Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualKhaiy

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

My questions are:
#1: What do you think is going through Kim…Fat’s head?  Clearly he is under peer pressure, but do you really think he believes he can do any damage to anyone at all?  Does he really believe he could win a war?  Do his people really believe that?
#2: Where do you think he will strike first?  Hawaii, South Korea, Guam, and Japan have all been mentioned as possible targets.
#3: What will he strike?  Military bases only?  Or something like Tokyo, just to do as much damage possible before being wiped off the map?
#4: How will he strike?  Starting off with nuclear?  Or starting off with a large barrage of standard missiles?
#5: Do you think anyone would support him in a war in which he strikes first?  Do you think it’s possible that he secretly has agreements with other countries to back him in a war, which would explain why he thinks he could actually win a war?
#6:  How long do you think the war would last?  6 days?  6 hours?
#7: Same question as last time: How will North Koreans and South Koreans get along after being reunited?
#8: Japan, Australia to sanction N Korean bank as part of U.S.-led crackdown  America has been called the “World Police” for a long time.  Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in satire.  But in this case North Korea is specifically pointing at America.  Do you agree with America playing World Police in this instance?  Why or why not?

 

First off, I still disagree that there will be a shooting war with NK. War can absolutely be avoided, and the latest in a long string of threats from the country that perfected extortion-via-tantrum will not convince me otherwise. Also, I don't find your argument for why war is inevitable very compelling. NK is brutally repressive, which goes a long way towards preventing popular revolt and makes a revolt far more difficult. Plus, even if Kim Jong Un is at risk of being deposed from within, it's not like he'll be able to hold onto power after losing a war he initiated for no reason, with nothing to gain.

 

NK is already on the /ignore list for its threats. The previous two generations of leaders did exactly that-- threats, never quite enough action to provoke military retaliation, peppered with "Sea of Fire" and "We're coming for the US" rhetoric. I agree that Kim Jong Un seems far less adept at this game than his father or grandfather, but I don't think that he'll abandon it in favor of a suicidal war. Plus he may not be as in-charge as he predecessors. His whole cabinet served under his father, and whether Un is unbalanced or not I can't imagine his generals meekly going along with suicide-by-pointless-attack plan.

 

Anyhow, on to the list:

 

#1: I doubt it. He's not so much under peer pressure as pillar pressure. He has no peers-- he's the privileged son of a dictator supported by his (far more capable) father's junta. He could do some fairly intense damage, in his neighborhood, but he's not going to damage the US in any meaningful way. He certainly isn't going to win a war. What his people believe, who knows? They're inundated with propaganda, and we outside of NK don't have much of an idea what they think about anything.

 

#2: Of the choices you present, SK or Guam. But strategically they're all losers for NK, so it's hard to imagine a conflict targeting anyone at all.

 

#3: As above, he'll strike nothing. But if he were to stage an attack, I have to imagine it would aim to inflict maximum damage.

 

#4: NK won't last long in a war, and their missile technology is hard to move around and deploy. If they don't use the big guns straightaway, they won't have a chance to use them at all. EDIT: NK may be able to continue existing for a while during war, but their ability to project power into distant theaters of war will be difficult to hold onto. Once their best missiles are out of the picture, they're stuck moving a conventional army around with little supply-line defense, and not a whole lot of supplies.

 

#5: No. What could NK possibly deliver via war that other nations couldn't get on their own with less fuss? Particularly if the other nations would take a visible role in the war?

 

#6: This would depend on what is struck, and with what weapons, and when NK would feel beaten enough to accept the incredibly harsh surrender terms that would be forced on them. I doubt it would end by conquest, but NK is in rough shape with zero military force brought against them. How could they weather a siege for any period of time?

 

#7: No idea. Maybe never.

 

#8: NK is always pointing at the US with its threats. The sanctions against NK are overwhelmingly pushed through the U.N., not enacted externally by the US and friends. I'm not sure of the specific sanction you're describing, but I feel like the US approach to NK is very un-World Police.


#1Khaiy

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:24 PM

My questions are:
#1: What do you think is going through Kim…Fat’s head?  Clearly he is under peer pressure, but do you really think he believes he can do any damage to anyone at all?  Does he really believe he could win a war?  Do his people really believe that?
#2: Where do you think he will strike first?  Hawaii, South Korea, Guam, and Japan have all been mentioned as possible targets.
#3: What will he strike?  Military bases only?  Or something like Tokyo, just to do as much damage possible before being wiped off the map?
#4: How will he strike?  Starting off with nuclear?  Or starting off with a large barrage of standard missiles?
#5: Do you think anyone would support him in a war in which he strikes first?  Do you think it’s possible that he secretly has agreements with other countries to back him in a war, which would explain why he thinks he could actually win a war?
#6:  How long do you think the war would last?  6 days?  6 hours?
#7: Same question as last time: How will North Koreans and South Koreans get along after being reunited?
#8: Japan, Australia to sanction N Korean bank as part of U.S.-led crackdown  America has been called the “World Police” for a long time.  Sometimes in a good way, sometimes in satire.  But in this case North Korea is specifically pointing at America.  Do you agree with America playing World Police in this instance?  Why or why not?

 

First off, I still disagree that there will be a shooting war with NK. War can absolutely be avoided, and the latest in a long string of threats from the country that perfected extortion-via-tantrum will not convince me otherwise. Also, I don't find your argument for why war is inevitable very compelling. NK is brutally repressive, which goes a long way towards preventing popular revolt and makes a revolt far more difficult. Plus, even if Kim Jong Un is at risk of being deposed from within, it's not like he'll be able to hold onto power after losing a war he initiated for no reason, with nothing to gain.

 

NK is already on the /ignore list for its threats. The previous two generations of leaders did exactly that-- threats, never quite enough action to provoke military retaliation, peppered with "Sea of Fire" and "We're coming for the US" rhetoric. I agree that Kim Jong Un seems far less adept at this game than his father or grandfather, but I don't think that he'll abandon it in favor of a suicidal war. Plus he may not be as in-charge as he predecessors. His whole cabinet served under his father, and whether Un is unbalanced or not I can't imagine his generals meekly going along with suicide-by-pointless-attack plan.

 

Anyhow, on to the list:

 

#1: I doubt it. He's not so much under peer pressure as pillar pressure. He has no peers-- he's the privileged son of a dictator supported by his (far more capable) father's junta. He could do some fairly intense damage, in his neighborhood, but he's not going to damage the US in any meaningful way. He certainly isn't going to win a war. What his people believe, who knows. They're inundated with propaganda, and we outside of NK don't have much of an idea what they think about anything.

 

#2: Of the choices you present, SK or Guam. But strategically they're all losers for NK, so it's hard to imagine a conflict targeting anyone at all.

 

#3: As above, he'll strike nothing. But if he were to stage an attack, I have to imagine it would aim to inflict maximum damage.

 

#4: NK won't last long in a war, and their missile technology is hard to move around and deploy. If they don't use the big guns straightaway, they won't have a chance to use them at all.

 

#5: No. What could NK possibly deliver via war that other nations couldn't get on their own with less fuss? Particularly if the other nations would take a visible role in the war?

 

#6: This would depend on what is struck, and with what weapons, and when NK would feel beaten enough to accept the incredibly harsh surrender terms that would be forced on them. I doubt it would end by conquest, but NK is in rough shape with zero military force brought against them. How could they weather a siege for any period of time?

 

#7: No idea. Maybe never.

 

#8: NK is always pointing at the US with its threats. The sanctions against NK are overwhelmingly pushed through the U.N., not enacted externally by the US and friends. I'm not sure of the specific sanction you're describing, but I feel like the US approach to NK is very un-World Police.


PARTNERS