# itt North Korea does some more dumb shit



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

tl;dr North Korea fires artillery at South Korean island and a dude or two dies, South fires some artillery back. Let's start taking bets on whether or not  this'll just get brushed off with a slap on the wrist for the North like pretty much everything else they do.


Didn't know if this should go here or R&R (not really a rant though) or lynx or whatever, move to where ever is appropriate if needed please


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

North Korea: "Hey, South Korea, wanna play a game? It's really fun!"

South Korea: "Go fuck yourself North Korea."


----------



## Ricky (Nov 23, 2010)

Fuck.  Didn't they also destroy a South Korean ship like a few weeks ago?


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Fuck.  Didn't they also destroy a South Korean ship like a few weeks ago?


 Wasn't ever confirmed it was them but it's rather obvious.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 23, 2010)

Xenke said:


> North Korea: "Hey, South Korea, wanna play a game? It's really fun!"
> 
> South Korea: "Go fuck yourself North Korea."


 
NK: "Hey South Korea, we're not touching you!"
SK: "Goddammit, I hate you."

My South Korean friends say this is a true story.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 23, 2010)

NK played their cards perfectly. That failed nuclear tests howevermany years ago has got the world scared into thinking they have some kind of nuclear capability. Even if all they have is one shitty bomb half the yield of the first ones ever made, that is still enough to mess a bitch up. The fact that there is a _chance_ they [/i]might[/i] use the weapon if they even _have_ it is enough to make the rest of the world back down. 

Nothing is going to be done about this, I'd wager. NK would have to actually invade someone before action is taken against them.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 23, 2010)

My mom and I were just discussing this (we've got ties to people in SK) and here's some snips of that.

My mom: (About South Korea) it's like when eastern germany was free after the wall came down, they all came to the west germany side for jobs and germans hated it.  south koreans feel the same, the younger ones
jong hoon does't want reunification, it would take jobs from people in a bad economy, it would be like no borders between us and mexico; which place you think people want to live?
I think it might start world war 3 if they keep up
getting desperate to motivate starving people
a war makes a country motivated
or at least it make the gov't money

Me: probably
that's why we're there (Iraq)

Mom: if NK attacks, the job is to defend SK (for America)

Me: I'm just afraid the increased military presence would cause tension in China at the very least 


Mom: major, but they're communistwith good ties
so they may back nkorea
china could use it as an excuse to take the country over and throw out americans from the business and factories there, the state could take them over
we'd be done



[And then we talked about a South Korean friend of ours and how he probably needs to bail]


----------



## Ricky (Nov 23, 2010)

And whose fault is it North Korea's economy sucks and the whole place is a shithole?

Everyone there is fucking brainwashed so chances are the people there don't even know how bad it is...

I highly doubt this will start a war but its not impossible.


----------



## medjai (Nov 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> And whose fault is it North Korea's economy sucks and the whole place is a shithole?
> 
> Everyone there is fucking brainwashed so chances are the people there don't even know how bad it is...
> 
> I highly doubt this will start a war but its not impossible.



Who knows. If they don't back off and the States gets involves, as they love to do, China might get pissed, and then dominos, we're fucked.

I always thought the Middle East would be the cause of WWIII, but who knows, might be North Korea starting a war. Again.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 23, 2010)

This is only artillery. North Korea is the one with the hand on the red button - you call it, and only korea will exist.

Middle East can be the main cause of WWIII, but I doubt it will be between the middle east between itself only. It's WORLD war. The americans will come eventually to fail again in what they did in Iraq.

A reporter of ours, called Boaz Arad who resides in China, was invited to their capital - and yes, the people there are brainwashed.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 23, 2010)

U.N. like usual, will possibly place "Severe Sanctions" on North Korea.
Seriously, why does China still see some kind of positive gain from using North Korea as a buffer state?
They are one of the reason why the South Koreans or American haven't made very large retaliatory attacks.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 23, 2010)

Crusader Mike said:


> U.N. like usual, will possibly place "Severe Sanctions" on North Korea.
> Seriously, why does China still see some kind of positive gain from using North Korea as a buffer state?
> They are one of the reason why the South Koreans or American haven't made very large retaliatory attacks.


 But we _need_ cheap Chinese knockoff merchandise! 

America breaks down at the thought of actually doing something to generate jobs :U


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

Skift said:


> But we _need_ cheap Chinese knockoff merchandise!
> 
> America breaks down at the thought of actually doing something to generate jobs :U


 
But we can't do them as well as they can!

We have pollution regulations and worker's rights! :C


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 23, 2010)

Xenke said:


> But we can't do them as well as they can!
> 
> We have pollution regulations and worker's rights! :C


 
Yeah man, this lead paint is cheaper than the other stuff! It should work for children's toys too!


----------



## Sauvignon (Nov 23, 2010)

Obama needs to invite Kim over for a beer.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

Skift said:


> Yeah man, this lead paint is cheaper than the other stuff! It should work for children's toys too!


 
Children don't need toys, they need jobs!


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 23, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Children don't need toys, they need jobs!


 
Work, mind slaves! We must deliver knockoff Western cartoons to the Japanese! (...I probably need sleep.)


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Nov 23, 2010)

....the entire Korean peninsula will become a radioactive waste land.

That stupid leader has openly stated, "Nuclear wars are survivable". No wonder China is nervous.


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Ricky said:


> And whose fault is it North Korea's economy sucks and the whole place is a shithole?
> 
> Everyone there is fucking brainwashed so chances are the people there don't even know how bad it is...
> 
> I highly doubt this will start a war but its not impossible.


If they didn't know how bad it was, they wouldn't be escaping over to the South.


----------



## Decker (Nov 23, 2010)

We need Team America.


----------



## Lapdog (Nov 23, 2010)

What is it with the Koreans? I don't get all this North and South bull shit.


----------



## JadeFire (Nov 23, 2010)

Ah cute, North Korea think they matter.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 23, 2010)

Mandatory song post:

[yt]m_-PIpYpIfQ[/yt]


----------



## Nex (Nov 23, 2010)

Someone needs to kidnap Kim Jong-il, his advisors, and the UN, lock them in a room, feed them some MDMA, and let what ever happens happen.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Nov 23, 2010)

I support the Invasion of South Korea by the North, and I support America in using a MacArthurian Final Solution to the Korean Problem.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

North Korea = bunch of attention whores.  Nothing more, really.  They desperately want the world to pay attention to them, and it undoubtedly drives them nuts that we pay as little mind to them as we do.  Besides, if it comes down to it Japan and SK could deal with NK quite handily, I bet.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back, they're more than attention whores.


----------



## Lapdog (Nov 23, 2010)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Mandatory song post:
> 
> [yt]m_-PIpYpIfQ[/yt]


 
THAT'S ON MY FREEKING iPOD, HOW DID I NOT SEE THAT COMING!?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 23, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> THAT'S ON MY FREEKING iPOD, HOW DID I NOT SEE THAT COMING!?


 
A friend sent it to me half a year ago. It's fine, it has pretty jokes that can lead to not so pretty results.

If North Korea is an attention whore, for exaggerating it's capability, it's power, then Iran is also an innocent attention whore, the Taliban are nothing but peace activists that want hugs, Russia does not even threat the american promised country, and china does not even touch nuclear. 
It does have something that can threat us, but we can put it aside - they _are_ attention whores. There are more dangerous people around. Iran and the Taliban are much stronger than North Korea in tactics and strategy, for example.

Leaving North Korea aside, there are not many countries in worse peace affair -


> Democratic Republic of the Congo
> Chad
> Georgia
> Russia
> ...


These countries do not usually contain threats to the outside world, other than russia, which genuinly becomes the enemy of all in almost every modern first-person shooter.
I guess there is nothing to fear right now, but keeping an eye on NK can be resourceful.
Such a faraway country can strike you eyes closed.


----------



## lafeel (Nov 23, 2010)

North Korea, the real world's take on the forum troll.


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Update: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1


South Korea calls for ass kicking, everyone shrugs.

10 bucks for kommodore i guess


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

Holsety said:


> Update: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1
> 
> 
> South Korea calls for ass kicking, everyone shrugs.
> ...


 
They're welcome to do it, no one's gonna stop them or anything.

You seriously think the UN (who are a bunch of pantywaist do-nothings anyway) are gonna do anything if SK decides to do some serious ordinance-flinging?


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> They're welcome to do it, no one's gonna stop them or anything.


They're probably afraid that China will fuck them up if they go to war without anyone else backing them up.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

Holsety said:


> They're probably afraid that China will fuck them up if they go to war without anyone else backing them up.


 
I don't think China will do shit other than reinforce any positions on the NK border.  As long as SK doesn't breach Chinese airspace, I figure they'll just kinda watch and see.  Of course, if NK should completely collapse I wouldn't put it past the Chinese to try and gobble up some of the remains, so to speak.

Seriously, what motives would China have to step in and defend the squalling little bratty kid that is the DPRK? They're of little worth in much of any way.


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I don't think China will do shit other than reinforce any positions on the NK border.  As long as SK doesn't breach Chinese airspace, I figure they'll just kinda watch and see.  Of course, if NK should completely collapse I wouldn't put it past the Chinese to try and gobble up some of the remains, so to speak.
> 
> Seriously, what motives would China have to step in and defend the squalling little bratty kid that is the DPRK? They're of little worth in much of any way.


 Yeah, but that doesn't mean that's what South Korea thinks and I can't say I blame them for being more fearful than a far observer like us would be.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 23, 2010)

We should just embargo exporting to him Hennessy cognac. With reported annual purchases topping $700,000, Kim Jong-il is the single largest consumer of Hennessy cognac worldwide. And it's fucking expensive. This ass drinks away $700,000 while his people starve to death.


			
				The Washington Post said:
			
		

> Tens of thousands starved in the latest famine, from 1995 to 1997. Lee, who asked that her given name not be used, was a clerk in a government office who notarized the deaths in her town. She is a pretty young woman, 29, with tumbling hair curling to her shoulders and smooth, flawless skin that belies the hardships she has faced and struggles to explain. "We started seeing cannibalism," she recalled, pausing. "You probably won't understand."
> She went on: "When one is very hungry, one can go crazy. One woman in my town killed her 7-month-old baby, and ate the baby with another woman. That woman's son reported them both to the authorities.
> "I can't condemn cannibalism. Not that I wanted to eat human meat, but we were so hungry. It was common that people went to a fresh grave and dug up a body to eat meat. I witnessed a woman being questioned for cannibalism. She said it tasted good."


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

Grendel said:


> We should just embargo exporting to him Hennessy cognac. With reported annual purchases topping $700,000, Kim Jong-il is the single largest consumer of Hennessy cognac worldwide. And it's fucking expensive. This ass drinks away $700,000 while his people starve to death.


 
That's funny, little bastard loving Western liquor.  I would be surprised if he was actually capable of holding his liquor.  Tell Hennessy to spike a batch with something special and send it straight to him.  Drink up, you squinty-eyed little cockbite.

EDIT: Fuck, why hasn't somebody offed the little prick by now, anyway?


----------



## A10pex (Nov 23, 2010)

North Korea is like that kid in elementary school who wants attention. He does crazy things, and sometimes stupid things to get noticed and then people actually pay attention to him. For how ever long it may be, but that's all he does, he isn't an actually threat


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Nov 23, 2010)

North Korea is best Korea!


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

Iudicium_86 said:


> o,o


 
This is very infract-worthy.

Maybe you should actually contribute anything.


----------



## Grendel (Nov 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> That's funny, little bastard loving Western liquor. I would be surprised if he was actually capable of holding his liquor. Tell Hennessy to spike a batch with something special and send it straight to him. Drink up, you squinty-eyed little cockbite.
> 
> EDIT: Fuck, why hasn't somebody offed the little prick by now, anyway?



It really would not be that hard. It would cause internal and international turmoil though, but only for a short time before another dictator took control or China says "Shove it bitches you don't get big-boy toys" and just absorbs NK like it did Tibet.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

A10pex said:


> North Korea is like that kid in elementary school who wants attention. He does crazy things, and sometimes stupid things to get noticed and then people actually pay attention to him. For how ever long it may be, but that's all he does, he isn't an actually threat


 
He's very much a threat.  He can't do much to us but he's got enough guns and such to make a serious mess of the Korean peninsula and possibly Japan.  He is honestly INSANE and fuck-only-knows what his kid is like.  His generals are likely a bunch of bloodthirsty powermongering bastards that might well start a coup when Glorious Leader dies.  Unstable North Korea = bad news.



Grendel said:


> It really would not be that hard. It would cause internal and international turmoil though, but only for a short time before another dictator took control or China says "Shove it bitches you don't get big-boy toys" and just absorbs NK like it did Tibet.


 
Wouldn't be bad except for the fact that SK would get royally pissed if China snapped up NK.  Royally pissed, and unable to do anything about it.


----------



## Holsety (Nov 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> That's funny, little bastard loving Western liquor.  I would be surprised if he was actually capable of holding his liquor.  Tell Hennessy to spike a batch with something special and send it straight to him.  Drink up, you squinty-eyed little cockbite.
> 
> EDIT: Fuck, why hasn't somebody offed the little prick by now, anyway?


 we could sure go for an old school CIA assassination these days


----------



## Attaman (Nov 23, 2010)

To start with, avoiding a link-dump, this BBC article is a good place to start.  Covers about eleven hours of content, ranging from when the images first started to come from SK to when "live coverage" by BBC ended for the night.  Reactions by other nations, such as Japan, are visible (if not exactly detail heavy, or even detailed).  

Of particular note is the claim that China is one of North Korea's major "allies".  Which, while it might technically be true, is only so in words, as if push comes to shove it's highly likely China is at worst let N. Korea get rolled over, at best try sending their own troops in to aid in the process to help reduce the likelihood of a government / power they don't like rising post-Kim.

It's a shame that removing KJI and KJU is likely to be a fucking humanitarian and costly nightmare for whoever gets involved, considering just how much shit would have to be done.  Add in that just that there's chances that such a conflict is going to play hell with the stock market (if it hasn't already), and how not too long ago there were suggestions for people to invest in S. Korea stock...


----------



## Tycho (Nov 23, 2010)

Attaman said:


> It's a shame that removing KJI and KJU is likely to be a fucking humanitarian and costly nightmare for whoever gets involved, considering just how much shit would have to be done.  Add in that just that there's chances that such a conflict is going to play hell with the stock market (if it hasn't already), and how not too long ago there were suggestions for people to invest in S. Korea stock...


 
I've got a strong suspicion that in the event of SK (and friends hopefully) kicking in NK's door and wrecking their nasty little toys, the NK military is going to start using NK civilians as hostages/human shields (remember, a lot of SK families have relatives in the North).


----------



## Attaman (Nov 23, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I've got a strong suspicion that in the event of SK (and friends hopefully) kicking in NK's door and wrecking their nasty little toys, the NK military is going to start using NK civilians as hostages/human shields (remember, a lot of SK families have relatives in the North).


 Don't also forget that SK has one hell of a "megacity" in range of NK's artillery.  Said "megacity" has a 12-24 million population, depending on where you draw the lines and what-not.  NK's main target of opportunity for "fuck shit up before collapsing" has always been "aim artillery at Seoul".

Also, about the stock, there have been some rises and falls (fall article #1, beware loading issues, fall #2, and fall #3).  It's arguable as to how many of these are 100% related to the situation, but point remains the market is being influenced.  Even if you don't give a crap about the conflict, or the troops already stationed / which may be stationed there, think at least of your wallet.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 23, 2010)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50114000/gif/_50114613_military_balance_464.gif

Interesting


----------



## blackedsoul (Nov 23, 2010)

Two days later after this, WW III has started, December 21, 2012, America and NK launch nuclear bombs, Apocalypse.! woot woot! way to go dumbass politicians.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

Wreth said:


> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50114000/gif/_50114613_military_balance_464.gif
> 
> Interesting


 
More planes. c:


----------



## Wreth (Nov 23, 2010)

Xenke said:


> More planes. c:


 

Apparently N Korea has less aircraft but more airforce personell?

Wat?


----------



## blackedsoul (Nov 23, 2010)

could be that they have more 2 seater aircraft. most of america's air force are 1 seat fighters.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Nov 23, 2010)

Having Air Superiority makes a huge difference.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Nov 23, 2010)

blackedsoul said:


> Two days later after this, WW III has started, December 21, 2012, America and NK launch nuclear bombs, Apocalypse.! woot woot! way to go dumbass politicians.


 
No.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 23, 2010)

It's very unlikely that NK and/or the USA will launch WW III, because they do not have any enemies at all, actually. WWIII will break around the middleeast, through russia, to europe and asia - will expand until the US forces arrive, and the NK will use the oppurtunity to mass murder with nuclear. Iran for example, will probably be half as dead.
Also, just for you to remember - launching nuclear missiles is very expensive. They are used to start wars, and to end wars. In between you'd see other ballistic missiles, carpet bombing, maybe chemical bombs, some fuel-air.. Not nuclear.
A country won't send only one nuclear warhead, because it's just not enough. It can't destroy all of Tel Aviv, and I doubt there is any nuclear that can destroy the world.
Stop exaggerating nuclear weapons - there are many more dangerous beings out there.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 23, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> there are many more dangerous beings out there.


 
Like those goddamn aliens.

And Kim Dog Il.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 24, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Like those goddamn aliens.
> 
> And Kim Dog Il.


funi 


What about his son, Kim Jong On? Kim Jong Il seems to be a bit brainstruck.


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 24, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Stop exaggerating nuclear weapons - there are many more dangerous beings out there.


 
Like biological weapons.
murr :v


----------



## CrimsonMagpie (Nov 24, 2010)

I was watching a discussion on the news that the recent military aggression by North Korea is due to them going somewhat rouge in an attempt to force certain political issues, mainly regarding the replacement of Kim Jong-il. Iunno, it might be quite interesting if the military leaders were to execute a coup. :B


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 24, 2010)

8-bit said:


> Like biological weapons.
> murr :v


 
You and your biohazard

Chemical weapons are good nontheless. Like Phosphorus, which is very lethal to humans. I think it was found in enemy artilliry a few days ago around the south.
Other explosive weaponary is also very good. Fuel - air bombs spread before detonating and can travel through air systems for example, or get into some protected corridors.

Those are mass murder though, and other weapons can be very lethal - like fragmention, poison, light, electricity or plain force.
As some people say, relligion can also be very dangerous.

+ Carpet bombing which caused many bodies to fall on one another in many wars.


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 24, 2010)

you know...if we all just hanged out and smoked weed, everything would be ok and we wouldn't be fighting all the time


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 24, 2010)

Ikrit said:


> you know...if we all just hanged out and smoked weed, everything would be ok and we wouldn't be fighting all the time


 
Trust me the north koreans are poor as fuck and they can't buy weed

Even if they did all the weed would go to the leader, Mr. Ki Jon I
And he already has enough diseases. A pretty weak and shallow weed smoke would kill him.

So yeah, why not do it?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 24, 2010)

blackedsoul said:


> could be that they have more 2 seater aircraft. most of america's air force are 1 seat fighters.


 
No.  It's a simple matter of "plenty of people, not as many working aircraft".  NK has personnel coming out the yin-yang, being in the military is one of the few ways to secure a decent (by their standards at least) standard of living.  They have plenty of tanks but they are hardly cutting edge (I'd be shocked if they had anything newer than T-80s, and probably not many of them), their subs are mostly antiquated diesel boats IIRC, the rest of their navy isn't exactly anything special, and I would wager that their air force doesn't even have anything as new as Fulcrums or Flankers.  They probably have plenty of Hind gunships though those are not usually considered "air force".

Also: I do not think NK will invade SK, I think they are trying to bait someone to invade NK where they will wage a defensive war.  We WOULD be giving them exactly what they wanted if we took offensive action.

EDIT: Wonder what their stores of fuel are like? Can't make much use of a vehicle of any sort if you don't have the go-juice for it.


----------



## lafeel (Nov 24, 2010)

Actually, Tycho, they mostly use a improved (supposedly) version of the T62..It's all about quantity as far as they are concerned, that tank was obsolete even before it was new. A sixty year old Centurion can beat it.


----------



## SuddenlySanity (Nov 24, 2010)

Didn't North Koreans trick their inhabitants to believe they won the World Cup?


----------



## lafeel (Nov 24, 2010)

SuddenlySanity said:


> Didn't North Koreans trick their inhabitants to believe they won the World Cup?


 Probably, after all they refused to show any game they did not win (which just happened to be none)


----------



## Ricky (Nov 24, 2010)

> President Obama late Tuesday announced U.S.-South Korean military  exercises in the wake of the artillery attack, that will include  dispatch of the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington to waters off  the Korean peninsula.



Nice!  This is a good way to scare them a bit.

Point a bunch of nuclear weapons right at the motherfuckers.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 24, 2010)

I personally don't think the armistice/cease fire will blow up into full out combat. What we see is probably all that will happen. Considering the Korean war never ended, all that will probably happen are the small skirmishes that have been going on since the armistice was signed. I think the major military powers all look at this as its not worth starting a huge war.

But on the off chance it does, I bet it would lay out like this. The U.S and NATO (The U.S has 28,500 troops already in South Korea) VS North Korea. And the war would most likely be a regime change type war. Kind of like the Iraq War but with less controversy. The thing is, I could see China getting involved or not. China just threatening to back North Korea would be enough to stop any war. China may not have the most advanced military. But they boast the largest military in the world, a 200 million man army. Who wants to fight that. Not the U.S or NATO. Or even Russia for that matter.
I don't think it matters how advanced the U.S and NATO military's are, even combined they don't have enough strength to defeat a 200 million man army.




Ricky said:


> Nice!  This is a good way to scare them a bit.
> 
> Point a bunch of nuclear weapons right at the motherfuckers.


 
Unless the task force has nuclear subs it won't have nuclear missiles in it. And the USS George Washington and its task force is stationed in South Korea, so it looks like its just being activated. Its a show of force. North Korea doesn't have a navy that can stand up the the U.S Navy.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 24, 2010)

"Team, this is all my fault. I was overzealous in Cairo. I let racism cloud my judgment. I was so sure the ultimate terrorist was Middle Eastern, but I didn't realize he was a goddamn Gook. I'll never be a racist again. "


----------



## Attaman (Nov 24, 2010)

Thing is, I don't see China rushing to the aid of N. Korea.  At all. Their "favor" towards N. Korea already started to go out the window once it decided "Fuck it, we're going for nukes", and right now it's a complete PR disaster being associated in any way with the place.  Most probably, China's going to sit the thing out or - possibly even - rush in to aid S. Korea in a bid to put their own government in power.  It'll be a bit of a rush with China and other forces competing amongst each other to seize N. Korea first, the prize being their puppet government / regime taking control, the chips whatever military might's invested in the place.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 24, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Thing is, I don't see China rushing to the aid of N. Korea.  At all. Their "favor" towards N. Korea already started to go out the window once it decided "Fuck it, we're going for nukes", and right now it's a complete PR disaster being associated in any way with the place.  Most probably, China's going to sit the thing out or - possibly even - rush in to aid S. Korea in a bid to put their own government in power.  It'll be a bit of a rush with China and other forces competing amongst each other to seize N. Korea first, the prize being their puppet government / regime taking control, the chips whatever military might's invested in the place.


 

I don't see China aiding NK either but, I posted a what if scenario. It still stands that if full out combat started, if China chooses to get involved, whatever side they choose will determine the outcome. There is great reason for China to stay out of it, economically wise it would be a disaster for China to aid NK in full out combat, but there is also a good reason to announce to aid NK, it would prevent full scale combat. And there is good reason for China to do nothing. I think that China's decision is what can/will decide on how this event plays out. As much as I hate to say it, they are the biggest player in the Korean conflict.


The most likely scenario I see is a Naval Blockade from the U.S, SK, and NATO and a land blockade by China at their border with NK. A quarantine in affect that would cut off NK from everyone.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 24, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The most likely scenario I see is a Naval Blockade from the U.S, SK, and NATO and a land blockade by China at their border with NK. A quarantine in affect that would cut off NK from everyone.


 
And two citizens in NK would notice, at least in the first few weeks / months.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 24, 2010)

Attaman said:


> And two citizens in NK would notice, at least in the first few weeks / months.


 
Seeing as how they get dick squat from the foreign aid NK gets.  There might be an issue with a NK fisherman complaining about a US Navy destroyer sitting on top of his lucky fishing spot.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 24, 2010)

Attaman said:


> And two citizens in NK would notice, at least in the first few weeks / months.


 
I think a full out blockade is the best thing the world can do. It seems like all we do is slap North Korea's wrist and say "don't do that" but, have no really serious consequences. Cutting off North Korea in all sense from the rest of the world would force their hand so to speak. They claim they are willing to go to full scale war, but I think all they are doing is playing a game of poker to try and get a better deal with the world stage. But then again they could be completely serous about staring a full out war. But are they capable of sustaining a war for a period of time? My guess is they have limited resources to supply their military. Posting a what if scenario, the U.S can send in its B2 Bombers, take out North Korea's fuel supplies, power supply, and military installations and then the North Korean army would be  left with only what they had in their direct hands. If they only have upgraded T62 tanks (which seems to be the case by my research) Those tanks only have a 280 mile operational range (404 miles if they are equipped with external tanks) North Korea would have a one shot chance to do as much damage as possible before being overwhelmed. (This assumes that China stays out of the conflict and just waits to the mop up phase)
Secondly, As I have been doing more research into North Korea's ground army, their tanks are the equivalent of the Sherman tank of WWII, as in as soon as they are hit they explode with the potential to "pop" the turret off.

There navy is not a navy built for offensive battle. Its a coastal navy for defense, what little defense it offers.

Further research shows that it seems like the only thing they have that is a major threat besides being somewhat nuclear capable is a large stockpile of chemical warfare weapons.

But North Korea does have the 4th largest land army in the world, over 1 million active and 8 million is reserve. But is uses obsolete equipment.

Here is my guess in a wartime scenario, battle-line drawn at the demilitarized zone to keep North Korea from invading, and a full out air campaign with stealth bombers to negate North Korea's air defense system to Knock out the mechanized infantry. A huge Naval Blockade to destroy/ knock out North Korea's coastal Navy and major use of aircraft carriers.
This is just my guess in what might happen if full out combat happens though.


Edit: Sorry for the long post but I am a major war/history buff. Specifically combat tactics and scenarios.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 24, 2010)

I wonder how much of NK policy is a result of the administration as a whole, and just Kim Jong Il. As overs have said, I seriously don't get why they don't just off the guy, and the rest of his administration for that matter. I am sure some _good_ intelligence and a few large missiles would solve a lot of this. People would go crazy, sure, but I don't think they would go to war over it _if_ the attack was successful. No matter what though, you can't just sit by and let him pull this kind of shit if you care about the region. 

Although, I don't see why the US cares about this in the first place. People are always bitching about US intrusion into foreign politics, and this is the perfect place to start. China, Japan and South Korea are the major powers in the region that are affected by NK's actions, so why shouldn't we leave this up to them? 

I don't see why the US or EU needs to be involved in this. Those those who are effected by it handle the situation.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 24, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> I wonder how much of NK policy is a result of the administration as a whole, and just Kim Jong Il. As overs have said, I seriously don't get why they don't just off the guy, and the rest of his administration for that matter. I am sure some _good_ intelligence and a few large missiles would solve a lot of this. People would go crazy, sure, but I don't think they would go to war over it _if_ the attack was successful. No matter what though, you can't just sit by and let him pull this kind of shit if you care about the region.
> 
> Although, I don't see why the US cares about this in the first place. People are always bitching about US intrusion into foreign politics, and this is the perfect place to start. China, Japan and South Korea are the major powers in the region that are affected by NK's actions, so why shouldn't we leave this up to them?
> 
> I don't see why the US or EU needs to be involved in this. Those those who are effected by it handle the situation.


 

We are involved:
1) Because of the original Korean War
2) We have agreements with South Korea to protect them if war restarts.
3) We have a major naval base in the area as well as a huge military base as well.
4) World economics, South Korea is a major player in the shipping industry, and full out war would devastate this. Not a good thing.
5) War in the Korean Peninsula would destabilize the area causing major problems. It is in the United States best interest (as well as the world's) to try and keep the peace.
6) And lastly the United States has a policy of protecting its allies. South Korea is part of the MNNA group. (Major Non-NATO Ally Group) In other words its a pledge to assist militarily if they are attacked or forced into war.


Edit: Japan cannot go on the offensive, their constitution strictly forbids this, they can only defend. Secondly nobody knows what China would do, most likely they would choose to sit out. But again that is only a guess. And I do not think South Korea could stand on their own against North Korea.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 24, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> We are involved:


 
Just about all of that is solved if the US says "fuck you not our problem" and stops being an ally of SK and pulls out of the region. The only real point of concern there is SK's role in the shipping industry, but that would be messed up whether or not it has US aid if a war broke out. Japan and China both have interests in the region and NK's role in it, and they are both capable of handling the situations themselves. 

This just really, really seems like a waste of US military equipment and personnel to me. US interests are not served by pledging military support, and giving such support simply will embroil the US in another foreign conflict. 

The criticisms levied against the US are true. America is not the world police, and America has no business in NK-SK relations.

The only possible exception to this would be NK's use of nukes, in which the solution is either invade their ass and destroy their ability to make and use them, or continue sanctions. Either way, waiting until SK gets attacked and _then_ invading doesn't solve anything.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 24, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Just about all of that is solved if the US says "fuck you not our problem" and stops being an ally of SK and pulls out of the region. The only real point of concern there is SK's role in the shipping industry, but that would be messed up whether or not it has US aid if a war broke out. Japan and China both have interests in the region and NK's role in it, and they are both capable of handling the situations themselves.
> 
> This just really, really seems like a waste of US military equipment and personnel to me. US interests are not served by pledging military support, and simply ends up embroiled in some foreign conflict.
> 
> ...



The problem with the "The U.S should not police the world" is, that  people complain when the U.S does something, and they complain when we  don't help. Its a no-win situation in foreign polices there. The world  kind of does look the the U.S to fix the world's problems, or just keep  crazy nations under control (as best as possible). Not in all cases should we get involved, but I completely agree with the military support to South Korea.

We do have a right to the North Korean-South Korean relations. Our Soldiers fought there, and died there. The U.S says we have a bond with South Korea that was forged in Blood. We fought and stopped North Korea from taking the entire peninsula (and could have defeated North Korea if McArthur hadn't screwed up) 


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations

Since the end of the Korean War, South Korea and the United States have  maintained strong ties. According to American think tank Pew Research Center,  South Koreans have one of the most favorable views in the world towards  the United States and Americans. (ranked within top 4 among the  countries in the world) [10][11] Also, according to a Korean gallup poll, South Korea views the US as the most favorable country amongst the countries in the world.[12]



*Joint vision for the Alliance of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America*​ _The Alliance is adapting to changes in the 21st Century security  environment. We will maintain a robust defense posture, backed by allied  capabilities which support both nations' security interests... We will  continue to deepen our strong bilateral economic, trade and investment  relations... In the Asia-Pacific region we will work jointly with  regional institutions and partners to foster prosperity, keep the peace,  and improve the daily lives of the people of the region... The United  States of America and the Republic of Korea will work to achieve our  common Alliance goals through strategic cooperation at every level._[9]
​ The U.S. Government (June 16, 2009)​


----------



## Attaman (Nov 24, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Also, about the stock, there have been some rises and falls (fall article #1, beware loading issues, fall #2, and fall #3).  It's arguable as to how many of these are 100% related to the situation, but point remains the market is being influenced.  Even if you don't give a crap about the conflict, or the troops already stationed / which may be stationed there, think at least of your wallet.


 
Just to re-emphasize, note that I haven't done any more searching on the matter since yesterday(ish) to get information.

Also, in case no-one else knew this, Sarah Palin "oopsed" and said North Korea was our ally on a... radio talk show, I think it was.  Just for a very light attempt at humor for the mostly "serious" situation.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 24, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The problem with the "The U.S should not police the world" is, that  people complain when the U.S does something, and they complain when we  don't help. Its a no-win situation in foreign polices there. The world  kind of does look the the U.S to fix the world's problems, or just keep  crazy nations under control (as best as possible).
> 
> We do have a right to the North Korean-South Korean relations. Our Soldiers fought there, and died there. The U.S says we have a bond with South Korea that was forged in Blood.


 
Past military support is not a good reason to _continue_ military support. People in general do not thing highly of the US, and this is largely because the US gets involved with other country's shit when it shouldn't. SK may have a positive view of the US, but that isn't really important. You don't go "oh those people like US, we should give them military support so they keep on liking US." The rest of the world may say "wtf America why aren't you helping SK?" but as you said it is a no-win situation. People are going to blame the US for shit no matter what, and from that perspective the best thing to do is not get involved with it in the first place.

The only thing that should be important when considering an invasion of NK is NK's threat to the US. Aside from the nukes I already mentioned, NK is not t threat to the US. At all. We have no reason to commit military resources to the region, and given budget issues the bases there should be closed anyway. 

I just don't see why Americans should die fighting for South Korea, especially when the rest of the world makes such an issue out of the US "policing" the world. 

Also, I like how kenya has a more positive view of the US than the US does :\



Attaman said:


> Just to re-emphasize, note that I haven't done any more searching on the matter since yesterday(ish) to get information.


 How does a US military presence in the region change that? In the case of a war, SK's economy will take a major hit whether or not the US is there.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 25, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Past military support is not a good reason to _continue_ military support. People in general do not thing highly of the US, and this is largely because the US gets involved with other country's shit when it shouldn't. SK may have a positive view of the US, but that isn't really important. You don't go "oh those people like US, we should give them military support so they keep on liking US." The rest of the world may say "wtf America why aren't you helping SK?" but as you said it is a no-win situation. People are going to blame the US for shit no matter what, and from that perspective the best thing to do is not get involved with it in the first place.
> 
> The only thing that should be important when considering an invasion of NK is NK's threat to the US. Aside from the nukes I already mentioned, NK is not t threat to the US. At all. We have no reason to commit military resources to the region, and given budget issues the bases there should be closed anyway.
> 
> ...



Again, *we have a military pact treaty with South Korea.* We signed a treaty/alliance with them. We have a stake in that area to keep it as peaceful as possible. Do you not think its a good idea for the most powerful military in the world to keep a rouge country in check? One who has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons? and is threatening to use them?

My main question is, is it not a good thing that we try and keep the world as peaceful as possible (as we best we can at least) I am all for other nations stepping up to world peace, but it seems like the U.S is the main country that is willing to assist in keeping the peace in the world. I am not saying other nations haven't, but it seems like the U.S always has always been the one to lead during conflicts. As in we usually have the biggest military presence than any other nation.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 25, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, *we have a military pact treaty with South Korea.* We signed a treaty/alliance with them. We have a stake in that area to keep it as peaceful as possible. Do you not think its a good idea for the most powerful military in the world to keep a rouge country in check? One who has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons? and is threatening to use them?
> 
> My main question is, is it not a good thing that we try and keep the world as peaceful as possible (as we best we can at least) I am all for other nations stepping up to world peace, but it seems like the U.S is the main country that is willing to assist in keeping the peace in the world. I am not saying other nations haven't, but it seems like the U.S always has always been the one to lead during conflicts. As in we usually have the biggest military presence than any other nation.


 
*So what*. Terminate the treaty and move on. Going to war just because "we have a treaty" is nonsense. 

It is only the responsibility of the US to take care of rogue states that threaten the US, and as of now NK doesn't really fit the bill. It also is not the duty of the US to "keep world peace" or other such silliness. By trying to keep world peace, you end up invading (typically small) nations because their leaders are a threat to quote "world peace" and is simply an excuse to act as a world police force. It is the duty of the US to take care of itself, and that is it. It does this by keeping good relations with trade partners and allied nations, and not by invading nations it has no contact with that the world think is threatening "the peace." The world would probably be a more peaceful place as a whole is large nations didn't decide to try to keep some kind of peace. 

Also, just because the US has a large military presence doesn't mean it should be used. It isn't like muscles, where you use them or you lose them. You don't look at a conflict and say "well we have a few thousand tanks in the region _anyway, so..._". You use military force when military force is called for, and I don't see why US military force should be called for here. 

Not to mention, the US military could use some serious downsizing anyway. Getting rid of the bases and personnel station in that region would go a fair way in cutting expenditures.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 25, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> *So what*. Terminate the treaty and move on. Going to war just because "we have a treaty" is nonsense.
> 
> It is only the responsibility of the US to take care of rogue states that threaten the US, and as of now NK doesn't really fit the bill. It also is not the duty of the US to "keep world peace" or other such silliness. By trying to keep world peace, you end up invading places like Iraq or other nations because their leaders are a threat to quote "world peace" and is simply an excuse to ace as a world police force. It is the duty of the US to take care of itself, and that is it. It does this by keeping good relations with trade partners and allied nations, and not by invading nations it has no contact with that the world think is threatening "the peace." The world would probably be a more peaceful place as a whole is large nations didn't decide to try to keep some kind of peace.
> 
> ...


 
So, why not disband the U.N, EU, NATO and the countless other groups while your at it. Why not get rid of every military allegiance every country has. Those pacts are what keeps the world in check.
Your idea to just say fuck you to countries we have promised to protect is one of the worst ideas politically. As for North Korea not fitting the Bill, its a rouge nation that is trying to make viable nuclear arms, not a good thing. They have a massive stockpile of biological weapons that they have threatened to use. Its a country that has a huge laundry list of human rights violations. What constitutes on your list of a rouge nation?

Secondly, the U.S needs to downsize its military? Really? 
U.S Military estimated 2.5 million total. Very small compared to how large it was during WWII
India boasts almost 4.8 million man army, Iran boasts a 2.8 million man army, China boasts a 3.5 million man standing army (but has 40 million plus in reserve, I think the number is way larger because of how big their population is 1.3 billion, China has also claimed than can field up to 200 million men.) DPRK (North Korea) boasts a staggering 9.5 million man army, Russia boasts a 21 million man army (yeah...Think about that) South Korea boasts an 8.6 million man army, and Vietnam boasts a 5.4 million man army. So the U.S military is not huge at all.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 25, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, why not disband the U.N, EU, NATO and the countless other groups while your at it. Why not get rid of every military allegiance every country has. Those pacts are what keeps the world in check.


 
Disbanding permanent military alliances would be a _great_ idea, actually. There is nothing stopping them from re-forming under a genuinely large threat (as Germany was in ww2) and discourages the growth or expansion of conflict (as the military alliances of ww1 did). The EU would still exist as a para-governmental agency making laws for its member-states and regulating trade. NATO isn't all that important anymore, I don't think, especially with the USSR gone and no other major nations being an active military threat. And the UN most certainly should gtfo, or at most limiting its responsibilities to regulating trade. But other organizations already do that, so w/e. 

As I said before the threat of WMDs from NK is not relevant here. Either you are willing to actively invade the country to stop them from developing the weapons, or you are not. Pledging support for SK in the case of an invasion does nothing to curb the threat of WMDs from NK. And again it does not matter if NK is a rouge state with human rights violations. Either you are willing to invade NK to stop them, or you are not. Giving support to SK in case of invasion does nothing to stop that, either. 

We had no business giving the promise of protection to SK in the first place, and it might be a bad political move for US-SK relation to terminate the treaty. But if the choice is between severing military ties with SK and going to a war with NK, I think the choice should be obvious. 

And yes, the US military needs to be cut down dramatically. First off, the number of people is only part of it. We _spend_ on our military than the next 15 countries combined, and there is no excuse for that. Additionally, China, India, Russia, the EU and so on are not threats to the US. They will _never_ take action against the US because of the nuclear deterrence, and the economic destruction that will bring. We do not need a 2 million man army, we don't even need a 1 million man army. We don't need 80% of the shit our military has, and it could not hurt to lose it. We can start by pulling out of Asia and leaving Asian affairs to Asian nations.


----------



## Browder (Nov 25, 2010)

I would like to point out that according to a U.N. 'treaty' we are required to give Iran nuclear power and take away the nukes in Israel. Food for thought, Rukh.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 25, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> Disbanding permanent military alliances would be a _great_ idea, actually. There is nothing stopping them from re-forming under a genuinely large threat (as Germany was in ww2) and discourages the growth or expansion of conflict (as the military alliances of ww1 did). The EU would still exist as a para-governmental agency making laws for its member-states and regulating trade. NATO isn't all that important anymore, I don't think, especially with the USSR gone and no other major nations being an active military threat. And the UN most certainly should gtfo, or at most limiting its responsibilities to regulating trade. But other organizations already do that, so w/e.
> 
> As I said before the threat of WMDs from NK is not relevant here. Either you are willing to actively invade the country to stop them from developing the weapons, or you are not. Pledging support for SK in the case of an invasion does nothing to curb the threat of WMDs from NK. And again it does not matter if NK is a rouge state with human rights violations. Either you are willing to invade NK to stop them, or you are not. Giving support to SK in case of invasion does nothing to stop that, either.
> 
> ...



First of all, reforming when a threat has already become a huge problem, That is a bad plan. (research WWI, we wanted to stay out of it, but we were dragged into it anyways) Lets wait until someone else already has the complete upper hand before we mobilize an army. Socondly you are forgetting how much humanitarian aid our military does. Sounds like your idea is to wait until shit hits the fan before you even mobolize an army. Thats not a good stance at all militarly wise (I study military strategy and tactics as a hobby)
What about the war on terrorism. Should we just stop fighting paramilitary groups bent of causing massive amounts of destruction?

To me, it sounds like you like the isolationist line of thinking. Remember we tried that, and it doesn't work.
Also, remember what happened to some of the countries that stated they were neutral in WWII? They were still invaded and couldn't fight back.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 25, 2010)

Browder said:


> I would like to point out that according to a U.N. 'treaty' we are required to give Iran nuclear power and take away the nukes in Israel. Food for thought, Rukh.


 
Link?


----------



## Browder (Nov 25, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Link?



Wikipedia Article and State Department.

Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. Just telling you that sometimes we don't actually have to do the things we say we're going to do.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 25, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> To me, it sounds like you like the isolationist line of thinking. Remember we tried that, and it doesn't work.
> Also, remember what happened to some of the countries that stated they were neutral in WWII? They were still invaded and couldn't fight back.


 It works just fine when your greatest military threats come from rouge 3rd-world nations or terrorist organizations. Large military organizations only need to exist if there is an actual threat from other large military organizations. And as I said before, there isn't one. China will never invade the US or Europe, and neither will Russia for that matter. We need a military large enough to deal with terrorist organizations and states that support them, and that is it. Large military treaties made sense when conventional weapons decided big wars, but they are pointless now. A nuclear power will never attack another nuclear power. Period. I am all for military isolationism, it makes perfect sense now that we have a nuclear deterrence and don't have to worry about other large, powerful nations attacking us. 

And you can still send in humanitarian aid without having a 2 million man military that consumes $700 billion a year.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 25, 2010)

Browder said:


> Wikipedia Article and State Department.
> 
> Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. Just telling you that sometimes we don't actually have to do the things we say we're going to do.


 
Israel has not signed that treaty, just an fyi. And Iran is part of the NPT but has not complied with it completely.

right to use nuclear technology peacefully
"The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear  technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development  of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, *as long as they  can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the  development of nuclear weapons.*"

Iran has had a nuclear program, supposedly it was stopped in 2007 (I highly doubt it)


----------



## Browder (Nov 25, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Israel has not signed that treaty, just an fyi. And Iran is part of the NPT but has not complied with it completely.
> 
> right to use nuclear technology peacefully
> "The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, *as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.*"
> ...



...yes. If you don't sign the treaty then no one is allowed to provide you with nuclear power of any kind that did. We kinda ignored that and gave them weapons anyway. Same with India. Also Iran? It's batshit insane but I remember the days BEFORE it was refusing UN inspections. We didn't givce 'em shit even the, even though according to the treaty they were entitled to it.


----------



## Eligos (Nov 25, 2010)

I honestly think NK's attack is part of a plan to try and force open six-party talks again and get more aid and concessions from the UN. It's a pattern they follow pretty regularly. Do something outrageous, get the world attention, and then push for negotiations. NK has been itching to start talks again with China, the US, etc., but we haven't budged on it. So they shoot some shells into an ROK training exercise, and announce their trying to enrich uranium. The hope is that the US will sit down at the kiddie table with them and offer international aid if they stop enriching uranium and shooting at SK. Then in another year or two they'll be back at it again.

And I hate to get drug into an ideological argument, but as a member of one of those large military organizations, I have to disagree that they aren't beneficial in the modern times. The US Military provides not just a force for combat, but the capabilities for a large number of domestic and international crises as well. You could move the humanitarian mission to a civilian framework, but the infrastructure for mobilization, training, logistics, and operation all ready exist in the military framework.

Beyond that, it's necessary anymore to consider our military almost as an economic commodity. North Korea doesn't pose a threat directly to us, but it does pose a threat to Japan and South Korea. Those two nations are not only military allies, but trade allies as well. Any reneging on a military treaty in the region would certainly affect economic ties. If North Korea was given free reign in the area and started shooting the shit out of South Korea and lobbing missiles at Japan, the regional economy would go into arrest, which would severely hurt US interests. Even if you believe that a nation can be isolationist military-wise, believing that a nation can isolate it's economy and succeed is foolish.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 25, 2010)

Eligos said:


> Beyond that, it's necessary anymore to consider our military almost as an economic commodity. North Korea doesn't pose a threat directly to us, but it does pose a threat to Japan and South Korea. Those two nations are not only military allies, but trade allies as well. Any reneging on a military treaty in the region would certainly affect economic ties. If North Korea was given free reign in the area and started shooting the shit out of South Korea and lobbing missiles at Japan, the regional economy would go into arrest, which would severely hurt US interests. Even if you believe that a nation can be isolationist military-wise, believing that a nation can isolate it's economy and succeed is foolish.


 That assumes Japan and SK are unable to deal with NK. I think it is clear that a country cannot shrink away from the world economy, be going back on this military treaty is not doing so. What it is doing is choosing not to get involved in a foreign conflict, which just happens to have economic consequences. And hostile action taken by NK will hurt the US economy, but only a victory by NK against not only SK but Japan also would hurt the US economy enough to warrant going to war over and occupying NK. And China is no more keen on letting both SK and Japan fall than we are. The are reluctant to aid us now because there is no real threat of NK actually winning a military conflict and destabilizing the region, I am sure their tune would change if NK became aggressive though. 

Either way, this is not the same as enacting some kind of protectionist economic policy that hurts the economy for no real gain. Going to war over NK in the aid of SK would be a large commitment for the US, and would cost a good number of lives. The invasion and occupation would be extremely expensive as well, maybe even more so than simply "losing" SK. I don't know. Point is, I don't see how the possibility of an unknown amount of economic damage is enough to merit going to war against NK.


----------



## Eligos (Nov 25, 2010)

No one is going to war with NK yet, and I personally doubt they'll take it that far. As much as the general population there is brainwashed, the people in charge still know that the inevitable outcome of that would be a loss and regime change. Even if they continue aggression, it won't just be the US waging war. More likely we would be providing air and naval support to the ROK. The current administration is all to aware of what the public opinion is on yet another ground war. Also, continued aggression by North Korea would certainly rile up at least a little international support.


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Nov 25, 2010)

There better not be a war. I really don't want to live the _Great War_ from the _Fallout_ series of games.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 25, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Just to re-emphasize, note that I haven't done any more searching on the matter since yesterday(ish) to get information.
> 
> Also, in case no-one else knew this, Sarah Palin "oopsed" and said North Korea was our ally on a... radio talk show, I think it was.  Just for a very light attempt at humor for the mostly "serious" situation.


 
Yeah, I heard about that.  She is an imbecile to put all others *cough*W*cough* to SHAME.

She's worthless.  Completely worthless.  Her existence in any capacity other than "hockey mom" is pointless.  Her children are just as worthless even as laughingstocks.

Also, I think there is a STRONG possibility of a coup when Glorious Leader number two dies, the more I think about it.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Nov 25, 2010)

SK could kick NK's ass if they started fighting again.  SK has all the industry.  Technically the war isn't over.


----------



## sunimpette (Nov 26, 2010)

Long time ago Korea was one happy nation until Japan occupied them and turn them into slaves. After WWII Russia/China took contorl of the North and the US got the South. The Communist North wanted to unify with the South causing the Korean war, where the Us and the allies back up the South and China back up the North. At the end no land was taken or gain in either sides. Today the Us millitary and South Korean millitary guards the DMZ the border between North and South Korea. I guess North Korea is still sour over the whole thing. And the Us and China will get caught in the middle, because South Korea would want the US help and the  Us always look to China for help when dealing with North Korea since they are "friends" now but North Korea would probably want China help aswell.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 26, 2010)

Kommodore said:


> *So what*. Terminate the treaty and move on. Going to war just because "we have a treaty" is nonsense.


 
That's not how politics and treaties work.  You don't just say "fuck it, we changed our minds."

I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing at this point.

EDIT:  Also, Browder - as far as I'm concerned, Iran has violated the NPT.  I'm not going to say we ALWAYS follow EVERYTHING to the letter because sometimes common sense dictates otherwise.  In that case, it's usually the politically correct thing to do anyway.  If we were to just say "we're staying out of this.  Sorry SK but we won't help" as Kommodre was suggesting (solely for the sake of "staying out of it")  it would be a political disaster.  I guess that's my point.

If China were to back NK though and war would be a disaster then we would have to re-think the whole thing.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

wait didnt china say that if north korea attacks anyone again then china will cease to help them? i need someone to confirm this


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> SK could kick NK's ass if they started fighting again.  SK has all the industry.  Technically the war isn't over.


  Seoul.  Prime military target.  Shit-ton of NK artillery pointed at it.  SK could very probably do some hurt on N. Korea (even with just one of their main allies), but S. Korea's going to get mauled with horrendous civilian casualties as well.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

anthroguy101 said:


> SK could kick NK's ass if they started fighting again. SK has all the industry. Technically the war isn't over.


 
i dont think it ever ended, they just made a ceaser fire

but north korea just kinda fucked that up


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 26, 2010)

I like how Kommodore thinks that Japan could handle NK in a war.

Japan has a joke of a defense force. That is all. They don't even have a standing army.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

yeah my friend tells me that also, i didnt know that japan doesnt really have an actual military.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 26, 2010)

CrazyLee said:


> Japan has a joke of a defense force. That is all. They don't even have a standing army.


 


Saintversa said:


> yeah my friend tells me that also, i didnt know that japan doesnt really have an actual military.



*facepalm* So the name "Japan Self Defence Force" (JSDF) has obviously escaped your view by the sound of it...

Japan "doesn't have a standing army"? Japan Ground Self-Defense Force has around 147,000 soldiers, and is the largest of the three JSDF branches. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force) operates 805 aircraft, 374 of them being fighter aircraft, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force operates some 110 major warships, including 2 helicopter carriers, 18 submarines, 47 destroyers and frigates, 29 mine warfare ships, 9 patrol craft and 9 amphibious ships.

I somehow doubt that anyone with any knowledge of the JSDF considers their forces to be a "joke".


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Seoul.  Prime military target.  Shit-ton of NK artillery pointed at it.  SK could very probably do some hurt on N. Korea (even with just one of their main allies), but S. Korea's going to get mauled with horrendous civilian casualties as well.


 
SK needs to do an evacuation of Seoul, or get the people into bomb shelters or something unless they can take out the threatening artillery _tout de suite_ and move ASAP IMO.



Mayfurr said:


> I somehow doubt that anyone with any knowledge of the JSDF considers their forces to be a "joke".


 
They've got plenty of sharp teeth.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> *facepalm* So the name "Japan Self Defence Force" (JSDF) has obviously escaped your view by the sound of it...
> 
> Japan "doesn't have a standing army"? Japan Ground Self-Defense Force has around 147,000 soldiers, and is the largest of the three JSDF branches. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force) operates 805 aircraft, 374 of them being fighter aircraft, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force operates some 110 major warships, including 2 helicopter carriers, 18 submarines, 47 destroyers and frigates, 29 mine warfare ships, 9 patrol craft and 9 amphibious ships.
> 
> I somehow doubt that anyone with any knowledge of the JSDF considers their forces to be a "joke".


 
The JSDF is built for defense, not offense. Read their constitution. It is strictly forbidden to attack. Japan is only allowed to defend itself.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> SK needs to do an evacuation of Seoul, or get the people into bomb shelters or something unless they can take out the threatening artillery _tout de suite_ and move ASAP IMO.


  The problem is the population.  Almost twice that of New York City, potentially bouncing up to nearly three times that.  "War" isn't actually in effect yet, meaning that a premature evacuation (or even a well timed one) is pretty costly in regards to lost labor, wasted resources, and so on.  Civilian bomb shelters and the like?  When the other side doesn't seem to care much about general conventions and the like?  Subways become death-traps if the N. Koreans do a standard bombardment followed by a heavier-than-air chemical agent, many bunkers are torn to shreds under constant pummeling of N. Korean heavy artillery...

Really, Seoul might as well have a gigantic "PRIME TOTAL WAR TARGET" bullseye painted over it in North Korea's eyes.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The JSDF is built for defense, not offense. Read their constitution. It is strictly forbidden to attack. Japan is only allowed to defend itself.


 
NK has "attacked" Japan already, they've kidnapped Japanese citizens and they've quite likely killed 8 of them.  Act of war much?



Attaman said:


> The problem is the population.  Almost twice that of New York City, potentially bouncing up to nearly three times that.  "War" isn't actually in effect yet, meaning that a premature evacuation (or even a well timed one) is pretty costly in regards to lost labor, wasted resources, and so on.  Civilian bomb shelters and the like?  When the other side doesn't seem to care much about general conventions and the like?  Subways become death-traps if the N. Koreans do a standard bombardment followed by a heavier-than-air chemical agent, many bunkers are torn to shreds under constant pummeling of N. Korean heavy artillery...
> 
> Really, Seoul might as well have a gigantic "PRIME TOTAL WAR TARGET" bullseye painted over it in North Korea's eyes.



Wonder how much of the populace has gas masks and has gone through "NK ATTACKS" emergency drills.  Fuck, if it were my job to keep a city of millions from getting shelled to death I would have been thinking this through for a long goddamn time now.  I HOPE SK has SOME kind of plans in place for when the shit hits Seoul's fan.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> *facepalm* So the name "Japan Self Defence Force" (JSDF) has obviously escaped your view by the sound of it...
> 
> Japan "doesn't have a standing army"? Japan Ground Self-Defense Force has around 147,000 soldiers, and is the largest of the three JSDF branches. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force) operates 805 aircraft, 374 of them being fighter aircraft, and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force operates some 110 major warships, including 2 helicopter carriers, 18 submarines, 47 destroyers and frigates, 29 mine warfare ships, 9 patrol craft and 9 amphibious ships.
> 
> I somehow doubt that anyone with any knowledge of the JSDF considers their forces to be a "joke".



awesome.. i learned something new today i guess. =P

either way japan wont do much when everything goes down.. right?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> awesome.. i learned something new today i guess. =P
> 
> either way japan wont do much when everything goes down.. right?


 To my understanding, Japan _can't_ do something until they can prove N. Korea poses an active threat to the security of Japan (mainland), and even then are limited in options.  Doesn't mean they can't get involved, but North Korea practically has to stick their arms in the mouth of the lion to get Japan going full tilt.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> awesome.. i learned something new today i guess. =P
> 
> either way japan wont do much when everything goes down.. right?


 
Some US Navy vet once mentioned to me that he was sure Japan would leap at the chance to fuck NK's shit up.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Some US Navy vet once mentioned to me that he was sure Japan would leap at the chance to fuck NK's shit up.



thats pretty funny cause a navy vet told me the same thing last night..? lol thats somethin.



Attaman said:


> To my understanding, Japan _can't_ do something until they can prove N. Korea poses an active threat to the security of Japan (mainland), and even then are limited in options. Doesn't mean they can't get involved, but North Korea practically has to stick their arms in the mouth of the lion to get Japan going full tilt.



mkay.. i get it, so pretty much if north korea keeps fucking around then japan can get their slice of cake when everyone els goes for theirs?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Wonder how much of the populace has gas masks and has gone through "NK ATTACKS" emergency drills.  Fuck, if it were my job to keep a city of millions from getting shelled to death I would have been thinking this through for a long goddamn time now.  I HOPE SK has SOME kind of plans in place for when the shit hits Seoul's fan.


 
Actually, South Korea holds  drills in the cities, An Alarm signaling an invasion/attack goes off. And in about 6 minutes the entire city of Seoul looks dead. Not a person is outside. They have had these monthly drills all over the country for years. They are quite good at it.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, South Korea holds  drills in the cities, An Alarm signaling an invasion/attack goes off. And in about 6 minutes the entire city of Seoul looks dead. Not a person is outside. They have had these monthly drills all over the country for years. They are quite good at it.


 
Aye, the issue is less preparation and more how much you can actually get done with resources available.  You can limit casualties, but you aren't going to reduce them that sharply.  There'll also be the differences in effectiveness from a drill, and the real thing.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Actually, South Korea holds drills in the cities, An Alarm signaling an invasion/attack goes off. And in about 6 minutes the entire city of Seoul looks dead. Not a person is outside. They have had these monthly drills all over the country for years. They are quite good at it.



so glad we dont have to worry about that.. =/

but if anything actually happens, lets say if north korea just decides to try the world and south korea gets it first, do you think theyl get the civies out of south korea?


----------



## Browder (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> so glad we dont have to worry about that.. =/
> 
> but if anything actually happens, lets say if north korea just decides to try the world and south korea gets it first, do you think theyl get the civies out of south korea?



No. I think a lot of people will die.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

whats the number of death's at right now?


----------



## Attaman (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> whats the number of death's at right now?


 Right now?  Only four, since they only shelled a small island.  What could it be?  Large numbers of 155mm+ guns pointing at bigger-than-New York City-city, so take a rough estimate at what initial casualties could be.

Right now, nothing has escalated... yet.  Apparently some shots were heard around the same area as the earlier bombings this morning, but no reports of damage or the like.  N. Korea's still prodding, but isn't prodding that hard yet.  It's a wait to see whether things cool off, or Kimmy decides he wants to play rough.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> so glad we dont have to worry about that.. =/
> 
> but if anything actually happens, lets say if north Korea just decides to try the world and south korea gets it first, do you think theyl get the civies out of south korea?


 
Well I for one wouldn't write of South Korea's military. They have a large modern navy, a 8.6 million man army, and advanced weapons. Where as North Korea has outdated weapons (They use a modified T62 tank still) They do have a 9 million man army but They don't have the resources to hold a large scale long term conflict. Basically they will have a one time shot before they would get steamrolled. This is why they have a massive stockpile of chemical weapons and small nuclear weapons.

Yes, civilians will die on both sides. That is part of war unfortunately. It should be noted that the populace of South Korea is actually calling for war right now.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 26, 2010)

man thats a damn shame. 

yeah north korea is fuckin done.. but also if they DO use those chemical weapons thats going to be x100 times worse..


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 26, 2010)

Just give Japan the green light.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 26, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> man thats a damn shame.
> 
> yeah north korea is fuckin done.. but also if they DO use those chemical weapons thats going to be x100 times worse..


 
What it seems like North Korea is doing, is setting up for the next leader, Kim's 3rd son (His really only choice)
From what I have read, the attack on Tuesday came straight from Kim and his 3rd son who is next in line to be the leader of North Korea. The problem is, Kim's son is untested. He was made a 4 star general back in September even though he has no military experience. What is going on seems to be a test for their next leader. To make sure he will follow in his father's footsteps.

Nothing like making an international incident just to make sure your next leader is ready to take over...


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> What it seems like North Korea is doing, is setting up for the next leader, Kim's 3rd son (His really only choice)
> From what I have read, the attack on Tuesday came straight from Kim and his 3rd son who is next in line to be the leader of North Korea. The problem is, Kim's son is untested. He was made a 4 star general back in September even though he has no military experience. What is going on seems to be a test for their next leader. To make sure he will follow in his father's footsteps.



what do you think will be the outcome if his son uses their chemical weapons? cause sure enough we all know that kim doesnt give a fuck at this point.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 27, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> what do you think will be the outcome if his son uses their chemical weapons? cause sure enough we all know that kim doesnt give a fuck at this point.


 
Kim isn't all their anymore. He is dying. He has major lapses in memory. He is literally not all there anymore. Some say he is showing signs of dementia... Perfect...

I think the chemical weapons are kind of like a deterrent to others attacking. Its like hey, if you attack us look what we will do. North Korea is using them for negotiating power.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 27, 2010)

Btw, aren't we still at war with North Korea? Wasn't this peace just one long ceasefire, and I believe, if I'm right, the longest ceasefire in history? And hasn't North Korea just broke this ceasefire?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Nov 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Btw, aren't we still at war with North Korea? Wasn't this peace just one long ceasefire, and I believe, if I'm right, the longest ceasefire in history? And hasn't North Korea just broke this ceasefire?


 
An Armistice was signed. So you are correct the war has never ended. The Korean war is the longest running modern war.

North Korea has broken it a bunch of times. But the world looks at it, is it really worth going to full scale war. I say right now, no.


----------



## Saintversa (Nov 27, 2010)

well what about them just randomly shelling an island and sinking a ship? they messed the cease fire up big time, so i guess were all waiting for them to do onnneee more thing. =/ then after that its open season.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 27, 2010)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The JSDF is built for defense, not offense.


 
I know that. My point is that "_Armed forces committed to defence only_" does not equal "_a joke of a defence force_", and certainly doesn't mean "_they don't have a military_", as others here seem to think.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 27, 2010)

Attaman said:


> To my understanding, Japan _can't_ do something until they can prove N. Korea poses an active threat to the security of Japan (mainland), and even then are limited in options.  Doesn't mean they can't get involved, but North Korea practically has to stick their arms in the mouth of the lion to get Japan going full tilt.


 
There's also the not-insignificant ill-feeling that China, Korea and many other Asian countries have about any flexing of Japanese military muscle, given previous conflicts like, say... World War II.


----------



## deepthroat (Nov 27, 2010)

It's getting scary; people are now talking about war.


----------



## Sulacoyote (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm gonna be awfully bothered if my Christmas leave gets canceled for Chosin Reservior Pt 2. Ugh why couldn't Best Korea wait until after the holiday season at least.


----------



## sunimpette (Nov 27, 2010)

Saintversa said:


> yeah my friend tells me that also, i didnt know that japan doesnt really have an actual military.


 We are their millitary


----------



## Tycho (Nov 27, 2010)

sunimpette said:


> We are their millitary


 
No, we are fucking NOT.


----------



## slydude851 (Nov 27, 2010)

Well their options here, they can only choose one or the other and they have to choose, is whether to keep fireing, go to war, launch nukes and collapse, orrr hold back and implode anyways.  Whatever they choose, North Korea is really screwed either way.  Unless something different happens.  The entire world is watching what happens and also what the USA decides to do as the USA is South Korea's ally and the USA will defend them.

Come to think, I don't know why I used "the USA" instead of just "us".


----------



## Zoetrope (Nov 27, 2010)

*considers pointing korean boyfriend in the direction of this thread to see what he thinks* :3


----------



## Attaman (Nov 27, 2010)

Yon Hap News Agency said:
			
		

> 2010/11/28 10:26 KST
> N. Korea deploys SA-2 surface-to-air missiles near Yellow Sea border
> 
> SEOUL, Nov. 28 (Yonhap) -- North Korea has deployed SA-2 surface-to-air missiles to its west coast near the Yellow Sea border with South Korea as U.S.-led naval drills got underway in a show of force against the North's deadly artillery attack on a South Korean island earlier last week, government sources said Sunday.
> ...



Groovy.


----------



## Machinemade (Nov 30, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> Well their options here, they can only choose  one or the other and they have to choose, is whether to keep fireing, go  to war, launch nukes and collapse, orrr hold back and implode anyways.   Whatever they choose, North Korea is really screwed either way.  Unless  something different happens.  The entire world is watching what happens  and also what the USA decides to do as the USA is South Korea's ally  and the USA will defend them.
> 
> Come to think, I don't know why I used "the USA" instead of just "us".



I wouldn't be so sure, despite what everybody on this forums, blowing off Korea as nothing more than a wannabe world power, they ARE dangerous. They have 4th largest military in the world, certainly not the most advanced or well trained but these guys are not pushovers. This could actually end up like another Vietnam for the U.S if we choose to underestimate them. Not to mention they DO have nuclear capabilities any may use their nuclear missiles as a last resort to prevent total defeat in the war if it doesn't go well for them. I'm not saying they are all mighty but they certainly more threatening than the rag-heads in Iraq. Rag-heads that the U.S is still struggling to completely suppress.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 30, 2010)

Tycho said:


> No, we are fucking NOT.



And yet we have military bases on their soil.

Sometime after WWII Japan was allowed to create a small military force for defense only. And even then, it's tiny. 200k total force size compared to the million man armies of the US, China, NK and SK. We keep military bases in their country in order to help protect them as our relationship with them requires. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty..._Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

SK could certainly hold it's own with NK, but there is no way that Japan on it's own, with a force of only 200k, could take on NK's larger military.


I love how China was chastising the US at first for the attack, and the instant our warships appeared off their coast, called for talks and peaceful resolution.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm just sitting back and enjoying everyone freaking out.


----------

