Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: North Korea aggression - What next?

  1. #1 North Korea aggression - What next? 
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    So given the events of the last few weeks and the strong warnings from both sides do you think it will come to military action? Who will strike first, and also who will be involved?

    If you dont think this will happen, what diplomatic events do you think will happen?


    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    They should have Tae Kwon Do tournament.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i'm not sure about the concept of a war between the two... again. the idea of that happening while NK is developing nuclear capabilities is quite frightening to me. but as for the question of who will strike first, i'm reasonably certain the torpedo already launched against the south korean ship constitutes a first strike.

    and as to kalster's remark, even though it was made in good humor i think a similar diplomatic solution would be prefferable to a war between NK and its allies, and SK and its allies. it reminds me too much of serbia and the austro-hungarian empire.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Any substantial NK aggression would amount to suicide, so apparently, it only bluffs.

    NK suffers from chronic hunger. Famine death rates in the 1990s ran as high as 10% in some areas, and today’s adult N Koreans have an average stature 2½ inches shorter than S Koreans, and NK has significantly fewer men per women.

    Compared to SK, NK has more mountainous terrain, less arable land, lower temperature, shorter growing season, greater man-made erosion, massive flooding of its low-lying croplands, and much less chemical fertilizer production.

    This nighttime photo from space shows the immense difference in artificial light produced in SK compared to NK. The circle identifies the Korean peninsula. Seoul and its environs produce the huge area of light in SK, while Pyongyang produces the largest spot in the mostly dark NK.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    The situation since the 1950s has changed and NK can no longer count on China as a military ally. South Korea is one of China's largest trading partners, while North Korea remains simply as a political bargaining chip. If NK was no longer useful for China they would drop political relations immediately. I think it entirely likely that a second Korean war would involve NK fighting alone, and they would lose badly. The major problem is that they have a handful of nuclear bombs that can reach Japan and SK. They could do a lot of damage if they manage to get a nuke off the ground, but that's all they could hope for, they can't win.

    Also, from what I've seen on TV coming from experts on Korea, North Korea doesn't seem interested in starting a war, they aren't self-destructive to that degree. I know it was reported that NK threatened military action if there was a response, but I saw an expert on the peninsula say that the actual statement by NK was that they would respond to military action with war. SK isn't going to go farther than imposing sanctions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    I've been following the situation closely for a couple of years now. This is hardly this first time the DPRK (North Korea) has attacked ROK's (South Korea) citizens. The 1983 Rangoon bombing in Burma was an attempt to assassinate the ROK president. Explosives were placed in the rooftop of a shrine and several members of the visiting ROK delegation were killed including the deputy prime minister, the economic planning minister, and the minister for commerce and industry. In 1987, Korean Air Flight 858 was bombed by two DPRK agents killing all 115 passengers. Later, one of these agents confessed that the attack was like the Rangoon bombing, personally ordered by Kim Jong Il. The intention was to disrupt upcoming government elections and frighten South Korea's soon to compete Olympic team. The motive for the most recent attack is a little more blurry. The sinking the corvette Cheonan may have been some sort of naval accident or misunderstanding, but a South Korean newspaper suggests it was intentional:

    On April 20, 2010, the South Korean newspaper the Chosun Ilbo published claims that a North Korean officer had said a North Korean semi-submersible operated by 13 commandos sank the Cheonan in a navy operation authorized by Kim Jong-il. The officer claims the motive was revenge. "After the North lost the sea skirmish in November last year, Kim Jong-il gave an order to take revenge. He gave the order when he visited the naval fleet command in Nampo."[71] On November 10, 2009, naval vessels from the two Koreas exchanged fire in the area of the Northern Limit Line, reportedly causing serious damage to a North Korean patrol ship.[72] (That incident became known as the Battle of Daecheong.) The officer claimed that North Korean Generals Kim Yong-chol (the director of the Reconnaissance Bureau in charge of espionage operations against the South) and U Dong-chuk (the senior deputy chief of the State Security Department and a member of the National Defense Commission) traveled between Pyongyang and Nampo frequently to visit the fleet command to work out an operational plan. The officer allegedly claims that the Cheonan's sinking lifted soldiers' morale and the 13 commandos "are being treated as heroes."
    http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...042000972.html

    The DPRK likes to blackmail the international community by doing something insane then conceding to requests after being offered incentives. The real difference with this situation is that ROK seems to be calling North Korea's bluff. North Korea always wants to up the ante and there isn't much more it can do short of war. I don't think either side wants an armed conflict but this is a very dangerous situation where an accidental skirmish might happen, then escalate. Analysts find it difficult to predict North Korea's intentions. It is an erratic nation that few truly understand.

    As for China's involvement, they aren't as consequential to the DPRK as many think. For China, North Korea seems to be little more than a foreign policy project out of control. China wanted to show that it has influence over it's neighbors and regional stability but has failed.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Thanks for some of the background Kukhri, besides the shooting of the airliner I didnt know much about it.
    I really cant see what North Korea's motive is, I also dont really believe they have nuclear missiles. Was it verified? I remembered reading that the so called 'test' they did was the equivalent of a lorry of TNT.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    I also dont really believe they have nuclear missiles. Was it verified? I remembered reading that the so called 'test' they did was the equivalent of a lorry of TNT.
    Below, is an article from the Federation of American Scientists detailing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The DPRK's possession of nuclear devices does not appear to be disputed.

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    So you guys beleive that official story?

    It makes little sense

    Although Japan is reconsidering booting the US out of Okinawa, so I guess it might scare countries into siding with US big brother now that the NK scarecrow is being rattled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Kim jong il, the very physical manifistation of the word evil.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    harvestein; Don't you think much of this will be up to China, even maybe could have been clear up by China years ago. Even if not, the US has virtually no leverage left in the Pacific, with China/Japan holding a good share or our public debt.

    Short of 'more of the same', we're talking years before any final solution, then possibly circumstances, the death of Kim jong il for instance or an increasing social acceptance of reunification of N&S, back to Korea are or would be the best end result, nuclear weapons or not.

    Kukhri; If China has any worry, it's probably a few million refugees flowing into China, which they neither want or need. If war should happen to break out (don't think it will) those refugees would be eminent. At any rate it would be my opinion, China is and has played a role there for years, probably in daily contact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    the death of Kim jong il for instance
    I would like to think that would make a difference, but the people there are so indoctrinated by years of government controlled media. they dont even have the internet, it is just a North Korean Intranet, and they also try and block all external radio signals. Also the cult of character they have produced worked well enough in Cuba, even though Castro appears to be in the back seat now.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/8711951.stm

    Don't you think much of this will be up to China
    Yes. But for some reason (I dont know if this is just my perception), China always seem to be very guarded about commenting on any international disagreement. Im not sure how they would react to the threat of military action in the region.
    But then again, North Korea isnt exactly being a well behaved useful ally. Last thing china needs while its economy is exploding is its communist cousin blowing up boats and intimidating other large economies.

    From the link Kukhri posted:

    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced that analysis of air-samples conducted on October 11 had confirmed that the event had been an underground nuclear explosion near P'unggye on October 9, 2006. DNI concluded that the "explosion yield was less than a kiloton."
    So perhaps they did have a nuke then, but to be honest Im extremely skeptical of any government report about Nuclear weapons held by other nations after what happened in Iraq. The document appears to show a lot of guesswork about reprocessing capability and how many they might have. If they do have more of them then I guess once again all the UN had done is flap its gums and sound scary but is essentially ineffective as usual. If thats the case then the international community has thrown away its advantage. An undesirable was bound to develop the technology again eventually, real test now is how we deal with it.

    It turned out allright with Russia, I think the threat of mutual incineration works quite well. it is just unfortunate for us that we have allowed them to reach that point.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    So you guys beleive that official story?

    It makes little sense

    Although Japan is reconsidering booting the US out of Okinawa, so I guess it might scare countries into siding with US big brother now that the NK scarecrow is being rattled.
    You're a broken record.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Kukhri; If China has any worry, it's probably a few million refugees flowing into China, which they neither want or need.
    Yes, this is one of China's chief concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    the people there are so indoctrinated by years of government controlled media. they dont even have the internet, it is just a North Korean Intranet, and they also try and block all external radio signals.
    I do think many common folk would change their tune if they were exposed to the South Korean lifestyle. Attempts to transmit southern television shows are doing more to convince northerners of the benefits of capitalism than anything else. The North Korean agent who bombed Flight 858 and survived a cyanide capsule, defected after watching television in a hospital and realizing all she had been told about the ROK was wrong. She went from an assassin, willing to kill herself for her ideals to an informer on covert DPRK activities.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    The sinking the corvette Cheonan may have been some sort of naval accident or misunderstanding, but a South Korean newspaper suggests it was intentional...
    I suspect it was intentional tit-for-tat, reprisal for the sinking of a NK boat some years ago, they made much noise about at the time. The boat's position (and cause of sinking) was disputed of course. Border games.

    Difference here is that the West has decided to pursue an escalating issue from what passes for justice done by Pyongyang. Better just call this resolved IMO, since they will.

    And it was a non-sequtor to re-list NK "state-sponsor of terrorism" because they sunk a warship.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Do you really think there will be a war under the situation US is bearing with a 10% unemployment rate, a greasy offshore, plus fighting for two war and a troublesome Israel overseas....

    Even if Obama decide to kick some ass at the wrong time, China will hardly let NK fight alone.. SInce by then it will be surrounded by US troops: in Okinawa, in Taiwan, and soon will be in NK what a nice iron triangle.....
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    Even if Obama decide to kick some ass at the wrong time, China will hardly let NK fight alone.. SInce by then it will be surrounded by US troops: in Okinawa, in Taiwan, and soon will be in NK what a nice iron triangle.....
    There are no US military bases in Taiwan. Even if so, all of these locations are east of China, not surrounding it. China would never consider resisting the US militarily.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    There are no US military bases in Taiwan. Even if so, all of these locations are east of China, not surrounding it. China would never consider resisting the US militarily.



    Yeah you are right , my wrong wording..

    but at least though out the offshore there are full of the smell of US hegemony...

    Oh I forgot...even there is a strip of Afghanistan is connect to China...
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    but at least though out the offshore there are full of the smell of US hegemony...
    Absurd.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    You always think a war is easy.......@#@$%&

    This war(war between N & S Korea, during 2010s)will never happen in this time line.....

    Even in the Cold War, a direct military conflict was not an effective way to solve problems.

    A war start or end is not only depends on the power differences, people are not caculators deciding wars by subtracting.

    Meanwhile, if the war do happen in future,
    I suggest unless the war comes to affect the security of one's border, no Nations such as China, Russia, USA, Japan should directly get involved. No excuse like protecting ally.
    Ha, this would never happen too, for White House reasons. Then because the directly involving of USA, China would go to a fully hostile state against USA, I promise, as Chinese.

    Actually, why not let the Koreans solve the problem by themselves?
    FORCED seperating won't last to the end....
    One vanish in history may do good to the whole Koreans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    我听不懂
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    我听不懂
    。。。
    你好,我在说:“别老想着打仗,这起不到什么作用。让朝鲜民族自己解决问题去,美国少插手。”


    BTW
    The guys who like to take a war as the first step to solve problems certainly never considered themselves as the soldiers who may die in the war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    From the link Kukhri posted:

    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced that analysis of air-samples conducted on October 11 had confirmed that the event had been an underground nuclear explosion near P'unggye on October 9, 2006. DNI concluded that the "explosion yield was less than a kiloton."
    So perhaps they did have a nuke then, but to be honest Im extremely skeptical of any government report about Nuclear weapons held by other nations after what happened in Iraq. The document appears to show a lot of guesswork about reprocessing capability and how many they might have. If they do have more of them then I guess once again all the UN had done is flap its gums and sound scary but is essentially ineffective as usual. If thats the case then the international community has thrown away its advantage. An undesirable was bound to develop the technology again eventually, real test now is how we deal with it.

    It turned out allright with Russia, I think the threat of mutual incineration works quite well. it is just unfortunate for us that we have allowed them to reach that point.
    North Korea has an advantage Iraq never had. During the Cold War, Russia had set up a plutonium based nuclear power plant. Plutonium is really easy to refine up to nuclear bomb levels compared with ordinary Uranium. It sounds like they still haven't managed to accomplish it very well even so, though.

    They could still dirty bomb someone with what they've got, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    我听不懂
    。。。
    你好,我在说:“别老想着打仗,这起不到什么作用。让朝鲜民族自己解决问题去,美国少插手。”


    BTW
    The guys who like to take a war as the first step to solve problems certainly never considered themselves as the soldiers who may die in the war.
    In my experience, American soldiers who are already serving in the military, and who know they will probably have to fight, are the most eager to vote for violent solutions in the USA.

    You're just not understanding American culture if you think these wars are against the wishes of the ones who fight in them. American soldiers simply do not fear death. They're not suicidal. They're just conditioned to not to be afraid. It is considered an honor to fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    Even if Obama decide to kick some ass at the wrong time, China will hardly let NK fight alone.. SInce by then it will be surrounded by US troops: in Okinawa, in Taiwan, and soon will be in NK what a nice iron triangle.....
    There are no US military bases in Taiwan. Even if so, all of these locations are east of China, not surrounding it. China would never consider resisting the US militarily.
    I'm curious why that is.

    I've read about the Chinese military kind of being a political power unto itself, with a lot of corruption in the form of smuggling operations. Apparently the government is afraid to crack down, because they can't afford to lose their support.

    Is it something to do with what wangwy13 was talking about? Instead of being like the US military that's all gung ho to fight a war, do you think maybe the Chinese military is composed of people who are a little more timid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Is it something to do with what wangwy13 was talking about? Instead of being like the US military that's all gung ho to fight a war, do you think maybe the Chinese military is composed of people who are a little more timid?
    One rough statistics reveals that, in China, there is almost one domestic war per year. Although, compare to this fact a war is seldom taken as a method to solve problems between China and another country(or ethnicity without a complete government structure).
    These domestic wars are always started by poor and uneducated people who believe there was no way to live better except a war. The point is that they are further controlled by powerful leaders who struggle for few leaders' own needs, to build a new dynasty, for example.
    As a matter of fact, the initial wish never accomplished by a war, NOT only in China.
    We are not "timid", we know a single war only cause more problems. You can say we are "experienced".

    Carl von Clausewitz said that "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means".
    Under current political relations, war won't happen between N & S Korea, especially there are even S Korea people doubt the true fact of the Tian ship.
    Anyone want to bet on this?

    Clausewitz also sees all wars as the sum of decisions, actions, and reactions in an uncertain, dangerous context but also as a socio-political phenomenon.

    So this dangerous thing is that so effective?

    And kojax, could you please give an evidence that "American soldiers who are already serving in the military, and who know they will probably have to fight, are the most eager to vote for violent solutions in the USA."
    Something except vote, okay? Some people's voice are heard, but does these some people represent the whole group and their families? What about the families lost their sons?(although they are the worst victims, these people surely can't go against a war)

    Chinese gov "can't afford to lose their support", that's true. But I can't see any relationship with the result you mentioned as "crack down". PLA has a lot of functions besides war, take the fighting with nature disaster as an example.
    Changing of ruling party is not so necessary for gov policy changing. Military is the last political power contribute to gov policy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Conventional warfare between North and South is comperable to nuclear mutual assured destruction. They are too close, too densely populated, there's just too much heavy artillery standing in range. Neither side can cripple or shield against such onslaught.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    我听不懂
    。。。
    你好,我在说:“别老想着打仗,这起不到什么作用。让朝鲜民族自己解决问题去,美国少插手。”
    So, you are saying that war does not solve problems, and that Korea should solve their own, and that the US should not intervene.

    Okay, but how might Korea "solve their own problems?"
    What makes you think that anybody, including citizens of the United States, think that "war solves problems?"

    I can appreciate a distaste for war. However, to dismiss it such as you have shows that you are slightly naive. From my perspective, we all need to come together as a global community to solve problems, and just staying out of it could lead to a lot of damage. If we do not intervene, then the consequences of that could impact us in the future.

    We participate for our own good, and to also protect our ideals. Sometimes doing that requires fighting with those who disagree, or with those who seek to prevent us from realizing those ideals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Inow, the North and South have tried to open bilateral trade and communication. Meanwhile the US presses sanctions and "a unified stand" against NK.

    USA policy aims for NK isolation and implosion.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    我听不懂
    。。。
    你好,我在说:“别老想着打仗,这起不到什么作用。让朝鲜民族自己解决问题去,美国少插手。”
    So, you are saying that war does not solve problems, and that Korea should solve their own, and that the US should not intervene.

    Okay, but how might Korea "solve their own problems?"
    What makes you think that anybody, including citizens of the United States, think that "war solves problems?"

    I can appreciate a distaste for war. However, to dismiss it such as you have shows that you are slightly naive. From my perspective, we all need to come together as a global community to solve problems, and just staying out of it could lead to a lot of damage. If we do not intervene, then the consequences of that could impact us in the future.

    We participate for our own good, and to also protect our ideals. Sometimes doing that requires fighting with those who disagree, or with those who seek to prevent us from realizing those ideals.
    You are quite right about the concept of "global community".
    But situation are unique here.
    Half century ago, these two countries are forced to seperated because of the Cold War by unwilling involving of the Koreans by USA, Russia and China.
    If we still affect them for excuse of ally, when would they join together again?
    They should learn how to talk with each other, that maybe painful but good to the whole Korean race.

    Since there is nobody here talked about a politic way with peaceful talking to solve the Korea problem, I can only conclude that many of you think "war solves problems". Only a logic impression of the fact, nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Thank you both for your comments above. I understand your position. I simply wish to remind people that it is a little more complex than that.

    A lot of what we see in Korea is political theater. North Korean leadership has done little, if anything, to help their people advance and become healthy. The dictator in place is isolating his people from the outside world, and acting like a cult leader. He is putting himself in the position of deity, and is doing practically nothing to advance his people... to get them fed... to make them healthy. Instead, he focuses all of his resources on nuclear development so he can scare his neighbors into doing what he wants.

    In short, his actions serve to destabilize the region, and the efforts of the US (in my opinion) are simply to prevent further destabilization. Leaving them alone would not suddenly make the North Korean leadership a peaceful and helpful group, and I think it's naive if anyone suggests that.

    I agree that war is not an ideal option. I agree that political means need to be tried and used as our first option. However, what the above arguments seem to suggest is that we are not ALREADY engaged in diplomatic talks and that we are not ALREADY involved in using political efforts to change their behaviors. Those suggestions are false, as we are already doing both.

    Regardless, we need a "Plan B" for when those efforts fail, and that plan is the leverage provided by our military option. We start with the carrot, but finish with the stick. It's basic humanity right there, not some egregious affront from the US people. That's my take, anyway.

    Again... It's a complex situation, and we don't do it justice by oversimplifying matters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13

    And kojax, could you please give an evidence that "American soldiers who are already serving in the military, and who know they will probably have to fight, are the most eager to vote for violent solutions in the USA."
    Something except vote, okay? Some people's voice are heard, but does these some people represent the whole group and their families? What about the families lost their sons?(although they are the worst victims, these people surely can't go against a war)
    I just know a lot of soldiers as friends. In the USA, military service is a career for a lot of people, a life long dedication they take pride in. Fighting allows them to demonstrate how skillful they are. I asked several of my friends why they supported the war in Iraq and that's pretty much what they told me. All of them were looking for ways to convince their superiors to transfer them into a combat area so they could fight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You're just not understanding American culture if you think these wars are against the wishes of the ones who fight in them. American soldiers simply do not fear death. They're not suicidal. They're just conditioned to not to be afraid. It is considered an honor to fight.
    Hooah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    There are no US military bases in Taiwan. Even if so, all of these locations are east of China, not surrounding it. China would never consider resisting the US militarily.
    I'm curious why that is.
    After World War II, Japan renounced it's claim over Taiwan and by default the United States became the principle occupying power. In order to place bases there, the US would need to instate "United States Military Government" jurisdiction over Taiwan, which it has not.

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Half century ago, these two countries are forced to seperated because of the Cold War by unwilling involving of the Koreans by USA, Russia and China.
    Each side more than welcomed external support. Why would a nation in peril not?

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    If we still affect them for excuse of ally, when would they join together again?
    They should learn how to talk with each other, that maybe painful but good to the whole Korean race.
    I'm having difficulty understanding your meaning, but you seem to have a very naive impression of the political situation here. Under South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" the Ministry of Unification has been trying to organize talks for some time. It's difficult when Kim John Il requires petty bribes to attend these conferences. In any case, I don't want Korea to be re-united in the foreseeable future. The economic disparity is far too much. Germany is still suffering economically from it's rapid re-unification over twenty years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Actually, why not let the Koreans solve the problem by themselves?
    Had Korea been left to settle it's internal struggle in 1950, the entire peninsula would be left to the government disaster that North Korea is doomed to today.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    The word "naive" has been used again.....
    So I start to doubt if I'm naive......
    Before I believe that is true, let me be naive again...

    N Korea is always criticized for its CURRENT policy.
    What if there is no S Korea or N Korea? What if United Nations Command never get to Korea?
    The situation in nowadays are results by interactions of several countries around Korea and one far away country--USA.
    To say N Korea is doomed to today or even the whole Korea may be is NOT RIGHT.

    Of cause, the history can't be changed.
    So the effective question now is should these countries change their policy?
    Or continue to make things in Korea even worse?

    Isolating only make a more hostile N Korea to USA even the whole world.
    It's naive in my personal opinion that making isolation to make N Korea gov collapse or yield.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    You have made a large assumption. It is possible that it is true, but I don't know. You assume that Koreans (north and south) would be better off if other countries chose to leave them alone.

    You also assume that it's just "current" policy which results in the criticism of North Korea. I don't think that is true, either.

    I understand your premise. You think Korea (north and south) would be beer [EDIT] meant "better"[/EDIT] if other outside countries left them alone.

    I am just not sure why you think that, nor if experience supports that assertion. Perhaps they would be better off in the very long term? Is that what you mean? My concerns, I admit, are more focused on the short-term... the near future, not the distant future.


    Or, am I totally missing your point, and maybe this is some veiled attack against the Japanese?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You have made a large assumption. It is possible that it is true, but I don't know. You assume that Koreans (north and south) would be better off if other countries chose to leave them alone.

    You also assume that it's just "current" policy which results in the criticism of North Korea. I don't think that is true, either.

    I understand your premise. You think Korea (north and south) would be beer if other outside countries left them alone.

    I am just not sure why you think that, nor if experience supports that assertion. Perhaps they would be better off in the very long term? Is that what you mean? My concerns, I admit, are more focused on the short-term... the near future, not the distant future.


    Or, am I totally missing your point, and maybe this is some veiled attack against the Japanese?
    The current global politic environment is in the best time to consider the long term affection.
    That's all, over.


    NEW ADD for inow:
    Sorry, inow, seems my word only confuse you more.
    I'm not Vulcan.
    So long is only long, not any one year two months and six days...@$%@^
    The recent problem comes out for the Tian ship. Personally, short term is focus on who destroyed the ship and another who needs to be punished, long term is to face the fact that keeping these two countries(N & S Korea) in a hostile state do no good to themselves nor to other countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    How long is "long-term?"
    1 month?
    1 year?
    1 decade?
    1 century?

    Can you give us a sense of scale on your comment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    NEW ADD for inow:
    <...>
    So long is only long, not any one year two months and six days...@$%@^
    The recent problem comes out for the Tian ship. Personally, short term is focus on who destroyed the ship and another who needs to be punished,
    Well, if it helps, I can clarify what I mean by short-term. I am thinking the next 3-7 seven years. When I say short term, that's what I mean. Approximately the next 3-7 years.

    To reiterate... I think countries pulling out now would result in some incredibly serious challenges, likely violence, and actually serve to further destabilize the entire region (and possibly the larger EurAsia area, and by consequence the rest of the globe) over the next (at least) 3-7 years.

    If you agree, then I presume that when you say "long-term," you mean in 20 years or something similar? Is that fair?


    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    long term is to face the fact that keeping these two countries(N & S Korea) in a hostile state do no good to themselves nor to other countries.
    I disagree with your central premise.
    I disagree with your implicit assertion that involvement from other nations is the primary source of hostility between North and South Korea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    long term is to face the fact that keeping these two countries(N & S Korea) in a hostile state do no good to themselves nor to other countries.
    I disagree with your central premise.
    I disagree with your implicit assertion that involvement from other nations is the primary source of hostility between North and South Korea.
    Okay, now we understand the exact meaning of each other now.
    The most lost thing in Korea is this procedure of understanding, wish you agree with this.

    (Although I still think it is other countries especially USA stands in the way, that's another problem)

    thank you for your debating.
    read words from this person who will even be considered to be odd in a Chinese eye must make you tired.
    I don't want to make you believe what I believe. Understanding may be efficient.

    BTW
    "long term" really doesn't mean 20 or 40 years to me. These politic things can't be decided by one country. Making a schedule is quite hard for me to iamgine. Who knows how long? That's in future, enough for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    The word "naive" has been used again.....
    So I start to doubt if I'm naive......
    Before I believe that is true, let me be naive again...

    N Korea is always criticized for its CURRENT policy.
    What if there is no S Korea or N Korea? What if United Nations Command never get to Korea?
    The situation in nowadays are results by interactions of several countries around Korea and one far away country--USA.
    To say N Korea is doomed to today or even the whole Korea may be is NOT RIGHT.
    Incompetent people always want to blame someone else for their own failures. Kim Jong Il doesn't show any sign of being the kind of ruler who would do a good job if he were in a better situation. He's a petty man who behaves in an openly corrupt manner. Those kinds of leaders are incapable of doing a good job no matter how well the international community treats them.

    I think he tries very hard to provoke other nations into being hostile toward him on purpose. Even when dealing with countries that want to be friendly toward him, he will try very hard to start a fight with them so he can make it look like they're the ones causing all the suffering instead of him.

    That's why everyone says you're being naive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's why everyone says you're being naive.
    everyone here except me in THIS FORUM.
    Maybe USA is the reason why Kim Jong Il can establish his ruler-ship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Isolating only make a more hostile N Korea to USA even the whole world.

    It's naive in my personal opinion that making isolation to make N Korea gov collapse or yield.
    I'd have to argue that the containment policies against North Korea are nothing compared to their own policies of isolationism. Kim Jong Il only wants an open border when it comes to receiving financial and other aid, but won't let in (or out) anything else (namely information, ie. internet).

    I think it's ridiculous that you imply it is anything other than North Korea's own policies that are having a detrimental effect on its relationship with the rest of the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    wangwy; I feel sure you know the History of N/S Korea, the history behind "Il ", his Dad and the expected future for his youngest Boy, all going back to the end of the Korean Conflict. The people themselves have been living in pure ignorance, they know or understand nothing else. "Ignorance truly can be bliss" and they probably feel anything Government allows them is far more than they would receive anyplace else.

    The main thing from above, is everything going on today to attract the World Communities attention, has happened several times before, over the years and I feel sure the controlling authority and the privileged few serving in a that Government or the Military have every intention of keeping it the same for as long as possible, their not the least bit interested in re-unification, peace or war, just the subsistence that can be gained from keeping them quiet/still.

    Maybe USA is the reason why Kim Jong Il can establish his ruler-ship.
    If I'm reading this correctly, your suggesting the US Government (10 or 11 different, since the war) have preventing the North Korean people, from forming a viable and acceptable government. Why, would they try to prevent this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    JX,
    Arguing with me on part of my point and then disagree me on all parts has no effect to understand what I mean.
    And I can't find anywhere I "imply" "anything other than"....."North Korea's own policies that are having a detrimental effect on its relationship with the rest of the world."

    jackson33,
    You surely know President Bush got much more support after 911.
    An enemy to one Nation has so much affection.
    Think about what if USA just give N Korea an "enemy"? Then Kim will?

    Then N Koreans think in a different way to you.
    What you think right doesn't mean the same thing to them.

    Since JX told me in the newest reply I may break some forum rules and should stop posting in this thread, I'm sincerely sorry but I didn't mean that, I only think posting in a different logic way. Sorry I can't make you clearly understand me. I stop here.
    Sorry again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    JX
    JX is offline
    Forum Junior JX's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    JX,
    Arguing with me on part of my point and then disagree me on all parts has no effect to understand what I mean.
    No, I understand what you mean, I just disagree - with all of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    And I can't find anywhere I "imply" "anything other than"....."North Korea's own policies that are having a detrimental effect on its relationship with the rest of the world."
    I will show you your implications then:

    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    If we still affect them for excuse of ally, when would they join together again?

    ...long term is to face the fact that keeping these two countries(N & S Korea) in a hostile state do no good to themselves nor to other countries.

    The situation in nowadays are results by interactions of several countries around Korea and one far away country--USA.

    Isolating only make a more hostile N Korea to USA even the whole world.
    In all your posts you continue to imply that without external intervention by other countries (specifically the USA), North and South Korea would become one nation by themselves - or at least that this intervention is the cause of the current problems with North Korea. This shows a naivety that I don't know any argument would be able to overturn.

    Address the arguments posed to you, or stop posting. Either way, you've hijacked this thread and are taking it on laps around your own delusions. Unless you start presenting logical arguments that you can show some evidence for, I will have to put on my mod hat and start deleting.

    JX
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's why everyone says you're being naive.
    everyone here except me in THIS FORUM.
    Maybe USA is the reason why Kim Jong Il can establish his ruler-ship.
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    JX,
    jackson33,
    You surely know President Bush got much more support after 911.
    An enemy to one Nation has so much affection.
    Think about what if USA just give N Korea an "enemy"? Then Kim will?

    Then N Koreans think in a different way to you.
    What you think right doesn't mean the same thing to them.

    Since JX told me in the newest reply I may break some forum rules and should stop posting in this thread, I'm sincerely sorry but I didn't mean that, I only think posting in a different logic way. Sorry I can't make you clearly understand me. I stop here.
    Sorry again.

    I think I understand. You're suggesting that the USA is making Il's control stronger rather than weaker. We're not preventing him from ruling. We're enabling him to rule by giving him an "enemy". As long as he has an "enemy", he can tell his people he's protecting them.

    It's like in the most recent Batman movie. He confronts the Joker about the Joker's desire to kill him, and the Joker responds. "I dont' want to kill you. What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No. No. No. No. You complete me!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygdU9ufSFW4

    My question is: what could the USA do that would change this? Kim Jong Il has total command over his own country's media. If the USA became more friendly to N. Korea, do you think Il would ever allow his people to know that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44 dont foret the chinese umbrella 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    google.sites
    Posts
    2
    i dont think that the US could be hit "north Korea" in this era, why? there is many reasons, one of them China will be avoid and refuse any military intervention in the area without its acceptence,
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •