EPTThose bases was never really popular to begin with for obvious reasons.
What would happen if US pulls out of SK and Japan? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Popss
Sweden176 Posts
Those bases was never really popular to begin with for obvious reasons. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On June 26 2011 02:59 Popss wrote: I think its more likely that U.S. will be forced to leave rather than them making that decision themselves. Those bases was never really popular to begin with for obvious reasons. never popular? among who? South Korea, Japan and USA enjoy really good relations in military and economic terms | ||
|
Popss
Sweden176 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:01 thoradycus wrote: never popular? among who? South Korea, Japan and USA enjoy really good relations in military and economic terms General population. EDIT: Hmm I did some research and I'm wrong on this one. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
The problem is that NK has no airforce whatsoever, nor does it have the money to buy fuel for pilot training. If there is a war, SK will almost instantly have air superiority. Regardless how large NK's land army is, once its supply routes are cut off, it's very hard to maintain the invasion. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:11 Sufficiency wrote: If I recall correctly, some "experts" said that if NK and SK fights again, NK will lose in about 3-4 days. The problem is that NK has no airforce whatsoever, nor does it have the money to buy fuel for pilot training. If there is a war, SK will almost instantly have air superiority. Regardless how large NK's land army is, once its supply routes are cut off, it's very hard to maintain the invasion. any chance u hav source? im interested in this kind of stuff lol | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:11 Sufficiency wrote: If I recall correctly, some "experts" said that if NK and SK fights again, NK will lose in about 3-4 days. The problem is that NK has no airforce whatsoever, nor does it have the money to buy fuel for pilot training. If there is a war, SK will almost instantly have air superiority. Regardless how large NK's land army is, once its supply routes are cut off, it's very hard to maintain the invasion. not that i support a war, but if NK and SK wants to duke it out. they should have the freedom and right to do so. for that same reason that we should not be involved in Libya. | ||
|
SorYu
Netherlands75 Posts
On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote: along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. . can they take their nukes with them too we store for them..stupid junk, we dont want this in europe (Netherlands) | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:11 Sufficiency wrote: If I recall correctly, some "experts" said that if NK and SK fights again, NK will lose in about 3-4 days. The problem is that NK has no airforce whatsoever, nor does it have the money to buy fuel for pilot training. If there is a war, SK will almost instantly have air superiority. Regardless how large NK's land army is, once its supply routes are cut off, it's very hard to maintain the invasion. The aftermath of that war would be just miserable. Seoul, being so close to the border and the target of a metric fuckton of long-range artillery, would have been bombarded to rubble (or even nuked) and there would be millions of brainwashed, unemployable (due to lack of industrial skills) North Koreans looking for food, work and shelter. | ||
|
aqui
Germany1023 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:20 SorYu wrote: can they take their nukes with them too we store for them..stupid junk, we dont want this in europe (Netherlands) Yeah, that'll just leave UK and France.. and the other countries that didn't disclose their development. Politically I can only see China asserting increased influence over SK and Japan if the United States were to suddenly leave. I don't know if that's for better or worse but I'm certain that would be the result. But we HAVE to cut funding to the military. The national debt is disgusting. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:22 Bibdy wrote: The aftermath of that war would be just miserable. Seoul, being so close to the border and the target of a metric fuckton of long-range artillery, would have been bombarded to rubble (or even nuked) and there would be millions of brainwashed, unemployable (due to lack of industrial skills) North Koreans looking for food, work and shelter. yea, their economy would be hit very hard. | ||
|
Redlol
United States181 Posts
On June 26 2011 01:53 Voltaire wrote: This isn't 1930, there is no way an "arms race" would emerge in the present day. Also there are severe restrictions on the Japanese military because of WWII. Look at the German military/submarine buildup before World War II, the world relaxed the World War I restrictions because they were outdated(bit of an oversimplification but the point stands). Similarly if the Japanese were to start building their military they would likely be allowed to as long as it was within reason. On June 26 2011 03:20 dybydx wrote: not that i support a war, but if NK and SK wants to duke it out. they should have the freedom and right to do so. for that same reason that we should not be involved in Libya. You never, ever have the right to genocide which is what really happened in Libya. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:11 Sufficiency wrote: If I recall correctly, some "experts" said that if NK and SK fights again, NK will lose in about 3-4 days. The problem is that NK has no airforce whatsoever, nor does it have the money to buy fuel for pilot training. If there is a war, SK will almost instantly have air superiority. Regardless how large NK's land army is, once its supply routes are cut off, it's very hard to maintain the invasion. Air superiorty doesn't stop rockets and artillery shells from hitting Seoul. SK will never be the agressor so any situation begins with the initial strike coming from NK. SK simply will not survive the initial atack. Their entire country is within instant range of NK weaponry. The only tactic that SK has is stalling for international (USA) help wich they well get. The question is how many million will die before they get their help. not that i support a war, but if NK and SK wants to duke it out. they should have the freedom and right to do so. for that same reason that we should not be involved in Libya. Millions of people will die and an entire nation will be thrown into poverty. Their entire industry destroyed within days. But ofcourse "they" should have at it. The frightenting mind of a colectivist thinker who has passed the threshold and consider the intrest of nations to supercede the intrests of people living in said nations. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
Yes, because NK spends something like 16% GDP on defense... That's appalling. Most countries sit around 1-4%. Priorities are disgusting within that government system... | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
When there are some events which would suggest that this is an issue to speak of, then i'm very interested in discussing it, since i study international relations at my university. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:26 Redlol wrote: Look at the German military/submarine buildup before World War II, the world relaxed the World War I restrictions because they were outdated(bit of an oversimplification but the point stands). Similarly if the Japanese were to start building their military they would likely be allowed to as long as it was within reason. Japan spends nearly as much on defense as Russia. although i heard that Japanese themselves have very low opinion of the army and that those who join are viewed as incompetent unemployed youths. | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:20 dybydx wrote: not that i support a war, but if NK and SK wants to duke it out. they should have the freedom and right to do so. for that same reason that we should not be involved in Libya. Excuse me? That's appalling. Did you somehow miss out on world history and forget about the holocaust, which spawned the UN's drive to "never again" allow for such slaughter? The UN's primary security purpose is to "prevent and protect". This issue emerged again in Rwanda in the 90s, whereby an even greater promise was made after the fact to "never again permit this genocide". You might think it's okay to let systematic slaughter of thousands - millions - to occur, but fortunately the UN and most of the world do not. NK deciding to steamroll Seoul in a barrage of missiles would not be an act of war. It would be an act of genocide - in Libya, Qaddafi's imminent actions in Benghazi would have been a genocide of over 700,000 - again, not an act of war. Genocide, mass slaughter, and other humanitarian crimes are not to be ignored just because "people should have the right to duke it out" - that's incredibly naive. People should not have the right to "duke it out". | ||
|
Cyba
Romania221 Posts
On June 26 2011 03:32 dybydx wrote: Japan spends nearly as much on defense as Russia. although i heard that Japanese themselves have very low opinion of the army and that those who join are viewed as incompetent unemployed youths. Most people with good education view the kids heading for the army the same in every country... You risk your life but your decisions in life pretty much end there untill you get out. At any rate fact that they see army as incompetent camp is just because they value education alot more then most countries. Besides nowadays wars between civilised countries are fought with banks, not infantry. | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
Which doesn't mean much when both countries have enough artillery pointed at each other to wipe out every major city in a matter of hours. War erases both countries pretty succinctly. | ||
| ||
