DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
so NK has won, they are untouchable? Surrender to the new overlord.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
North Korea fires artillery on the South
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
so NK has won, they are untouchable? Surrender to the new overlord.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I would say that the world and warfare have changed significantly since the 40's, while I'm not sure the NK military has changed. Substantially-sized standing army, certainly. Capable? In today's world, not so sure.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
How will doing nothing result in something better than the current situation?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
yes i am sure you have no clue what i meantGawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Wonder if WWIII will hold off long enough for me to finish work and watch it on TV at home. Internet video quality at work isn't great.
Phew, crisis averted. The United States has stepped in and "strongly condemns" the actions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM1S520101123
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM1S520101123
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
They spent most of the 90s modernizing their army. Their ground forces are well equipped and well trained. It should be noted that their air force is primarily a defensive one, but it certainly has the capability to do significant damage to the major population centers near the DMZ (Seoul and Incheon). Will they win air superiority? Not likely, I doubt they'll even come close unless they get help from China, the only country with I can think of that would even consider coming to NK's aid with enough resources to be useful (though I doubt China will officially involve itself, for reasons I stated earlier in the thread). Their armored capabilities also are lagging behind, but they're not 40's era. Naval battles are rare nowadays, so I'm not going to bother with that.
Even with these 'shortcomings' on paper, it should be noted that, in the Korean war, North Korea only had air superiority for a few years, and no armored superiority, but still managed to do well.
Last edited:
Let's see... 3 million dead that the North Korean leadership caused, or 3 million dead that they blame South Korea for? Which is more likely to lead to peace in the long run? Bearing in mind you don't get to wave the Magical Wish Fairies wand and choose a better option...
You see, this is what really shows up the militarists as the true naifs in world politics; I'm not even going to get into the lack of awareness of what's actually happening in the world now (Afghanistan is the best example of success? Really?); but the model that the international community is following, whether you like it or not, is that of the collapse of the Soviet Union. They're trying to wait the regime out, and turn up with MacDonalds and Jeans later, which people will be thankful for, even amongst skyrocketing inflation and collapsing lifespans... because those things will give them hope.
Is it a perfect model? Of course not. But turning up and bombing people always, always makes them rally around their locality; and if the local hard man is an asshat, it doesn't matter because at least he's your asshat. Bombing Cambodia didn't destroy the Khmer Rouge, it created them, nurtured the grievances that drove people to support them, and gave them the path to power by wrecking the country. Bombing North Vietnam in turn didn't make the Viet Communists unpopular; But secure hamlets and My Lai massacres drove the South away. Invading Iraq and then failing to secure the country didn't make us liked there... their thumbs up is was our middle finger; The only examples I can think of as successful reintegration into the world community are of already industrialised nations, whose national identity we didn't try and touch (as opposed to Nationalist identity, the recent history of which was so obviously shameful and they were happy to abandon), and who also had the Soviet Union literally on the doorstep; we had the Marshall Plan ready for them instead.
But you think invading North Korea, a society which has never really known modern life, by blowing hell out of them, which you'd have to do to conquer it, when there's no existential external threat except the one we ourselves pose to the regime, when there's absolutely no money available for the kind of redevelopment needed (Thanks to our own financial mismanagement and that there's no real profit visible like in Iraq)... is somehow going to work out ok? It takes a staggering lack of awareness of history to think it would.
And a staggering misreading of the nature of the people we are dealing with; Yes the North Korean regime is evil... but it's not stupid. You don't rise to the top of any cut throat society without having an certain level of what might pass for brutal intelligence. But it's so much easier to think of them as cartoon villains isn't it? It makes our own moral anguish so much easier to deal with. But they're not. Nor was the Soviet Union before it, despite all the nonsense about the irrationality and death wishes of those evil commies... if they don't think they are going to be able to continue the game in some form, they don't tend to start playing it. And North Korea knows that, basket case that it is, taking them off the board is going to wreck the board itself for just about everyone.
Which if you truly care about people, you have to swallow your pride and try and accept. Yup, it sucks. But the alternatives suck even worse. Sorry, no Wish Fairy again, just real lives that will be ended in greater numbers than otherwise. And every single one of those extra lives is an incredible tragedy to lose. North and South and all points in between. We don't get to choose who they kill. Only who we save; So drop the desire to justify your own sense of importance, accept your impotence where it exists and help those who you can save. By turning the other cheek if necessary.
And let us hope that South Korea does just that. Because in the long run, it's South Korea's soft power that will win out... not because they fear South Korea may kill them, even if only accidentally, but because they know it's where they would rather live.
It's amazing DC is lustily clamoring for war with three peace symbols in his sig that lead to concerts put on for peace in Palestine.
What is even more amazing, is his lusty clamoring for war seems to be based on little more than for thrill and ego.
What is even more amazing, is his lusty clamoring for war seems to be based on little more than for thrill and ego.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Did you miss that part in the OP where North Korea just shelled a South Korean island, causing death and injuries?
Let's do it. F it. Let's start world war III. I'm really bored, and it will make all the chicken littles right for once. Plus, there are too many damn people (especially Asians) and reality tv is so boring. I wanna see some real life command and conquer on CNN. Come on, it'll be fun.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
yes normaly i am totaly against war, but i see no other option for NK.
and its the first time i really think War is an option.
But why you would think it is for thrill and Egois beyond me.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Yeah...anyway.
North Korea's military is killing South Koreans. It's sinking their ships, it's shelling their towns, and their people are dying. It's really easy to yammer high-horsedly about "turning the other cheek" when it's not your citizens getting killed over and over again. While it's certainly true that more people tend to die during wartime than not, if South Korea decides that a future without a North Korea to continually potshot a dozen civilians here, a couple-dozen more there every month over the next 20 years is worth fighting for, that's their prerogative.
North Korea's military is killing South Koreans. It's sinking their ships, it's shelling their towns, and their people are dying. It's really easy to yammer high-horsedly about "turning the other cheek" when it's not your citizens getting killed over and over again. While it's certainly true that more people tend to die during wartime than not, if South Korea decides that a future without a North Korea to continually potshot a dozen civilians here, a couple-dozen more there every month over the next 20 years is worth fighting for, that's their prerogative.
NK vehemently denies responsibility for the Cheonan, and it is yet to be seen what this little barrage was about. SK was performing maneuvers at the time in a highly volatile region, and gunfire is exchanged across the DMZ quite regularly. The SKs killed have all been military.