Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: el_magnifico on March 07, 2013, 02:57:14 pm
-
...this ones have been asking for it for far too much time already. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21695887)
And I'll just leave it there.
-
What the ****? I don't even...
Are these people really dumb enough to start a nuclear war?
Well, perhaps it's just posturing. I sure hope so.
However, I'm not sure that attacking them would be a great idea. They have a huge army and nuclear capabilities.
-
They have a huge army...
In terms of people.
Tank forces are mainly Type 59 and T-55's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army_Ground_Force)
Air force include a whole 40 MiG-29's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory)
-
In many ways, carpet bombing (not nuclear) North Korea back to the Middle Ages might be an upgrade for its poor, starving, and oppressed citizenry.
It's more posturing, as usual. Nothing new here, though I think most sensible people agree that NK's leadership structure needs to go.
-
They have a huge army...
In terms of people.
Tank forces are mainly Type 59 and T-55's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army_Ground_Force)
Air force include a whole 40 MiG-29's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory)
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on military matters, so I won't argue that.
Doesn't attacking North Korea run the risk of pissing off China, though?
-
It runs the risk of NK pounding the **** out of Seoul with artillery.
EDIT: and then flooding the region with refugees if we actually topple the government. Which we totally could, except we don't want another war right now, and we don't want the above mentioned problems on our hands, and neither does SK or China or Japan or.....
-
Given that the resolution was created by both China and the US, it seems like NK has finally pushed China too far.
-
can haz nuclear war?
-
I get the feeling if NK did launch anything of any kind towards US Airspace, it would get intercepted and destroyed long before it was a threat, would it not?
-
I get the feeling if NK did launch anything of any kind towards US Airspace, it would get intercepted and destroyed long before it was a threat, would it not?
Intercepted by what? (Not that North Korea actually has any missiles that can reach the US)
-
If their last attempt at launching something is anything to go by, they'd probably nuke themselves.
-
I get the feeling if NK did launch anything of any kind towards US Airspace, it would get intercepted and destroyed long before it was a threat, would it not?
No one seriously thinks NK is any kind of threat the the US. The biggest concern is for South Korea's people, who would get hit with the brunt of NK's attack and likely suffer heavy losses.
While NK might not win the war, they could inflict a LOT of damage before they go down.
-
I have a feeling that someday, somebody will finally decide NK is too much trouble and South Korea will become Island of Korea.
-
Send in Bond
(http://www.dvdactive.com/images/reviews/screenshot/2008/11/dieanotherdaybdcap1.jpg)
-
Given that the resolution was created by both China and the US, it seems like NK has finally pushed China too far.
Oh, didn't see that. *facepalm*
-
While NK might not win the war, they could inflict a LOT of damage before they go down.
Pretty much. They will lose the war, but they have over a few thousand FROG/artillery tubes/rocket launchers pointed at Seoul, with chemical and possibly biological weapons in the mix, and another few thousand at Pusan, so South Korea's civilian population is going to be devastated.
-
and that means no more starcraft sequels!
-
Would you still like that nuclear war Nuke?, or should we just change the countries involved?. :)
I personally think that while NK does not pose a huge thread in regards to winning any sort of armed conflict. Their danger lies in what damage they can inflict before being defeated or collapsing. Which to at least SK, would be devestating. And who knows to the rest of the region.
China on the other hand, just scares me. But I do like the fact that they do play on the international stage though.
-
Given that the resolution was created by both China and the US, it seems like NK has finally pushed China too far.
China wants a few million starving refugees streaming over its borders about as much as anyone does, which is to say not at all.
-
I'm really torn on this subject. On one hand, the rulers of NK are out of control. On the other hand, that place is just one giant gulag, border to border, which means that "citizens" WILL do as they are told, which means massive death toll in case of invasion.
And that's bad, because people who just have been decimated by their "liberators" are bound to oppose them.
-
China aren't going to be happy one tiny bit with this latest threat, if anything will give the world the keys to regime change within a country, it's threatening Nuclear Armageddon. The idea of Western Troops wandering about in North Korea is the last thing China wants, and the more aggressive and psychopathic NK acts, the harder it is for China to justify non-military intervention in the face of the rest of the world.
Frankly, China would rather enforce regime change itself than have that kind of liability on its borders, it has its own National Security to think about and I wouldn't be surprised if extremely strong words are being had behind the scenes.
-
If there is ever a nuclear war in the world, it will come out of some damned silly thing in North Korea.
-
not really. i dont think they have any friends left. they will just get glassed and the world will have a very hard time caring. china and south korea might split it down the middle after that, if it wasnt all radioactive slag.
-
I'm really torn on this subject. On one hand, the rulers of NK are out of control. On the other hand, that place is just one giant gulag, border to border, which means that "citizens" WILL do as they are told, which means massive death toll in case of invasion.
Just because CNN ain't all over North Korea doesn't mean they ain't dying now.
And that's bad, because people who just have been decimated by their "liberators" are bound to oppose them.
Many Germans surrendered to the US willingly in WW II.
Same story with lots of Iraqis when Saddam was being kicked out.
I have a feeling that the NK are not dumb enough to blindly follow their leader once the dictatorship gets deleted.
When Kim died, the majority of people were not crying upon a closer look. They just looked sad because they had to.
Getting free from the terror will more likely cause millions of people not knowing what to do (Freedom, the f*** is that?), rather than millions of people who want to go to war with the US/UN/NATO/China/South Korea/whoever else gets involved.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9917155/North-Korea-says-prepare-for-war-following-fresh-UN-sanctions.html
Make of that what you will...
-
Hey I got a great new idea! Let's play chicken with NK! What can possibly go wrong?
-
To bad its probably not cost effective to cover South korea in Iron Dome launchers.
-
I get the feeling if NK did launch anything of any kind towards US Airspace, it would get intercepted and destroyed long before it was a threat, would it not?
Intercepted by what? (Not that North Korea actually has any missiles that can reach the US)
I'm not actually sure. I know US Warships can fire missles at incoming missles, but I'm not sure what would be required to intercept and destroy an ICBM. But if any country could, I'd assume the US would have a way?
-
To bad its probably not cost effective to cover South korea in Iron Dome launchers.
Trying to start building those could result in a preemptive rocket attack from NK. That's the problem with trying to do anything to them, they can and will bomb Seoul if anything happens to them. The best way of dealing with them might be to simply carpet the entire country with ICBMs timed to strike simultaneously, so they're flattened before they realize what's happening.
I'm not actually sure. I know US Warships can fire missles at incoming missles, but I'm not sure what would be required to intercept and destroy an ICBM. But if any country could, I'd assume the US would have a way?
Ship-based defenses, not to mention fighters can shot down ICBMs (or at least could, at some point in Cold War). Not that it matters much, NK doesn't have anything that could reach US, as mentioned.
-
Nuclear ICBMs, or conventional ones?
-
To be honest I really really hope hostilities with the DPRK do not erupt. Those folks got perhaps the ****tiest end of the stick in the world. A war would probably see North Koreans being killed in job lots for no other reason then being unfortunate enough to be born into some bat**** brainwashed crazy state.
Lets face it most of that population doesn't know jack **** about anything, they've been force fed lies since birth.
-
Part of me agrees with you, but another part of me wants NK's government to start something and subsequently be taken out, despite the immense difficulties in the short-term, because pretty much anything would be better than what the North Korean people are dealing with right now.
-
To bad its probably not cost effective to cover South korea in Iron Dome launchers.
Would that system even be able to track and hit artillery rounds? Cause I don't think anyone is all that worried about NK's arsenal of Soviet surplus Katyusha trucks when they've got thousands of artillery pieces to shoot VX at the south.
re; shooting missiles down. I forgot about the Aegis ABM thing. Suppose I could say I was being all specific-like with 'US Airspace' (the Aegis system has only been tested against short and intermediate range missiles with an 80% success rate, which would do for the missiles NK is known to have)
-
re; shooting missiles down. I forgot about the Aegis ABM thing. Suppose I could say I was being all specific-like with 'US Airspace' (the Aegis system has only been tested against short and intermediate range missiles with an 80% success rate, which would do for the missiles NK is known to have)
It's entirely possible to kill a real ballistic launch from Korea towards Japan/Guam/the US with existing technology. Has been for twenty years. Park a ship off the coast of Korea and shoot it down while the missile is still in the boost phase. It's only when it's tipped over and on its way back down that intercepting a ballistic missile grows hard.
-
Wouldn't those ships be a bit busy with the hundreds of anti-ship missiles being fired at them?
-
Wouldn't those ships be a bit busy with the hundreds of anti-ship missiles being fired at them?
Unlikely. They don't have to be in that close.
-
To be honest I really really hope hostilities with the DPRK do not erupt. Those folks got perhaps the ****tiest end of the stick in the world. A war would probably see North Koreans being killed in job lots for no other reason then being unfortunate enough to be born into some bat**** brainwashed crazy state.
Lets face it most of that population doesn't know jack **** about anything, they've been force fed lies since birth.
i figure if we nuke military targets and centers of production. the people on the receiving end of that will be those loyal to the government. being assigned to a city is usually a privilege reserved for the most patriotic of their ranks (also those who are the most brainwashed by the cult of personality on which their government is based), while anyone who could be a threat are mostly sent to the rural parts of the country (for mining and agricultural jobs), where they can cause the least damage. while i dont see nk as being beyond using its own people as a human shield i tend to think a series of low yeild nuclear strikes could easily cripple the government and their military while minimizing civilian casualties (at least the ones that can be saved).
you wont do much damage to infrastructure because there is practically none used for the public benefit anyway. also while prolonged exposure to radiation may increase cancer rates, the fact that they will be allowed basic medical care will probibly lead to a lengthening of north korean lifespans. the country can then be turned over to south korea, because both sides want a unified korea anyway.
-
To bad its probably not cost effective to cover South korea in Iron Dome launchers.
Would that system even be able to track and hit artillery rounds? Cause I don't think anyone is all that worried about NK's arsenal of Soviet surplus Katyusha trucks when they've got thousands of artillery pieces to shoot VX at the south.
The wikipedia write up indicates it can intercept tube artillery, however, since the Palestinians aren't exactly shelling Israel with Type 59s there isn't a lot of evidence to prove its effectiveness in that regard.
-
Nuclear ICBMs, or conventional ones?
Nuclear. The idea is to take out the entire country before it knows what hit it (and has a chance to retaliate). As Nuke mentioned, such strike would take out the military and industry. It shouldn't do that much harm to civilians, because most of them live in the rural areas. And civilian infrastructure simply doesn't exist in NK. People in cities are probably the most brainwashed, and I would consider them acceptable loses at this point. They'd be very unlikely to recover from this. Rural population might be possible to save though, and I think it should be done.
-
Nuclear ICBMs, or conventional ones?
Nuclear. The idea is to take out the entire country before it knows what hit it (and has a chance to retaliate). As Nuke mentioned, such strike would take out the military and industry. It shouldn't do that much harm to civilians, because most of them live in the rural areas. And civilian infrastructure simply doesn't exist in NK. People in cities are probably the most brainwashed, and I would consider them acceptable loses at this point. They'd be very unlikely to recover from this. Rural population might be possible to save though, and I think it should be done.
I really, really don't like that idea. Using a nuke would terrify the rest of the world's nuclear powers and in the worst-case-scenario it may lead to nuclear war. That might not be the only possibility, but it's a real concern and so potentially horrifying that we should do everything we can to avoid it. Let's not forget that China has nukes, and despite their present irritation with North Korea I doubt they'd be thrilled at the idea of us nuking them.
Nuclear weaponry should never be used until every possible alternative has been exhausted. Why would conventional weaponry be unsuitable for this task?
EDIT: One of my other concerns is that breaking the nuclear weapons taboo will lead to it being a somewhat accepted method of warfare.
-
We don't use nukes ever again. Period. This should be non-negotiable.
-
is it really not possible to launch a massive non-nuclear "first strike" attack that would wipe out nearly all of NK's artillery targeted on civilian population centers? we can worry about their actual war-fighting assets later, they really aren't a credible threat. it's my understanding that south koreans, those living in seoul in particular, are well practiced at evacuating/taking cover in case of attack. some documentary type thing said they run drills at regular intervals, and the entire city goes ghost town in like 3 minutes.
-
I'm sure China'd be fine with letting NK get nuked. It's not like they'd possibly receive a significant amount of fallout because they're so close, right?
-
I'm sure China'd be fine with letting NK get nuked. It's not like they'd possibly receive a significant amount of fallout because they're so close, right?
Actually, the most significant fallout would be carried by the jet stream over Japan and eventually North America, if a large enough cumulative payload is used. A nuclear first-strike by the United States would be a somewhat more direct shooting of themselves (and their allies) in the foot.
Why are we talking about nuclear first-strikes anyway? Kim Jong-Un is stirring up nationalist and pro-military sentiment to secure his political position at home. He's still a new dictator, and the most likely time for a coup to occur is when there is or has recently been a major change in the political system, such as when leadership changes hands. Kim Jong-Un doesn't want to be forced out of leadership, barely two years in. That statement cleaves both ways, though: He doesn't want his own military leaders forcing him from office, but he doesn't want to be curb-stomped by the United States, so he'll use the North Korean state media to talk a big storm and be provocative with satelite launches and nuclear tests, but ultimately it just makes for a slightly noisier status-quo. We're not talking about Kim Jong-Il thinking about ways to secure his historical legacy; we're talking about a new dictator, who is more concerned with political self-preservation.
The prospect of reigniting the Korean War is an interesting foreign policy thought experiment, given how complicated the United States' relationship with China has become since the 1950's, but even a conventional war scenario isn't terribly realistic, and a nuclear war scenario is laughably absurd.
-
We don't use nukes ever again. Period. This should be non-negotiable.
I'm not in favour of the pre-emptive or general use of nuclear weapons either (specifically in this conflict), but I can't agree with your statement in broad terms and timeframes.
-
The best way of dealing with them might be to simply carpet the entire country with ICBMs timed to strike simultaneously, so they're flattened before they realize what's happening.
I really hope the voices inside the military of those involved (US, Korea, Japan) don't even consider the madness you are advocating.
-
How about we park a few carriers in the sea of Japan and strike as many of their howitzers as we can at once, if and only if it comes to that, instead. Nuking the country would have repercussions far beyond simply killing millions of people.
-
Unfortunately there's so many howitzers aimed at Seoul we can't take all of them out before Seoul gets pounded into dust and possibly nerve gassed.
-
I'm sure China'd be fine with letting NK get nuked. It's not like they'd possibly receive a significant amount of fallout because they're so close, right?
You're forgetting that China are the ones who are basically the cause of there being a North/South divide today by getting into the fight on the side of the DPRK. Whether this has changed I don't know, but I doubt it.
On an adjacent note - After pounding Seoul to hell, any North Korean offensive would stall the second their forces come across a super market.
-
Does anyone still make earthquake bombs?
-
We don't use nukes ever again. Period. This should be non-negotiable.
I'm not in favour of the pre-emptive or general use of nuclear weapons either (specifically in this conflict), but I can't agree with your statement in broad terms and timeframes.
Well, let me clarify it a bit: we don't use any nuclear device that generates any appreciable level of fallout within our own atmosphere. That one I definitely consider non-negotiable.
-
I'm sure China'd be fine with letting NK get nuked. It's not like they'd possibly receive a significant amount of fallout because they're so close, right?
You're forgetting that China are the ones who are basically the cause of there being a North/South divide today by getting into the fight on the side of the DPRK. Whether this has changed I don't know, but I doubt it.
That was a long time ago, in a very different world, and very different China.
-
Not to mention you could just as easily blame America for it too.
-
Does anyone still make earthquake bombs?
Bombs that operate under the same principle are still produced and used to great effect, yes.
-
This is nothing more than political saber rattling on the north's side, they can't be stupid enough to launch a preemptive nuclear strike no matter how crazy their dictator is. It's common knowledge that the US has enough conventional weapons to wipe out the north with out even the need for tapping into it's nuclear supply. Now granted a conventional war would be expensive and unwanted right now but the North must realize that unless they have full Chinese support any resumption of hostilities will sign their government's death warrant. This whole thing will blow over in a couple of weeks. Hell we could throw a few more of our worthless celebrities at them to play with for a little while that ought to appease them for a bit.
-
Not to mention you could just as easily blame America for it too.
Ummm.... No?
North Korea invaded South Korea. The United Nations Security Council voted seven to zero (with three abstentions) to support South Korea in driving out the invaders. The United States acting in compliance with U.N. Resolution led a multinational force, which proceeded to ROFLstomp North Korea's military, driving them back to within a few miles of the Chinese border. When Chinese diplomats warned Truman not to advance further, he heeded the warning, ordering a halt to further advances. General MacArthur exceeded his authority, in driving the North Korean forces back to the Chinese border.
Rather than seek to have MacArthur dismissed, have the United States removed from command of the U.N. force, or restore the war's immediately previous status quo or even the pre-war status quo, China entered the war as a full ally of North Korea, going so far as to push south of the 38th Parallel. China wanted South Korea wiped from the map just as much as North Korea did and merely waited for a politically expedient moment to enter the war. While the United States was developing an animosity toward Communist states, they entered the Korean war at the behest of the international community on the side of a nation defending against military aggression. China entered on the side of the aggressor, citing grievances that could have been addressed through diplomatic channels or much more limited military means than what they ultimately brought to bear.
Yeah, I think it's fair to say that China bears the lion's share of the responsibility for the Korean War ending in a stalemate. Had China not entered the war, North Korea would be a footnote in history. Had China entered the war to enforce the boundaries of North Korea, as they were in October of 1950, then North Korea would be a buffer, little more than an impotent border region, between China and South Korea. Instead, they tried to drive South Korea into the sea, but couldn't, since they were fighting against a force that was their military equal.
This is nothing more than political saber rattling on the north's side.
Thank you. I was worried that I was the only one who thought all this nuclear navel-gazing was inane.
-
I find it interesting that you picked the start of the war and not the events leading up to it at all.
You do realise that the US was heavily responsible for the mess that led up to it, right? Not to mention being responsible (together with the Russians) for partitioning Korea in the first place (funnily enough, the Koreans weren't even asked if this was something they'd consider desirable).
Step back a bit and you'll see that the US and USSR pretty much caused the problem. China just made it worse.
Oh and talking about UN resolutions at that point is kinda laughable considering neither USSR nor mainland China were involved in that vote. Not to mention the way you consider MacArthur's actions to be a fairly minor contributor to the eventual outcome.
-
I find it interesting that you picked the start of the war and not the events leading up to it at all.
You do realise that the US was heavily responsible for the mess that led up to it, right? Not to mention being responsible (together with the Russians) for partitioning Korea in the first place (funnily enough, the Koreans weren't even asked if this was something they'd consider desirable).
Step back a bit and you'll see that the US and USSR pretty much caused the problem. China just made it worse.
...and when you pull back further, you see nearly a half-century of foreign rule over the Korean peninsula, which ultimately led to the problem of how to reconstitute the nation, post-World War II. Shall we blame the stalemate of the Korean War on Imperial Japan - an entity that ceased to exist, five years before the war began?
Yes, reconstituting a state that ceased to exist fourty years prior is a messy business, particularly when rival parties have a vested interest in the type of state that emerges from the process. That process (which I am not defending, by the way) may have led to the war, but the outcome of the war must be attributed to the participants and how they conducted themselves, which leads me to....
Not to mention the way you consider MacArthur's actions to be a fairly minor contributor to the eventual outcome.
Not at all. MacArthur's actions were the catalyst/excuse for China's entry into the war. That makes him a pretty significant player, but China had many different ways to respond to his overstepping his authority, and they chose to enter the Korean War as a full ally of North Korea. China did not seek retribution against MacArthur; China did not seek to secure their border against his activities; China sought to join the North in wiping out South Korea. That is the decision that ultimately led to the stalemate at the Thirty-Eighth Parallel, and that's why I assign China the lion's share of the blame for that stalemate. Does MacArthur deserve a share of the blame as well, for attacking North Korean depots, within Chinese territory? Certainly. Trying to pin that part of the blame on the United States as a whole is somewhat absurd, though, since that action was taken in direct contradiction to the orders MacArthur had received from President Truman.
Oh and talking about UN resolutions at that point is kinda laughable considering neither USSR nor mainland China were involved in that vote.
1) The Soviet Union was a permenant member of the Security Council. They were not uninvolved in the vote; they gave up their vote and veto as part of a protest, regarding the representation of Communist China in the United Nations. Had the Soviet Union been so empassioned to stop United Nations' involvement in the Korean War, they could have terminated their boycott and vetoed the resolution that brought the U.N. into the conflict. Pointing out that the USSR voluntarily omitted themselves from this decision shows that they were either grossly short-sighted or placed a comparatively low priority on the outcome of the Korean War.
2) The legitimacy of The People's Republic of China was still in question, at the time the U.N. was passing resolutions relating to the Korean War. They had only managed to drive the Nationalists from mainland China months prior to the passage of UNSCR's 82 and 83, and so it was an open question of whether or not the PRC would last, as a government, long enough to warrant recognition (nevermind the Republic of China's permenant seat on the Security Council), or whether they would be toppled by a subsequent revolution or foreign invasion. (I will grant that the question should not have remained open for the two decades that it did, but with the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to see where the Chinese Civil War could have become, in the early 1950's, a proxy war on the scale of Vietnam.)
3) The point of bringing up the U.N. resolutions was to show that the United States did not go barging into the Korean peninsula unilaterally, but at the behest of the global community, and so whatever blame you would assign to the United States for the outcome of the Korean War deserves to be shared by the six other nations that voted with the United States to put U.N. support behind South Korea and the three that complacently let the resolution pass (including and especially the USSR, given their veto authority).
To find some common ground, though, I think we can both agree that Yugoslavia was blameless in this affair. ;)
-
Seems like a stretch to me. Zhou Enlai sent a quite clear message to the US that they would only intervene if the Americans crossed the 38th Parallel. When MacArthur did exactly that, a day later, what did you seriously expect them to do? I do have to question what options you feel China had given that they weren't members of the UN. It's not like they could have gotten a UN resolution in their favour. And MacArthur's actions are basically little different to the invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans i.e. the illegal invasion of a country. I somehow doubt America would have sat still and done nothing had Soviet forces been on a illegal mission in North Mexico.
Basically I think the claim that you can blame the Chinese for the mess is petty short-sighted and I think the claim that they entered the war to destroy South Korea is flat out wrong. I find the claim that the North Koreans were despots laughably biased too given the number of massacres perpetrated by the South Korean government both before and during the war. There were a whole bunch of factors that led up to that mess and America are responsible for a lot of them.
Finally when it comes to MacArthur, there is a certain amount of responsibility the US has to face for not relieving him for disobeying orders. They could have done it much earlier.
-
At least this thread is becoming quite a lot informative to me!
-
Finally when it comes to MacArthur, there is a certain amount of responsibility the US has to face for not relieving him for disobeying orders. They could have done it much earlier.
Stalin could have relieved Zhukov of command any time he wished whether it was necessary or even wise.
Nobody could relieve Halsey of command when he deserved it after Leyte or the typhoons.
The military was not apolitical at the time, nor were its officers apolitical figures. It is in a large part MacArthur's lasting contribution to the US military that they cultivate that completely apolitical air they do now. MacArthur was a viable candidate to depose FDR in the '44 elections and some people argue the US liberated the Philippines to keep him from running. Similarly he was still a viable Presidential candidate during the Korea years, wielding considerable political clout and being possessed of allies in Congress and the press that would have made any attempt to remove him politically impossible. They couldn't relieve MacArthur earlier than that. His war record was superb, his management of the occupation of Japan had been all but divinely inspired in how well it had gone, and his political clout was immense.
MacArthur had to go above and beyond, into the realm of flagrantly and utterly impermissible behavior, to get relieved. Everyone knew it, including him, which is why he did the things he did. He thought he could get away with it.
The alternative is basically President MacArthur and we get him provoking nuclear war with China, so I'm going to have to strongly disagree with your analysis, because that was a very realistic possibility.
-
I think you miss the point. I didn't say there wouldn't be consequences if they had done it. I said that the possibility was there. If for whatever reason the US were unable to remove MacArthur from power, they must bear responsibility for his actions.
Remember we're talking about a thread where we're blaming China for current day North Korea. If you're claiming that America couldn't remove MacArthur and therefore is absolved of their blame then China couldn't depose Mao either and therefore is also not guilty.
-
I think you miss the point.
No, I completely get the point. You don't get the point that relieving MacArthur before then could very easily hand him the Presidency of the United States and giving him absolute free reign.
You want him stopped but you haven't considered that doing so in the method and timing you want may not only be ineffective, but actually make the situation worse.
-
didnt macarthur want to nuke the living **** out of anyone who got in his way?
-
ya
-
we need more people like that.
-
No, I completely get the point. You don't get the point that relieving MacArthur before then could very easily hand him the Presidency of the United States and giving him absolute free reign.
You want him stopped but you haven't considered that doing so in the method and timing you want may not only be ineffective, but actually make the situation worse.
Again you miss the point. The point under discussion is who is to blame for the state of Korea. If America got itself into such a position that their choices are MacArthur as president or MacArthur as crazy warmonger in Korea, how is that remotely China's fault?
-
Well, something is happening over there. Apparently there has been a sudden massive increase in NK deserters (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/03/12/38/0301000000AEN20130312002600315F.HTML).
-
Again you miss the point.
Considering it's your point, as you're the one who chose to argue not relieving MacArthur of duty earlier as a contributory cause across several posts until it was clear that was an untenable argument, it's not even my point to miss, merely to illustrate it was handled as well as it could feasibly be handled at the time.
-
Well, something is happening over there. Apparently there has been a sudden massive increase in NK deserters (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/03/12/38/0301000000AEN20130312002600315F.HTML).
what they should do is build a burger king right in full view of the nk side of the border. lets see what that does to the nk desertion rates.
-
Considering it's your point, as you're the one who chose to argue not relieving MacArthur of duty earlier as a contributory cause across several posts until it was clear that was an untenable argument, it's not even my point to miss, merely to illustrate it was handled as well as it could feasibly be handled at the time.
I have literally no idea what you are trying to say here. And if you're claiming that I argued that MacArthur could have been relieved without consequences over several posts (which is what it appears you're saying), you're having a severe reading comprehension failure.
MacArthur was not Bosch. He did not seize control of the forces in Korea and use them to his own end. He used those forces with the permission of his own country. MacArthur did not spend the entire Korean War out of contact with his superiors. The opportunity to relieve him was there even if it couldn't be taken. So his country must bear at least some of the blame for his actions.
BlueFlames was attempting to shift all the blame to MacArthur. If however MacArthur was a rogue general acting without the approval of his country, he could have been relieved. Your arguments as to why he couldn't be relieved do nothing but strengthen my point that other Americans approved of his actions.
-
Well, something is happening over there. Apparently there has been a sudden massive increase in NK deserters (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/03/12/38/0301000000AEN20130312002600315F.HTML).
what they should do is build a burger king right in full view of the nk side of the border. lets see what that does to the nk desertion rates.
Ahh yes, hamburguers, the pinnacle of human cooking. :wtf:
-
Well, something is happening over there. Apparently there has been a sudden massive increase in NK deserters (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/03/12/38/0301000000AEN20130312002600315F.HTML).
what they should do is build a burger king right in full view of the nk side of the border. lets see what that does to the nk desertion rates.
Ahh yes, hamburguers, the pinnacle of human cooking. :wtf:
considering how plentiful and cheap they are, they might as well be.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nbetNNW_2Dw
How North Korea views the United States, and probably most of the world.
I'm really enjoying my hot snow in my tent.
-
I call Poe's Law on that one. The translation is somewhat suspicious :lol:, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.
-
You know, even with all those problems it still sounds better than North Korea.
-
for some reason i very much doubt north koreans are allowed to have tvs on which to watch propaganda.
-
for some reason i very much doubt north koreans are allowed to have tvs on which to watch propaganda.
They've got TVs, but they can only watch state broadcasts on them. The TVs won't pick up anything else. I saw it on a documentary. There was something on the TV that had just been put on a continuous loop for ages, perhaps weeks.
-
now the kicker. are they allowed to turn it off, ever?
-
(http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/womaninblack1989/malcolm_mcdowell_being_made_to_look_in_Clockwork_Orange.jpg)
They are not allowed to ever close their eyes....
-
now the kicker. are they allowed to turn it off, ever?
Funny enough the Peabody Essex Museum actually had a 200 year old Chinese house taken apart and shipped over to Mass for a big exhibition. (http://www.pem.org/sites/yinyutang/) Its very cool and interesting building but it still has the government squawk boxes installed and the outside frescos where defaced so as not to offend the State.
It was rather disturbing the prospect of gov't propaganda being piped into your abode, especially in such a quaint old house.
-
now the kicker. are they allowed to turn it off, ever?
I don't think it had to be running, but that's all that it would pick up.