Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


War with North Korea


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
77 replies to this topic

#41 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14215

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:25 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

 

Firstly, let me say that I hate America.  I couldn’t stand the idea of living there which is why I moved away as soon as I was able.  I have never even dated an American person, despite having grown up there.  Not that I dislike America people themselves, just the overall culture.  I also hate the North Korean culture of impoverishment, yet I have dated a North Korean.  So each individual person is fine no matter his or her origin, but I refuse to live in America and that is final.

 

(A keen observer will recognize the irony that I have dated a North Korean but never a Westerner, not even an American.)

 

Firstly, Hodgman, your way of thinking was correct for the previous leader.  Not the current one.

For a few reasons.

#1: America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world, and the ironic thing is that while Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction whereas North Korean actually does, those weapons of mass destruction that actually exist would merit to the world an invasion by America to get rid of them, yet America has never made any suggestion that it would do so because there is nothing in North Korea that America wants except a strategic outpost.  That is not oil.  Not even close.  Nowhere near what America needs to actually pursue war.

Which means Kim Fat is an idiot.  His excuse is that America is planning to invade him.

And yet if America ever did, the only reasons would be that he himself caused it to happen.  Either by starting a war with South Korea as has happened or by making nuclear weapons.

#2: You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

Those military practices have taken place every year for the last 60 years, none of which have lead to an invasion of his country.

Seriously?

First-off, he has to be an idiot for thinking that this year is somehow different.  Oh, unless he considers his own role in making escalating threats.  Guess what.  This year America did put a little bit more umph in its military practice.  Because of his increasing threats in the months prior.

And you cite that as a reason for him to be defending his country?

You hate America I take it.

America should not go through with a yearly practice because of him?  That would be the definition of giving in to him.  America did the same thing it does with all of its allies on a yearly basis.  That is not America’s fault.

Every year North Korea plays the same act, claiming that military drills with South Korea are part of some big plan to invade North Korea.

 

And for 60 years it has been wrong.

The risk of an invasion on North Korea is exactly equal to the world view of North Korea as a threat, which is exactly with Kim Fat has been betraying since he took leadership.

 

Calling out America in this case as the bad-guy who prompted them into this situation generations ago is just bullshit.

By that logic Japan would be even more fierce towards America, and why not South Korea too since they felt the same heat from America as North Korea did?  They were the same country back then.

 

Down to how you spin the story?

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?

America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.  North Korea is looking for excuses, so that much is obvious.  You can’t even omit hands or heads from photos of their statues of leaders without pissing them off.

 

Were you aware of that?  How much do you really know North Korean culture?

 

America may have done things generations ago that you would want to use as an excuse to support North Korea’s side, but if that were valid then we could look back more and find that North Korea started the fight.  Or maybe it was America further beyond that still, or another country before that still.

If all we did was hold grudges, no one would be alive right now.

 

And I personally am not going to take slack for ancestors of mine who I know to have been dimwitted and less responsible.

If America is not allowed to learn from its mistakes, neither is North Korea.

For the last 60 years America would be happy enough to just let North Korea be.  North Korea is obviously the provocateur here.

America has never talked about or thought about North Korea during that whole time except when they suddenly come up with threats towards America and when they claim that daily life—yearly military drills in South Korea—are an exercise to invate North Korea, which has proved false for 60 years.

 

Growing up ion America, we learned about Iraq and Iran.  The middle east.  One of my classmates didn’t even know Korea was a country.

North Korea isn’t on the map unless it is shouting threats.  That is how Americans feel.  So when trouble starts, they brought it on themselves.

 

 

L. Spiro


Edited by L. Spiro, 30 March 2013 - 07:30 AM.

It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

Sponsor:

#42 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4755

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:49 AM

Its funny really, its pretty much the same way with the massacres during the korea war (SK murdered 100-200.000 civilians("communist sympathizers", including children) with the US silent approval during the war), even though NK was far worse it is quite hypocritical to pretend that the west are the good guys. (Sure, we're not as bad as NK, but we're not as good as our governments try to tell us we are)

Propaganda works both ways. We're accusing NK of being too high on their propaganda without even thinking we're being fed up propaganda ourselves. I'd beth North Koreans think the same of the rest of the world.

 

 

 

(A keen observer will recognize the irony that I have dated a North Korean but never a Westerner, not even an American.)

 

 

I don't think a keen observer would find very interesting what you choose to put your dck on. Unless your opinions are defined by your dck like you seem to hint every now and then, bringing up the same anecdotes.

 

If your profile pic is really you and not a drawing of someone else like you have been saying, then I'd have to replace some genitals here and there I think... Or just put a [insert here your genitals], that would be more reusable :D Reusable post is best post.


Edited by TheChubu, 30 March 2013 - 07:58 AM.

"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#43 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:57 AM

I find it ironic that you defend them so, considering that all of their excuses for being in a position of self-defense are entirely without merit.

You hate America I take it.

I'm not defending anybody. I like to look at things from every point of view. It's sad to live in an age where looking into the facts, or putting yourself in someone elses shoes makes you an "enemy sympathiser". I'm probably on a fucking American watch list for daring to read the source press releases from KCNA instead of the filtered western versions...

 

If you read the western papers, we try not to mention anything we've done to piss off the North, and we always try to throw in some personal attacks against their leader's personality.

If you read their (dictatorial government) paper, they of course have the opposite spin. You also have to keep in mind that from their point of view, they're still half way through a war that's been paused. That's a very different view from what many outsiders would have, where we consider South Korea to basically be at peace (apart from having mandatory military training, and a neighbour that shoots them from time to time, and the most heavily armed border on the planet...).

 

As for hating America:

America is corrupt and double-faced in all it's policies, domestic and foreign, which is plain for anyone to see thanks to the Internet and leakers... As are many countries.

America is the perfect example of why unfettered capitalism, fear of socialism, bigotry, inequality and fear of the working class are dangerous ideals to embrace.

They're so big and successful while harbouring these dark undercurrents, that they're a brilliant example of what not to emulate. For that, they're useful.

 

The main hate that I have is when I see my own nation going down a similar dark path -- the same small handful of umbrella corporations owning almost every major company here (often owning both sides in a harmful duopoly), Murdoch owning 70% of the newspapers and in turn having enough power to crush any politician looking to enact reforms to constrain his power over democracy, increased litigiousness across the board, democratic elections giving way more and more to corpocracy every year, governmental discussion becoming more hysterical, informed political debate giving way to uneducated slogan slinging, class inequality growing exponentially, more governments hand-outs going to the top 10% than the other 90% combined, the selling off of public assets to corporate monopolies, the dismantling of the free education system and the building of a two-tier education system, the dismantling of free public health care and the invasion of inefficient corporate insurance bureaucracies leaching healthcare funding, the mandatory detention of refugees in inhumane concentration camps, the power for corporations to appropriate and exploit private farming land and leave the essential water basins as toxic wastelands without accountability, the destruction of a natural wonder of the world for short term profit, enacting or martial law in communities that just need basic services, creation of fake sex scandals to swing the political balance of power, being caught out in international diplomatic lies showing a preference for political power games over honesty and integrity (e.g. we knew about the Assange case before it happened, and knew Iraq had no weapons before the war, but we said we knew nothing - this is on the public record now)... the list is endless, but we're following the success of greed, and all the darkness it brings. That, I hate. I hate the fact that we've got America as a warning beacon, but we're too blinded by it's light to realize the real message.

 

America may have a spotty history of invading countries without reason, but that was Bush and there was a selfish reason to invade.  We aren’t Bush anymore and there is nothing in North Korea America wants.  No invasion could possibly be justified.  Invasion requires justification to the rest of the world

The evidence against Saddam was fabricated, but the US also justified their entry into Vietnam/Cambodia/South east Asia by having the NSA fabricate an attack on their ships. That wasn't Bush.

The majority of American wars have been based around shoddy justifications, even WW1/2 with deliberately sending the Lusitania to the Germans to sink (against their warnings), so it could be called aggression, and doing everything in their power to provoke an act of war from Japan. These weren't Bush.

Since Iraq, the US has overthrown Libya and Syria (ongoing), though through much more subtle means. The instigation and subsequent justification was simple. The propaganda was clean cut. That wasn't Bush.

Anyway, Bush wasn't the architect of Iraq/Afghanistan, he was just the figurehead and chief that happened to be there at the time to guide them.

There's many incidents where the North has done crazy things to attack the South, but there's also been attacks on the South that the North denies, but nontheless caused a huge amount of tension. All an external instigator would need to do is fire a single torpedo or missile at a South Korean destroyer to potentially start a war... That's all the justification that's required. It's not at all impossible.

Making up a motive for war is worthy of a James Bond story or conspiracy website. I don't have one. But it's possible that someone outside of NK has a motive.

NK themselves don't really have a motive, because we all know, and they know that the destruction would be massive. Their game is to live in a state of war without real war -- the 1984 playbook to a tee.

 

 

You claim he is all in defense and cite the American/South Korean military practice as a reason for that defensive stance.

No, I quoted their statements that are being used by the BBC and wikipedia, and pointed out that the original statements claim that these new threats are being made in self defence, while the BBC/Wikipedia forgot to mention this part of the original statement.

 

I never made a personal judgement about whether their statements are heartfelt or righteous. Personally, I believe that none of the parties involved are righteous.

 


The BBC made out that the latest statement from KCNA was a threat of aggression. If you go and read the KCNA statement for yourself, you'll see it's actually a threat of retaliation -- "if you attack us, we'll attack you". That's not me defending NK, that's me paraphrasing them and the BBC's words. What's interesting is that this twisting of the KCNA statement has been syndicated across almost every major western newspaper, thanks to a few key organizations providing cheap syndicated content to the world. The same story, the same (mis)interpretation of the original statement in every newspaper I pick up.
 
It's very hard to lambast the KCNA for being a government mouthpiece for propaganda when we so obviously twist their words to fit our own world-view and agenda, in turn pushing our own propaganda... which is A-OK because we do it through a decentralized system instead of a communist-dictatorship, of course. 

 

What has America done except reply to threats towards North Korea?
America was the aggressor in a military exercise that they hold annually?  Just because it pissed off North Korea does not mean America actually did anything aggressive or provocative.

The US violated the cease fire agreement, the one that NK is now in trouble for ripping up, decades ago by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea. The US doesn't agree that they violated the agreement, because they edited their copy unilaterally just prior to changing this clause, so that importing nukes isn't really an escalation... They started the nuclear arms race, so it's obvious for NK to try and catch up by matching them. You can't at all seriously be reprimanding the North for pursuing nukes, when they've been under the threat of them for decades, and all that time tolerantly (or not so tolerantly) hanging on to the invalidated cease fire agreement.

Every time these military exercises are carried out with imported US weapons, the South and the US are violating the original terms of the cease fire... so why wouldn't the North want to rip it up? It's a bit of a double standard to violate it and then reprimand someone for not wanting to agree to it any more. It's obviously irrelevant if it's being broken annually.

 

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

Either they forget they said it after some more discussions, or eventually a new cease-fire will be written up, or someone will attack someone, and the retaliations will lead to war (betting based on history gives this outcome pretty poor odds though), or (most unlikely) a proper cessation of hostilities and a real end to war will happen.

 

In the end it boils down to both sides saying, "if you attack us, we'll destroy you", and both sides justifying their statement by pointing at the other's statements.

That's the whole situation in a nutshell.

 

Looking at it purely objectively, as to the history of the conflict, I don't like either side and I want them to just get along and agree to the current border. The original division into north and south probably shouldn't have happened in the first place, but we can't change that. We've got two countries now, and they should just deal with what they have.

However, bringing my feelings into the debate, I love e-sports and broadband Internet, and I hate personality-cults and starvation, so I wish for SK's safety and the peaceful dismantling of NK...


Edited by Hodgman, 30 March 2013 - 09:14 AM.


#44 BladeOfWraith   Members   -  Reputation: 245

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:38 AM

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

This. North Korea has a long, long history of this rhetoric. There is nothing new here at all.

 

The American media is just bored with wailing about the deficit since Obama has cut it in half, so they need a new shiny object to panic over. Now it's North Korea's turn.

 

Just as America has nothing to gain from conquering North Korea, North Korea has nothing to gain from invading the South. It is a war they cannot hope to win. It is a war which at absolute best ends in their defeat and withdrawal; at worst, ends their entire regime or results in the annihilation of their country. They stand to gain nothing from this.

 

Let us even entertain the idea that Kim Jung Un is in fact unstable(though I see no evidence to suggest this). North Korea is not like many other dictatorships. One man does not truly run the country. The military is not controlled by Un in any real sense. I would liken Kim Jung Un to someone like Hitler or Mubarak versus someone like Mugabe or Saddam Hussien. Hitler was the leader of Germany, but only with the support of his commanding officers. If Hitler had strayed too far from what the German high command thought, he would have been removed. Mubarak was tossed overboard simply when he became inconvenient. So if Un really wanted to carry out some crazy plan that would get everyone killed, his military command would just kill him. I nearly guarantee it.


"You can't say no to waffles" - Toxic Hippo


#45 megabaki   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Posted 05 April 2013 - 12:31 PM

Anyway, they've made this exact same announcement 5 times in the past already... so business as usual.

This. North Korea has a long, long history of this rhetoric. There is nothing new here at all.

 

 

Sure, I guess closing down the borders, declaring nuclear war on the US, and moving their missiles to the east coast is nothing new to you?
Or the US flying stealth bombers from Missouri to South Korea, and setting up missile defences in Guam is nothing new to you either?

 

Since North Korea is taking their sweet time, and telling everyone about it before they do it, I'm guessing they might actually do something.
But it will be such a failure, they will have to get their propaganda news department to edit clips from Red Dawn, Olympus Has Fallen, and
Independence Day, to make their citizens believe that they defeated the U.S in an epic battle.



#46 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Posted 05 April 2013 - 05:15 PM

Sure, I guess closing down the borders, declaring nuclear war on the US, and moving their missiles to the east coast is nothing new to you?.

Indeed, it's not new. They have done/said the current actions/threats before.
Also, if you go read their statements instead of hysterical western propaganda, they have in no way "declared nuclear war on the US". They threatened counter attacks against any aggression from the South/US, including nuclear after the US carried out an exercise where they practiced dropping nukes on the North, and after threats were made against the North's survival.
Telling the whole story doesn't sell papers though, does it? Better to make up stories about boogeymen that are planning to nuke us for no reason at any time.

Nothing they've done indicates that the missiles they're moving around won't just be another exercise as usual.

#47 Dwarf King   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1912

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

So some nations have nuclear warheads and decide that others are not allowed to have them. Who are naive enough to believe that nations without nuclear warheads will accept this? By denying nations without nuclear weapon technology getting the technology nations with this tech keeps a certain strategic advantage and power compared to the nation without the nuclear weapon technology. This gives the nuclear nations a certain power during any peace negotiation or even just a negotiation about borders, treaties or business negotiations etc.

 

North Korea is aware of this, Iran is aware of this, in fact any official should be aware of this. Most nations who see themselves as big players in the international power play will try to get their hands on these nuclear weapons and use them to obtain a better position during any mutual negotiation nations between. It would be irrational not to do so as a nation who sees it self threaten by another alliance or force from abroad. 

 

Now in this case with North Korea we have a nation who meets sanctions on sanctions and therefore has problems getting the salt for the egg for its population. This means some North Korean people think that the world is punishing them and not the gov of North Korea.  The gov of North Korea sees their existence as legitimated according to their own world view and other nations sees it as a dictatorship. The have nuclear weapons and use them to show their power. Besides North Korea is not among the five permanent security members in UN and therefor not object to any decisions and thereby put them on halt. Here lies the issue, we have a system where certain nations can behave like they feel like and others not.

 

None the less a new nation has power to destroy cities with a single missile and feel it should be granted the same rights as other nations with this technology.

 

The situation is then this:

 

Should the world accept the situation and let go of sanctions, let the goods flow into North Korea so they can see the same growth as China, Vietnam and Russia?

Should the world say no and start a war?

Should the world keep on sanctioning North Korea and hope that the threats are empty?

What is they really think it is unfair to be met with sanctions and decides to start a war on it? 

 

Never forget how letting German pay for first world war back fired and second world war started, never forget that every single hard direct act or saying will create a counter reaction.

 

I say let down the muscles, let go of the sanctions, win by using soft power such as movies and music, cash and gifts. Use one generation to expose the North Koreans to economic growth and  prosper and then war thinking will no longer be an issue. The alternative is not productive or useful at all.

 

Besides all nations believe they need nuclear technology in order to protect themselves. It is a common thought among all military forces in all nations if they feel insecure about their neighbors intentions.  

 

Think about it...

 

Perhaps L. Spiro should take a vacation for a few weeks away from Asia and relax a little smile.png

 

Edit: for good orders sake, I do not agree with North Korea, I simply give an objective view on the reason to this situation and what could be done to do in order to solve the tense situation. My thinking is built upon the political philosophy called soft power which is in contrast to hard power.


Edited by Dwarf King, 05 April 2013 - 06:43 PM.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"

Albert Einstein

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education"

Albert Einstein

 


#48 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 05 April 2013 - 09:32 PM

The situation is then this:
 
Should the world accept the situation and let go of sanctions, let the goods flow into North Korea so they can see the same growth as China, Vietnam and Russia?
Should the world say no and start a war?
Should the world keep on sanctioning North Korea and hope that the threats are empty?
What is they really think it is unfair to be met with sanctions and decides to start a war on it? 
 
Never forget how letting German pay for first world war back fired and second world war started, never forget that every single hard direct act or saying will create a counter reaction.
 
I say let down the muscles, let go of the sanctions, win by using soft power such as movies and music, cash and gifts. Use one generation to expose the North Koreans to economic growth and  prosper and then war thinking will no longer be an issue. The alternative is not productive or useful at all.

 

I think that you're being awfully optimistic about Western culture flooding into NK as soon as the sanctions are lifted, and that this would not occur for exactly the reasons that you think it would help. The country is more or less hermetically sealed, and the degree of sealing does not change with the degree of sanctions they're under. The regime is in power through relentless propaganda and constant demagoguery of the US and South Korea. Suddenly finding out that the wider world is vastly less poor and famished than the average North Korean would probably destabilize the country even more. This is all the more dangerous now that there is are nuclear weapons in the mix.

 

I agree that the perspective of small-ish, non-nuclear states can produce an intense desire to have a nuclear weapon of their own. However, NK already has nuclear weapon capabilities (though their missile technology is still lacking). The issue is no longer one of non-proliferation (US politics from 200-2008 closed the door on that for NK), but rather that even with nuclear weapon capability NK behaves very unstably and tosses violent and unabalanced rhetoric around pretty casually. It's their aggressive posture and mild unpredictability that make them international pariahs today.

 

If they let up on the "sea of fire" talk, particularly now that they have more capacity to carry it out than ever, they could be on a path to ending sanctions. Not right away-- the current state is really built on violent threats and bribery, and the world isn't going to forget that very quickly.

 

I do agree with you, and other posters, that the idea of nuclear containment is not realistic. The technology is almost a century old, and every undergraduate chem student learns how nuclear reactions work. Finding someone who can build a nuclear weapon has never been easier, and while there are few manufacturers who can produce the equipment needed there is still decades' worth of it floating around. I don't think that anyone can prevent a state from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, they can only delay it. And if that's the only outcome I think that the cost of doing so very quickly becomes too expensive.



#49 BladeOfWraith   Members   -  Reputation: 245

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:05 AM

David Rothkopf has a good article on this

 

North Korea is dangerously close to crossing a line. Not the line that leads to a missile attack on the United States, but the one that separates being a rogue state from being a parody of a rogue state. Pyongyang's bluster is as comical as its nuclear threats are implausible.

 

It is by no means assured that Kim Jong Un has fully consolidated his authority. By ramping up rhetoric, but exercising restraint with respect to actual military actions, the regime can count on the fact that the United States and South Korea are not going to take the first step either.

The result is that North Korea's exercises and threats of retaliation have been successful in deterring attack, even though none was coming.


"You can't say no to waffles" - Toxic Hippo


#50 kryotech   Members   -  Reputation: 933

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:24 PM

So some nations have nuclear warheads and decide that others are not allowed to have them. Who are naive enough to believe that nations without nuclear warheads will accept this? By denying nations without nuclear weapon technology getting the technology nations with this tech keeps a certain strategic advantage and power compared to the nation without the nuclear weapon technology. This gives the nuclear nations a certain power during any peace negotiation or even just a negotiation about borders, treaties or business negotiations etc.

 

North Korea is aware of this, Iran is aware of this, in fact any official should be aware of this. Most nations who see themselves as big players in the international power play will try to get their hands on these nuclear weapons and use them to obtain a better position during any mutual negotiation nations between. It would be irrational not to do so as a nation who sees it self threaten by another alliance or force from abroad. 

 

Now in this case with North Korea we have a nation who meets sanctions on sanctions and therefore has problems getting the salt for the egg for its population. This means some North Korean people think that the world is punishing them and not the gov of North Korea.  The gov of North Korea sees their existence as legitimated according to their own world view and other nations sees it as a dictatorship. The have nuclear weapons and use them to show their power. Besides North Korea is not among the five permanent security members in UN and therefor not object to any decisions and thereby put them on halt. Here lies the issue, we have a system where certain nations can behave like they feel like and others not.

 

None the less a new nation has power to destroy cities with a single missile and feel it should be granted the same rights as other nations with this technology.

 

The situation is then this:

 

Should the world accept the situation and let go of sanctions, let the goods flow into North Korea so they can see the same growth as China, Vietnam and Russia?

Should the world say no and start a war?

Should the world keep on sanctioning North Korea and hope that the threats are empty?

What is they really think it is unfair to be met with sanctions and decides to start a war on it? 

 

Never forget how letting German pay for first world war back fired and second world war started, never forget that every single hard direct act or saying will create a counter reaction.

 

I say let down the muscles, let go of the sanctions, win by using soft power such as movies and music, cash and gifts. Use one generation to expose the North Koreans to economic growth and  prosper and then war thinking will no longer be an issue. The alternative is not productive or useful at all.

 

Besides all nations believe they need nuclear technology in order to protect themselves. It is a common thought among all military forces in all nations if they feel insecure about their neighbors intentions.  

 

Think about it...

 

Perhaps L. Spiro should take a vacation for a few weeks away from Asia and relax a little smile.png

 

Edit: for good orders sake, I do not agree with North Korea, I simply give an objective view on the reason to this situation and what could be done to do in order to solve the tense situation. My thinking is built upon the political philosophy called soft power which is in contrast to hard power.

 

I'm not really so sure if North Korea is a nation that can be won over that easily. It's not a question of letting go of sanctions. North Korea exists for the sole purpose of being opposed to the US and South Korea. If one can take away that opposition, then there is no real reason for North Korea to exist. It may as well be a part of South Korea to make one big Korea. No smart dictatorship will let go of that hatred, as the minute they let go of that hatred, they will lose power. While it is true that had there been no Korean War, there would be no North and South Korea, the fact is that it did happen, for whatever reason. If you have a nation that exists simply for the purpose of opposition to another (eg yours), then it's probably a bad idea to let them get nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not as difficult to obtain today as before, and perhaps obtaining them grants a nation some leverage, but that doesn't mean that we should let people that have a deep hatred for others get them. In the long run, it is not realistic to pursue a nuclear containment policy, but there are certain governments that are too unstable to be trusted with nuclear weapons. Iran is definitely one of them, while North Korea is another. Certain governments have every intention of using nuclear weapons if they could obtain them.

 

 

 

As for the likelihood of war now, whatever the reason may be, the fact is that there are missiles on launchers that could be easily pointed and launched at South Korea, Japan, or Guam. Let's be honest, North Korea has not had long range delivery capabilities before. Now they do. This is new and it does change the situation. Moreover, North Korea has a new, untested leader. We do not know what he is likely to do. Suddenly all of those old reused threats and rhetoric might have meaning now, taken in this new context. Let's say that North Korea is trying to defend itself from aggression. What would aggression be? A South Korean ship looking the wrong way at a North Korean ship? An American aircraft coming to close to North Korean airspace? Or does it take more to be classified as aggression? Again, we do not know. This is not so much about North Korea making threats as it is about the rest of the world not knowing what these threats mean now. Before, we had a pretty good idea what those threats meant and how to avoid making them a reality. Now, we don't. I'm not saying that war is a certainty, rather I'm saying that there are many unknowns here that make prediction of events difficult. I am personally of the belief that Un will try a low intensity engagement, something along the lines of a small skirmish or something, but then he will suddenly back off. That's just my guess though. And I believe that's exactly what everyone is doing right now with regards to North Korea: they are guessing.


Edited by kryotech, 06 April 2013 - 08:26 PM.

Kryotech

#51 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

North Korea Calls Hawaii and U.S. Mainland Targets

 

I asked before if anyone thought war with North Korea was possible and was met mostly with negative feedback (as in, answers of “No”).

 

My point of view back then was very simple.  Kim Jung Un Ill…Jong…whatever the fat kid’s name is (seriously if you want people to remember your name don’t make it 3 separate words, 1 or 2 of which are the same as other historical people whose names also take years to remember) is 30, which is already a problem as far as respect goes in his country, and he has to work hard to garner the respect of his people.

 

And to do that he employed exactly the same tactic as China: Start fights with other countries so that your people don’t realize how crappy their own country is (which is to say it has its perks, but then it has 10 times more problems for every perk).

 

The major miscalculation being that this is the soul basis of the respect he gets from his people, which means he has literally no choice but to keep escalating things until eventually war begins and his country is completely annihilated.  He really can’t back down or he loses faith with his people.  Not only that but he is trying to get out of his father’s shadow.

 

Basically, war can’t be avoided.  Backing down is obviously not possible.

Neither is maintaining his current position.  If all he is is threats, his people will soon realize this as well once the world just types “/ignore NorthKorea”.  it isn’t enough in the long run to even just maintain his current level of threats in order to placate his people.

 

He literally has no choice.  Backing down means losing the respect of his people which he will never be able to regain at his age.

Keeping the status quo of threats won’t be enough when his own people get tired of it and demand action.

 

 

He’s already stated he will make a pre-emptive strike, and frankly he has no choice.  So war will happen.

 

 

It was also stated by some that North Korea and South Korea would not be united, but instead North Korea would become part of China.

This won’t happen.  South Korea and North Korea will definitely become reunited to the chagrin of China (the article is long so to just explain its point, China does not want North Korea to start a war because then China would have one fewer ally and share one more border with an American ally (or rather the same number of borders, but a bigger one)).

 

 

 

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?

 

 

L. Spiro

A few observations of my own:

1 - Notice how everyone is skinny in NK?  I mean, not the vast majority, but _EVERYONE_ is skinny.  No fatties.  It's like they collect all of the other fat people and put them into one massive fat-camp to lose weight... and be re-educated just for a good measure...  Except the fat kid who rules the country :) .

2 - As for the country itself, they'll go through a dynasty of rulers, on and on and on.

3 - Why are you obsessed about this topic so much?  I mean, sure, I like to read about it, but whatevs on the day-to-day going ons.



#52 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:20 PM

Actually, they might actually stand to win a war against SK.  I mean, most of NK's people are thin and fit, most of SK's people are perpetually glued to the computer screens PWNing each other and the world in Starcraft... :)

 

Maybe when they unite the peninsula under communism, you'll have Juchecraft :D



#53 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:04 PM

North Korea exists for the sole purpose of being opposed to the US and South Korea. If one can take away that opposition, then there is no real reason for North Korea to exist. It may as well be a part of South Korea to make one big Korea. No smart dictatorship will let go of that hatred, as the minute they let go of that hatred, they will lose power. While it is true that had there been no Korean War, there would be no North and South Korea, the fact is that it did happen, for whatever reason. If you have a nation that exists simply for the purpose of opposition to another (eg yours), then it's probably a bad idea to let them get nuclear weapons.

The Allies split Korea into two arbitrary halves (agains the wishes of the Koreans) at the end of WW2. Without allied (US) intervention, it never would have been split. The Korean war was waged to reunite the two halves - without more US intervention, the north would've won and reunited the two halves (under their dictatorship), however, they wouldn't have become an isolated pariah state if not for the cold war isolation efforts... There's no way to know what Korea would be like if they hadn't become collateral damages in WW2 and the cold war.
That said, why is the North's only reason to exist, to oppose the South, but not vice versa. As much as I dislike them, they have just as valid a claim over the whole peninsula as the South does, and the south hates the North just as much as the North hates he south, and both of their existances are just as arbitrary and just as dedicated to resisting the other...
As for nuclear nations that exist only to oppose others, what about Pakistan who broke off from India, or Israel who broke off from Palestine (and still to this day practice apartheid, and deny the existance of Palestine itself -- existing for the purpose of destroying their nation). Both of these are led by unstable religious governments, have nukes, but are US allies...

#54 GuardianX   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1522

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:20 AM

Keep in mind that for every bit of crazy internal propaganda that they have (a lot of which is actually justified, seeing as they actually are under seige and constant threat from us), there is just as much external propaganda coming from us that's designed to make them look even more crazy than they really are. The amount of propaganda in our media aimed against the enemies (or exploited allies, whatever) of the west is pretty ridiculous TBH...

 

So true.

I really fail to see the place for normal people in this propaganda world, sadly. One country kill inocent people, sponsor terrorists and torture prisoners without mercy in the name of mythical "democracy" and human rights... Another one is killing their own people by starvation, while producing nuclear weapons instead of food...

That's craziness.



#55 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 14215

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:07 AM

Indeed, it's not new. They have done/said the current actions/threats before.
Also, if you go read their statements instead of hysterical western propaganda, they have in no way "declared nuclear war on the US". They threatened counter attacks against any aggression from the South/US, including nuclear after the US carried out an exercise where they practiced dropping nukes on the North, and after threats were made against the North's survival.
Telling the whole story doesn't sell papers though, does it? Better to make up stories about boogeymen that are planning to nuke us for no reason at any time.

Incorrect.
Prior to the March military exercise, North Korea had already (also in March) threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against America and South Korea.
Not only that, but those military drills between America and South Korean take place annually. America is not going to simply not uphold an annual event due to North Korea’s threats. But it was because of North Korea’s previous nuclear threats that America tailored its mission the way it did. In other words, America reacting to North Korea, not the other way around.

So what lead North Korea to make a thread before the military exercise? Was it threats from America and the evil West?
No, it was sanctions from the UN, which are only imposed as a reaction to a country’s own actions.

If you rub your dog’s nose into a pile of crap it may get angry. But you wouldn’t have rubbed its nose in crap if it had not crapped on your favorite couch.


You can make America out to somehow be the aggressor here, but:
#1: Nuclear threats from North Korea came early in March, prior to the military exercises, not after. And they were threats of a pre-emptive strike, not a retaliation.
#2: If you keep looking back, you will find it all began in March 2012 when Pyongyang made the first provocative move of moving missiles to a launch pad and then in April launching them. Prior to the launch, Obama had warned him that he has nothing to gain from provocations, a correct and non-threatening warning. A warning which in no way implies that North Korea is in threat of an attack from America. Besides, North Korea forced America into a position in which it had to say something under implied pressure from the UN.
#3: Pyongyang broke International law by going ahead with nuclear tests, even after it agreed not to do so in exchange for food and aid that was already en-route to it. North Korea brought tougher sanctions onto itself and then got mad about it, like a kid who blows up the school toilets with a cherry bomb and then actually gets angry for being grounded over it.
#4: While the rest of the world is just going about their daily lives, North Korea is threatening seas of fire and pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
#5: American military exercises take place every year and North Korea always calls it an exercise to invade North Korea. And yet…after decades, where is the invasion? It is not a drill for invasion. It is a joint military exercise meant to show North Korea that if they try anything funny, the American military is ready to respond. The meaning of these drills is clear to everyone except North Korea, and only because they choose to see it that way. It gives them an excuse to get aid and food.


Want to know a better way to get food and aid?
Knock off the dictatorship crap, focus your money on industrialization, and open your borders to import/export businesses. In other words, do something for your own damned economy. Since being split, South Korea has grown to be the 15th biggest economy in the world, whereas North Korea’s economy is more like regions of Africa that are partially desert.
It’s really hard to be understanding towards a dictator who has the power to let his people start to thrive but instead chooses to spend all of their tax money on weapons.
 
 

3 - Why are you obsessed about this topic so much?  I mean, sure, I like to read about it, but whatevs on the day-to-day going ons.

I’m not. In fact I had stopped checking here for days and got behind on the posts.
But I live in Tokyo, a likely target if North Korea decides to go out and take as many with it as it can.


L. Spiro
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#56 kryotech   Members   -  Reputation: 933

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:08 AM

North Korea exists for the sole purpose of being opposed to the US and South Korea. If one can take away that opposition, then there is no real reason for North Korea to exist. It may as well be a part of South Korea to make one big Korea. No smart dictatorship will let go of that hatred, as the minute they let go of that hatred, they will lose power. While it is true that had there been no Korean War, there would be no North and South Korea, the fact is that it did happen, for whatever reason. If you have a nation that exists simply for the purpose of opposition to another (eg yours), then it's probably a bad idea to let them get nuclear weapons.

The Allies split Korea into two arbitrary halves (agains the wishes of the Koreans) at the end of WW2. Without allied (US) intervention, it never would have been split. The Korean war was waged to reunite the two halves - without more US intervention, the north would've won and reunited the two halves (under their dictatorship), however, they wouldn't have become an isolated pariah state if not for the cold war isolation efforts... There's no way to know what Korea would be like if they hadn't become collateral damages in WW2 and the cold war.
That said, why is the North's only reason to exist, to oppose the South, but not vice versa. As much as I dislike them, they have just as valid a claim over the whole peninsula as the South does, and the south hates the North just as much as the North hates he south, and both of their existances are just as arbitrary and just as dedicated to resisting the other...
As for nuclear nations that exist only to oppose others, what about Pakistan who broke off from India, or Israel who broke off from Palestine (and still to this day practice apartheid, and deny the existance of Palestine itself -- existing for the purpose of destroying their nation). Both of these are led by unstable religious governments, have nukes, but are US allies...

 

I'm not saying that the South has a better claim over the peninsula than the North, I'm just saying that if we could take the hatred, or ideological opposition, out of the equation, then there would not be two countries at this moment in time. East and West Germany became one big Germany once the ideological opposition was gone. Granted, this is not the exact same situation, but there are some similarities. Moreover, I do not believe that Pakistan or Israel should have nuclear weapons. Pakistan is extremely unstable, having gone through multiple leadership changes and exists for the sole purpose of opposing India. One can argue that Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because India developed nuclear weapons, but I would say that Pakistan is after some way to annihilate India, so eventually they would have acquired nukes on their own regardless of India's nuclear status. Pakistan is not using nukes for deterrence, but also as a first strike weapon. They have been developing battlefield delivery systems for some time now, Israel is another nation that I do not trust with nukes. They have shown a lack of restraint in warfare that leads me to believe that they are not using nukes for deterrence but as a first strike weapon. So even though these nations are "allies", I don't trust them with nukes.


Kryotech

#57 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:26 AM

I'm not saying that NK is reacting to the US, and it's not fair to say the exact opposite of that is true either. They're both constantly reacting to each other.

Have you read the original NK statements yet, which are just internal news/propaganda articles?
Both the 'sea of fire' and preemptive strike comments are made within the context of explaining their resolve to carry out counter attacks, and they cite these US drills (in past tense) as something they're fearful of becoming a real attack. The pre-emotive strike comment is in a section describing all of the defensive actions they have available to them, it's not worded aggressively, it appears in the same context of threatening defensive counter actions. It's not a direct threat to nuke the US in the immediate future, but a reminder that such actions are possible (it's implied that they're missiles are actually capable...). You find the same (but reverse) reminders on US news channels too, but when an American reminds us that they're capable of a pre-emotive nuclear strike, we don't all go crazy saying that Obama is about to nuke Korea...
Compared to 2nd gulf war, it's pretty tame stuff :P

Why is it provokative for NK to move around weapons and fire them as a show of force, but not provokative when us good guys do the exact same thing? If you read their actual words, they're saying their actions are a show of defensive force, but we choose to ignore that, and just grab the lines that make it look like a random warning of an imminent attack.

Can you explain which laws are broken by testing nukes? AFAIK, you've got to be a NTB/NPT signatory in order for there to be a legal document that can be held against such actions.

Just as a US invasion has never materialized (since the war), a NK invasion never materializes either. The meaning of the NK drills is also to show that if the south/US try anything funny, the North's military is ready to respond. The meaning is the same. It's ridiculous for us to scold NK for doing the same thing that we're doing. This whole thread is an example of how were inflating their actions into shadows of provocation, while laughing at them for inflating our actions into shadows of provocation. It's just selection bias on our part, because they're despicable.

#58 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 31786

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:43 AM

I'm just saying that if we could take the hatred, or ideological opposition, out of the equation, then there would not be two countries at this moment in time. East and West Germany became one big Germany once the ideological opposition was gone. Granted, this is not the exact same situation, but there are some similarities.

The Korean DMZ is quite analogeous to the Berlin wall. Getting rid of the DMZ (and all the weapons on either side, aimed at the other), would be a huge, huge step towards peace.
The other difference was that East Germans knew how bad they had it, and they wanted to escape. We're not sure how wide-spread internal dissent in NK is, nor how many of them know how much better their lives would be had the South won the Korean war (though that's just speculation, maybe Korea would be more like modern Vietnam than modern Japan, had the US not had a reason to prop it up so much -- or maybe if the north had won, whole-Korea would be technologically advanced and peaceful by now -- who knows). We basically need to somehow build communication lines into the country so that the citizenry can encounter foreign influences, without causing the North to either stop these efforts, or just build new gulags for the 'contaminated' minds...
East Germany was also propped up by the USSR, and their collapse was linked to the USSR's collapse. Unfortunately, NK doesn't draw their power from an external source (besides a small amount of trade/aid), so external politics can't really destroy it...
Lastly, the DMZ being mostly minefield instead of wall, presents a challenge to allowing David Hasselhoff to sing on top of it about freedom ;-)

#59 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:19 PM


3 - Why are you obsessed about this topic so much?  I mean, sure, I like to read about it, but whatevs on the day-to-day going ons.

I’m not. In fact I had stopped checking here for days and got behind on the posts.
But I live in Tokyo, a likely target if North Korea decides to go out and take as many with it as it can.


If you're that concerned, then move if you can.

However, a nuclear exchange would simply end Pyongyang. Threatening world peace is pretty much their economic policy to extort more and more resources out of the UN and other saps. So for NK to fling a nuke at Tokyo is not gonna happen.

Edited by ysg, 07 April 2013 - 05:20 PM.


#60 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3678

Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:01 PM

Just as a US invasion has never materialized (since the war), a NK invasion never materializes either. The meaning of the NK drills is also to show that if the south/US try anything funny, the North's military is ready to respond. The meaning is the same. It's ridiculous for us to scold NK for doing the same thing that we're doing. This whole thread is an example of how were inflating their actions into shadows of provocation, while laughing at them for inflating our actions into shadows of provocation. It's just selection bias on our part, because they're despicable.

 

You are trying to hard to find exact equivalency. The US and South Korea are not free of all responsibility but to claim that both sides are equally at fault for the current tensions is not realistic. As far as I can tell, the current tensions began with the North Korean satellite launch, which even China warned them not to do. After that, you get the cycles of UN sanctions and increasing threats, plus a nuclear test.The current US and South exercises are annual as someone else pointed out, and not exactly out of the blue threats of annihilation. The bomber flights came after the North threatened nuclear attack on the US directly. Even China, the North's only ally, hasn't been blaming the tensions on the South or the US.

 

Then there are the basic differences between North and South. North Korea spends at least a quarter of it's GDP on defense, the South spends around 3%. And while the South can count on the US, the North has been able to count on China. Then you have the fact of the Yeonpyeong island bombardment and the sinking of the Cheonean, as well as things like tunnels under the DMZ sized for tanks coming from the north and that one time in the 60's someone sent a group of commandos to assasinate the President of South Korea in his home. And Syngman Rhee's grandson is not the Adored Leader of South Korea... plus which side announced the cancellation of the Armistice? And I almost forgot about Korea Air Flight 858. Even Cuba, which is much closer to the United States and has more historical reason to dislike the US (and does not have China next door for support), is a fraction as militarized or blusterous as North Korea.

 

I also feel the need to point out that the division of Korea wasn't just the US's doing, it was equally the fault of the USSR and the PRC who supported the government in the North and rejected that of the South... it wasn't a one sided game.

 


-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS