North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Maduyn
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:37 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Maduyn » Fri May 21, 2010 3:41 am UTC

frezik wrote:
PCal wrote:Is NK so brainwashed or cut off that there is no one we can pay to remove Kim Jong il for us? Also on the artillery thing is there really no way at all from stopping Seoul from getting leveled short of total nukage. Hell if it has to be moved in to place before firing it seems like it could be stopped.


It's against international law to target leaders of countries for assassination.



for god sakes WHY?

killing the few is better than killing the many.

I think that any law was drafted BY LEADERS to protect LEADERS.
It doesn't protect PEOPLE
But that said we don't know what would happen after the Assasination.
I was once asked why i am a pacifist.
I simply said "Because I have finally understood what it is to die"

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Marquee Moon » Fri May 21, 2010 3:48 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:Same reason that China does: they were major powers on the winning side in WWII.


TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:They won World War II and helped found the damn thing. They also between the two of them held quite a fair chunk of the world's land and population through their various empires at the time.

Ninja'd.

I meant "why" in a normative sense; I didn't mean what were the historical events that lead France and the UK to being given veto powers. If we're going to have a room where important world decisions are going to be made, we should have the most powerful, most important nations of the day in that room. China is clearly on that list. France and the UK are slipping down it and you could argue India or Brazil could take their places. In other words, if holding a fair chink of the world's land and population is a good reason to be in "the room", then shouldn't losing control of that land and people be a good reason for being kicked out of the room? Anyway, I didn't want to go this far off topic. All I really wanted to say was that China is a really important country.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sharlos » Fri May 21, 2010 3:54 am UTC

Even if assasinating leaders is illegal, why would that stop any country that has the means to assasinate foriegn political leaders? It hasn't stopped them from trying in the past.

User avatar
Gears
Bulletproof
Posts: 1593
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:31 am UTC
Location: Japan

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Gears » Fri May 21, 2010 3:57 am UTC

Bring it on, motherfuckers! You got my grandpa but you won't get me.
General_Norris wrote:I notice a lack of counter-arguments and a lot of fisting.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri May 21, 2010 5:22 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:How does China wield so much power in the U.N. that by abstaining it can completely block sanctions or other punishments on NK?

What? China is the most populous nation on earth. Second largest economy in the world. Fastest growing economy in the world. Why do tiny little France and UK get veto powers?

Same reason that China does: they were major powers on the winning side in WWII.


Not disputing that they're important. It may be my ignorance on the whole political structure of the UN, but the fact that a single country can veto sanctions on such a dangerous nation is a little unsettling, to me. Let alone that single country being one of the worst Human Rights violators in the world.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sharlos » Fri May 21, 2010 5:33 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:How does China wield so much power in the U.N. that by abstaining it can completely block sanctions or other punishments on NK?

What? China is the most populous nation on earth. Second largest economy in the world. Fastest growing economy in the world. Why do tiny little France and UK get veto powers?

Same reason that China does: they were major powers on the winning side in WWII.


Not disputing that they're important. It may be my ignorance on the whole political structure of the UN, but the fact that a single country can veto sanctions on such a dangerous nation is a little unsettling, to me. Let alone that single country being one of the worst Human Rights violators in the world.


Every permanent member on the UN security council can veto any motion they want as many times as they want (I'm not too clear on temporary members).

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Cynical Idealist » Fri May 21, 2010 5:41 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:Every permanent member on the UN security council can veto any motion they want as many times as they want (I'm not too clear on temporary members).

Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.


If any permanent member doesn't vote yes, it vetoes the resolution (only applies to resolutions made by the Security Council, but as that is the only body that can make binding resolutions...). Temporary members have no veto.
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby SummerGlauFan » Fri May 21, 2010 5:48 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:
Sharlos wrote:Every permanent member on the UN security council can veto any motion they want as many times as they want (I'm not too clear on temporary members).

Article 27
1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.


If any permanent member doesn't vote yes, it vetoes the resolution (only applies to resolutions made by the Security Council, but as that is the only body that can make binding resolutions...). Temporary members have no veto.


Ok, fair enough. Like I said, I'm not an expert on the UN. Besides, it's not like the UN could do much to NK anyway...
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Fri May 21, 2010 6:01 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Marquee Moon wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:How does China wield so much power in the U.N. that by abstaining it can completely block sanctions or other punishments on NK?

What? China is the most populous nation on earth. Second largest economy in the world. Fastest growing economy in the world. Why do tiny little France and UK get veto powers?

Same reason that China does: they were major powers on the winning side in WWII.


Not disputing that they're important. It may be my ignorance on the whole political structure of the UN, but the fact that a single country can veto sanctions on such a dangerous nation is a little unsettling, to me. Let alone that single country being one of the worst Human Rights violators in the world.


You're better off to see the UN (and the security council in particular) as a forum of countries to discuss affairs, instead of a politically powerful institute in itself. Decisions of the SC have value because it means that most political power in the world stands behind it. Their symbols of an agreement, but it's the agreement that matters more than the UN stamp on it.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Diadem » Fri May 21, 2010 9:59 am UTC

Indeed. The purpose of the UN is to avoid international conflict on the scale of WOII, in particular nuclear war, by making sure that all major powers agree with any major action. So far it's worked, I suppose.

And regarding England and France: They are still both major players in the world, with bigger economies than India or Brazil. Plus they have large militaries and nuclear weapons. And while they lost their former empires, that doesn't mean they lost all their influence in those areas. They still deserve their spot.

Only Japan and Germany are bigger. But since those two lost WOII they didn't get a spot. Perhaps they should get one now, but both countries are still acting very delicately on the international stage, both still have a very pacifist mindset and a small military. I doubt they would even accept a seat if it was offered.

Anyway, these days England and France pretty much represent Europe's interest.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Marquee Moon » Fri May 21, 2010 10:42 am UTC

Diadem wrote:And regarding England and France: They are still both major players in the world, with bigger economies than India or Brazil.

Wikipedia's GDP rankings (nominal, PPP) disagree on India's ranking; the nominal list showing India 11th (below France and UK), and the PPP list showing it third (above). I believe the PPP list is more accurate, since nominal exchange rates distort the real values of GDP. In other words, India's Rupee is undervalued, which makes the Indian economy look smaller than it actually is. (theoretically, the Rupee should appreciate soon, but exchange rates are crazy) Brazil is just behind France on the PPP list, so I guess I jumped the gun on that one.

Plus they have large militaries and nuclear weapons. And while they lost their former empires, that doesn't mean they lost all their influence in those areas. They still deserve their spot.

You're right. I forgot about the military side of the equation.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Fri May 21, 2010 11:30 am UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:
Plus they have large militaries and nuclear weapons. And while they lost their former empires, that doesn't mean they lost all their influence in those areas. They still deserve their spot.

You're right. I forgot about the military side of the equation.


Crucially in this england and (to a smaller extent france) both maintain blue water navies; with Britain's being second largest behind the US; Russia has mothballed a lot of its blue water capacity (it only has SSN's, SSBN's, a single Kirov class ship and one Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier) and China (which is currently refitting the other Kuznetsov class hull Varyag currently) is only just beginning to develop one.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Glmclain » Fri May 21, 2010 11:40 am UTC

Ok, fair enough. Like I said, I'm not an expert on the UN. Besides, it's not like the UN could do much to NK anyway...


"Mr. Kim Jong I'm afraid we (the UN) have to see your weapons plant"
"Or what?"
"We'll be very angry"
"And then what?"
"We'll send you a letter, telling you we're very angry."
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby frezik » Fri May 21, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Maduyn wrote:I think that any law was drafted BY LEADERS to protect LEADERS.


Pretty much, yes. It was originally drafted in times of kings to protect themselves. Now it mostly protects dictators.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Glmclain » Fri May 21, 2010 12:53 pm UTC

"What kinder pussies folla' that Geneva Convention anyway!? What are we, Canada?"
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri May 21, 2010 3:28 pm UTC

Hmm, good point. What's the phone number of that sniper who tagged those pirates that were holding that captain hostage.
I have a job offer.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Fri May 21, 2010 6:51 pm UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:I believe the PPP list is more accurate, since nominal exchange rates distort the real values of GDP. In other words, India's Rupee is undervalued, which makes the Indian economy look smaller than it actually is.


No, it doesn't work that way. Long-term, structural differences between nominal and PPP-adjusted GDP are not caused by 'mistakes' in the exchange rates. They are mostly caused by factor productivity differences between sectors of the economy. Exchange rates are mostly influenced by tradable (exportable) parts of the economy, (and by parts with heavy foreign investments, but those are mostly the same sectors). They move (roughly) to make pricess of tradable products equal around the world. If a country's tradables are nominally cheap, their exports rise, causing their currency to appreciate.

But GDP also includes non-tradable productions, and there is no such mechanism to equalize prices there. In rich, modernized countries non-tradables are relatively expensive, and nominal GDP counts production by its price.That's the main reason behind those PPP-adjustments: an identically productive cook in a rich and a poor country gets counted as far more productive in the rich country.*

So PPP-adjusted GDP is useful to determine the lifestyle of the people in the country because they consume both tradables and non-tradables, roughly in the same ratio as the country produces them.

Now here's the problem: the power and influence of a country abroad is much stronger determined by tradables than lifestyle. On the carrot side, it's what you use for bribes. Simply by paying money and goods, but also by offering access to markets etc. And on the stick side, weapon systems are very much tradables. Without much exception, efficient producers of weapons are also efficient producers of other tradable goods and services.

So nominal GDP is a better determinant of potential power in the international world than PPP-adjusted GDP. The best number will be somwehre in between

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 6:24 pm UTC

JayAr wrote:^ his location constantly changes due to paranoia over such a thing happening

EDIT: If you want to *normally* contact N.Korea I found the email address
KOREA@KOREA-DPR.COM
If you want to ask questions or something. Show them the numbers of why not to do whatever they are doing. Stuff like that.

They listen to lolcats?

Kugala wrote:Aegis is primarily a missile defense system, not artillery.

CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) has had some success against artillery, but even at that NK would simply oversaturate them.

There's no real defense against a few thousand shells inbound currently; you either get out of the way (Impractical with large cities) or destroy them before they fire (impractical with large quantities of dug in systems).


And as much as we'd like, I don't think we really have enough energy sources to be powering the number of lasers we'd need to take down that much artillery fire.

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Arancaytar » Sat May 22, 2010 7:05 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:the PRC is considerably less crazy and dangerous.


And that's a statement you don't see very often. :P

Glmclain wrote:
Ok, fair enough. Like I said, I'm not an expert on the UN. Besides, it's not like the UN could do much to NK anyway...


"Mr. Kim Jong I'm afraid we (the UN) have to see your weapons plant"
"Or what?"
"We'll be very angry"
"And then what?"
"We'll send you a letter, telling you we're very angry."


The UN charter doesn't give them legal authority to engage in armed conflicts. It'd be a bit like expecting the International Red Cross or Amnesty International to drop bombs.

If a case can be made that North Korea presents a danger to the US and Europe, NATO could do something.

(However, finding a "Coalition of the Willing" to engage in a preemptive war on North Korea might be a bit difficult, given the events of the past ten years. See also, "The boy who cried WMD".)
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Shivahn » Sat May 22, 2010 7:32 pm UTC

Arancaytar wrote:(However, finding a "Coalition of the Willing" to engage in a preemptive war on North Korea might be a bit difficult, given the events of the past ten years. See also, "The boy who cried WMD".)


Yeah, but in this case everyone knows about the WMDs. It's not the US saying "Hey guys, he totally could have some WMDs, let's kill him."

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat May 22, 2010 8:01 pm UTC

Whilst its true that they certainly have WMDs, the threat that North Korea poses to South Korea isn't dependent on their use, and there's no defense that could be mounted against it by any coalition, no matter how large (excluding bribery, which was effective during the 2003 invasion of Iraq in protecting crude production infrastructure, but it would likely be less effective in a state that has been as insular as long as North Korea).

Ultimately, it comes down to what material support the Chinese and others give to North Korea. The less they give, the more pressure there is on the regime and the greater the suffering of the (largely blameless) populace, the more they give, the less pressure and suffering.

With the increased instability due to Kim Jong Il's ill health and no apparent successor, its possible that more incidents of this kind, and even some coup attempts, could eventuate. Its a bad scene that's only getting worse atm.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby BlackSails » Sat May 22, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

frezik wrote:North Korea threatens a lot of things. They're like a misbehaving 4-year-old at a grocery store who wants one of those knock-off Super Soakers they sell in the toy isle.

US Military sims show that N. Korea has enough artillery to craterize Seoul within the first 24 hours, and no amount of quick response from the US or allies would be able to stop it in time. N. Korea would, of course, would have all Anti Aircraft defenses leveled within a week, but that's not enough to stop the massive humanitarian disaster.


More than enough to craterize it, and it would take far less than 24 hours. I worked out the yield once (somewhere on this forum I think). It turns out that the first few hours of shelling would have a greater total yield than the NK nuclear arsenal, and since the North Korean artillery is camouflaged, well protected and distributed over a wide area the only way to get rid of it quickly would be nuclear weapons.

Also, all their weapons are certainly pre-ranged and targeted, so there would be no delay at all from the order to fire to the first salvo. And since they are a known position firing at a known target, they probably have everything pre-timed for time-on-target barrages, so everything hits at once and there isnt even any time to sound air-raid sirens and have people get to shelter.

If you want to fight North Korea, the entire northern part of south korea has to be evacuated while we scour the entire southern part of north korea with carpet bombing.

North Korea doesnt have the army to fight any major world power. What they have is 11 million people basically held hostage. (And a tiny nuke or two)

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Deep_Thought » Mon May 24, 2010 9:05 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:North Korea doesnt have the army to fight any major world power. What they have is 11 million people basically held hostage. (And a tiny nuke or two)


This is unfortunately the case. Does anyone know precisely when NK started to build up artillery pointed at Seoul? And perhaps more pertinently when SK and the US became aware of that fact? My history once active fighting in the Korean war ended is poor. The follow-up question, which I admit is crazy hypothesising, is how long would it take to rebuild Seoul out of range of NK's artillery? How much would such a project cost? And why was it not done 50-odd years ago when I assume the population was much smaller and the associated infrastructure costs were much smaller?

I'm aware that moving Seoul is close to impossible for a whole bunch of economic, political and strategic reasons. But I'm interested in precisely what those reasons are, and whether any of them are truly insurmountable. Holding Seoul hostage seems to be the only real bargaining chip NK has held for the last half century, at least until it went nuclear.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 24, 2010 12:22 pm UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:
BlackSails wrote:North Korea doesnt have the army to fight any major world power. What they have is 11 million people basically held hostage. (And a tiny nuke or two)


This is unfortunately the case. Does anyone know precisely when NK started to build up artillery pointed at Seoul? And perhaps more pertinently when SK and the US became aware of that fact? My history once active fighting in the Korean war ended is poor. The follow-up question, which I admit is crazy hypothesising, is how long would it take to rebuild Seoul out of range of NK's artillery? How much would such a project cost? And why was it not done 50-odd years ago when I assume the population was much smaller and the associated infrastructure costs were much smaller?

I'm aware that moving Seoul is close to impossible for a whole bunch of economic, political and strategic reasons. But I'm interested in precisely what those reasons are, and whether any of them are truly insurmountable. Holding Seoul hostage seems to be the only real bargaining chip NK has held for the last half century, at least until it went nuclear.


The "11 million people" is somewhat misleading. The surroundings of Seoul have about half the population of South Korea, and a far larger share than that of its infrastructure and industries. It's like the combined east and west coast of the US.

Also, keep in mind that in the first decades after the Korean War, North Korea was a reasonably powerful country (it used to be the rich, indutrialized half of Korea), with the possibility to play China and the Soviet Union against each other for support and goodies. In those days, the worst case wasn't that they would kill hundreds of thousands in a shelling campaign, the fear was that they would wage war and win. Bombing cities would just be a minor part of a second Korean war, not the single bargaining chip left like today.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Deep_Thought » Mon May 24, 2010 2:22 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:The "11 million people" is somewhat misleading. The surroundings of Seoul have about half the population of South Korea, and a far larger share than that of its infrastructure and industries. It's like the combined east and west coast of the US.


Ho hum. That would indeed sound like truly insurmountable. Well I'm fresh out of ideas.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 24, 2010 2:35 pm UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:
Zamfir wrote:The "11 million people" is somewhat misleading. The surroundings of Seoul have about half the population of South Korea, and a far larger share than that of its infrastructure and industries. It's like the combined east and west coast of the US.


Ho hum. That would indeed sound like truly insurmountable. Well I'm fresh out of ideas.

That shouldn't really come as a surprise. If there was some easy solution, people would presumably have found it by now.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Deep_Thought » Mon May 24, 2010 4:13 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Deep_Thought wrote:
Zamfir wrote:The "11 million people" is somewhat misleading. The surroundings of Seoul have about half the population of South Korea, and a far larger share than that of its infrastructure and industries. It's like the combined east and west coast of the US.


Ho hum. That would indeed sound like truly insurmountable. Well I'm fresh out of ideas.

That shouldn't really come as a surprise. If there was some easy solution, people would presumably have found it by now.


What, you mean I'm not far more intelligent and insightful than the entire Pentagon, Department of State and the UN put together? Well, damn :(

Yeah, the logical part of my brain knew it wasn't feasible. But the crazy dreamer part of my brain was wondering just how hard it would actually be! This was reported on the BBC today but isn't getting much coverage compared to domestic issues http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10147297.stm. It doesn't look like things will calm down any time soon.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 24, 2010 4:55 pm UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Deep_Thought wrote:
Zamfir wrote:The "11 million people" is somewhat misleading. The surroundings of Seoul have about half the population of South Korea, and a far larger share than that of its infrastructure and industries. It's like the combined east and west coast of the US.


Ho hum. That would indeed sound like truly insurmountable. Well I'm fresh out of ideas.

That shouldn't really come as a surprise. If there was some easy solution, people would presumably have found it by now.


What, you mean I'm not far more intelligent and insightful than the entire Pentagon, Department of State and the UN put together?

Not to mention people in Korea, who have been known to think about the issue.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Deep_Thought » Mon May 24, 2010 5:28 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Not to mention people in Korea, who have been known to think about the issue.


Good point, apologies if I seemed to be side-lining them. Was just poking fun at myself.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 24, 2010 6:57 pm UTC

Deep_Thought wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Not to mention people in Korea, who have been known to think about the issue.


Good point, apologies if I seemed to be side-lining them. Was just poking fun at myself.

Yeah, it's just that I think too many discussions about Korea treat it as an abstract problem, almost an esthetic problem. There is a country that looks unpredictable and uncontrollable, how could we solve that? Which leads to out-of-proportion suggestions, like moving a major city or preemptively nuking North Korea.

In the end, all that North Korea has done to the South after the war, is kidnapping a few hundred people, slicing a guard's throat, blowing up an airliner and now a boat. All nasty things that show you shouldn't trust them, but on an absolute scale it just isn't that much.

Many countries have lived with terrorist groups that did more damage than post-war North Korea. On a single bad month in Afghanistan, NATO does more 'collateral damage' than that.

In other words, the status quo is actually pretty good for everyone outside of North Korea, and everyone moves very, very careful. Sinking a ship is not worth fighting a war over, even if there was no artillery aimed at Seoul.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby BlackSails » Mon May 24, 2010 7:23 pm UTC

They should slowly start moving Seoul. Move the official captial further south, increase taxes in Seoul, offer tax credits for moving elsewhere.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Mon May 24, 2010 7:36 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:They should slowly start moving Seoul. Move the official captial further south, increase taxes in Seoul, offer tax credits for moving elsewhere.

They have already moved the capital, but mostly because Seoul is too crowded. Given the difference in housing prices between Seoul and the south, people are willing to pay a lot to live there, and a bit of extra tax won't matter. A high cost of living hasn't driven people out of New York either.

User avatar
Deep_Thought
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:58 pm UTC
Location: North of the River

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Deep_Thought » Mon May 24, 2010 8:27 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Yeah, it's just that I think too many discussions about Korea treat it as an abstract problem, almost an esthetic problem. There is a country that looks unpredictable and uncontrollable, how could we solve that? Which leads to out-of-proportion suggestions, like moving a major city or preemptively nuking North Korea.


You're right, but thinking in abstract terms about geopolitical problems is not restricted to North Korea. This happens all the time about everything from the fiscal crisis to global warming. Very few people on the planet have the necessary knowledge to adequately debate the nitty-gritty of a topic so you quickly end up falling back on the hypotheticals and gut instinct.

The out-of-proportion part comes from the fact that few people have a sense of scale. On another board I frequent people are complaining that the skyscrapers under construction in London are taking years to be built instead of weeks, instead of being amazed that they're not taking a decade and that we can even build them in the first place. When the Tibetan riots were happening a couple of years back a relative suggested that the US and UK should invade to stop the Chinese clampdown. On the same level of thinking the above ideas are in proportion. My own limited knowledge of geopolitics comes mainly from a previous job that had corporate access to Reuters and every Jane's magazine in existence. I miss having that kind of info at my fingertips.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby BlackSails » Mon May 24, 2010 9:45 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
BlackSails wrote:They should slowly start moving Seoul. Move the official captial further south, increase taxes in Seoul, offer tax credits for moving elsewhere.

They have already moved the capital, but mostly because Seoul is too crowded. Given the difference in housing prices between Seoul and the south, people are willing to pay a lot to live there, and a bit of extra tax won't matter. A high cost of living hasn't driven people out of New York either.


So make it even more costly. Have government assistance with moving. Have the South Korean army helping people move. Give subsides to moving companies. Make more universities in the south. Make it harder to get business permits in Seoul, and easier in the south. And so on.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Mon May 24, 2010 10:07 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:In other words, the status quo is actually pretty good for everyone outside of North Korea, and everyone moves very, very careful. Sinking a ship is not worth fighting a war over, even if there was no artillery aimed at Seoul.


That depends on whether you can win the war better (as in safer for the civilian population, less casualties, quicker) now by bringing the fight to them; than when the fight comes to you, a country as martial as NK, could have one of two ends... either the army consumes itself and the status quo in an uncontrolled collapse, or the leadership uses force as a last ditch patriotic method, buying them time to make good their escape or surrender on their terms.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
NightStar
"Hold very still, Mr President....."
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:25 am UTC
Location: Transient/Nomadic

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby NightStar » Tue May 25, 2010 4:40 pm UTC

Update: North Korea severs all ties with South Korea

Apparently, they took offense at South Korea's punitive actions and went above and beyond. Time will tell whether they're saber-rattling, but I think it's safe to say the situation is as tense as it's been in years.
Hawknc wrote:Madness?
THIS IS COLLEGE!
*Kicks a beer keg over a balcony*

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Fri May 28, 2010 11:40 pm UTC

NightStar wrote:Update: North Korea severs all ties with South Korea

Apparently, they took offense at South Korea's punitive actions and went above and beyond. Time will tell whether they're saber-rattling, but I think it's safe to say the situation is as tense as it's been in years.

It's hard to seperate the blustering from the real message with N Korea sometimes, but they certainly seem to have cut off communications. Killing the pact to use VHF radios to diffuse situations at sea seems particularly problematic.

China finally seems to be taking a stance, though, which is probably a good thing. I don't really envy their position - they may be a long standing ally of N Korea, but they also have a lot of trade with S Korea and a growing international reputation to keep. That, and any actual war would probably result in the defeat of N Korea, and I don't think China (or anyone) really wants that mess of their doorstep.
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.

User avatar
ginadagny
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:15 am UTC
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby ginadagny » Sat May 29, 2010 2:25 am UTC

I'm weary of China & Seoul need to stop this Kaesong Industrial park bullshit. I pray for a Ceausescu-like ending for Kim, but I doubt that would happen :\

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby BlackSails » Sat May 29, 2010 5:36 am UTC

PhoenixEnigma wrote: That, and any actual war would probably result in the defeat of N Korea, and I don't think China (or anyone) really wants that mess of their doorstep.


The only reason NK was not erased in the last war is china's million men sent over the border. Same thing will happen here, but I doubt China will risk open war this time.


The best possible thing to happen would be for Kim Jong Il (may his head forever be framed by sunshine) to die peacefully and for his successor to be some horribly corrupt general willing to open up North Korea in exchange for prostitutes or something.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Zamfir » Sat May 29, 2010 10:53 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
PhoenixEnigma wrote: That, and any actual war would probably result in the defeat of N Korea, and I don't think China (or anyone) really wants that mess of their doorstep.


The only reason NK was not erased in the last war is china's million men sent over the border. Same thing will happen here, but I doubt China will risk open war this time.


The best possible thing to happen would be for Kim Jong Il (may his head forever be framed by sunshine) to die peacefully and for his successor to be some horribly corrupt general willing to open up North Korea in exchange for prostitutes or something.


But why would the other generals, and industrial leaders and whoever else has power in North Korea allow that? Unless they had a very good certainty that they could keep their current positions of power?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests