North Korea cancels truce

I'm not so concerned about the Norks starting a war that would almost certainly end in their annihilation. What makes them so dangerous is that they're peddling their weaponry, including their nuclear knowledge, around the world, to nice people like Iran and Syria; they don't have much else to sell anyone.
 
gumboot said:
An armistice is more significant than a truce. A truce is merely a temporary halt on battle, normally for the purposes of conducting a specific negotiation (such as a surrender, or to bury the dead). A truce is almost always necessary to negotiate an armistice, which is a more long term agreement to stop fighting.

I think you are getting confused with a peace treaty, which is a formal end to warfare, and which was never implemented for the Korean War.

This latest incident is interesting. Is this just more saber rattling, or something more serious from the North? Also, to those familiar with the geo-politics of the area, it is my understanding that there's some pretty solid bonds between North Korea and China. Does anyone know how strong those bonds are? Does China exert any sort of control over the North?
Click to expand...


China is a sort of reluctant ally of North Korea. They are in a unique position in that the huge amounts of aid that China gives to North Korea actually makes them have less of an influence. If they stopped giving aid, it would likely lead to a collapse of the NK government and economy and then all the refugees will start tumbling into China and South Korea, which is something neither of them want.

Make no mistake, China is not at all happy about NK's antics with the nuclear weapons.
 
At this point I would prefer if China went in and took control over NK, at any rate the the only ones who can even hope to rein them in is China.
 
When I was closer to the source, (I spent 3.5 years in S. Korea in Seoul), there was an alert every month or so, and threats from NK were very common. But everyone seemed resigned to the "fact" that someday it would be more than a threat.

NK would do some major damage due to Seoul being so close to the DMZ if they attack. I have no doubt the SK Army could handle them with no aid from the US if they really wanted to. The SK army is really well trained and well equipped compared to NK and estimates of the NK army have SK being able to field more soldiers.

In the end game, NK loses and loses badly, but will take a lot of SK civilians before they go.

I was there some time ago and worked in the Joint Forces planning office for the 8th Army.
 
parky76 said:
they have a million soldiers. assuming it stays conventional, they could kick some major $$$.
Click to expand...

The US has long had the principle to have the best trained, best equipped soldiers, and to let the other guy throw human waves against their enemies.

There would be no conflict because the 37 miles to Seoul or whatever it is would be fast a killing zone for those millions of soldiers.



In any case, this isn't about an actual military invasion. It's about threatening the West to get some economic concessions (and probably, secretly, some 9-10 digit sums in some bank accounts in Zurich) to get them to stand down on their aggressive stance and nuclear research. Then they just wait awhile until the piggy bank gets empty, and repeat it all over again.

It's like a bully in school who gets bought off with lunch money, only to come back again the next day. Their behavior never changes because the principal of the school keeps saying, "If you do it again, I shall give you a stern talking-to again!"
 
Beerina said:
The US has long had the principle to have the best trained, best equipped soldiers, and to let the other guy throw human waves against their enemies.

There would be no conflict because the 37 miles to Seoul or whatever it is would be fast a killing zone for those millions of soldiers.



In any case, this isn't about an actual military invasion. It's about threatening the West to get some economic concessions (and probably, secretly, some 9-10 digit sums in some bank accounts in Zurich) to get them to stand down on their aggressive stance and nuclear research. Then they just wait awhile until the piggy bank gets empty, and repeat it all over again.

It's like a bully in school who gets bought off with lunch money, only to come back again the next day. Their behavior never changes because the principal of the school keeps saying, "If you do it again, I shall give you a stern talking-to again!"
Click to expand...
That's why glassing works. Permanent education.
 
My current thinking. Given that they have unilaterally cancelled the armistice, it requires no more action (in the sense of voting) at all on the part of the UN or the US government to resume hostilities.

I'd strike now.

A coordinated cruise missile strike into every RADAR, communications center, electrical generation facility, railroad junction, submarine base, and munitions dump in the North timed so that all weapons arrive on target in the same 5 minute window.

The submarine bases are vital because even if they cannot depend on their rockets yet, a nuke can be delivered into a harbor via submarine.

Then I would back that up within minutes by carpet bombing the forces deployed on the other side of the DMZ with the goal of reducing them by 20-30% quickly, and disrupting their lines of communication and resupply.

And if the North uses a nuclear weapon, we respond with one nuclear bunker buster into their main CCC center. The one Kim will be cowering in.
 
TIme to put on "Team USA:World Police" again.
When it comes to looks, Dear Leader is trying to project a Dr.No style image, and failing miserably.
 
BenBurch said:
My current thinking. Given that they have unilaterally cancelled the armistice, it requires no more action (in the sense of voting) at all on the part of the UN or the US government to resume hostilities.

I'd strike now.

A coordinated cruise missile strike into every RADAR, communications center, electrical generation facility, railroad junction, submarine base, and munitions dump in the North timed so that all weapons arrive on target in the same 5 minute window.
Click to expand...

The US doesn't have enough cruise missiles to take out all the munitions dumps.

The submarine bases are vital because even if they cannot depend on their rockets yet, a nuke can be delivered into a harbor via submarine.

Then I would back that up within minutes by carpet bombing the forces deployed on the other side of the DMZ with the goal of reducing them by 20-30% quickly, and disrupting their lines of communication and resupply.
Click to expand...

Dug in forces that don't need to go anywere. The US simply does not have enough delivery capacity to prevent the destruction of Seoul.


And if the North uses a nuclear weapon, we respond with one nuclear bunker buster into their main CCC center. The one Kim will be cowering in.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Kim is smarter than that.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Depends.

If there is a radical and immediate regime change at some point, the effect on the population could be very similar to the abject shock in Japan after WWII and the "de-godding" of the emperor. It could be immediate and frightening and traumatic, but could take effect rather quickly when it becomes quite obvious what fools they've been.

Koreans are Koreans - when the IMF problems were rife, the population took the blame on their own shoulders to a great extent, and if the personality(collectively) of North Koreans is anywhere nearly similar to the South, they could adjust more quickly than is being imagined.
Click to expand...

I agree. It would be similar to people leaving a cult. The trauma and shock would be intense, but they wouldn't yearn for the goold ole days. Most North Koreans were born far after WWII and the Korean War, having no concept at all of what life is really like outside their borders and they would adjust.
 
The Term "Orwellian" gets tossed around so much that it is almost meaningless, but after seeing the CNN Christine Annapour report about North Korea, that is one country where the term is almost 100% accurate.
 
Several posts dumped to AAH for Rule 11 & Rule 12 breaches. Any further such breaches will result in further moderation action which may include suspension.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
dudalb said:
The Term "Orwellian" gets tossed around so much that it is almost meaningless, but after seeing the CNN Christine Annapour report about North Korea, that is one country where the term is almost 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's almost as if Kim Il-sung read "1984" and "Animal Farm" and said:

"Hey, that's a pretty good idea, let's do that!"
 
dudalb said:
The Term "Orwellian" gets tossed around so much that it is almost meaningless, but after seeing the CNN Christine Annapour report about North Korea, that is one country where the term is almost 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

Yes I also agree. This is a personality cult gone way beyond even George's dire descriptions. I have seen a few docos about the country and the thing that hurts the most - there is no bright spot, no ray of hope for these people - They are screwed on a level even Stalin would have blushed at
 
dudalb said:
The Term "Orwellian" gets tossed around so much that it is almost meaningless, but after seeing the CNN Christine Annapour report about North Korea, that is one country where the term is almost 100% accurate.
Click to expand...

Orwell understood where that goes if you let it.

We've all been smart enough to not let it because we have his warning clearly in mind. Hence the overuse of "Orwellian." But I'd rather we worry about it when it isn't there than worry about it after its too late to matter.
 
Keep in mind that Orwell was basing 1984 directly off of the Stalin-era Soviet Union, so it's no surprise that North Korea resembles it so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom