Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dilmah G on May 25, 2010, 04:36:28 am
-
And apparently hasn't grown out of his willy-swinging. (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/north-korea-kills-to-scare-and-keep-the-money-coming-20100524-w7vz.html?autostart=1)
North Korea has presented the world with a serious strategic dilemma that is quickly becoming a first-class crisis. With the unprovoked torpedoing of a South Korean navy corvette, the Cheonan, and the deaths of 46 crew, the North has committed an act of war.
Pyongyang denies responsibility, as it has denied every one of its many acts of terrorism and sabotage of the past half-century. But the international investigation, by 25 South Koreans and an international team of 24 Australian, British, American and Swedish naval experts, found remains of a North Korean torpedo at the site and last week delivered a finding of ''guilty''.
It is the deadliest attack by North Korea since two of its spies put a bomb on board KAL 858 in 1987, killing the 115 civilians aboard.
The international community is now moving to respond. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for ''consequences'' for the North. This week she is in China pressing its leadership to support action by the UN Security Council. The acquiescence of Beijing is central - not only is it North Korea's chief ally and protector, it's also one of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council.
But what to do? North Korea is threatening war: ''We will take strong measures including full-scale war if sanctions against North Korea are imposed,'' it declared last week.
To judge a response, we need to know North Korea's motive. To a rational outsider, any one of North Korea's outrages seems senseless. But its ''puzzling behaviour'' can be rationally explained: ''In each case, Pyongyang sought to disrupt a status quo deemed highly unfavourable with the purpose of renegotiating a new status quo to its advantage,'' a US expert, Victor Cha, wrote in Nuclear North Korea.
And guess what? Kim Jong-il's regime said last week it was trying to implement what it calls the "grand bargain" - a mooted deal in which the international community gives North Korea some $US40 billion in aid on the condition it dismantles its nuclear weapons.
We know from Kim's own mouth that this is the way he sees his regime's military capability. In 2000 a visiting South Korean newspaper publisher, Choe Hak-rae, asked Kim why his government was spending its scarce resources on ballistic missiles instead of education or other social programs for its citizens.
''The missiles cannot reach the US,'' Choe later recounted Kim replying. ''And if I launch them, the US would fire back thousands of missiles and we would not survive . . . But I have to let them know I have missiles. I am making them because only then will the United States talk to me.''
So Kim thinks of his military capability as an attention-getting device and he has a history of using provocation as a tool of negotiation.
But some senior Western officials believe there is another layer. They suspect this might be a rerun of a made-in-Pyongyang movie we saw once before, the attack on KAL 858.
Then, Kim Jong-il was positioning to take the leadership from his father, Kim Il-sung. The succession, the first dynastic transfer of power in any communist regime, was not assured and he had competitors.
When the two North Korean agents who planted the bomb were later arrested in Bahrain, both tried to take cyanide pills. One succeeded and the other was kept alive. She later recounted the order to bomb the civilian flight was personally signed by Kim Jong-il.
There appear to be two motives for that decision. First, it was designed to detract from an approaching moment of South Korean glory, the Seoul Olympics, an honour an envious and spiteful North Korean communist regime can never aspire to.
Second, Kim Jong-il used the bombing to demonstrate his toughness and ability to lead. It was his job application for the presidency, it seems.
Today Kim, who last year suffered some serious illness, appears to be grooming one of his sons, his youngest, Kim Jong-un, 28, to succeed him as leader. As with most North Korean affairs, we can't be certain, but South Korean outlets reported his birthday this year was celebrated as an informal national holiday, a tell-tale sign he is the anointed. There is once again a succession under way, apparently.
And, once again, there is an approaching moment of South Korean glory, when Seoul hosts a summit of the Group of 20 in November, another international honour Pyongyang's regime can never hope to equal.
This thesis may be wrong, but the parallels do seem to be more than coincidence. In which case, North Korea is not serious with its threat of war. But there is a big difference: North Korea now has a nuclear bomb. It may think itself untouchable, and may be more inclined to bellicosity.
Yet the international community's reaction is likely to be exactly as it was in 1987 - the US designated North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism, only revoked by the Bush administration in 2008 to keep nuclear negotiations with Pyongyang alive.
This allows the international banking flows of foreign exchange, that keep Kim and his entourage in comfort, to be cut. But the uncertainties mean the world's response will be very cautious. North Korea will retain the ability to attack at will. And a member of the Kim dynasty will likely remain on North Korea's throne.
-
North Korea has presented the world with a serious strategic dilemma that is quickly becoming a first-class crisis. With the unprovoked torpedoing of a South Korean navy corvette, the Cheonan, and the deaths of 46 crew, the North has committed an act of war.
I'd like to point out that it would be an act of war, except that north and south korea already are at war.
-
And don't they love showing it? :P (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/north-and-south-korea-much-flurried-in-naval-skirmish/)
-
Why are we ****ing with this turd of a human? Everyone is in agreement(even most of his people) that the world would be better off without him in it. So blow up every building in N. Korea that he might be hiding in and be done with it. Hell, at this point I don't think even the Chinese would be against turning him into paste at the bottom of a 25ft diameter crater.
-
Well that's if South Korea doesn't do it first. I wouldn't be surprised at them getting very angry if Kim tries anything else in the next 3 months.
-
Why are we ****ing with this turd of a human? Everyone is in agreement(even most of his people) that the world would be better off without him in it. So blow up every building in N. Korea that he might be hiding in and be done with it. Hell, at this point I don't think even the Chinese would be against turning him into paste at the bottom of a 25ft diameter crater.
Cause every single gun in his country is pointed at South Korea and they would flatten a significant portion of it before the war was over.
-
Exactly. Even though they have pretty much no staying power, they can still do a great deal of damage in the initial barrage.
-
Give them a break, all nations need some war from time to time... I don't get why the world needs to butt in on every one of those (and they do NOTHING btw).
The ones worried about the millions of innocents there should either donate 100$ to MSF or make a trip to the country and start making something there, this is just pure politic campaign for all those involved.
-
Give them a break, all nations need some war from time to time... I don't get why the world needs to butt in on every one of those (and they do NOTHING btw).
The ones worried about the millions of innocents there should either donate 100$ to MSF or make a trip to the country and start making something there, this is just pure politic campaign for all those involved.
:wtf:
Are you just trolling? Or do you honestly believe that that would be a better idea?
-
So he's trying to get our attention... so that we stop thinking of North Korea as this little commie hell hole and start thinking of them as a world power... so he can talk to us so we can help them?
Dang, that almost makes sense.
-
I sure am glad we've kept this douchebag and his personal hell on life support for the last 20 years and allowed him to fester into a quasi-nuclear power.
so this is what crazy supervillain holding the world for ransom with nukes looks like.
-
Too bad there's no oil in North Korea. Otherwise we'd be liberating the **** out of them.
-
North Korea's just trying to get attention...they don't like being the middle child of the Axis of Evil. :p
-
I say we give them more attention than they bargained for.
-
Doesn't this jack ass know we're in a recession? We don't have money for a DPRK bailout.
It's truly a shame though; those poor people under his regime have basically been living decades under a indoctrinated state, there was a documentary a while back where the DPRK was importing the diary of Ann Frank and using it as a way to promote fear of foreigners and a combative attitude of all things. If it ever does come to war (and lets hope to hell it doesn't) it's going to be brutal. Even though we will end up having to kill them in droves they will be fighting for a complete line of BS they've been spoon fed since birth.
-
I'm not sure how well that BS is penetrating. In USSR they had several black news agencies (Samizdat?) that told the people what was going on elsewhere in the world, or inside USSR. Oppressed people still knew something was wrong with the official line if they kept on being hungry. Asian mentality might change it, I don't have experience dealing with Koreans. I don't know the situation inside Japan during WWII, and how well one might draw conclusions of North Korea based on that. How many refugees are there from North Korea?
-
And an addendum: one of the interesting questions is, how much influence does China have over North Korea? Some Chinese told that North Koreans tend to act by themselves, but I can't be sure about that. My understanding is that China does not want to change what is happening inside other countries. On the other hand, I guess they don't like North Korea doing stupid things like the torpedo incident as they pretty well know that there will be international repercussions.
Now that North Korea has got nukes despite the international community saying don't do that, how does Kim Yong-il think he can prove he has disarmed, if the proposed bargain idea is correct? Especially when it is not allowed to have international inspectors in the country. I was rather perplexed when they announced that something big had blown up in North Korea that US or NATO didn't respond by then.
-
yay! potential nuclear war!
-
Let's just nuke North Korea (North Koreans are probably so brainwashed they'd fight us until nearly all of them are dead anyway) and then move all the Zionist Jews there and give the Palestinians their land back. That seems like it would be the best plan for all involved.
-
I'm pretty sure the Jews have had a historical presence in Palestine for at least as long as the Palestinians, if not longer.
-
Not the ones that only moved there since WW2.
-
As crude as it might seem, I think the "Look at me, I'm North Korea! I'll do bad things and threaten you!" explanation holds the most water; they just want attention. Problem is, I don't think they actually understand how attacking another country has actual consequences, hence why they keep doing this. It's like the child acting up for attention. I believe the ONLY way to deal with North Korea is crushing the country with a global boycott. The consequences will be much, much worse than the North Korean famines of 1995 and 1997 that have left an entire generation of North Koreans' growth stunted, but it's the only way.
By the way, the stunted growth thing, it's true: http://news.joins.com/component/htmlphoto_mmdata/200612/htm_2006122722352790009040-001.JPG
-
The North Korean peasants didn't really do anything, and they're the only ones who would suffer from such a boycott. They already mostly live in poverty while their leaders live in luxury. Can't we just bring Kim up on charges of crimes against humanity or something? Or just assassinate him. I mean, yeah, it's probably illegal, but it's nothing we haven't done befor.e
-
Yeah, assassination would work, except he's been grooming his son to take over for him once he kicks it, and has tried to start a cult of personality for him as well. We'd need to take out the entire palace and the entire "royal" family in order to make sure no one could take over.
-
i don't see a problem with that.
all this talk of north korea just makes me think of Crysis :P
-
Well, if the Feds weren't watching this forum, then they sure as Hell are now. :yes:
-
Didn't we have like four child porn threads a year ago? they probly started watching back then.
-
Let's just ASSASSINATE test that PRESIDENT claim.
-
I'm really getting sick and tired of this ronery little psycho's mood swings. I don't even know what a good solution would be at this point, but something has to be better than the status quo. Where's Sam Fisher when you need him? :p
-
Too bad there's no oil in North Korea. Otherwise we'd be liberating the **** out of them.
Or isn't one of our puppet regimes, like Saudi Arabia.
I'm not sure how well that BS is penetrating. In USSR they had several black news agencies (Samizdat?) that told the people what was going on elsewhere in the world, or inside USSR. Oppressed people still knew something was wrong with the official line if they kept on being hungry. Asian mentality might change it, I don't have experience dealing with Koreans. I don't know the situation inside Japan during WWII, and how well one might draw conclusions of North Korea based on that. How many refugees are there from North Korea?
Yes but post Stalin the USSR didn't have a massive cult of personality. North Korea today is actually even more oppressive and more closed than the USSR. The amount of brainwashing and leader worshipping is truly mind boggling. Also unlike in the USSR, NK is very racially homogeneous, and frequently will use that to its advantage. Observe how it is truely is run. (http://www.slate.com/id/2243112)
-
The North Korean peasants didn't really do anything, and they're the only ones who would suffer from such a boycott. They already mostly live in poverty while their leaders live in luxury. Can't we just bring Kim up on charges of crimes against humanity or something? Or just assassinate him. I mean, yeah, it's probably illegal, but it's nothing we haven't done befor.e
The single biggest threat if a nation decides to engage N.K is the fact that S.K is going to bite it. Hard. Even with some kind of air assault on most of North Korea's missile batteries, Seoul is still going to get hit hard, and lose a lot of civilians in the process.
Find a way to take out 7/8 of their missile batteries, and we can start talking invasion if need be.
-
The North Korean peasants didn't really do anything, and they're the only ones who would suffer from such a boycott. They already mostly live in poverty while their leaders live in luxury. Can't we just bring Kim up on charges of crimes against humanity or something? Or just assassinate him. I mean, yeah, it's probably illegal, but it's nothing we haven't done befor.e
The single biggest threat if a nation decides to engage N.K is the fact that S.K is going to bite it. Hard. Even with some kind of air assault on most of North Korea's missile batteries, Seoul is still going to get hit hard, and lose a lot of civilians in the process.
Find a way to take out 7/8 of their missile batteries, and we can start talking invasion if need be.
i think there are also factors like i believe national service is compulsory and they have the forth largest standing army which as far as i am aware has no deployment commitments outside of the country unlike the nations above it and Russia just below it so in a war of attrition they will win quite soundly as it would take the USA deploying 2 thirds of its armed forces to match them in numbers in terms of front line standing troops but then there is the small matter of a reported 3.5 million reservists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_Army#Worker-Peasant_Red_Guard)
-
That's if they don't strike first. And keep in mind, you'll probably have the US, S.K, Australia (possibly), England (who've committed aircraft to help out with ID before, IIRC), engaged as well. And that's if a UN force doesn't decide to intervene.
There's also the issue of where China stands on this.
-
That's if they don't strike first. And keep in mind, you'll probably have the US, S.K, Australia (possibly), England (who've committed aircraft to help out with ID before, IIRC), engaged as well. And that's if a UN force doesn't decide to intervene.
There's also the issue of where China stands on this.
id say China will sit on the fence, N Koria has pissed them of on a number of occasions but they also rattle the west's cage quite frequently which suits China. thing is the south korea's standing army is about half of north korea's and the stationed foreign troops dont make up the numbers so if N Korea strikes first then you are looking at maybe days before the north overruns the south, to little time for a multi national force to respond
State-----------Active-----Reserve----Paramilitary---Total
China-----------3,440,000--1,200,000--4,100,000------8,740,000
United States---1,473,900--1,458,500--453,000--------3,385,400
India-----------1,414,000--1,800,000--1,300,300------4,514,300
North Korea-----1,106,000--4,700,000--189,000--------5,995,000
Russia----------1,037,000--2,400,000--359,100--------3,796,100
South Korea0----540,000----3,000,000--39,500---------3,579,500
Germany---------284,500----358,650----40,000---------683,150
France----------259,050----419,000----101,400--------779,450
United Kingdom--240,200----195,300----0--------------435,500
Japan-----------239,900----44,400-----12,250---------296,550
Italy-----------230,350----65,200-----238,800--------534,350
Australia-------53,572-----20,300-----0--------------73,872
-
What interesting about that, is even though it has the 4th largest army in the world, it's population is only 24 million which ranks 51st.
-
I always love people going on about the size of the army as if it means something. The Iraqi army rolled over in days both times they fought a massively smaller army in both gulf wars.
Now if NK and SK are similar in terms of military equipment it might make a difference but otherwise it's just more bodies for the turkey shoot.
-
Agreed.
N.K's air force in particular is very, very ****. 7 hours annual flight time for their pilots, compared to 150 NATO standard, as well as defection issues and the like. I wouldn't discount the N.K army though, since there are a lot of them (poorly armed, most likely), some who are fanatics and will go the hard yards to defend their country.
By far their largest threat is the their missiles, I'd say.
-
I'm not discounting them, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to just compare the size of the armies like a dick-measuring competition. :p
-
- Isn't there a bloody large allied navy in the area that would completed destroy NK's navy, and then subsequently aid ground forces with offshore bombings?
- Do the NKs have 'tactical' atomic bombs? Because I stopped paying attention to them a while ago, and that could make a huge difference.
- Armchair Strategism rocks. :P
In the end, If it came down to a land war*, the outcome would depend entirely upon China's response.
I see China having three distinct options:
- Do nothing, and let whoever wins gain a much closer foothold to China's territory.
- Side with the U.N. (or whoever), and take direct control over NK.
- Side with NK. (THAT would be one Hell of a can of worms!)
-----
Oh, and I'm honestly curious as to how a trained military, possibly 'brainwashed' and malnourished, would hold under a charge at what is arguably the most fortified defensive line in the world.
--------------------------
*And only a fool gets involved in a land war in Asia.
-
*And only a fool gets involved in a land war in Asia.
they do have a tendency to get rather bloody dont they
-
If China gets involved (and on N.K's side), they'll most likely help with the one other thing one needs when fighting America, or one of its allies. Marginalizing their allies.
Riffing off an analysis of what a war in Asia would look like, China would strike Japan and Australia, the US's strongest Allies, and perhaps help with S.K in this conflict. IIRC, China supposedly has some mean looking missiles.
But one thing you're missing mate, is the fact that there are a massive amount of missiles that wreak serious hurt pointed at South Korea. If anyone tries anything, Kim Jong-Il-As-**** won't hesitate leveling Seoul, a disastrous outcome. Any opening strike by allied forces would have to be against some of those missile sites.
Korea is hell to fight in, and my guess is that the side with the best CAS and knowledge of the area will prevail. I've never seen China's boys on CAS, but RAF Tornadoes are the real kickass of CAS, so I hear.
-
But one thing you're missing mate, is the fact that there are a massive amount of missiles that wreak serious hurt pointed at South Korea. If anyone tries anything, Kim Jong-Il-As-**** won't hesitate leveling Seoul, a disastrous outcome. Any opening strike by allied forces would have to be against some of those missile sites.
I should point out that I wasn't really considering collateral damage. Just militaristic considerations. :nervous:
*And only a fool gets involved in a land war in Asia.
they do have a tendency to get rather bloody dont they
Well that, and the fact that it's... inconceivable!
-
Heh, well, fighting a war is a little hard if all your people are dead. ;)
-
Maybe someone should hint to China that the UN might not mind China invading and keeping NK as long as they don't cause any problems with SK afterwards.
Bearing in mind that all NK's guns are pointing in the wrong direction they might be surprisingly successful if they tried it. :p
-
Give them a break, all nations need some war from time to time... I don't get why the world needs to butt in on every one of those (and they do NOTHING btw).
The ones worried about the millions of innocents there should either donate 100$ to MSF or make a trip to the country and start making something there, this is just pure politic campaign for all those involved.
:wtf:
Are you just trolling? Or do you honestly believe that that would be a better idea?
I just think that way about this, no.. I'm not trolling, and I never said it was a better idea it's just my POV on the matter.
-
*And only a fool gets involved in a land war in Asia.
This sweeping statement automatically classifies the British, the French, the Americans and every non-Asian power in the U.N. in 1953 as fools. :p
What I find rather annoying is that both the North and South have been at this for decades, and yet they've never been able to patch up, unlike Germany. Granted, you can blame the U.S. and the Soviets for starting this whole issue by occupying Korea from opposite ends near the end of the Second World War, but you would think that, after so many decades of being split apart, the Koreans would actually be competent and smart enough to finish what the West started.
Look at Germany. It was split into four at the end of the Second World War, but they eventually got back together. Why can't Korea do the same?
-
What I find rather annoying is that both the North and South have been at this for decades, and yet they've never been able to patch up, unlike Germany. Granted, you can blame the U.S. and the Soviets for starting this whole issue by occupying Korea from opposite ends near the end of the Second World War, but you would think that, after so many decades of being split apart, the Koreans would actually be competent and smart enough to finish what the West started.
the North Koreans have this ideology of self reliance and have 50 years of brainwashing that considers the south as capitalist pigs, etc etc that prevents them from forming any real relations.
but all South Korea has to do is MAKE MOAR ZERGLINGS KEKEKEKE (and detect any North Korean Ghosts using overlords, preventing them from launching their Nuclear Missiles.) Base the military strategic interface on Starcraft and South Korea would win in like five minutes. Of course the troops would get like 200 commands per minute. "move move move attack move attack move move" and so on.
-
Well, the South is your standard republican style of government. The North is ruled by a midget megalomaniacal tyrant who holds the country in an iron grip and has brainwashed the citizens into a cult of personality centered around him. Germany was able to re-unite since the leaders of the GDR were reasonable and knew their time was over.
-
Besides, there was never a war between the two Germanys, and while the east german economy was ways behind the western one, its people were not exactly starving to death either. Also, while there was a ban of western media, it wasn't exactly airtight. And, as previously noted, the whole "cult of personality" thing North Korea has going on just wasn't as pronounced.
-
And brainwashing can never be all-inclusive. North Korean intellectuals can very well see what's going on, even if they aren't allowed to give voice to their complaints. I'm not talking about members of the Communist Party, of course.
-
For whoever was saying that NK would win a war because of the size of their military:
"The equipment is a mixture of World War II vintage vehicles and small arms, widely proliferated Cold War technology, and more modern Soviet weapons. According to official North Korean media, planned military expenditures for 2009 are 15.8% of GD" Wikipedia
With WWII tanks, the South Koreans and United States basically don't have to worry about armor - a LAW has a good chance of taking one out.
As for China, yes, their remaining neutral, but if the bulk of Western nations descended on North Korea, I rather doubt they would side with NK. China isn't stupid, and although they might POSSIBLY be able to win a war of attrition with the US, that is severely in question. No, China would do the pragmatic thing and either remain strictly neutral, or declare war on NK as well.
That being said, any such war would be a tremendous waste of life, and resources.
-
North Korean intellectuals who can very well see what's going on" are shipped off to kibble factories, not as laborers.
-
If China gets involved (and on N.K's side), they'll most likely help with the one other thing one needs when fighting America, or one of its allies. Marginalizing their allies.
Riffing off an analysis of what a war in Asia would look like, China would strike Japan and Australia, the US's strongest Allies, and perhaps help with S.K in this conflict. IIRC, China supposedly has some mean looking missiles.
But one thing you're missing mate, is the fact that there are a massive amount of missiles that wreak serious hurt pointed at South Korea. If anyone tries anything, Kim Jong-Il-As-**** won't hesitate leveling Seoul, a disastrous outcome. Any opening strike by allied forces would have to be against some of those missile sites.
Korea is hell to fight in, and my guess is that the side with the best CAS and knowledge of the area will prevail. I've never seen China's boys on CAS, but RAF Tornadoes are the real kickass of CAS, so I hear.
But this time around china's situation is completely different. Before it was a peasent state that was completely isolated, both economically and diplomatically. Today it's economy is mostly integrated with the world's and as a result its interests are much more inline with that of the wests, not completely but far far more than it used to be. Going to war with america is, at minimum, economic suicide, which in this day and age is a fairly effective deterent.
Maybe someone should hint to China that the UN might not mind China invading and keeping NK as long as they don't cause any problems with SK afterwards.
Bearing in mind that all NK's guns are pointing in the wrong direction they might be surprisingly successful if they tried it.
It might actually come to that (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1574944/China-plans-to-send-troops-into-North-Korea.html)
Look at Germany. It was split into four at the end of the Second World War, but they eventually got back together. Why can't Korea do the same?
Because the economic disparity is massive, many times greater than it was between east and west germany (the german disperaty was 1:3, the korean disparity is 1:19 or so). Looking at how the faultering east german economy managed to bog down the west german economy even to this day, can you imagine the economic chaos that would follow korean unification?
-
NK: "We're gonna do it for real this time, give us food and money or else!"
World: "You keep using that [phrase]. I do not think it means what you think it means."
This thread needed moar Princess Bride.
-
It might actually come to that (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1574944/China-plans-to-send-troops-into-North-Korea.html)
Don't believe everything you just read. Go and see North Korean refugees and talk with them to see if that holds. Article paints North Koreans mainly as racistic dwarves, a description I don't swallow. There was one Finnish guy who was a human shield in Iraq just before the most recent US "democratization". He said that the Iraqians always praised Saddam, even when they were in private (well no surprise there). But when US came, Iraqians openly started to express feelings about the regiment, and in worst cases started to despise him because he had been seen as a part of collaborating with the oppressing former regime. They completely changed sides when there was no threat of henchmen coming to knock the doors. I guess that guy gained some wisdom about life, and his statement to media when returning back here reflected that.
If I were a North Korean tourist guide, I would pretty much make sure all the words that I say that could be reproduced in mass media in West would be repeating the official line.
I don't know, I usually don't believe military interventions do any good, but North Korea might be the exception.
-
Personally I find nuking countries you don't like to be just what the doctor ordered if you want world peace.
-
problem is if you fire a nuke you will be in front of of a tribunal in the Hague before it hits.
-
Then make someone else push the button.
-
Kimmi needs a hug....
-
from an iron maiden.
-
Killing him will make him a martyr for the people who do support him.
Better that he finds a way to burn himself to the ground.
I heard he was dying though
-
Something tells me that People who support him under pain of death > People who support him because they like him. He'd be a martyr for a significantly smaller population base.
-
If China gets involved (and on N.K's side), they'll most likely help with the one other thing one needs when fighting America, or one of its allies. Marginalizing their allies.
Riffing off an analysis of what a war in Asia would look like, China would strike Japan and Australia, the US's strongest Allies, and perhaps help with S.K in this conflict. IIRC, China supposedly has some mean looking missiles.
But one thing you're missing mate, is the fact that there are a massive amount of missiles that wreak serious hurt pointed at South Korea. If anyone tries anything, Kim Jong-Il-As-**** won't hesitate leveling Seoul, a disastrous outcome. Any opening strike by allied forces would have to be against some of those missile sites.
Korea is hell to fight in, and my guess is that the side with the best CAS and knowledge of the area will prevail. I've never seen China's boys on CAS, but RAF Tornadoes are the real kickass of CAS, so I hear.
Modern day China isn't China of the 1950s... and even then China of the 1950s doesn't really have that kind of ambition. China seems to be quite happy to do whatever it wants within it's own borders (or what it's laid claim to) but anything outside of that it isn't really interested in. Yes they have a strong and modernizing military and you can bet they would spar over Taiwan if they felt they needed to but they aren't Kim Jong Il crazy at all.
-
i love how everyone likes to think they know what china, or more specifically its leaders, wants and what they will do.
-
Bear in mind that some of us actually live in China. :p
-
to be fair asside from environmental issues china has become a lot more "responsible" internationally in the last 20+ years, we dont even hear about their diplomatic posturing like we used to
-
i love how everyone likes to think they know what china, or more specifically its leaders, wants and what they will do.
What concerns them more than anything else is civil unrest. A war with the west would strangle the economy (at minimum with a blockade), which could lead to major unemployment problems, with the potential for unrest.
-
i love how everyone likes to think they know what china, or more specifically its leaders, wants and what they will do.
I was riffing off a powerpoint (put together for the DoD, IIRC) I saw which detailed possible moves by China in the event they were engaging the US, or one of its allies. And well, marginalizing the allies of the country you're fighting in your region is the logical thing to do.
-
I have a feeling that if kim is still alive in fall, then **** could get very real at G20
all them world leaders in missile range...
his son is an unknown to me, maybe he'll be reasonable, or be more bold. If something really serious is going to happen, it'll be in the fall, and I would not be surprised if china doesn't actually support NK, because of economic ties to the rest of the world.
hell, china going to was with countries that owe it money can't go well in my mind. Either nukes fly, or NATO probably wins, and as such could consider themselves no longer in debt (specifically the US) because they're now occupying china.
-
i love how everyone likes to think they know what china, or more specifically its leaders, wants and what they will do.
One of my co-workers is originally from China and VERY well read on both western and eastern geopolitics. We have some really great discussions on what we think is going on in the world. Aside from my own reading I've definitely expanded my viewpoint based on those discussions with him... so I do have some insight and am not completely talking out of my ass :)
-
...and am not completely talking out of my ass :)
Isn't that a bannable offense? If not, it should be :)
-
Who did he offend?
-
He meant that he basically stated that he was partially talking out of his ass and that talking out of your ass should be a bannable offense?
K, so there goes half of HLP... or all of HLP if it's a one-offense ban
-
No, I was being sarcastic.. which apparently failed since I need to explain it :) At any rate, didn't mean he should really get banned, my post was actually in support of his position.
-
newman your dry with and humour escaped some but that is ok :)
Yes if talking out of ones ass was a bannable offense we'd have some issues around here I suspect :) Fortunately we don't have to worry too much about that I think (hope? :) :) :))
-
Talking out of :) your ass shouldn't be :) a bannable offense :) considering it is a :) matter of opinion. :)
:) :) :) :) :) :)
I love you guys so much.
Seriously though, Kim's gonna get fried soon enough, whether it be the result of foreign fissile material or mother nature.
-
20 :) on this page, excluding this one.
I don't think anyone will nuke North Korea.
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
-
I hope a war here won't send America further down the gurgler. :D
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
There's one over Moscow, but that's all it protects. As far as I know the US intercept system still doesn't work.
-
I'm pretty sure the Jews have had a historical presence in Palestine for at least as long as the Palestinians, if not longer.
I geuss that those we call the 'palestines' have a lot of jewish blood in them. When did Exodus take place again?
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
There's one over Moscow, but that's all it protects. As far as I know the US intercept system still doesn't work.
I am quite sure that their Biong 707 mounted laser anti missile system has been tested succesfully.
-
Safe in the UK.
-
I am quite sure that their Biong 707 mounted laser anti missile system has been tested succesfully.
Really? Well in anycase it still isn't going anywhere. Checking the wikipedia page about it:
The Air Force has not requested any further funds for the Airborne Laser and Air Force Chief Schwartz has said that the system "does not reflect something that is operationally viable.”[5]
So even though it works (unlike the other systems) they still canned it. Typical.
-
Is there even any evidence that North Korea could feasibly deploy a tactical nuclear device? There's a big difference between conducting an underground test and being able to mount one on a missile.
-
Even if they could, their only target could be a location in Korea. Shooting at their other neighbors would essentially be the end of all life in North Korea. Shooting at the United States would be ineffectual, considering that the missile would be shot down, some way or another. After all, it's only one missile and the military would sure as **** do everything possible to stop it from hitting the west coast. Their only target could be a city in South Korea or an area occupied by ground troops somewhere in Korea. Kim's
kind of extremely wacko, though, so he might just be stupid enough to try a nuke out on a live target.
-
Even if they could, their only target could be a location in Korea. Shooting at their other neighbors would essentially be the end of all life in North Korea. Shooting at the United States would be ineffectual, considering that the missile would be shot down, some way or another. After all, it's only one missile and the military would sure as **** do everything possible to stop it from hitting the west coast. Their only target could be a city in South Korea or an area occupied by ground troops somewhere in Korea. Kim's kind of extremely wacko, though, so he might just be stupid enough to try a nuke out on a live target.
North Korea doesn't have the capability to launch anything that far.
----
Is there even any evidence that North Korea could feasibly deploy a tactical nuclear device? There's a big difference between conducting an underground test and being able to mount one on a missile.
They fired a dummy missile that went over Japan. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they have the capability to strategically hit targets in South Korea.
-
They fired a dummy missile that went over Japan. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they have the capability to strategically hit targets in South Korea.
But that assumes their nuke is miniaturized enough to fit onto a missile.
-
or they don't have some other crazy deployment method in play, like a tunnel or something.
-
One does not simply take a tunnel into Mord... I mean South Korea.
-
They fired a dummy missile that went over Japan. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that they have the capability to strategically hit targets in South Korea.
But that assumes their nuke is miniaturized enough to fit onto a missile.
Exactly. Like I said, it's one thing to rig up a stationary nuclear device for an underground test, and entirely another to miniaturize/automatize it enough to make it a feasible payload for a ballistic missile. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were delivered from modified heavy bombers, which presumably aren't an issue as far as North Korea is concerned. The only way they would feasibly be able to deliver whatever they may have is via missile.
-
there aren't any roads or trains between north and south are there? I don't think there are, and I feel stupid for asking, but I figured I should ask the question.
-
Safe in the UK.
Not if the UK fully commits in the event of a war and they pull conscription out of the bag. :P After all, you already have assets committed to helping out somewhere in their neck of the woods.
there aren't any roads or trains between north and south are there? I don't think there are, and I feel stupid for asking, but I figured I should ask the question.
Well I can't imagine any reason anyone from either side would want to cross over, unless it's North to South.
Is there even any evidence that North Korea could feasibly deploy a tactical nuclear device? There's a big difference between conducting an underground test and being able to mount one on a missile.
If they have that capability, it will almost definetely be used against South Korea, Seoul, more specifically.
The only feasible strategy for the South's survival in a war, is if the South initiate the contact, and eliminate at least 90% of the North's missile batteries. If the North initiate the contact, then Seoul is almost definetely going to bite it.
-
Didn't the last missile North Korea test-fired crash into the ocean?
-
or they don't have some other crazy deployment method in play, like a tunnel or something.
That's not quite as crazy as it sounds. Apparently they have been caught trying to tunnel in to South Korea on more than one occasion.
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
intercepting a nuke won't detonate it. the trigger charge has to be rediculously precise. missile defense does work, what DOESN'T work is a complete missile shield if someone decides to lob ALL their nukes at us. we can shoot down a satellite with a cruiser. one incoming ICBM is easy pickings.
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
intercepting a nuke won't detonate it. the trigger charge has to be rediculously precise. missile defense does work, what DOESN'T work is a complete missile shield if someone decides to lob ALL their nukes at us. we can shoot down a satellite with a cruiser. one incoming ICBM is easy pickings.
i think what hes on about is should a intercepting missile hit the missile around the payload then you risk creating a dirty bomb effect with non critical radioactive material falling to earth
-
Well, we have two possible options for dealing with a possible Zerg Rush by the North Korean Army, should Kim decide to launch an invasion.
1. Nuke the site from orbit. Not useful due to fallout and contamination issues.
2. Kill them with fire. This is always an option for dealing with enemies, unless trying to kill fire demons, fire elementals, and other fire-aligned entities.
-
or they don't have some other crazy deployment method in play, like a tunnel or something.
one of their attempted tunnels was even large enough to fit a tank inside. And with a border that size, there are bound to be undiscovered tunnels somewhere along the border.
-
And I hope North Korea won't nuke anyone. :)
Even if they did, there are missile defence systems in countries like the US and Russia, right? :nervous:
It won't stop the fallout, though. Kudos if NK launches a nuke and it gets intercepted over the ocean. :blah:
intercepting a nuke won't detonate it. the trigger charge has to be rediculously precise. missile defense does work, what DOESN'T work is a complete missile shield if someone decides to lob ALL their nukes at us. we can shoot down a satellite with a cruiser. one incoming ICBM is easy pickings.
i think what hes on about is should a intercepting missile hit the missile around the payload then you risk creating a dirty bomb effect with non critical radioactive material falling to earth
the initial fuel actually isn't all that hot. you can even handle it, though it's obviously not GOOD for you. i wouldn't hang out next to it for fun, but dispersal wouldn't be particularly dangerous. the nasty stuff is the fission products. the bigger concern would be recovering the nuclear material from a proliferation standpoint.
-
i think what hes on about is should a intercepting missile hit the missile around the payload then you risk creating a dirty bomb effect with non critical radioactive material falling to earth
Which is significantly better than the massive fallout from a nuclear explosion. In any case the casualties a dirty bomb can cause are greatly overhyped.
-
1. Nuke the site from orbit.
(http://i4.tinypic.com/16gzsds.jpg)
It's the only way to be sure.
-
We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.
-
We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.
Effectorize him!
-
Well, we have two possible options for dealing with a possible Zerg Rush by the North Korean Army, should Kim decide to launch an invasion.
1. Nuke the site from orbit. Not useful due to fallout and contamination issues.
2. Kill them with fire. This is always an option for dealing with enemies, unless trying to kill fire demons, fire elementals, and other fire-aligned entities.
I daresay the missiles are the bigger problem. :P
-
We're dealing with a psychotic midget in charge of a country with nuclear warheads, so yeah, being sure is a good thing.
From what I've been reading NK has no effective warheads that would be easily deployed. I'm not even sure if they are at the level of capability that the US had in 1945. They have the technology but it's not refined. Actually wait too long and maybe they will have a more serious capability.
-
It's even possible that they don't have the technology. Recall that North Korea's two alleged nuclear weapons tests were underground explosions of around half a kiloton. With a big enough cave, that's doable with conventional explosives. For comparison, the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were between fifteen and twenty kilotons.
That said, "North Korea has a nuke," is a hell of a lot more believable now than, "Iraq has a nuke," was in 2003.
-
chemical weapons were the concern in iraq
-
chemical weapons were the concern in iraq
"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." -- Dr. Condoleezza Rice (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/), then National Security Advisor
It was a dart game for the Bush administration. When one rationalization was shown to be false, they latched onto another. The only evidence we had to support an Iraqi chemical weapon program were the chemical weapons the United States sold Iraq, twenty-plus years prior (well past the use-by date), so the rhetoric shifted to subtle implications about a ficticious nuclear program. By the end, they were down to "Saddam Hussein was a bad man," not quite realizing that setting that precedent would demand quite a great many wars be declared, including several within the United States' own territory.
-
so the people he gassed weren't evidence?
-
chemical weapons were the concern in iraq
In terms of justification for the invasion? No they weren't. Most of the buildup was about the 'Iraqi nuclear program'.
-
so the people he gassed weren't evidence?
As was already pointed out to you those weapons were past their use by date at the time of the war. Not to mention that the weapon inspectors had found no proof whatsoever that Saddam hadn't destroyed the weapons already.
-
because this has anything to do with north korea.
-
Yeah, this thread was going so well until that four-letter word showed up.
-
If anyone actually posts on-topic I'll split it. Not worth it if no one wants to continue about NK though.
-
so the people he gassed weren't evidence?
In 1988? Chemical weapons have a shelf life. After twenty-five years, the left-overs from the Al-Anfal campaign would have been next to useless.
-
And he couldn't have made more how? Is there come magic in Iraq that prevents the creation of chemical formulae? He couldn't have bought more? I mean his own people were telling us he had them. BAW all you want, but doing so over spilt milk 10 years in the past is a little ridiculous.
-
And he couldn't have made more how? Is there come magic in Iraq that prevents the creation of chemical formulae? He couldn't have bought more? I mean his own people were telling us he had them. BAW all you want, but doing so over spilt milk 10 years in the past is a little ridiculous.
He didn't. There was no intelligence that he had. There was intelligence that he hadn't, and in fact that turned out to be true: he had destroyed his own program.
And the build-up to the war wasn't about a chemical weapons program. It was about nukes. Centrifuges. Purchase of uranium from Africa. The bomb.
It was all a lie.
And you're stupid enough to claim that this is 'BAW' 'ten years after the fact.'
News flash, my out-of-touch friend. We are STILL DYING IN IRAQ because of this lie.
If we're going to die in a foreign country I'd rather it at least be for the truth.
-
I thought we acknowledged years ago that Iraq, period, was a colossal waste of time, money, and inched the US closer to the gurgler? Really, Iraq has to be the most stupid thing I've ever seen, obviously no one reads their history books in Congress these days. Iraq is just like another Russia, in terms of invading it.
-
Iraq is just like another Russia, in terms of invading it.
Obligatory "land war in Asia" quote here.
-
Yeah, this thread was going so well until that four-letter word showed up.
What four-letter word?
-
derp
-
BAW all you want, but doing so over spilt milk 10 years in the past is a little ridiculous.
BAW.
BAW BAW BAW.
That's all you have? You seriously ****ing think the opposition to the war in Iraq is about liberals wanting to be "right" or have an "I told you so" moment over the other side?
Well ****ing BAW this.
Do you know how many Fallen Warrior ceremonies I've been to? How many flag-draped caskets I've had to watch being unloaded from C-5s? You know, it's all BAW BAW BULL**** to you until you see someone's widow collapse into inconsolable tears or look into the blank stares of their parents or their children. It's all BAW BAW BULL**** to you until your friend, the most sympathetic and good-hearted person in the world, puts a 9mm in his mouth because he made one mistake that ended up costing innocent Iraqi lives. It's all BAW BAW BULL**** to you UNTIL YOU'VE BAW BAW BEEN THERE.
A bunch of warmongering assholes lied seven years ago to a sincerely frightened and hurt country and coaxed the people that love it above everything else into believing they'd be "fighting for our freedoms" in a war against a country that never attacked us, never had plans to attack us, and simply didn't have the potential to attack us, while slacking on and sometimes outright IGNORING the guys who DID attack us and letting them get away.
This isn't BAW BAW SPILT MILK bull****--4400 Americans have died in Iraq FOR NOTHING[/u]. 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians have died FOR NOTHING[/b][/u]. Saddam didn't killed 1.5 million of his own people--OUR ****ING WAR DID.
Don't you ****ing BAW BAW me again.
-
Do you know how many Fallen Warrior ceremonies I've been to? How many flag-draped caskets I've had to watch being unloaded from C-5s? You know, it's all BAW BAW BULL**** to you until you see someone's widow collapse into inconsolable tears or look into the blank stares of their parents or their children.
He wouldn't. As I understand it the Pentagon doesn't allow the media to film that kind of thing anymore. Something about it ruining support for the war, although I think the pointlessness of it all did a good job of that.
-
so anyway, North Korea has the bomb, even if it's not in bomb form yet, and just blew up a South Korean ship, looks like they might resume there war...
-
It would be a short, very bloody war though, and they'd lose it.
-
It would be a short, very bloody war though, and they'd lose it.
Maybe that is what some in NK want?
-
What? To be deposed? :confused:
-
Well, there was this comedy back from the 50s or 60s where a little dwarf state declared war on the US with the intent of losing it, and thus being eligible for help under the Marshall plan......
-
Yeah, I was thinking of The Mouse That Roared even before I posted. But I just can't see Kim taking one for his county somehow.
-
What? To be deposed? :confused:
Well then they might be donated enough food to live off from surrounding countries, rather than living on the pittance rations allocated to them by the government.
-
Oh no... not Kim, he'll hold onto power as long as he can. But his health has long been subject of debate and you can bet there are going to be a few in the upper echelons with at least some power that are tired of the current status quo of being an international pariah with the people barely surviving and not much being done.
It wouldn't take much in my mind for some sort of subversive element within the power structure itself to want to shake things up. Provoking a war would be an "easy" way to cause the regime to crumble.