EPT"What, the curtains?"
And the curtains it was.
North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Daswollvieh
5553 Posts
"What, the curtains?" And the curtains it was. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5864 Posts
Now, if Jong Un wanted to unite both Koreas, which would either require conquering SK (not realistic) or peacefully surrendering, do you think the establishment would allow him to do the latter? I think he would die in an assassination. What options would he have then? I think the best bet would be posturing to be a strong-willed leader who wants to rule with an iron fist, while replacing the establishment with his people. Afterwards, if he wanted to surrender to SK, there would be no real opposition to the idea. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 31 2014 05:24 maybenexttime wrote: I haven't read the thread, so I'm sorry if this was already discussed. It occured to me some time ago that there might be different reason for recent cleanses at the North Korean court than Jong Un's greed and hunger for power. Maybe, growing up in the West (afaik), he realizes how much of a shithole NK has become because of the ruling regime. Now, if Jong Un wanted to unite both Koreas, which would either require conquering SK (not realistic) or peacefully surrendering, do you think the establishment would allow him to do the latter? I think he would die in an assassination. What options would he have then? I think the best bet would be posturing to be a strong-willed leader who wants to rule with an iron fist, while replacing the establishment with his people. Afterwards, if he wanted to surrender to SK, there would be no real opposition to the idea. I see no reason why Un would have unification on his mind as it would almost certainly mean giving up a significant portion of his power. I guess this is somewhat dodging the question, but retaining NK independence while building up a stronger relationship with the South (via things like allowing movement between countries, opening up the borders, demilitarising somewhat) would seem like the best option to develop NK while Un can still retain his power (I sincerely doubt that NK would push him out if he's increasing the countries wealth and raising the standard of living). Likelihood of any of that actually happening thought is near zero. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On January 31 2014 05:54 Nyxisto wrote: Also reunification costs for South Korea would be incredible. Germany's reunification has cost over two trillion, building up North - Korea would probably cost even more. This is something I really should know lol. Do you have a handy reference for that? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
That's from 2009, claiming that the cost were about $1.9 trillion at that time. The so called 'Aufbau - Ost' will be finished in 2019. If I recall correctly. I'm not sure if these numbers are inflation adjusted. I think selling something like that to the South - Korean people would probably be the hardest part. In Germany it wasn't really an issue, but Korea is divided much longer and deeper now I guess. | ||
|
zelevin
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
exog
Norway279 Posts
On January 31 2014 06:24 zelevin wrote: I mean, let's be honest. The United States' defense is much better than anything North Korea can throw. Supposing North Korea launched a nuclear missile and its destination was the United States, it wouldn't even get half way across the Atlantic Ocean, and then the United States would proceed to steam roll their entire military. North Korea knows this, and their threats are empty. You make this appear to be truth. It is only your opinion and one of an infinite number of outcomes. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
Now at the point that they do attack yeah the war probably would be short and devastating. North Korea isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan where our oppositions were primarily guerrilla forces, North Korea has a clearly structured military that the air force alone could decimate, which is exactly how the first Gulf War started when Iraq like North Korea tried to make up for being technologically behind with a large army. If our goal was to occupy North Korea for some weird reason, yeah that would go poorly, but as far as a war in which they're the aggressor and we're just moving in to destroy their offensive capability, there they would not have a chance. Also as far as them attacking goes 10 million mines in the DMZ also would put in a lot of work to prevent that... | ||
|
L1ghtning
Sweden353 Posts
On January 31 2014 12:19 TheFish7 wrote: Modern warfare is not like Starcraft. The tech advantage doesn't guarantee any kind of victory. Missile defense systems are inaccurate. A ground invasion of an asian country is not something the US could handle at this point. Remember that the US had air superiority throughout almost all of the first Korean war and still it was an awful bloodbath. I mean sure we could nuke entire continents off the map but lets be realistic here. South Korea have twice the population of North Korea, and probably around half of its active army size, and a much greater army reserve. SK is most definately superior in training, equipment, tactics, organization, logistics, army morale, yeah in pretty much everything. If the war started again, USA's role would be insignificant, because South Korea on their own is more than capable to win the war easily on their own. Most likely there would be a lot of casualties, but I can't see the North winning even a single battle. Without backing from China, North Korea doesn't stand a chance, and there's no way that China would join a war on the opposite sides of USA, not even a defensive war. It would be economic and diplomatic suicide, and China would have a lot more to gain from being on the opposite side, as that would put them in a good position for post-war negotiations. | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5713 Posts
On January 31 2014 13:33 L1ghtning wrote: South Korea have twice the population of North Korea, and probably around half of its active army size, and a much greater army reserve. SK is most definately superior in training, equipment, tactics, organization, logistics, army morale, yeah in pretty much everything. If the war started again, USA's role would be insignificant, because South Korea on their own is more than capable to win the war easily on their own. Most likely there would be a lot of casualties, but I can't see the North winning even a single battle. Without backing from China, North Korea doesn't stand a chance, and there's no way that China would join a war on the opposite sides of USA, not even a defensive war. It would be economic and diplomatic suicide, and China would have a lot more to gain from being on the opposite side, as that would put them in a good position for post-war negotiations. Easily? I highly highly doubt it. Would they win? Definitely eventually, or another stalemate except the South has more freedoms and the North and more in a crapshoot than they alrdy are. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
On January 31 2014 15:46 Slaughter wrote: I wonder what China would do if it came to military conflict. They definitely wouldn't be happy with US troops right next door in large numbers. North Korea doesn't buy anything from China, therefore China will either stay neutral or support US. | ||
|
sgtnoobkilla
Australia249 Posts
On January 31 2014 15:46 Slaughter wrote: I wonder what China would do if it came to military conflict. They definitely wouldn't be happy with US troops right next door in large numbers. Assuming the ROK/US smashes the North completely, I suspect a backroom deal with America would be preferable to open conflict. Modern China isn't exactly as close as "lips and teeth" to NK, so backstabbing the North doesn't sound all too implausible. Especially as China's eyeing those 3 trillion dollar worth resource deposits to the north (near their border), so they'd probably give the southern part of the country freely to the ROK in exchange. Not that the South is going to be happy with parts of the peninsular being annexed by China that is... | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On January 31 2014 16:13 Titusmaster6 wrote: North Korea doesn't buy anything from China, therefore China will either stay neutral or support US. I find it unlikely that they would support the US. Staying neutral perhaps, but they would view any military action by the South or the US as aggression against china's sphere of influence. I lived in China for 6 months; over there they refer to the Korean war as "The war of American agression" remember that many Chinese soldiers died in the first war. its a safe bet they would not be happy about a conflict. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
A stunning catalog of torture and the widespread abuse of even the weakest of North Koreans reveal a portrait of a brutal state "that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world," a United Nations panel reported Monday. North Korean leaders employ murder, torture, slavery, sexual violence, mass starvation and other abuses as tools to prop up the state and terrorize "the population into submission," the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea said in its report. Source | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
None of this should surprise anyone, certainly not any of the ruling classes of the major nations that may have any role in resolving the problem. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
| ||
