On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
hurting 16 some civilians sounds like a pretty major military action.
Unfortunatly noone will ever attack NK. Noone wants to get nuked. sad reality. NK will continue being irresponsible pricks until somehow they get a smart leader and/or communism ends.
If you read about NK you will find that their nukes/planes are buried under mountains. No1 knows exactly where they are either, we can only see the entrances/runways from satellites. If you can't pre-emptively take down their nukes no-one will ever dare attack them.
On November 23 2010 23:23 Sabu113 wrote: I wonder if any koreans could give us insight into the korean public's opinion. Could the NK gov pressure the SK gov into some face saving retaliation?
The time-frame for that sort of retaliation has pretty much passed. South Korea will not risk further escalation now that the major players are awake and alerted to the situation.
On November 23 2010 23:23 Sabu113 wrote: I wonder if any koreans could give us insight into the korean public's opinion. Could the NK gov pressure the SK gov into some face saving retaliation?
My mom got off the phone with one of her sister's (situated in Pusan), for them the situation is apparently what it has been for the last 30-40 years. "If they fire a missile we're dead whatever we do, so no reason to worry and let's just keep going with our lives".
In other words, at least my family's only mildly concerned. The "Can't help it, no reason to weep" attitude still holds.
On November 23 2010 23:24 superarmy wrote: The New York Times reports that the South Korean Deputy Minister of Defence, Lee Yong-geul, has now acknowledged that artillery units were firing test shots on Tuesday afternoon close to the North Korean coast, from a battery on the South Korean island of Paeknyeongdo. But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea.
Uhh crap, this doesnt add in well.
Auch,does this mean that the SK ''gave'' NK an ''exuse'' to fire rounds?
It´s a bit of a dilemma this, stop aiding NK entirely and just let the country collapse on itself, or keep aiding it to actually give its millions of innocent civilians a fighting chance of having some food on the table.
Actually been considering a tourist trip to NK since those are arranged nowadays due to it being like visiting a different planet. Also kinda paranoid and scared about such an endavour.
On November 23 2010 23:26 unkkz wrote: It´s a bit of a dilemma this, stop aiding NK entirely and just let the country collapse on itself, or keep aiding it to actually give its millions of innocent civilians a fighting chance of having some food on the table.
It's not.
Aid them and there's at least temporary peace. If you don't aid them you force them to do something, which will likely be war. Not to mention, as you said, it's not the one's responsible that will suffer the most, it's the civilian population.
SEOUL, Nov. 23 (Yonhap) -- President Lee Myung-bak ordered his military Tuesday to strike North Korea's missile base around its coastline artillery positions if it shows signs of additional provocation, his spokeswoman said.
I really hope this deters any further action from North Korea, surely they'll be less likely to want to escalate this while the South Korean military is on high alert. We can pretty much assume there will only be harsh talks from now on, rather than actual military action.
I don't even see the point of all this anymore -_- all they do is little pot shots and then there is some tenstion and nothing comes of it... Either stop all together or do something.
The problem is that nobody wants to shoulder the burden. South Korea's capital is withing sneezing distance, China wants short-term stability for economic growth, America is already over-extended, and everyone is dealing with global economic turmoil.
This is actually the root of the problem - the outside world is too busy to deal with North Korea at the moment so they are lashing out for attention.
Good points, but since when does a country have to involve others to fight a war. I really don't understand that mindset, it's good to have backup but you can handle things yourself.
Countries with large militaries have a tendency to get into all sort of trouble if there's even the slightest chance of gaining something. In this case a US involvement on South Korea's side would secure their position in eastern Asia but China and Russia might not take it well. This is all, of course, if a war breaks out.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
hurting 16 some civilians sounds like a pretty major military action.
Unfortunatly noone will ever attack NK. Noone wants to get nuked. sad reality. NK will continue being irresponsible pricks until somehow they get a smart leader and/or communism ends.
If you read about NK you will find that their nukes/planes are buried under mountains. No1 knows exactly where they are either, we can only see the entrances/runways from satellites. If you can't pre-emptively take down their nukes no-one will ever dare attack them.
I think you are overestimating North Korea's current nuclear capabilities. Their long range delivery systems are unreliable and any bombs they do have are likely low-yield. South Korea is the only country within striking distance, and they'd suffer as much from artillery and traditional violence as they would anything else.
On November 23 2010 23:31 Consolidate wrote: I think you are overestimating North Korea's current nuclear capabilities. Their long range delivery systems are unreliable and any bombs they do have are likely low-yield. South Korea is the only country within striking distance, and they'd suffer as much from artillery and traditional violence as they would anything else.
That's the point. They don't need any advanced technology to wipe Seoul which is 80 km from the NK border.
At this rate NK will win in the long term, just like North VietNam in the past. Just defend and don't attack is not the way you win control over anything. South Vietnam fell because of that, and so will South Korea.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
hurting 16 some civilians sounds like a pretty major military action.
Unfortunatly noone will ever attack NK. Noone wants to get nuked. sad reality. NK will continue being irresponsible pricks until somehow they get a smart leader and/or communism ends.
If you read about NK you will find that their nukes/planes are buried under mountains. No1 knows exactly where they are either, we can only see the entrances/runways from satellites. If you can't pre-emptively take down their nukes no-one will ever dare attack them.
I think you are overestimating North Korea's current nuclear capabilities. Their long range delivery systems are unreliable and any bombs they do have are likely low-yield. South Korea is the only country within striking distance, and they'd suffer as much from artillery and traditional violence as they would anything else.
They don't have to nuke the US. They'll be happy to nuke South Korea to oblivion making it a nuclear wasteland for hundreds of years.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
Mainila shelling started war between Finland and the Soviet Union. Basically soviets fired few artillery rounds on to their own soldiers and blamed on Finland (Nearest finnish artillery was out of reach to fire over border).
So don't just say 70-200 because they shot even less :D
Right. But that was the case of the Soviet Union attempting an opportunistic land-grab during the start of World War II.
1419: The New York Times reports that the South Korean Deputy Minister of Defence, Lee Yong-geul, has now acknowledged that artillery units were firing test shots on Tuesday afternoon close to the North Korean coast, from a battery on the South Korean island of Paeknyeongdo. But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea.
Here is the important line. "But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea."
But I am sure NK see that location as their own land.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
hurting 16 some civilians sounds like a pretty major military action.
Unfortunatly noone will ever attack NK. Noone wants to get nuked. sad reality. NK will continue being irresponsible pricks until somehow they get a smart leader and/or communism ends.
If you read about NK you will find that their nukes/planes are buried under mountains. No1 knows exactly where they are either, we can only see the entrances/runways from satellites. If you can't pre-emptively take down their nukes no-one will ever dare attack them.
I think you are overestimating North Korea's current nuclear capabilities. Their long range delivery systems are unreliable and any bombs they do have are likely low-yield. South Korea is the only country within striking distance, and they'd suffer as much from artillery and traditional violence as they would anything else.
They don't have to nuke the US. They'll be happy to nuke South Korea to oblivion making it a nuclear wasteland for hundreds of years.
My point is that they don't need nukes to threaten South Korea - they need nukes to further deter other nations from helping South Korea.
On November 23 2010 23:36 kamikami wrote: At this rate NK will win in the long term, just like North VietNam in the past. Just defend and don't attack is not the way you win control over anything. South Vietnam fell because of that, and so will South Korea.
not really, if South Korea just bolster their border and guard their coastline aswell as their airspace(which they have probably alredy done) North korea will just waste wathever troops they decide to attack with.
So if south korea have a superior artillery they can level north korea to the ground. but thats not likely since North korea has nukes, If South decide to directly attack north korea they will end up being shelled with nukes.
On November 23 2010 23:11 Rflcrx wrote: I doubt this is calculated, way too heavy of a strike for this.
Not to sound callous to those who were effected, but 70-200 artillery strikes on a relatively small island town isn't a major military action in the grand scheme of things.
Terrorists flew planes into a few buildings and look what that started.
1419: The New York Times reports that the South Korean Deputy Minister of Defence, Lee Yong-geul, has now acknowledged that artillery units were firing test shots on Tuesday afternoon close to the North Korean coast, from a battery on the South Korean island of Paeknyeongdo. But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea.
Here is the important line. "But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea."
But I am sure NK see that location as their own land.
As someone mentioned earlier. Both side are lying
So when your neighbor shoots into the tree between your house and his house you should response by shooting directly into the room of his kids ?
EPT
