Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on November 23, 2010, 08:37:21 am
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-shelling-react-20101123,0,1976433.story
really I thought that the sinking of the warship 6 months ago was going to provoke a war, but this is just ridiculous.
-
I've been keeping an eye on this all morning.
It honestly sounds like the Korean War is going to go hot again, especially given the statements I've read from President Lee.
Personally I'm a bit concerned as I've got friends in the Army under USPACOM (United States Pacific Command) and if war suddenly breaks out and continues, they'll most likely be sent over there. One is 4 months away from leaving the military too.
-
How DO you start a war with South Korea? Sinking warships and attacking military bases doesn't seem to work.
-
very unsettling stuff
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101123/twl-north-korean-artillery-pounds-s-kore-4c10a1a.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101123/twl-n-korea-warns-of-more-strikes-after-3fd0ae9.html
and a freaky coincidence is that I started replaying Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory last night on Saturday and finished last night
How DO you start a war with South Korea? Sinking warships and attacking military bases doesn't seem to work.
problem is N Korea has the strength according to most assessments to cause a lot of damage even with American support for the South and South Korea just cant afford that kind of conflict. remember that though not thought to be well trained or equipped officially every able bodied man not in the army is a reservist and their army is damned big, whether that weight in numbers is enough to overcome the technological and training superiority of the South Korean and the American forces has been questioned here before but you can guarantee that if the North's army is anything like the size it is supposed to be the conflict will be bloody on both sides.
-
How DO you start a war with South Korea? Sinking warships and attacking military bases doesn't seem to work.
Convince them that they have a prayer of something more than a Pyrrhic victory?
-
very unsettling stuff
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101123/twl-north-korean-artillery-pounds-s-kore-4c10a1a.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101123/twl-n-korea-warns-of-more-strikes-after-3fd0ae9.html
and a freaky coincidence is that I started replaying Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory last night on Saturday and finished last night
How DO you start a war with South Korea? Sinking warships and attacking military bases doesn't seem to work.
problem is N Korea has the strength according to most assessments to cause a lot of damage even with American support for the South and South Korea just cant afford that kind of conflict. remember that though not thought to be well trained or equipped officially every able bodied man not in the army is a reservist and their army is damned big, whether that weight in numbers is enough to overcome the technological and training superiority of the South Korean and the American forces has been questioned here before but you can guarantee that if the North's army is anything like the size it is supposed to be the conflict will be bloody on both sides.
Bring out the nukes.
Have the Security Council sit down and finally make a policy on accepted uses of nukes. Limit it to military targets only and in tactical yields. Call for multi-lateral observation, and put observers into each and every unit that's given the green light.
If even China could be brought on-board then North Korea could be brought to heel really fast. Even they're not crazy enough to contemplate the total economic ruin of their country... which would be step 2 in case the total military eradication didn't get the message through.
Things I'd write into the UN charter:
-Nuclear tactical strikes can only be applied against states.
-Can't be applied against terrorist or other non-state players as a policy.
-Can be applied as last resort against UN confirmed forces (whether state of non-state) in the process of deploying WDMs without UN approval.
(So you can bomb a fleet of merchant ships confirmed to have WMDs and heading for a major metropolis on board, but not bomb an insurgent force in a failed state just by crying "Terrorism!")
-Deployment needs the unanimous approval of the Security Council.
-Deployment can be pre-arranged by naming rogue states and sending SC representative military personal to grant the strike in case the situation warrants it. Hmm... maybe call it Damocles protocol. A rogue state would be placed under the protocol and from then on the 4 SC representatives can call a strikes as they see fit.
Strategic nuclear forces shouldn't fall under the Damocles protocol.
-
North Korea could be reduced to ruble within hours WITHOUT nukes. The issue is preventing South Korea from incurring the same fate.
Any offensive would involve special forces disabling NK artillery and then bombardment of military targets, probably followed by a marine assault (to circumvent the demilitarized zone) and naval bombardment. The main thrust would be over quickly, but not necessarily quickly enough to prevent massive damage to Seol.
-
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/trollface5.jpg)
-
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/trollface5.jpg)
Problem, ROKS?
But yeah, this describes both the current situation at hand and North Korea as a whole.
-
problem is N Korea has the strength according to most assessments to cause a lot of damage even with American support for the South and South Korea just cant afford that kind of conflict. remember that though not thought to be well trained or equipped officially every able bodied man not in the army is a reservist and their army is damned big, whether that weight in numbers is enough to overcome the technological and training superiority of the South Korean and the American forces has been questioned here before but you can guarantee that if the North's army is anything like the size it is supposed to be the conflict will be bloody on both sides.
Seoul would be flattened in the initial artillery barrage, and so would the various border villages, beyond that I'm not sure how far they would get. Sure their army is big, but most of their equipment is hopelessly obsolete 50's era Soviet stuff, they have major fuel shortages so training is heavily restricted, and much of their army is not well fed. For them it would quickly turn into a rout and a meat grinder.
-
China is the main spanner in the works, though they do have a point that jumping to conclusions about what happened and reacting on those conclusions is not the way to go, but the other problem is that China don't want to accept that North Korea are up to anything because the last thing they want is a large Nato military presence right on their border, so much of their looking the other way is self-motivated.
I'm not certain how long the South will allow the threat of China to hold them back, both cultures are heavily steeped in honour and 'face' and these attacks will be percieved as an insult to the pride of the countries involved. Pride can cause a lot of damage and South Korea's leaders will be looked to by their people to preserve that pride.
-
problem is N Korea has the strength according to most assessments to cause a lot of damage even with American support for the South and South Korea just cant afford that kind of conflict. remember that though not thought to be well trained or equipped officially every able bodied man not in the army is a reservist and their army is damned big, whether that weight in numbers is enough to overcome the technological and training superiority of the South Korean and the American forces has been questioned here before but you can guarantee that if the North's army is anything like the size it is supposed to be the conflict will be bloody on both sides.
Seoul would be flattened in the initial artillery barrage, and so would the various border villages, beyond that I'm not sure how far they would get. Sure their army is big, but most of their equipment is hopelessly obsolete 50's era Soviet stuff, they have major fuel shortages so training is heavily restricted, and much of their army is not well fed. For them it would quickly turn into a rout and a meat grinder.
By what artillery? It's 20 miles from the border (35ish Km).
-
problem is N Korea has the strength according to most assessments to cause a lot of damage even with American support for the South and South Korea just cant afford that kind of conflict. remember that though not thought to be well trained or equipped officially every able bodied man not in the army is a reservist and their army is damned big, whether that weight in numbers is enough to overcome the technological and training superiority of the South Korean and the American forces has been questioned here before but you can guarantee that if the North's army is anything like the size it is supposed to be the conflict will be bloody on both sides.
Seoul would be flattened in the initial artillery barrage, and so would the various border villages, beyond that I'm not sure how far they would get. Sure their army is big, but most of their equipment is hopelessly obsolete 50's era Soviet stuff, they have major fuel shortages so training is heavily restricted, and much of their army is not well fed. For them it would quickly turn into a rout and a meat grinder.
By what artillery? It's 20 miles from the border (35ish Km).
North Korean artillery can make shots at ranges approaching that. Maybe exceeding it.
Read: here (http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-how-north-korea-could-destroy-seoul-in-two-hours-2010-5)
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Unforeseen offense.
I'm not angling for a preemptive strike. I'm just saying that I earnestly hope we have a plan in place to destroy as much of their artillery as possible before they can fire if we have to.
-
We do. The packages lined up for the first half hour of any notional new Korean war make Gulf War 1's opening look like playtime.
-
By what artillery? It's 20 miles from the border (35ish Km).
20 miles isn't as far as it used to be, particularly given all the FROG-series rocket artillery the North Koreans have.
-
the verbal bashing has started
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11823474
also has a crude military brake down at the bottom but neglects equipment age and over the horizon capability
-
I don't really think the north superiority in infantry numbers would mean anything, because North Korean military tactics are... crude, to put it one way.
-
I don't really think the north superiority in infantry numbers would mean anything, because North Korean military tactics are... crude, to put it one way.
Roughly what it means is that the North Koreans spend $4,520 per soldier, and the South Koreans spend $35,662 per soldier.
-
I don't really think the north superiority in infantry numbers would mean anything, because North Korean military tactics are... crude, to put it one way.
Roughly what it means is that the North Koreans spend $4,520 per soldier, and the South Koreans spend $35,662 per soldier.
is that including wages?
-
I have no idea, I just gave the proportion based on the article that was posted.
-
None of that counts for much in this case. It's all up to China now.
-
and the infantry numbers for the south does not include their autonomous attack robots
-
they'll need some additional pylons for those though
-
... pylons? :confused:
-
Their Vespene gas stores are depleted. Thus, they need additional pylons.
Geez, I can't believe I have to explain this.
-
... pylons? :confused:
you must construct additional pylons
-
... pylons? :confused:
you must construct additional pylons
We require more minerals!
Vespene Gas... pah!
-
Oh great, it's gonna be IRL Mercenaries.
-
with the G20 being in SK....**** just might get REAL.
if they try lobbing a shell or 40 near Seoul when that happens, they'll get the attention they crave.
except it may very well be of the cruise missile variety.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
It's been fielded, but like all Phalanx it has the problem of extremely limited ammunition and thus engagement duration. Reloading is apparently a *****, too. They do work, but they're not really a cost-effective solution.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
Efficiency I don't imagine will be an issue at the point South Korea's future is at stake.
It's been fielded, but like all Phalanx it has the problem of extremely limited ammunition and thus engagement duration. Reloading is apparently a *****, too. They do work, but they're not really a cost-effective solution.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
It's been fielded, but like all Phalanx it has the problem of extremely limited ammunition and thus engagement duration. Reloading is apparently a *****, too. They do work, but they're not really a cost-effective solution.
Efficiency I don't imagine will be an issue at the point South Korea's future is at stake.
Efficiency certainly will be a problem when each pricey Phalanx unit can only shoot down five or six shells, with a total engagement duration measured in seconds.
There's a reason Phalanx is being retired from ships in favor of RAM.
-
Hopefully we get the THEL system up and beyond the test phase soon.
-
keep in mind that there is no real defense against artillery, even 1940s era artillery.
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
It's been fielded, but like all Phalanx it has the problem of extremely limited ammunition and thus engagement duration. Reloading is apparently a *****, too. They do work, but they're not really a cost-effective solution.
This wasn't the Phalanx it was something else. Unless it was just a radar and targeting upgrade or something.
-
There's a reason Phalanx is being retired from ships in favor of RAM.
It's not. There's a new gun system in the works to replace Phalanx too. RAM just happens to be lighter and better solution for small combatants.
-
There's a reason Phalanx is being retired from ships in favor of RAM.
It's not. There's a new gun system in the works to replace Phalanx too. RAM just happens to be lighter and better solution for small combatants.
Ocool. I was talking with Vertigo7 on IRC the other day and he apparently worked on the Phalanx. I shall ask for classified details about its replacement!
-
Ocool. I was talking with Vertigo7 on IRC the other day and he apparently worked on the Phalanx. I shall ask for classified details about its replacement!
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123.htm
DDG(X) and the Zumwalt are going to use them rather than Phalanx. LCS has both replacements aboard since there wasn't room for second gun system.
-
Wonder what happened to that system we developed to shoot down incoming arty. Since the initial test was successful there has been no word of it anywhere that I've seen. If development was continued in secret this would be the perfect time for it's deployment (assuming it's not there already). The farther a round flies the easier it is to track and shoot.
that can handle one or two lone artillery shells, NK has thousands of them and they'll all be coming at once.
-
Hmm, the South have been hell bent on keeping the cease fire since it was placed into effect. The warship incident earlier was probably a bigger deal than this, militarily, and the South kept their cool.
Also, I believe the terms of the ceasefire means that if the war goes hot again, we'll be forced to get involved for a second time.
That passage in the article about the North not getting the desired response is undoubtedly correct.
Also, I believe there's an extremely high rate of defection among the North's forces, or at least the Air Force. (Jeez, I wonder why?) Their flying hours are literally less than ten a year, from memory.
I think those in the higher echelons of the North's military know that they really don't have the training nor the purple coordination necessary to sustain a war against what is undoubtedly going to be an alliance of Western nations, keeping within the terms of the ceasefire at the very least.
I hope for the sake of all involved that the Chinese can talk the North out of whatever they're playing at here. We all know how bloody land wars in Asia turn out to be.
-
Hmm, the South have been hell bent on keeping the cease fire since it was placed into effect. The warship incident earlier was probably a bigger deal than this, militarily, and the South kept their cool.
Also, I believe the terms of the ceasefire means that if the war goes hot again, we'll be forced to get involved for a second time.
That passage in the article about the North not getting the desired response is undoubtedly correct.
Also, I believe there's an extremely high rate of defection among the North's forces, or at least the Air Force. (Jeez, I wonder why?) Their flying hours are literally less than ten a year, from memory.
I think those in the higher echelons of the North's military know that they really don't have the training nor the purple coordination necessary to sustain a war against what is undoubtedly going to be an alliance of Western nations, keeping within the terms of the ceasefire at the very least.
I hope for the sake of all involved that the Chinese can talk the North out of whatever they're playing at here. We all know how bloody land wars in Asia turn out to be.
The key really is China and it depends on what their stance on this is going to be. They have taken the middle route but I honestly doubt that they see North Korea now like they did in 1950 when they supported the North. NK appears to be more of a regional annoyance and while the North is one of China's trading partners, I can't help but think that their efforts to expand their trade around Africa and elsewhere means trading with the North is probably much less important.
If this does go hot... and it's difficult to say right now... This will be very nasty. It'll be quite a bit different than anything fought in the last 20 years.
-
Yeah, I'm sure they're smart enough to see them as a basket case rather than a serious force in that region with regards to this kind of activity.
I wonder how on Earth we're planning to carry out a war in that region if it does go off. They're probably redrawing plans and contingencies as we speak. The real issue is actually pushing into N.K I believe (as well as protecting S.K.), if they mobilize their entire force including reservists, I believe they'll have the largest military in the world, and the system of organization around towns and that mean that urban combat is going to be very stressful.
[If this does go hot... and it's difficult to say right now... This will be very nasty. It'll be quite a bit different than anything fought in the last 20 years.
This is definitely true. At least it'll be closer to the wars we've trained for.
-
if they mobilize their entire force including reservists, I believe they'll have the largest military in the world, and the system of organization around towns and that mean that urban combat is going to be very stressful.
This means absolutely bollocks. In 1990/91, Iraq had the third largest military in the world. It lasted less than a month, and inflicted less than inconsequential casualties in that time.
-
if they mobilize their entire force including reservists, I believe they'll have the largest military in the world, and the system of organization around towns and that mean that urban combat is going to be very stressful.
This means absolutely bollocks. In 1990/91, Iraq had the third largest military in the world. It lasted less than a month, and inflicted less than inconsequential casualties in that time.
Ignoring the second half of the sentence, are we?
-
Urban combat is always stressful, regardless of enemy proficiency. I'm not going to dispute that.
-
Although I wouldn't have put it like that, the second half of the sentence is what the real implication of having that many serving blokes is.
From memory, their reserve infantry system is organised around towns, with units of company and platoon size centred around every town, drawing its strength from the town's inhabitants.
This can make it a little easier to manage logistics within the N.K. military, with supplies and such being carted around clean roads (private vehicle usage is outlawed I believe) to towns, rather than a barracks in the middle of nowhere. This makes urban combat a little more interesting, I'd envisage, since you're now fighting guys who are literally protecting their families, and know the area very well.
And our history of urban combat in Asia isn't exactly great to start with. :D
-
The Japanese had also trained civilians extensively in urban combat. Unilateral surrender prevented any nastiness, and it didn't look like they would surrender either.
-
We had to nuke the Japanese to get that surrender. Do you want us to nuke NK as well and definitely piss off the Chinese and potentially Iran?
-
We had to nuke the Japanese to get that surrender. Do you want us to nuke NK as well and definitely piss off the Chinese...
Indeed a problem.
...and potentially Iran?
Lol.
:lol:
-
The Japanese had also trained civilians extensively in urban combat. Unilateral surrender prevented any nastiness, and it didn't look like they would surrender either.
Arguably that surrender was after years (almost a decade for the Japanese) of continual combat of which the last three and a half years had gone from bad to worse. And in the last year nearly every major city and production center was subject to heavy strategic bombing. Most of it firebombing which was particularly devastating to the Japanese cities. Not sure if the same scenario applies just yet...
-
definitely piss off the Chinese and potentially Iran?
that last part is almost worth the first part.
-
they'll need some additional pylons for those though
Slayer_BoxeR is a South Korean general now. NK is screwed, no matter what happens.
/idiocy
I'm really just waiting on China's response right now. I don't see them giving NK solid support if Kimmy Jong decides to play attention whore again, but they might do something nearly as aggravating to the West.
-
Yeah let's hope nothing happens. For one thing I'd imagine we'd need to institute a draft. Furthermore North Koreans are brain washed dupes. More then likely we will need to kill them in droves because they've been conditioned and indoctrinated all their lives. It's one thing killing someone who's made a choice, it's another when they simply don't know any better because they live in a closed off society and they've been taught the ROK and America are the Great Super Evil and Kim Jong the Dear Leader.
It doesn't change the strategic/tactical reality that we will need to curb stomp them hard if it comes to war, but still it'll be a damn shame because they aren't necessarily the evil or anything, just victims of the ****nuckles in charge. Nuking the hell out of nation where most of the population's only crime was being born in the ****hole of the world ain't exactly going to be something we should feel good about.
-
Then again, rarely are people involved in wars actually evil. Even if they are, they're usually few in number and in the upper ranks. That's part of why all wars suck so much.
-
I seriously doubt anyone is actually contemplating an invasion of the North as a reasonable response. The US certainly wouldn't support one. The only reasonable method of dealing with the DPRK military would be to let them cruise on into the DMZ and die there against prepared defenses and artillery. And the odds are good they'd actually try it and allow their mobile forces to be annihilated in the field. Once that's done, anything else they can do is of little interest.
The problem with this plan is that Seoul and Pusan are already poisoned, blasted, infectious, and possibly irradiated wastelands.
-
Well they may be able to put NK's artillery to work by clearing the way for their mobile units in the DMZ.
The one big assumption being that Kim hasn't outlawed reading in the school curriculum. ;)
-
Well they may be able to put NK's artillery to work by clearing the way for their mobile units in the DMZ.
The one big assumption being that Kim hasn't outlawed reading in the school curriculum. ;)
Most of the tactical artillery isn't going to last that long. Long enough to make a really big mess, but it's old, it's not very mobile, and there are enough firefinder radars along the DMZ to give lethal doses of radiation to birds in flight. Either aircraft or counterbattery will get it all within a couple hours.
The DPRK's ballistic launchers could last for weeks, with another Great SCUD Hunt, but a lot of the big ones are rail-based rather than road mobile, so that will at least limit the threat to Japan and Guam.
-
Fair enough.
The North gain the upper hand if they force the Allies to invade, and the smarter brethren in the Northern military probably know it over all the bull**** they would've been fed. I wouldn't be surprised if they attempt to force the allies across the DMZ.
Of course they could try it, the Allies would see through it, and it could turn into a Phoney War for a while.
EDIT: In any case, I think the South would try to avoid initiating the conflict for as long as they can.
-
If by "phoney" you mean we're busy bombing the everloving **** out of anything that looks remotely military, then yes.
-
Let's see all we need is a single shot laser and a large rotating mirror and we can make human popcorn from space.
Seriously though what do you think would happen if that nut job leading the country spontaneously combusted?
No I'm not saying we can do it or should do it. Would the masses cheer, not give a damn, or are they so brainwashed they would think their god had been taken from them and retaliate?
-
I know that there's a number of people who would cheer. Or so the defection rates would suggest.
-
Yeah, as I mentioned in the last topic about this lovely little corner of the planet, why the **** hasn't someone blown Kimmy's head clean off by now? There has to be some existence-denied agency out there among the Western powers that could have done the job ten times over. Granted, it probably wouldn't do a whole lot to defuse the current situation, but damn if it wouldn't be satisfying.
-
it would be a good start.
-
All the world leaders probably want him alive to laugh at during NATO piss-ups and such.
-
[assassinating lil' Kim] would give his next of kin a personal reason to strike at the west, and that's not something the world leaders, and especially SK&japan AKA the dudes definitely in range of missiles.
also, NK is rather closed-off and therefore rather hard to infiltrate, as stereotypicial deniable operators aren't exactly korean, and no amount of epic beard can hide that.
-
Although without a clear transfer of power it just might cause an implosion.
-
I seriously doubt that you could put its citizens in an even worse state.
-
No but the kids fighting over power might be enough.
-
I at least, did not imply that killing kim was the end, or that his kids would be permitted to fight over power.
-
An update, guys. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-to-support-south-korea-with-war-games/story-e6frg6so-1225960329943)
-
Can't we all just be friends? :(
-
can haz nukulear war now plz
-
Can't we all just be friends? :(
A whole bunch of people died because of lil' Kim and you want to be friends with him and his buddies?
-
Yes, because North Korea is not just Kim Jong Il, and it is not only he who would die if hostilities kicked off. It's like judging all Americans by the countries foreign policy, I try not to do it.
-
the whole 'dynastic hand over' pretty much proves that it's not going to get better and as time goes on NK is going to just get more and more belligerent and dangerous as time goes on. it is only a mater of time before a war breaks out and the longer it takes the worse it's going to be.
-
Personally, I think the key here is with Seoul strengthening its ties with China. I do get the feeling that China are aware steps will have to be taken over North Korea's beligerance on the international stage, but they are very wary about letting the West take a hand. We talk a lot about our 'Global Society', but we aren't nearly as close to such a thing as we'd like to think, Koreas neighbours, China, Japan etc, should really be the ones to deal with the problem about of the two ends of Korea, but the problem is that it's like a big soap opera, all the countries involved aren't talking to each other because of grievances over wars, occupations etc, but at the end of the day, it's they who should be looking to sort the problem out.
Unfortunately, if Korea continue to impose on other countries and upset stability in the area, it may be needed for the West to be involved as well, but the ideal solution would be a local one, one word from China would certainly be enough to pull N.Korea up short, but it would also unbalance the leadership, which China are concerned about doing, it's bad enough having nutters living next door, a complete breakdown of the system would be worse, and many western powers would want to send in Policting actions, something China does not want that under any circumstances.
It is possible to defuse the problem, even now, but China doesn't need to simply be on board, it needs to be actively involved and forming the focus of external efforts to restore some kind of sanity to the situation. They are aware of how important 'face' is to leadership in this part of the world, it's not like the West, where leaders can be publically satirised or even disgraced and still maintain some level of influence, and people like the North Korean leadership would certainly adopt a 'scorched Earth' mentality if they felt they had been so.
-
lets give south korea nukes. they got enough starcraft players that they would be more effective in their usage :D
-
Personally, I think the key here is with Seoul strengthening its ties with China. I do get the feeling that China are aware steps will have to be taken over North Korea's beligerance on the international stage, but they are very wary about letting the West take a hand. We talk a lot about our 'Global Society', but we aren't nearly as close to such a thing as we'd like to think, Koreas neighbours, China, Japan etc, should really be the ones to deal with the problem about of the two ends of Korea, but the problem is that it's like a big soap opera, all the countries involved aren't talking to each other because of grievances over wars, occupations etc, but at the end of the day, it's they who should be looking to sort the problem out.
Unfortunately, if Korea continue to impose on other countries and upset stability in the area, it may be needed for the West to be involved as well, but the ideal solution would be a local one, one word from China would certainly be enough to pull N.Korea up short, but it would also unbalance the leadership, which China are concerned about doing, it's bad enough having nutters living next door, a complete breakdown of the system would be worse, and many western powers would want to send in Policting actions, something China does not want that under any circumstances.
It is possible to defuse the problem, even now, but China doesn't need to simply be on board, it needs to be actively involved and forming the focus of external efforts to restore some kind of sanity to the situation. They are aware of how important 'face' is to leadership in this part of the world, it's not like the West, where leaders can be publically satirised or even disgraced and still maintain some level of influence, and people like the North Korean leadership would certainly adopt a 'scorched Earth' mentality if they felt they had been so.
I agree with you. Although if anything was going to happen, I'd rather it happens now and not further down the line where negotiations can turn into wars and this becomes a seriously delicate issue. Although this East/West thing is a little delicate in itself.
-
China's going to already be thinking about how to turn this to its advantage, especially against the west. I'm guessing that their approach is going to be pretty creative. I think we can rule out China declaring unconditional support for North Korea or something retarded like that at least, but that beyond that, it's hard to say what they'll do. They also have to consider that a very pissed off nuclear nation next door could level a province or two, equating to tens of millions of lives and a pretty big chunk of GDP.
-
They'd have the Kim "dynasty" removed, and a new Communist government installed. Present it as advantageous to the West, and there you go. That's what I would recommend for them to do.
Going to war against NK and letting the West merge the two Koreas is obviously not going to work for China. Supporting NK and waging war against the West would economically drain everyone, and that's as bad for China as it is to the rest of the world. After 15 years of economic prosperity, they wouldn't risk it, especially now that we are in a recession ourselves. The US economy came out rather well from the last worldwide war, because her mainland territory was left intact while everyone else's country was devastated. If this turned into a full-scale war, China would be ruined almost as hard as the affected European powers were during WWII. I'm supposing no one would use nukes.
The best imaginable scenario would be if Kim the Younger decided to back off and see to it that NK becomes a democratic nation, a symbol of due process of law, a haven for unbiased and balanced journalism, rational elections, etc. It's highly likely, isn't it? :rolleyes:
-
You can be certain that it isn't just China who are looking to turn this situation to their advantage though. Enlightened self-interest is the guiding phrase of most countries. That's part of the problem, but it's not one that will go away soon because it's human nature, no person and no government can change that.
I'm firmly of the opinion that the only change that stays comes from within, America had to do it themselves, so did France, the UK and several other countries, in fact, the only time that didn't happen was at the end of WW2, and even then, the country remained divided until the people themselves pulled down the wall. The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.
-
China has so far refused to admit the North is at fault. Much as they did with the torpedo. Status quo again.
You can be certain that it isn't just China who are looking to turn this situation to their advantage though. Enlightened self-interest is the guiding phrase of most countries.
You're assuming China's self-interest behaves in an enlightened fashion. Since this is highly debatable even towards their own citizens...
I'm firmly of the opinion that the only change that stays comes from within, America had to do it themselves, so did France, the UK and several other countries, in fact, the only time that didn't happen was at the end of WW2, and even then, the country remained divided until the people themselves pulled down the wall. The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.
Mexico on one side, and the Marshall Plan on the other...Korea...misremembering Germany...hmm.
-
And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it? Of course you side with America, you've been raised with those values, so do I, but that doesn't mean those self interests are the slightest bit more 'enlightened' than anyone elses, it just means that's the societal situation you were bought up in and that is what you expect from your life.
And, as I have already stated, I believe this, I am not saying you have to, that's part of the culture we were both raised in, remember?
Edit: It should also be noted that (a) I did not state that every attempt at change from within works, and that (b) If you think Europe is universally happy with the American military presence in Europe, you are mistaken, that presence, regardless of intent or impact has caused strife both in America and in Europe. I'm not really certain what you are getting at here.
-
And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it?
I'm not assuming anything. The US has plenty of awful things in the closet. Now, while your attempt to straw man me into supporting America by bashing it is cute, it's not effective. That's not remotely what I said.
I made claims about China, not about the US. Are you prepared to challenge those claims or not?
I also made claims about the course of history and how outside intervention does not necessarily result in failed change. I pointed to the successful rebuilding of Europe as proof. South Korea itself is a similar proof.
Germany's reunification was assured, in the end, by West Germany's economic and political success (aided and abetted by the military and economic might of NATO) whereas East Germany failed (abetted by the general failure of the Soviet Union). Now, one could make a good argument this is actually for your original point that outside changes do not succeed, since what the Western Allies did with their half of the German partition was much closer to preserving the prewar system then it was to imposing their own.
Mexico, on the other hand, is an example of self-imposed change that has failed due to lack of outside intervention. The country is, in many ways, in more trouble than Iraq is currently, because it has a long and not-glorious history with the United States and is loathe to accept or ask for help from us.
Columbia, by contrast, asked for and received help. And they have essentially won the war against their own narco-rebels.
But you do not appear interested in arguing with my actual points, instead constructing a straw man about the United States.
-
I fail to see where I am attempting to make you do anything of the sort, so please calm down and don't start accusing me of things. Nor did I claim China were better or worse, I was merely pointing out that any action taken by any country will involve a certain degree of self-interest. Please do not read accusations into my posts that I did not make.
As I stated in my previous post, this is not a claim of supporting China, I never once stated that, I simply pointed out that to assume that China would be the only state involved that had an interest that could also involve self-motivation would be incorrect. As I stated in my previous post, I do not agree with all of Chinas' behaviour, nor do I agree entirely with the US's (nor my own countries actions) but that is entirely irrelevant to the point that I was making.
Whilst I agree that external intervention does not always result in a failed change, once again, I didn't say that, I said that change had to come from within to work, which is something else entirely.
And yes, Germany's unification was assured, but whilst Russia dismantled most of Germany's industrial structure, the UK & US took billions in IP from them, it wasn't until Germany was firmly back into the hands of the Germans themselves that it started to re-emerge as a unique state with its own take on Democracy, Freedom of Speech and other matters, that change could not have happened had it not been bought about by the German people themselves, had they not wanted and fought for that change, it would not have happened.
If you consider my statement as some kind of 'attack' on yourself or on America, then I'd very much like to hear why.
Edit : And for clarification purposes, let me put it this way. If the majority of Germans had wanted a communist state (unlikely in reality, but it's a hypothetical situation) then Germany would have ended up as a Communist state, regardless of what other countries opinion or desires were, I have not used the words 'Right' or 'Wrong' once in my comments because they are irrelevant, I am discussing Social/Political influences and their effect on the surrounding societies, not the morality of the matter.
-
I fail to see where I am attempting to make you do anything of the sort, so please calm down and don't start accusing me of things. Nor did I claim China were better or worse, I was merely pointing out that any action taken by any country will involve a certain degree of self-interest. Please do not read accusations into my posts that I did not make.
And you are assuming that the US also behaves in an enlightened fashion, once again, it depends on perspective doesn't it? Of course you side with America, you've been raised with those values, so do I, but that doesn't mean those self interests are the slightest bit more 'enlightened' than anyone elses, it just means that's the societal situation you were bought up in and that is what you expect from your life.
What is this paragraph about then?
It's certainly not about my assertion that China does not operate under principles of enlightened self-interest, or even under principles of self-interest. It doesn't even talk about China, it only mentions "the US" and "America".
It even says that I am "siding with America". I did no such thing. I sided against China, which is an admittedly American position if you squint hard enough (considering economic ties). The only country in the world that could be truly be said to side wholly against mainland China is the ROC, Taiwan. Your assumption is both wholly unwarranted, and exactly what you say did not happen.
You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.
Whilst I agree that external intervention does not always result in a failed change, once again, I didn't say that, I said that change had to come from within to work, which is something else entirely.
Which is both a distinction without a difference, and you do not actually qualify your statement about change from external or internal sources to say that external intervention does not always result in failure. Your exact wording, in fact, was...
The more external countries try to interfere, the harder it becomes for any other system to remain stable.
Which, being totally unqualified, would lead to the conclusion you believe that external changes to a country will not last. None of the rest of that paragraph disproves this notion either. You say that "I didn't say that" but you in fact did say just that. You simply didn't mean it. If you don't qualify a statement, I have no way of knowing that it's not absolute.
Edit : And for clarification purposes, let me put it this way. If the majority of Germans had wanted a communist state (unlikely in reality, but it's a hypothetical situation) then Germany would have ended up as a Communist state, regardless of what other countries opinion or desires were, I have not used the words 'Right' or 'Wrong' once in my comments because they are irrelevant, I am discussing Social/Political influences and their effect on the surrounding societies, not the morality of the matter.
This is a laughable sentiment. Do you honestly believe that the other NATO countries would have allowed it to happen? South Vietnam is a good example of the ease of propping up a government for decades. East Germany is another. Germany was only able to unify, much less become democratic because, the USSR and Russia were in no condition to oppose it. If Germany had wanted to become unified and communist, Russia would have repartitioned it. They considered a united Germany, communist or not, a strategic threat. Also, consider what happened to any other democratic revolution in the Warsaw Pact before that point: they were forcibly put down.
It had very little to do with the will of the German people that Germany was reunited, and everything to do with the fact that if Russia was internally too unstable to attempt to prevent it, in the face of the US and NATO militaries that had been revitalized and upgraded dramatically in the early 80s and were hitting their peak in force levels and training.
-
What is this paragraph about then?
It's certainly not about my assertion that China does not operate under principles of enlightened self-interest, or even under principles of self-interest. It doesn't even talk about China, it only mentions "the US" and "America".
It even says that I am "siding with America". I did no such thing. I sided against China, which is an admittedly American position if you squint hard enough (considering economic ties). The only country in the world that could be truly be said to side wholly against mainland China is the ROC, Taiwan. Your assumption is both wholly unwarranted, and exactly what you say did not happen.
You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.
Your reference makes no sense, the paragraph you quoted makes no statement in either direction, it simply points out that opinions may differ, just because you believe it to be so, it does not follow that there is some kind of altruistic 'ideal' that a country should achieve. You believe that America's opinions are the 'best' available, China believes otherwise. For the third time, I am not stating an opinion in either direction, merely pointing out that a difference of opinion exists depending on opinion of those involved. You think China are wholly wrong, we get that, but you will find many Chinese who would disagree, you would consider them to be wrong. That is, as I stated in my first post, human nature.
I do not discuss your assertations about China but they are wholly and entirely irrelevant to the conversation that was taking place in this thread before you got involved, for the second time, this is not a discussion about what is 'moral' or 'right', it is a discussion about the delicacies of the situation and the fact that the other countries involved distrust each others interest in the matter, which is adding to the fragility of it.
Once again you are attempting to turn this into some kind of argument about morals, which is nothing to do with what I am saying.
With regards to external interference and Germany, I did actually state it was a hypothetical situation, and I did not specify a timeline, yet again, I'm discussing social intertia and you are reading it from a moralistic viewpoint, I don't care about what you think is morally correct or not, social intertia from within is a large part of what defines the history of a country, external interference to try to push that social intertia in a different direction is often unproductive and causes strife. There's a marked difference between helping social change along and trying to enforce a change in society.
If the majority of German people wanted to be communist, whether it happened at the point of reunification or 100 years later, it would have happened, it doesn't have to happen on a short timescale and no-one stated it did, but social interia is an incredibly strong force and if that was what the majority of Germans had desired, that is eventually what would have happened. Same with North Korea, it may take centuries, but, should the populace desire it, Social change will happen, but if you try to force it down their throats then historically this causes far more problems than it solves.
Yes, in my opinion, China have not done great in the realm of human rights, but what has that got to do with anything? You seem to be intent on turning a political and social discussion of the complexity of the situation into a matter of morals. The people in this thread were simply trying to view the matter from the point of view of the entire world stage, not just the Western half of it, China don't trust the West, whether that is good or bad is immaterial, and I cannot see why you keep attempting to de-rail it with these strange accusations that I am, in some way, taking sides in the matter, my own concern is about stability, not the 'right kind of Government', and yes, that in itself is powered by self-interest. I don't want the whole thing to kick off into a war.
You, for some reason, did not discuss my assertions about China at all, and instead made it about America. This is either a straw man, or a red herring. As you spent your entire post on the America thing, I can only assume it is a straw man, because red herring does not encompass the entirety of an argument, only a single one-off fallacy.
And that's just bordering on paranoia, you're actually out hunting for anti-American sentiment in my posts when I am making absolutely no such claims.
-
so, sorry to interupt the pissing contest, but it looks like South Korea is seriously pissed (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AO0VS20101126) about all this. if the north does one more thing I would not be surprised the whole place explodes into violence.
-
Indeed.
"The government should have reacted immediately to the attack, firing enough shells to completely devastate the North Korean side and President Lee should have actively commanded the counter-offence himself," said Kim of Myungji University.
For a country that imposes national service, this bloke obviously fell through the cracks somewhere during military science and diplomacy. But I guess they are after WWIII...
-
so, sorry to interupt the pissing contest, but it looks like South Korea is seriously pissed (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AO0VS20101126) about all this. if the north does one more thing I would not be surprised the whole place explodes into violence.
I see it more as a war of miscalculation than anything.
MAD doctrine basically applies to the Koreas - sure, the South (with NATO backing) can level the North, but not before the North turns Seoul into a large pile of rubble mixed with smashed Starcraft discs. I don't think nuclear is a likely possibility in the Koreas - SK and NATO likely have contingencies in place to eliminate Northern nuclear assets post-haste in the event of escalating conflict.
The real trouble is human cost - no one can win if it devolves into active conflict. China is the only reason the North is still able to even function - and there is no way in hell they will back the North militarily at this point in history. In fact, I could see them cutting off all support to prevent active warfare as SK is a huge Chinese trading partner.
In my view, the only thing that could devolve the Korean peninsula in active warfare again is if both sides miscalculate enormously - which has of course happened historically, I just don't see it happening here. There is no way the Chinese would risk war with NATO.
-
Have Japan send in the RX-78-2
(http://user.cloudfront.goodinc.com/community/etling/giantgundam.jpg)
I mean why build it an not use it?
-
Finally, a serious proposal in an otherwise silly discussion.
-
Looks like China are stepping in :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11850821
-
War's just based on hate and fear
Stop fighting North and South Korea
You're both basically Chinese.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuHMzs2YI9o)
-
zomg (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea)
China has signalled its readiness to accept Korean reunification and is privately distancing itself from the North Korean regime, according to leaked US embassy cables that reveal senior Beijing figures regard their official ally as a "spoiled child".
This would make things quite interesting...
-
the Chinese actions make sense, i mean, other than having a number of people, NK really doesn't contribute anything.
-
The article pretty much sums up what I suspected was going on over here. China doesn't really have anywhere near as much influence as people think it does and are determined to make sure that NK doesn't fall apart or start pointing their guns at China because they know that neither of those things would be good for their country.
-
Yeah, I don't think that position is any real surprise. China's desire for regional influence and face-saving aside, they know that having a certifiably insane autocrat with nuclear technology right on their border is a Very Bad Thing. A unified Korea might reduce their regional influence a bit, but the benefits would be enormous.
-
All we really need to do is ask China a question. Would you rather help us solve this before or after that crazy bastard on your border gets nukes? Seriously, if N. Korea develops deployable nuclear weapons before we are able to solve this situation between N. and S. Korea, I imagine it will get much more difficult.
-
Well...I think China's support for NK is running dry. It's only in their interests now for NK to fall and let a democratic Korea take over. Not only is it a huge boost to trade, but they don't have to constantly defend a nutjob.
-
I'm loving this Wikileaks thing... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641
So apparently that is how China really feels which is how a number of people have speculated they feel. But it's all about saving face... I guess they are still hopeful for a political solution and an implosion. That would be better than all out war... but it may yet come to that. I don't see the South being pushed around any more and nobody can blame them for feeling that way.
-
What I find most amusing about this whole snafu is that North Korea is the one who shells the South completely unprovoked...and then mouths off about the current war games as being some sort of massive "escalation." Bat**** insane. :p
-
well at least it isn't starcraft (http://kotaku.com/5700983/south-korean-politician-on-korean-crisis-this-isnt-starcraft)
-
Saw that article posted on facebook. Lol'd. :D
-
I've heard said more than once that South Korea just needs to KEKEKEKE Zerg Rush and get it over with. :p
-
Dude, the north is clearly the Zerg player, and is counting on a combined Zergling rush with Guardian support. Most of their other units are either low in level or low in quality.
South Korea, however, is obviously a Terran player, with a broad variety of units and capabilities, not to mention a tenacious defense. Unfortunately, those bunkers aren't invincible to a 200+ Zerg rush with Guardians just out of missile range...
Damn, these Starcraft analogies are a real *****...
:p
-
I've heard a theory that a serious DPRK offense would likely stall out at the first supermarket.
-
South Korea does have nukes though, and Ghosts can designate out to Guardian range.
It's really kinda hilarious if you do that when your bunkers are getting trashed by guardians. Pop out a Ghost, cloak, designate just in front of the Guardians. When the other player hears the "Nuclear launch detected," they usually go scanning through bases looking for the little red dot.
-
Well any good player usually moves their control groups too.
-
I've heard a theory that a serious DPRK offense would likely stall out at the first supermarket.
Capitalist lies. The Heavenly General provides for the glorious KPA.
Also,
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/11/3dc044481a603f0d16ae49fd00de895f/original.jpg)
-
Also,
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/11/3dc044481a603f0d16ae49fd00de895f/original.jpg)
He wants to be the very best
that no-commie ever was
to get nukes was his real test
to be noticed was his cause!
he'll starve people across the land
Poverty far and wide
Teach the west to understand
The power that's inside
Kim-jon-il!
-
What I find most amusing about this whole snafu is that North Korea is the one who shells the South completely unprovoked...and then mouths off about the current war games as being some sort of massive "escalation." Bat**** insane. :p
Trying to show strength.
They need a bloody nose. SK needs to shell them back.
-
What I find most amusing about this whole snafu is that North Korea is the one who shells the South completely unprovoked...and then mouths off about the current war games as being some sort of massive "escalation." Bat**** insane. :p
Trying to show strength.
They need a bloody nose. SK needs to shell them back.
M.A.D. is so funny.
-
War's just based on hate and fear
Stop fighting North and South Korea
You're both basically Chinese.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuHMzs2YI9o)
You know, if it was that simple to both sides, they would have done it already. Look at Germany...
-
Someone was bound to bring this up. Don't compare North & South Korea to East & West Germany. If you knew anything about history, you'd realize that this comparison is only true on a very, VERY superficial level. So superficial in fact that only a very oblivious person would make the comparison.
-
I meant the economical effects of the two sides merging.
-
Even that is not comparable in the slightest. East Germany was not a third world country by any stretch of the imagination.
-
That comparison is probably more dumb than saying Koreans are basically Chinese. O_o
-
I meant the economical effects of the two sides merging.
They'd be really bad for the South. Suddenly there would be millions of undereducated, unemployed, brainwashed, hungry people everywhere and nothing to do with them.
Some of them might even be unhappy enough to fight for the good old times they had something to eat and a job.
They'd also treat the information that they only ate and worked thanks to foreign aid as propaganda.
-
How the hell do you manage to connect a link to Bruno's "charity video" to a flawed comparison between North and South Korea/East and West Germany (or take it seriously on any level?)
I have a feeling more than one person here took that post seriously. Try clicking it. Yes, it's a link.