarly for economic; it's the people who end up starving, not the leaders (and arguably a starved people are too hungry and concerned with surviving than organising dissidence). Again, this hardship can be used to forment hatred of the outside world, that will support the existing leadership.
Politically...potentially it's a solution, but it's a long road. You can't just force democracy on a people as oppressed as the North Koreans - they have no concept of it, for one thing. They may not even be ready to accept it. What I think is most likely to succeed is containment and gradually thawing relationships; once new ideas are able to begin to filter into North Korea, it'll begin to provide a counterpoint to the propaganda.... it's even starting now, via China of all places, and probably / possibly via South Korea. It'd still take decades, but I think that's inevitable; I don't think there's been another modern dictatorship as isolated from the outside world as North Korea.
Aside from that, the only other hope is for a relatively sane leader to take over and initiate some glasnost-equivalent style scenario. But that's probably highly unlikely and unpredictable, meaning you can't really just arrange for the right man to take over at the right time.
-
Obviously Bush does not intend to do anything about NK. With the army stressed out, if they were to make another military move it would be to Iran. By a number of reasons.
Smaller military, huge oil resources, proximity to Iraq and its air bases, etc etc. NK could have been beaten if they had striked it first. As it is, we will have to wait until either they rise themselfs, or Kim dies.
I once saw a footage of NK, taken by some reporter with a hidden camera, posing as a humanitarian worker. The city was composed almost entirelly of soviet block style apartment buildings. There were big clean avenues and large streets crisscrossing the city, that were used only by an ocasional comunist party vehicle going by. No other cars in sight.
There wasn´t a living soul around. All streets were empty of people, there were no stores, nothing.
All the colour you could see was from Kim Yong Il and Kim Il Sung posters and banners. The rest was composed of a greyish white paint. All the windows were closed, there wasn´t even people´s cloths hanging out the windown to dry.
It was a ghost city. I shiver just thinking about it...
:nervous:
-
That could have been the "presentation town" that visitors are allowed to see - it's close to the SK border.
I'm quite dubious wheter that allaged riported ever made it into the country.
-
Oh, the NKs allow some westerners into the country; it's just that said westerners are subject to constant surveillance and being followed by a minder. IIRC there was a BBC or Channel 4 documentary about 'holidaying' in the worlds worst countries (I forget the exact title of it), where the reporter was posing as the tourist; in the NK one, he was basically led around a series of showpiece places designed to impress upon him the glory of Nk yadayadayada.
Even then, the food he got served in the (deserted) supposed top-notch resteraunt was noticeably worse than you'd expect to have for an everyday dinner at home......