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

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Texas_Ben » Mon May 31, 2010 5:24 am UTC

Cmebeh wrote:All north korea does is do stuff to piss the world off, then they get paid by the UN (aka the united state's money) to not do it again. The government keeps the money for itself, so its people are suffering, so they get even more aid. By constantly misbehaving, the keep the grounds that we have to pay them to not misbehave. Well i say we kill the bastards for taking our money then sign a new nuclear treaty that says any new country not approved by the united states that develops a nuclear weapon automatically gets the location of their government nuked and we get to take all of their weapons.

Then on the side we could sell these weapons to those stupid middle east and African countries till they make a nuke and then we can do the process all over again. At some point these people will just give up on war or completely wipe themselves out from all the war or submit to an acceptable amount of American philosophy of individual freedoms, right to private property, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Vote me for president.

4chan quality post gets a lolcat in response:
Image
That's pretty much what I have to say about that.

User avatar
Woofsie
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:11 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Woofsie » Mon May 31, 2010 6:48 am UTC

Gears wrote:You are correct in that we don't care about SK sailors. We do care about a troopship full of Marines.

You mean American lives are more important than South Korean lives? Good to know.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon May 31, 2010 7:21 am UTC

Gears wrote:While your diplomacy is doing dick all to resolve this situation, I would support removing the North Korean threat right now instead of when they can strike not only Seoul, but Tokyo or even Los Angeles. You are correct in that we don't care about SK sailors. We do care about a troopship full of Marines. We do have the most powerful military on Earth. The only thing lacking is a politician with balls. And when in the fuck did the United States care about international law?
Gears, when will you get a fucking clue? It's not just that you're a callous, uninformed, idiotic little weasel, it's also that you're completely uninteresting. Never have you advanced a thought that's even close to insightful, and I've never seen you provide any information that's relevant or valid. You're just a catastrophic failure of a person, who only serves to portray America as a land of ignorant, self-important fucks, living in their own universe where their values are sacred and everyone else's are maligned and corrupt. I'd rather dunk my head in ammonia than read your posts, because while both experiences are about equally offensive, at least the former is memorable.

In any event, there are thousands of U.S. soldiers in the DMZ who would be among the first casualties of resuming conflict. It would be all the deaths so far in Iraq in one day, let alone hundreds of thousands of Koreans. Like I already said, a boatload of dead Marines would not be enough for that outcome to occur, not even if Bush were still commanding.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Iv » Mon May 31, 2010 7:43 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:I'd rather dunk my head in ammonia than read your posts, because while both experiences are about equally offensive, at least the former is memorable.
To my great regret I never did any chemistry past the basic level. What would happen if you put your head in ammonia ?

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon May 31, 2010 7:51 am UTC

The weakened stuff is available in shops, and is great for cleaning. Carefully, have a whiff. Sniffing the concentrate chemists use? Dropping a cinderblock on your head would be a comparable experience.
Last edited by Pez Dispens3r on Mon May 31, 2010 9:15 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
Woofsie
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:11 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Woofsie » Mon May 31, 2010 9:04 am UTC

Just sniffing the concentrated stuff completely burns your nose and lungs. I can only imagine what dunking your head in it would do...

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Red Hal » Mon May 31, 2010 9:17 am UTC

Gears, given that "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" then yes, yes it does. However, you can't just go around nuking countries into oblivion just because they aren't playing by your rules. Any pre-emptive nuclear strike is going to cause huge civilian casualties and all but ensure that the United States becomes a pariah on the international stage, one outcome of which would be an immediate upswing in attacks on U.S. home soil. What you are advocating is self-destructive folly.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

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 31, 2010 9:37 am UTC

Woofsie wrote:Just sniffing the concentrated stuff completely burns your nose and lungs. I can only imagine what dunking your head in it would do...


Simultaniously remove your skin, blind you and cause resparatory arrest.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby scikidus » Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:19 am UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:Simultaniously remove your skin, blind you and cause resparatory arrest.

Which would mean that the experience would hardly be memorable, no?
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:32 am UTC

I was talking household.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

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 » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:23 am UTC

scikidus wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:Simultaniously remove your skin, blind you and cause resparatory arrest.

Which would mean that the experience would hardly be memorable, no?


Assuming you survived, I suspect you'd think about little else!
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
Znath
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:46 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Znath » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:00 am UTC

Gears, when will you get a fucking clue? It's not just that you're a callous, uninformed, idiotic little weasel, it's also that you're completely uninteresting. Never have you advanced a thought that's even close to insightful, and I've never seen you provide any information that's relevant or valid. You're just a catastrophic failure of a person, who only serves to portray America as a land of ignorant, self-important fucks, living in their own universe where their values are sacred and everyone else's are maligned and corrupt. I'd rather dunk my head in ammonia than read your posts, because while both experiences are about equally offensive, at least the former is memorable.


Rather than rampant character assassination and a sea of red herrings, it would be nice to actually debate this.

Surely people can at the least understand his frustration.
On one hand, North Korea could at any time without warning just go ape on South Korea so should we prevent that?
On the other hand, if anyone takes hasty action, it could result in antagonizing North Korea into doing it anyway.

The idea of negotiation and political "dicking around" is to try and cut the red wire before this all goes nova.

A military intervention could never be swift and devastating enough to eliminate any possibility of retaliation by N.Korea.
So in the event of a pre-emptive strike, the North would likely do a big last swansong into the South taking as many down as possible
as per the "all-out" bit. Short of nuking them to hell and violating ten kinds of national law then, no normal assault can stop that.

So thus negotiation is the most fitting option.
N.Korea can't easily mobilize or launch anything at the South without detection anyway.
So any aggression would, naturally, met with the force of an avenging angel. That's the key to the negotiations is them knowing:
"At any time, we can intervene, and remove you entirely from power"
their response
"If you try anything, we'll really mess up Seoul"

Likely, North Korea is more than aware that they stand 0% chance in an armed conflict. But with about 10million people in Seoul alone
a little political dicking around is probably for the best at the moment...

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Meh, everyone is pulling ideas out of their asses on the impossible chance it hasn't been though of and discarded already purely out of frustration. I doubt anyone here actually thinks themselves such a tactical genius that they can come up with a military solution in their spare time.

One question nobody here has asked though is if NK's potential future actions are likely to be harmful enough to be worth losing Seoul by striking now.
Last edited by Sockmonkey on Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Iv » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:35 am UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:Meh, everyone is pulling ideas out of their asses on the impossible chance it hasn't been though of and discarded already purely out of frustration. I doubt anyone here actually thinks themselves such a tactical genius that they can come up with a military solution in their spare time.

1°) The Bush era has shown us that armchair-generals can actually have more insights than actual commanders (the shocking military discovery of 2009 has been that when you explain the 9/11 to Afghan villagers, you get more support than if you just give them orders at the point of the gun. Genius !)
2°) The idea is not so much to find a solution than to understand fully the current situation.

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:50 am UTC

I'll grant you that one, but that sort of thing is actually pretty rare.
What is it about the situation that we don't understand?
It would be great if we could actually talk to the people of NK but how exactly would we do that?

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:42 am UTC

Znath wrote:Rather than rampant character assassination and a sea of red herrings, it would be nice to actually debate this.
We're all happy to debate, but when someone like gears endorses a course of action where the U.S. ignores international law in order to commit an act of genocide, and implies the only reason this course of action has not already been explored is because the U.S. politicians lack fortitude, then the time for debate with that person has come to a conclusion. We didn't bother to respond to Cmebeh either.
Znath wrote:On one hand, North Korea could at any time without warning just go ape on South Korea so should we prevent that?
Let's play the substitution game:

"The United States could, at any time, without warning, just go ape on North Korea, so should we prevent that?"

Let's do another:

"South Korea could, at any time, without warning, just go ape on North Korea, so should we prevent that?"

Your assumption that North Korea is likely to be the party responsible for resuming open hostilities is unfounded and betrays a misunderstanding of North Korea's goals. Like South Korea, North Korea wants reunification, and reunification under their system of governance--or, at least, under a compromise that favours their system of governance. It does not want to punish Americans or destroy the West or any such nonsense: its nuclear program and missile development is about achieving parity. It wants to be in a position to retaliate against any aggression directed against it. In the long term, this is so they can be assured of a MAD situation, otherwise they are liable to have their country taken from them by force. Like with Iraq. In the short term, this is so they can come to international agreements with South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. that are more beneficial to its requirements. Such talks are the motivation for all this posturing we're seeing currently. But, more generally, North Korea is throwing around more bluffs these days because, since the 90s, they have found themselves with fewer friends and more enemies, and the survival of its regime is under more threat than ever.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:09 am UTC

How might we, for the sake of argument, get word to the majority of the NK populace that the have been lied to and screwed by their own gov?.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Iv » Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:12 am UTC

Maybe they are aware of this and we don't know about it.

I would love to see planes dropping leaflets in Pyongyang but they have anti-airplane artillery there...

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 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:36 am UTC

There are SK civilians, who either defected or escaped abduction, who send out balloons with leaflets that drop their cargo over NK. Doubt that its very effective.

Another recent development is SK saying that its reassembling a huge array of speakers pointed at NK that broadcasts info at them over a stretch of water.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Iv » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:47 am UTC

I think the most effective vector is probably these christian converts that escaped NK and are going back to evangelize. They talk about the outside world (China is a very wealthy country compared to NK), about the lies, etc... they try to convert people to their religion but they also spread knowledge of the world.

Texas_Ben
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:34 am UTC
Location: Not in Texas

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Texas_Ben » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:54 am UTC

Iv wrote:Maybe they are aware of this and we don't know about it.

I would love to see planes dropping leaflets in Pyongyang but they have anti-airplane artillery there...

Rocket artillery carrying a payload of leaflets could work?

Don't see that going over too well with the powers that be, however. It would still be cool. "Sir! The South is shelling us! With information!"

Iv
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:08 pm UTC
Location: Lyon, France

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Iv » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:56 am UTC

Texas_Ben wrote:Don't see that going over too well with the powers that be, however. It would still be cool. "Sir! The South is shelling us! With information!"

The problem is it is hard to know if the missile transports a nuke or leaflets while it is still in midair and is just a spot on a radar screen.

User avatar
PerryDigital
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:14 am UTC
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby PerryDigital » Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Why don't we ever use our spies? Sneak in, kill leader and friends, sneak out. Maybe defuse their bombs whilst you're there for a bit of extra time.
I stole the sun and it's raining outside. I stole the sun and I ain't givin' him to anyone.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

PerryDigital wrote:Why don't we ever use our spies? Sneak in, kill leader and friends, sneak out. Maybe defuse their bombs whilst you're there for a bit of extra time.

Because actual spying and assassination are much more difficult than James Bond or Walk on Water would have you believe.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

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 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

I fail to see where I advocated genocide.
General_Norris wrote:I notice a lack of counter-arguments and a lot of fisting.

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 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:18 pm UTC

Gears wrote:I fail to see where I advocated genocide.

You are right. Some other poster proposed nukes, you responded with "remove the North Korean threat", so I for one assumed you meant nukes too. But you did indeed never say so explicitly.

If i read your posts again, your only applied suggestions are ships and marines, which of course wouldn't remove the threat. Do you have more specific proposals?

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 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:42 pm UTC

Only that if we are going to use a military solution, we have to do it before they have nukes. Seoul will have to be evacuated if we are to invade the North. This is a tricky situation! Maybe we can just paradrop Justin Bieber over the DMZ, we win no matter what. (They surrender, or we lose Bieber)
General_Norris wrote:I notice a lack of counter-arguments and a lot of fisting.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:02 pm UTC

Gears wrote:Only that if we are going to use a military solution, we have to do it before they have nukes. Seoul will have to be evacuated if we are to invade the North. This is a tricky situation! Maybe we can just paradrop Justin Bieber over the DMZ, we win no matter what. (They surrender, or we lose Bieber)

Didn't North Korea already conduct a nuclear test?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Shivahn » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:15 pm UTC

Yes. They have tested a nuclear bomb successfully, though it wasn't big.

User avatar
Znath
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:46 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Znath » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:43 pm UTC

Let's play the substitution game:

"The United States could, at any time, without warning, just go ape on North Korea, so should we prevent that?"

Let's do another:

"South Korea could, at any time, without warning, just go ape on North Korea, so should we prevent that?"


Well the problem with that scenario is that North Korea is literally threatening all-out-war after the fact they've made acts of aggression.
So the hypothetical scenario is pretty much irrelevant.... in response to that

North Korea is an oppressive / nuclear armed regime that is starving its people to build a tremendous army
and is threatening the lives of well over ten million people with all-out-war.
Those scenarios are just not going to happen.

The US won't invade alone before any act of aggression due to the fact that Seoul Korea is merely miles from the boarder.
Any act by the US or anyone really would basically result in the immediate destruction of millions of lives by N.Korea

S.Korea won't invade because they simply don't have the capability and any pre-emptive attack would then result in
again... immediate destruction of millions of South Koreans.

A good example of the tremendous waste by the North Korean government is their army, nuclear program and also
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryugyong_Hotel
The thing is completely ridiculous and such a waste of money it hasn't been completed in decades.

But anyway...
The prospect of millions instantly dying possibly by nuclear assault is probably a good reason to not attack ATM...
If a good solution can be reached to prevent N.Korea from going further via sanctions or something internationally.
It could stabilize the situation. This is particularly true if China and Russia get involved.
I believe that's why the US Secretary of State is over in that area with a small army of dignitaries.

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:53 pm UTC

Them having a nuke only really becomes a problem once they can stick it in a missle. Which unfortunately the will eventually be able to do. It comes down to a question of if we think with any certainty that they will do something so bad in the future that losing all those people in SK is the lesser tragedy.
Weren't we already sanctioning them?

User avatar
Znath
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:46 pm UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Znath » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:16 pm UTC

Seoul is 35 miles from the boarder. It wouldn't take a spectacularly large rocket to get a warhead there.
Really it probably wouldn't even take a rocket.
Keep in mind that a nuclear warhead can range in size betweena city bus and a VW beatle.

That's part of the problem is that so much of South Korea's population is extremely close to the point where
it's not likely much could be blocked, intercepted, or prevented should the North act suddenly.

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby BlackSails » Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:21 pm UTC

Again, the nukes are a threat against japan, maybe eventually california, and against a land army in korea. They dont need nukes to turn Seoul into a smoking wasteland.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:00 am UTC

PerryDigital wrote:Why don't we ever use our spies? Sneak in, kill leader and friends, sneak out. Maybe defuse their bombs whilst you're there for a bit of extra time.
Over 20 000 South Koreans were sent in in that role from the 60s through to the 80s. Yeah, that period is thankfully over.

Gears wrote:I fail to see where I advocated genocide.
You flippantly suggested the U.S. engage in a military solution to the impasse. In 1994, it was estimated, by the U.S. military commander in South Korea, Gary Luck, that such an effort would cost one million lives, including those of 80 000 - 100 000 Americans.1 Those estimates are outdated, and probably conservative. The last war, for example, resulted in 2.5 million civilian casualties alone, with thirty six thousand U.S. dead. And the estimate does not take into account North Korea's subsequent weapons programme. You would be looking at millions of deaths, and you would be looking at most of those being North Korean if you planned to win. That is advocating genocide.

lennyortizjr36 wrote:All I have to say is North Korea scares the hell out of me... :shock:
Oh, don't be so modest. I'm sure you have hundreds more uninformed opinions on the matter.

Znath wrote:Well the problem with that scenario is that North Korea is "literally" threatening all-out-war after the fact they've made acts of aggression.
So the hypothetical scenario is pretty much irrelevant.... in response to that
As opposed to the U.S.? Bush labelled North Korea as one of three countries in his "Axis of Evil", proceeded to invade one, and "refused to rule-out" the option of invading another. At the same time, he set the bar for talks with North Korea "impossibly high", resenting the 1994 Agreements under Clinton, but making it impossible to draft new ones.2 America has 100 000 troops stationed on the DMZ, and has always stockpiled nuclear weapons in South Korea. None of this is aggression? None of this is threatening to the North Korean state? You see no reason why North Korea would be antsy about this situation?

Znath wrote:North Korea is an oppressive / nuclear armed regime that is starving its people to build a tremendous army
Yes, instead of dispensing their rice to the population, they're using the foodstuffs to make artillery shells. The famines in the 90s were tragic, but they were the result of an unexpected crop failure, and a lack of aid from Russia on account of the collapse of the Soviet Union (who had previously taken care of North Korea during such crises). It was also a time of political instability--Kim wasn't expected to remain in power for more than a week in 1994. Since then, North Korea has concentrated efforts into reforming the economic system to, in large part, increase the food supply and make its distribution more efficient.3 It is not starving its people so that it can build an army, and it is disingenuous to suggest there would be no poverty if they spent less on their military.

The army they've always had, but they've also always been at war with South Korea and, as gears puts it, "the most powerful military in the world", for the past sixty years. If they did not have a large standing army, they would have been invaded by now.

Znath wrote:The US won't invade alone before any act of aggression due to the fact that Seoul Korea is merely miles from the boarder.
Any act by the US or anyone really would basically result in the immediate destruction of millions of lives by N.Korea

S.Korea won't invade because they simply don't have the capability and any pre-emptive attack would then result in
again... immediate destruction of millions of South Koreans.
Again, you're just repeating the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. No one is debating this.

Znath wrote:A good example of the tremendous waste by the North Korean government is their army, nuclear program and also
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryugyong_Hotel
The thing is completely ridiculous and such a waste of money it hasn't been completed in decades.
Because the U.S. never spent two billion dollars digging a hole in the ground. The hotel's completion would have been great for bringing North Korea to the world and the world to North Korea - the fact it was not completed is a shame. Not because of the wasted funds ("inefficiency" is a bureaucracy's middle name), but because of the opportunities it would have provided for normalizing relations. Regarding the military expenditure, North Korea spends less than the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, apparently. But they're the ones being excessive in their spending?

Znath wrote:If a good solution can be reached to prevent N.Korea from going further via sanctions or something internationally.
It could stabilize the situation. This is particularly true if China and Russia get involved.
I believe that's why the US Secretary of State is over in that area with a small army of dignitaries.
China and Russia already are involved: they have been involved from day one. Whenever you hear of six-party talks, that's the Koreas, Japan, the U.S., China, and Russia. Sanctions are problematic: if you try to starve out North Korea then the people will flee into China and South Korea, which those countries don't want, so they will never agree towards long term sanctions against North Korea. What is needed is a stable tack. South Korea was very receptive towards building positive relations with North Korea from the late 90s to the late 00s, at the same time the U.S. was opposed to any peace talks: this was despite a host of attempts by Kim in 2004 to build diplomatic bridges and admit to previous wrong-doings. Since then, South Korea has become more hostile to peace talks, while the U.S. is only moving very tentatively towards any agreements. The problem is that while North Korea's enemies only have one party to please, North Korea has to please a whole bunch of democratic governments who rotate their administrations every decade-or-so.

Sockmonkey wrote:Them having a nuke only really becomes a problem once they can stick it in a missle. Which unfortunately the will eventually be able to do. It comes down to a question of if we think with any certainty that they will do something so bad in the future that losing all those people in SK is the lesser tragedy.
Weren't we already sanctioning them?
You're seriously proposing a military solution on some fucking intuition you have that, once they have a warhead-sized nuclear weapon they'll, what, attack LA? Why would they do that? It's not consistent with any of their goals, and
especially not their two main goals: reunification and regime survival.


1James T. Laney & Jason T. Shaplen, "How to Deal with North Korea," Foreign Affairs, 82:2 (Apr - Mar; 2003): 23
2Ibid., 20.
3Christopher D. Hale, "Real Reform in North Korea? The Aftermath of the July 2002 Economic Measures", Asian Survey, 45:6 (Nov - Dec; 2005):823.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:56 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Sockmonkey wrote:Them having a nuke only really becomes a problem once they can stick it in a missle. Which unfortunately the will eventually be able to do. It comes down to a question of if we think with any certainty that they will do something so bad in the future that losing all those people in SK is the lesser tragedy.
Weren't we already sanctioning them?
You're seriously proposing a military solution on some fucking intuition you have that, once they have a warhead-sized nuclear weapon they'll, what, attack LA? Why would they do that? It's not consistent with any of their goals, and
especially not their two main goals: reunification and regime survival.

Gee thanks for lumping me in with everyone else and jumping to conclusions about what I wrote.
I never said that I, personally think we should strike first, nor did I claim to be expert enough to make that call. It's a question we need to ask.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:13 am UTC

Sockmonkey wrote:
Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Sockmonkey wrote:Them having a nuke only really becomes a problem once they can stick it in a missle. Which unfortunately the will eventually be able to do. It comes down to a question of if we think with any certainty that they will do something so bad in the future that losing all those people in SK is the lesser tragedy.
Weren't we already sanctioning them?
You're seriously proposing a military solution on some fucking intuition you have that, once they have a warhead-sized nuclear weapon they'll, what, attack LA? Why would they do that? It's not consistent with any of their goals, and
especially not their two main goals: reunification and regime survival.

Gee thanks for lumping me in with everyone else and jumping to conclusions about what I wrote.
I never said that I, personally think we should strike first, nor did I claim to be expert enough to make that call. It's a question we need to ask.

"It comes down to a question of whether we think allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to a society without morals." See how that implies I think gay marriage means immorality? I'll admit my tone was harsh, but it's not a "question we need to ask", because it is a question that has no relation to the situation. North Korea does not want to destroy South Korea--it does not want to destroy anyone. It does, however, want to assure regime survival through the threat of destruction, just as America does. You may feel you were distancing yourself from the implication North Korea may preemptively attack distant countries, so attacking first is wisest to ensure that does not happen, but you were still making the implication.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

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

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby Sockmonkey » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:58 am UTC

Yeah, well it sounded less stupid in my head.

User avatar
tastelikecoke
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:58 am UTC
Location: Antipode of Brazil
Contact:

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby tastelikecoke » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:27 pm UTC

Lets send a lot of troops from different countries to show them who are the ones they are pissing off.

And why are people suggesting sending in Troops from America? Imuho that's only provoking NK.

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 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:07 pm UTC

tastelikecoke wrote:Lets send a lot of troops from different countries to show them who are the ones they are pissing off.

And why are people suggesting sending in Troops from America? Imuho that's only provoking NK.


Get Chinese and Russian troops replacing the americans in the DMZ, that would really scare the shit out of the NK's.

Of course China will probably just sit on the sidelines of any conflict this time, rather than participate...

As I typed that I had an Odd thought, would it be better if North Korea became just another annexed province of the PRC?
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

davidz
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:27 am UTC

Re: North Korea threatens 'all-out war'

Postby davidz » Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:15 am UTC

Probably bluffing... as always. wouldn't last a single day in war.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Suinos and 10 guests