Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South 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
54 replies to this topic

#1 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 10:44 AM

I got a few questions about North Korea (NK) and South Korea (SK):
1 - Should there be a conflict between SK and NK, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Europeans? Will I miss a few extra electronics (assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)?

The answer is no.

2 - Does SK deserve continued defense against NK's -- at times -- schizophrenic foreign policy?

Goodness no! Whether you like it or not, the country is quite anti-American, has no valuable resources (such as oil) that US really wants/needs and has been more than just a tad anti-Semitic in the past, with almost no attempt to reconcile these social faults of their own. They shall sleep in the bed that they made for themselves.

3 - Does the Korean peninsula even matter?

No. Say we have this scenario, NK attacks, is getting its ass handed to it by SK (who has a better military), at which point China steps in and "liberates" the entire Korean peninsula. Ok. The worst possible outcome is the loss of all those Starcraft "champions" and chubby-dear-leader-version-3.0 masturbating that much more.

Should there be a war in that part of the world, US (and anyone else that has half a brain) should just sip cocktails while crafting strongly worded letters. Oh, and, make some coin selling weapons to Seoul.

Sponsor:

#2 irreversible   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1235

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:10 AM

I'm rather curious to see where this topic will go in a couple of posts.

 

On-topic: whereas your question 1 is silly and question 2 makes some valid grounds for debate, it's question 3 that invalidates anything that you might say or think in any meaningful context. Let me put it in perspective: why does the US matter? Truthfully, the world could easily be a far better/easier place without it. Wouldn't it, therefore, make more sense to just let the entire country burn in the flames of its massive debt?



#3 Matias Goldberg   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3048

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

I got a few questions about North Korea (NK) and South Korea (SK):
1 - Should there be a conflict between SK and NK, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Europeans? Will I miss a few extra electronics (assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)?

The answer is no.

Let's go back to 1935-1945 period. Should there be a conflict between Germany, England & France, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Will I miss a few extra machinery, some inmigrants they send, and a bunch of scientific papers?
The answer at that time would be no too.

NK has a leader that genuinely believes is a god-like being that descended from heavens, and constantly talks about the greatness of his country and how it should be ruling the entire world. It's natural to think it won't stop at SK. And it has nukes. And every other country in the neighbour that may get involved (willingly or not) has nukes too.

(assuming that NK wins, which is highly unlikely)

You're missing the point. In a war where everyone's got nukes, nobody wins. That was the whole point of the Cold War.

#4 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 17972

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:52 PM

The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by. The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers. Especially small unequipped unfriendly nations. If we flee from the rat (North Korea), the tiger (China) will feel emboldened to do what they please in that part of the world. The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense. Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you want North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.                                                                                                                                                            [Need web hosting? I personally like A Small Orange]
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal


#5 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:38 PM

I'm rather curious to see where this topic will go in a couple of posts.
 
On-topic: whereas your question 1 is silly and question 2 makes some valid grounds for debate, it's question 3 that invalidates anything that you might say or think in any meaningful context. Let me put it in perspective: why does the US matter? Truthfully, the world could easily be a far better/easier place without it. Wouldn't it, therefore, make more sense to just let the entire country burn in the flames of its massive debt?

Yes.

Given the social, economic and political norms (political correctness, perceived morals, etc.), when the dollar's value is around nothing, bailing the US out (heck, bailing anything/anyone out) is moronic unless there is an absurdly good reason (the said entity has all of the resources that the world needs and others can gain later by bailing out the entity now).

#6 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:48 PM

Let's go back to 1935-1945 period. Should there be a conflict between Germany, England & France, would the lives of Americans change in a massive way? Will I miss a few extra machinery, some inmigrants they send, and a bunch of scientific papers?
The answer at that time would be no too.

That's not a valid comparison, not by a long shot. UK, France, etc. were not countries that were anti-American entities. They actively supported the US in one way or another given that they knew Germany was not playing nice.

NK has a leader that genuinely believes is a god-like being that descended from heavens, and constantly talks about the greatness of his country and how it should be ruling the entire world. It's natural to think it won't stop at SK. And it has nukes. And every other country in the neighbour that may get involved (willingly or not) has nukes too.

Yes, yes, their leader is -- from the outside -- scary delusional. There's a reason to deify the dear leader: power. I say let them worship their pudgy overlords.

As for the nukes, honestly, whatever nuclear capacity that they have is along the lines of a joke. Their nuclear tests have either been inconclusive -- when one of those goes off, you can hear shockwaves in the earth around the globe, this didn't always happen in NK's case -- and having 1 to 5 nukes doesn't make you a military threat (although it boosts your ego). There's a reason why the US tried to get Japan to give up -- similar case -- after making them think that they have hundreds of nukes instead of just two.

You're missing the point. In a war where everyone's got nukes, nobody wins. That was the whole point of the Cold War.

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

If this was a global exchange, similar to the one between US and USSR, then yes, we'd all be royally screwed. Mad Max tenfold. However, even in the worst case, Pyongyang just doesn't have the capability to do something like this.

#7 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:56 PM

The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by.

SK is a US ally? What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers.

The unfriendly nations will always rattle. But SK is a friendly nation? Since when?

I urge you to re-read my initial post about SK and note the rising anti-Americanism in the country. The better question to ask is: Why help countries that hate you?

The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.

As for the assumption that Taiwan and Japan will be invaded or taken over somehow by China, that's a pretty absurd jump in logic and holds more than a train-load of assumptions. How does leaving SK to fend for itself automatically have China landing troops in Japan and Taiwan? <---- please answer that for me.

If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense.

You can do that. And that would be a foolish thing to do. When you have one group of people helping/defending another that actively hate their benefactors, then the former deserve anything bad that might happen to them.

Actually, you've indadvertedly stepped at the heart of this issue: continued US support for SK -- given its anti-American position and stance in society and government -- is just plain stupid. American foreign policy is downright idiotic to support this government after it has thrown dirt in the face of Uncle Sam.

Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you want North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.

They've done that already. So what's the concern further?

#8 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:02 PM

SK, is pretty pro-American, in worldview and economic interests and practices if nothing else.

But it's irrelevant. The US is formally, legally bound to assist SK militarily in a variety of curcumstances. Disregarding those obligations would have serious destabilizing effects on US interactions with all the nations we treat with, particularly in Asia. That alone would probably be worth intervening in at least some capacity, your fairly shallow analysis notwithstanding.

Just the same, I would very much prefer that there be no outbreak of war.

#9 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:14 PM

eb6.jpg?1307463786



#10 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:20 PM

Really? That's it?

#11 SimonForsman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 5953

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:29 PM

ysg, on 11 Apr 2013 - 22:54, said:

Servant of the Lord, on 11 Apr 2013 - 20:50, said:
The last thing the United States needs to do right now is to show their allies that they were just posturing, and won't honor their contracts to support their allies when bullets start whizzing by.

SK is a US ally? What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

SK has been a US ally since the korea war.

Now that the cold war is over it might be considered less important to protect SK but there is still an alliance in place, the US cannot back out of one alliance when things are heating up since that would weaken or possibly even ruin their other alliances.

It might be a good idea for the US to get rid of some of its old cold-war era alliances but they can't do that when the ally in question has a significant threat hanging over their head.
I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!

#12 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 12803

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:07 PM

Really? That's it?

Basically.

 

Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.

 

What kind of person even considers abandoning an ally?  Seriously?

Questioning the worth of all Koreans?  Seriously?

 

Funny how you say that all we would lose would be a bunch of Starcraft players, as if the concept of import/export makes no sense to you.  Like, they all bought Starcraft, but somehow America didn’t profit from that?

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

 

Then of course there is the strategic military positioning for America, which would gain a larger border with China should it help South Korea stomp all over North Korea.

 

 

And then there is just the frank fact that I like Koreans.  North and south.  I have dated both.  So much for your “Koreans don’t like Americans” theory.

I put too much thought into my reply already.

 

 

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

#13 Matias Goldberg   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3048

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:15 PM

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

If this was a global exchange, similar to the one between US and USSR, then yes, we'd all be royally screwed. Mad Max tenfold. However, even in the worst case, Pyongyang just doesn't have the capability to do something like this.

You can't treat any nuclear threat lightly. For the same reasons a bomb threat in a building everyone is forced to evacuate, even when you believe the threat is bogus, there's been one every day, and 90% of the time terrorists explode bombs without warning.

I'll give you an example. Someone is pointing a gun at you, it's a really rusty, old piece of junk. You're not even sure it's loaded, but the man, a crazy one, is aiming at you and threatening to shot. You can risk going carelessly against this man, or you can act cautious that gun may actually fire. It doesn't have to be a Desert Eagle to kill or wound you.

 

2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.

The atomic bomb is actually a very primitive technology. The trigger mechanism is really basic.
What's hard was to develop all the necessary scientific background to understand how it should be made (and whether it was possible and why), and the really hard part is refining Uranium; which they got that covered thanks to the left-over factories courtesy of their USSR bodies.
Little Boy was dropped 50 years without having ever been tested (Trinity was plutonium-based). Technological advances until today have greatly improved their efficiency and power though.

 

1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.

There's a lot of ways to detonate a bomb. It is believed NK's technology is far below of what US' can protect. That is, assuming the US' anti-missile systems function as they should. External factors (such as powerful solar storms like the one from today have to be weighted in) can affect their capability. Nothing's fool proof.

You don't even need to target a city. Targetting something like the North pole, Alaska's block of ice, or Groenland could cause a damage that ranges from meaningless to catastrophic for everybody.



#14 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1731

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:51 PM

Not to mention that everyone going on about the lack of a threat from North Korea's nuclear program is completely overlooking the fact that all the current nuclear powers have always had nukes that were gifted to them by gods or something, and only they could possibly build more of them because they are all magical fairies or something...

 

Wait, that's not right at all. Nukes are relatively simple in design really, and the hardest part becomes quality control, logistics, and the base sciences. Look at the development of the US, Russian, British, French, and Chinese programs in the last century. The base sciences are already fairly well known and North Korea more than likely has access to at least 50 years of top secret developments from half a dozen nations. They have access to technology that means they can do in a year what others needed a decade to achieve.

 

To laugh away North Korean nuclear threats as completely harmless is to let someone stack fuel cans around your house, and then laugh at them while they struggle to get the flint set in an old zippo lighter.

 

 

And don't forget that the World economy is heavily tied to South Korea. Without South Korean shipyards the world is in a very bad state and left scrambling to rebuild a massive industrial and technical base. If you bought ANYTHING in the last month, then odds are apparently something around 50:1 or better that at some point a South Korean built ship was involved somewhere along the line. (Sure, the item itself might not have been brought on a South Korean built ship, but what about all the tools used to make it? Fuel used to drive the ship it came on? etc.)


Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#15 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 28501

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:08 PM


Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.


Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P

#16 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:19 PM

Basically.
 
Your thread is too racist

Oooooooh, the "R" word smile.png .

Tell me, based on me questioning the policies and the actions of society, how is that racist?

and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.

No, actually I would like an overall reduction of the size of the federal government. I would like to see the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Furthermore, I'd like to see a reduction in the expenditure of the military when it comes to stationing US troops abroad.

What kind of person even considers abandoning an ally?  Seriously?
Questioning the worth of all Koreans?  Seriously?

You either have a really hard time comprehending my posts, have a very strange outlook on the world or came here with an ax to grind.

Funny how you say that all we would lose would be a bunch of Starcraft players, as if the concept of import/export makes no sense to you.  Like, they all bought Starcraft, but somehow America didn’t profit from that?

What? Buying and selling between countries?

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

Ok... so what?

Then of course there is the strategic military positioning for America, which would gain a larger border with China should it help South Korea stomp all over North Korea.

And this makes even less sense for US interests. All it would do is piss off the Chinese. Why would we want to do that? All that would do is piss Beijing off when we need them in negotiations/putting pressure on countries such as Pakistan, Iran, etc.

My position, in case you've forgotten, (you did, didn't you?) is that US should withdraw from the Korean peninsula completely. The reason for this is that it's not worth to US interests. As it stands, SK can defend itself quite well against NK, but, should NK provoke, SK respond and then we have a full-on war, China will get involved and will deliver a stomping.

And then there is just the frank fact that I like Koreans.  North and south.  I have dated both.  So much for your “Koreans don’t like Americans” theory.
I put too much thought into my reply already.

Your ending remarks are incorrect. You've failed to quip/troll back at me calling me a racist.

2/10

#17 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:22 PM

Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P

sad.png

I'm thinking of night-watch state and minimalist federal government. There's no reason why the US should be expending over 500 billion (current dollars) on all defense and federal government administrative needs.

Honestly? I'm getting a kick out of some of the responses smile.png . But SK is just one of many places from where I'd withdraw US military presence. Some of the responses are along the lines of: Waah! I want subsidized military protection! Because if I do it myself, it'll be too expensive!

#18 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8209

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:24 PM

Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move. Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em". Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"? The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.

#19 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:31 PM

You can't treat any nuclear threat lightly. For the same reasons a bomb threat in a building everyone is forced to evacuate, even when you believe the threat is bogus, there's been one every day, and 90% of the time terrorists explode bombs without warning.

I'll give you an example. Someone is pointing a gun at you, it's a really rusty, old piece of junk. You're not even sure it's loaded, but the man, a crazy one, is aiming at you and threatening to shot. You can risk going carelessly against this man, or you can act cautious that gun may actually fire. It doesn't have to be a Desert Eagle to kill or wound you.

Honestly, a worthwhile response. Yes, you can't treat _every_ threat carelessly. However, the amount of evidence of the military capability of the North is pretty slim. We know that they're starving. Their proof that they detonated a nuke when others were not able to detect the seismograph shock-waves, is pretty non-existent. I can understand if Iran says that they have a bomb, 5 hours after a spike was detected from the region of shockwaves, but this just didn't happen.

To be blunt, I'm not convinced that they have the resources or the technical know-how to do this.

The atomic bomb is actually a very primitive technology. The trigger mechanism is really basic.
What's hard was to develop all the necessary scientific background to understand how it should be made (and whether it was possible and why), and the really hard part is refining Uranium; which they got that covered thanks to the left-over factories courtesy of their USSR bodies.
Little Boy was dropped 50 years without having ever been tested (Trinity was plutonium-based). Technological advances until today have greatly improved their efficiency and power though.

Look, I know that the USSR was pretty loose when it came to AKs and some other weapons systems, but when it came to their nukes -- when the Iron Curtain was up -- those were pretty much untouchable. They might pay lip-service to NK, give them planes, tanks, boats, etc. but no way in hell would they give them nukes.

As for NK getting the stuff on the black market, possible, yes, but again, if they said that they blew a nuke up, then they'd get noticed right away by a number of advanced countries (Russia, US, France, etc.) Things like this are impossible to hide.

There's a lot of ways to detonate a bomb. It is believed NK's technology is far below of what US' can protect. That is, assuming the US' anti-missile systems function as they should. External factors (such as powerful solar storms like the one from today have to be weighted in) can affect their capability. Nothing's fool proof.

I know that, but I'm not arguing that America's missile defense capabilities are fool-proof smile.png .

You don't even need to target a city. Targetting something like the North pole, Alaska's block of ice, or Groenland could cause a damage that ranges from meaningless to catastrophic for everybody.



#20 ysg   Members   -  Reputation: 192

Posted 11 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

Political decisions typically aren't (and definitely should not be) made on the basis of anti-Americanism among the populace of a nation whose government is still an ally. Pulling out of SK and leaving them to stand alone just because some of their citizens don't like us would be an all-around crappy move.

smile.png

It seems that most people here are not reading what I'm writing smile.png . SK of today is not SK of 1950. It's a wealthy nation, with an advanced military. SK's military expenditure is more than NK's GDP.

Really, you need a whole lot more justification for something like that than "they don't like us, so screw 'em".

Why? If you hate my guts, why should I put my neck on the line for you? If we work in the same office, I help you out and cover for you but you spread rumors about me behind my back, you're on your own smile.png .

Hell, Australia doesn't like us (just ask Hodgman tongue.png ) but would you honestly suggest that, should some act of aggression be instigated against Australia, we should say "there's a rising tide of anti-Americanism there, so screw 'em"?

There are consequences for actions smile.png . And yes, I'd advocate that position.

The US is currently far too over-extended, militarily and politically speaking, for isolationism to be a valid diplomatic move.

All the more reason to draw down worldwide.

I'm all in favor of less interference in other people's business for the most part, and would be overjoyed if my government would stop instigating wars driven by greed and arrogance, but something like what you propose would just be a dick move entirely.

Are you serious? Really?

We have a debt of over 13 trillion dollars, a budget deficit for years now and we should keep going as if these are the 90's? No, a dick move would be to continue to keep going as we are, bankrupt the country and then shrug, smile sheepishly and meekly say: "Well, making drastic changes is hard.. he he .."

Edited by ysg, 11 April 2013 - 06:42 PM.





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