|
I honestly don't see anything happening. NK has no reason to attack, and I don't think even they're dumb enough to poke a giant bear just because they don't like the cut of it's jib. However, if they do, it'll be one quickly snuffed little perturbation.
|
On April 05 2013 03:24 KarlKaliente wrote:I wonder how Jong-Un will react when they start calling him and asking for battletoads
that wasn't even funny 6 years ago
|
On April 05 2013 03:46 Skullflower wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 03:24 KarlKaliente wrote:I wonder how Jong-Un will react when they start calling him and asking for battletoads that wasn't even funny 6 years ago
it's still funny now
|
On April 05 2013 00:44 chimpandfrog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 21:35 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 04 2013 20:20 Pjorren wrote:On April 04 2013 20:02 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 04 2013 19:27 Robinsa wrote:On April 04 2013 18:58 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 04 2013 18:27 iMAniaC wrote:On April 04 2013 10:46 docvoc wrote:
What would happen if Japan were to get involved? How much of a burden would be put on them since Japan and China aren't exactly chummy. I think this would be quite of a big deal, actually. After WW2, it was decided that it would be best if Japan did not send troops outside their borders ever again, and so it was written their constitution that they should not have any military, only internal defence forces. Of course, those defence forces are, for all intents and purposes, a significant military, but the thought that they should not go outside Japan's borders are so ingrained in the minds of the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese, that actually having them go to North Korea wouldn't sit well with anyone, really. Japanese defence forces have actually gone to Iraq (if I remember correctly), but the Koreans have not forgotten that Japan annexed the whole of Korea a hundred years ago, so having them go ("back") to North Korea is very different and many Koreans do actually harbour strong feelings against the Japanese. It's not like the friendly bickering between the US or Canada or something like that; they're really not friends even though they often try to be. If Japanese forces went to North Korea, there are bound to be someone making mistakes, probably on all sides (i.e. NK civilians, SK military and Japanese) and the relationship would be even further strained. And China would probably make a big fuss about it as well, making sure everyone remembers their history. All in all, though, I think the diplomatic relations would be able to take the strain. After all, it might be even worse if the Japanese would sit back and let the South Korean solve their own problems... That's my two cents. China will never forget the horrors committed by the japanese in the ww2 Well theyre doing the best they can to keep the hate alive as far as I can tell. Good for you the native americans forgot what you did to them in SA! Well history is hard to forget and it wasn't that long ago, i understand hate is not the answer but it isn't easy. And btw im not american. It seems like you've forgot too :D So what did i forgot about my history? You've apparently forgotten about Native Americans and Africans that Portuguese were raping for centuries. If you're ignorant and uneducated - don't ever speak on sensitive subjects, especially without even knowing history of your own country.
well my ancestry is African so i didn't forgot that, but thank you for the reminder 
Portuguese tend to love history and are proud of their past even though bad things happened as well, i don't know a portuguese that doesn't know his history but you can keep looking for one.
|
Every country has done bad things, even the Murricans during WW2, not only the native Americans.
With that said Japan doing anything towards NKorea would really rile up the Chinese. In fact it'd probably rile up all the big East Asian countries. They do already have significant defence as pointed out already, so I wouldn't imagine them being too big a player in a war between N+SKorea. Unless NKorea does something towards them, which I doubt considering they seem most upset at the Americans and Koreans, they would probably move.
I think the biggest risk of anything is an attack on Seoul. I can't remember whether it's been talked about here (or even properly sourced) but the distance between it and NKorea is small enough for an attack regardless of defence systems in place. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but America should also be protecting Seoul as well as their bases. I don't imagine the already negative outlook on the American troops by Koreans would improve any should at attack on the capital occur while America only protected it's bases.
|
On April 05 2013 05:22 Hey Sean. wrote:
Every country has done bad things, even the Murricans during WW2, not only the native Americans.
With that said Japan doing anything towards NKorea would really rile up the Chinese. In fact it'd probably rile up all the big East Asian countries. They do already have significant defence as pointed out already, so I wouldn't imagine them being too big a player in a war between N+SKorea. Unless NKorea does something towards them, which I doubt considering they seem most upset at the Americans and Koreans, they would probably move.
I think the biggest risk of anything is an attack on Seoul. I can't remember whether it's been talked about here (or even properly sourced) but the distance between it and NKorea is small enough for an attack regardless of defence systems in place. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but America should also be protecting Seoul as well as their bases. I don't imagine the already negative outlook on the American troops by Koreans would improve any should at attack on the capital occur while America only protected it's bases.
We spend a shit load of money defending Korea and we help them protect the border dmz. We cant really do much more. They have access to our tech and soldiers. Besides I doubt they want our troops stationed in Seoul.
|
I don't think troops would be necessary, but better missile defences near Seoul would likely be welcomed.
That is assuming the US has better systems than the Koreans, which I'd think is likely.
|
On April 05 2013 06:10 Hey Sean. wrote:
I don't think troops would be necessary, but better missile defences near Seoul would likely be welcomed.
That is assuming the US has better systems than the Koreans, which I'd think is likely.
I'd be willing to bet Korea is under our missile defense umbrella. I read a few weeks ago the navy moved aegis cruisers near Korea and I'm sure they already field our ground based systems.
|
On April 05 2013 05:35 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 05:22 Hey Sean. wrote:
Every country has done bad things, even the Murricans during WW2, not only the native Americans.
With that said Japan doing anything towards NKorea would really rile up the Chinese. In fact it'd probably rile up all the big East Asian countries. They do already have significant defence as pointed out already, so I wouldn't imagine them being too big a player in a war between N+SKorea. Unless NKorea does something towards them, which I doubt considering they seem most upset at the Americans and Koreans, they would probably move.
I think the biggest risk of anything is an attack on Seoul. I can't remember whether it's been talked about here (or even properly sourced) but the distance between it and NKorea is small enough for an attack regardless of defence systems in place. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but America should also be protecting Seoul as well as their bases. I don't imagine the already negative outlook on the American troops by Koreans would improve any should at attack on the capital occur while America only protected it's bases. We spend a shit load of money defending Korea and we help them protect the border dmz. We cant really do much more. They have access to our tech and soldiers. Besides I doubt they want our troops stationed in Seoul.
Our troops are stationed in Seoul. I served there for a year. Wonderful place.
http://yongsan.korea.army.mil/
|
1019 Posts
On April 05 2013 07:24 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 06:10 Hey Sean. wrote:
I don't think troops would be necessary, but better missile defences near Seoul would likely be welcomed.
That is assuming the US has better systems than the Koreans, which I'd think is likely. I'd be willing to bet Korea is under our missile defense umbrella. I read a few weeks ago the navy moved aegis cruisers near Korea and I'm sure they already field our ground based systems.
Yes correct, I recently read a news article that stated 90% of the missile defense system in south korea is dependent on US technology and equipment.
|
On April 05 2013 02:26 TheZanthex wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 21:19 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 18:09 ConGee wrote:On April 04 2013 18:04 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 17:27 GoDannY wrote:On April 04 2013 17:06 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 13:36 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
Theres historical precedence for this, because it's exactly what happened during the korean war, and it's the main reason why the US/south korean forces couldn't reunify the country at that time. I don't think anyone wants the US and china to confront each other on the korean peninsula again. Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events. You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that. On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats? I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?.. i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it? I really doubt it is a benefit to inhale NK from a military/strategic standpoint tbh. Imagine if Korea reunites somehow, either by force or peaceful, this is not at all like the German reunion. I mean even with a fairly strong industry/infrastructure it took ages to get both parts of Germany to a fairly equal level economy-wise (which btw even today isnt the case really) . Now you have SK which is a modern, high-tech society but a heavily on trade relying economy. NK meanwhile is basicly living in the past for 50 years and way behind in every aspect. Building up this area will be more than a heavy burden that noone can afford, even with all force combined. By that, I dont want to neglect that the reunion would be beneficial from a human standpoint, considering the camps (KZ) in NK, the political prisoners and also the aspect of reuniting the nation itself. i dont know much about germany east or west so that was pretty interesting. all we were discussing is the possibility of china intervening in a war between NK and SK so i pointed out that having NK completely overrun would be strategically bad for china. It still makes less sense for China to support NK and risk pissing off its top trading partner. If NK launches a military offensive and SK and the US intervene, they wouldn't produce any direct military aid to NK. if taiwan ever declared independence from china in an unambiguous, unequivocal manner, expect china to attack no matter how pissed off USA gets. there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed. how do you know having american troops on the chinese border isn't an uncrossable line? to make such a confident statement that they wouldn't produce direct military aid Earlier in the thread they said that Obama was in talks with the Chinese leader, so maybe something diplomatic can be worked out. In any case, if the lack of a buffer zone is really what worries the Chinese, there's always the option of giving them the North Korean section of the peninsula or having a joint occupation or something of the like. I dunno, just tossing out ideas here.
...what? o.O
i dont know about other koreans but i'll go batshit crazy
|
|
|
On April 05 2013 09:58 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 02:26 TheZanthex wrote:On April 04 2013 21:19 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 18:09 ConGee wrote:On April 04 2013 18:04 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 17:27 GoDannY wrote:On April 04 2013 17:06 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:On April 04 2013 14:01 chimpandfrog wrote:
[quote]
Historical precedence from cold war era doesn't explain anything that has to do with modern day affairs. It is entirely different and would simply not fly in this information age and 24/7 awareness. It's as good as modeling after 1812 events. You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that. On April 04 2013 14:35 aksfjh wrote:
Do we have any SK opinions on this round of NK threats? I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?.. i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it? I really doubt it is a benefit to inhale NK from a military/strategic standpoint tbh. Imagine if Korea reunites somehow, either by force or peaceful, this is not at all like the German reunion. I mean even with a fairly strong industry/infrastructure it took ages to get both parts of Germany to a fairly equal level economy-wise (which btw even today isnt the case really) . Now you have SK which is a modern, high-tech society but a heavily on trade relying economy. NK meanwhile is basicly living in the past for 50 years and way behind in every aspect. Building up this area will be more than a heavy burden that noone can afford, even with all force combined. By that, I dont want to neglect that the reunion would be beneficial from a human standpoint, considering the camps (KZ) in NK, the political prisoners and also the aspect of reuniting the nation itself. i dont know much about germany east or west so that was pretty interesting. all we were discussing is the possibility of china intervening in a war between NK and SK so i pointed out that having NK completely overrun would be strategically bad for china. It still makes less sense for China to support NK and risk pissing off its top trading partner. If NK launches a military offensive and SK and the US intervene, they wouldn't produce any direct military aid to NK. if taiwan ever declared independence from china in an unambiguous, unequivocal manner, expect china to attack no matter how pissed off USA gets. there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed. how do you know having american troops on the chinese border isn't an uncrossable line? to make such a confident statement that they wouldn't produce direct military aid Earlier in the thread they said that Obama was in talks with the Chinese leader, so maybe something diplomatic can be worked out. In any case, if the lack of a buffer zone is really what worries the Chinese, there's always the option of giving them the North Korean section of the peninsula or having a joint occupation or something of the like. I dunno, just tossing out ideas here. ...what? o.O i dont know about other koreans but i'll go batshit crazy
Better than the status quo. Not that it would ever happen but the north would be much better off occupied by China.
|
I think people tend to forget that North Korea has a leader that wasn't even supposed to be the leader. This show of "force", if you can call it that, seems to be more a house cleaning method. If North Korea was even dumb enough to do something like even launching a scud than Russia, and China would be forced to take military action not to mention every south east asian country along with Western countries.
|
I feel really sad sometimes for North Korea' s people. Like the simple ones that have no idea whats really going on and have been brainwashed. Then again Brainwashing happens elsewhere too but not to this extent. Every human being should be born free
|
If anything will occupy the north it will be the UN, not China nor USA, not even both. Any other entity than the UN will result in catastrophy, within the north and outside of it.
Which also comes to another idea of mine, when we speak of reunification between the south and north. Why are we always talking about it destroying the south's economy? Sure, it would destroy it, but why do we expect the south responsible for it on its own? The reunification of Korea will be a benefit for us all, not to mention for the humanitarian aspect. Why can't we as a world shoulder the costs, it will be peanuts if we all pay through the IMF.
|
Regardless of the outcome, would a Korean unification even happen at this point? I mean, if it was hard for the Germans, imagine how this would be, with, or without a war to be perfectly honest, it now seems like an impossible feat (to me atleast).
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
1019 Posts
On April 05 2013 10:12 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:58 jinorazi wrote:On April 05 2013 02:26 TheZanthex wrote:On April 04 2013 21:19 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 18:09 ConGee wrote:On April 04 2013 18:04 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 17:27 GoDannY wrote:On April 04 2013 17:06 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that.
[quote]
I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?.. i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it? I really doubt it is a benefit to inhale NK from a military/strategic standpoint tbh. Imagine if Korea reunites somehow, either by force or peaceful, this is not at all like the German reunion. I mean even with a fairly strong industry/infrastructure it took ages to get both parts of Germany to a fairly equal level economy-wise (which btw even today isnt the case really) . Now you have SK which is a modern, high-tech society but a heavily on trade relying economy. NK meanwhile is basicly living in the past for 50 years and way behind in every aspect. Building up this area will be more than a heavy burden that noone can afford, even with all force combined. By that, I dont want to neglect that the reunion would be beneficial from a human standpoint, considering the camps (KZ) in NK, the political prisoners and also the aspect of reuniting the nation itself. i dont know much about germany east or west so that was pretty interesting. all we were discussing is the possibility of china intervening in a war between NK and SK so i pointed out that having NK completely overrun would be strategically bad for china. It still makes less sense for China to support NK and risk pissing off its top trading partner. If NK launches a military offensive and SK and the US intervene, they wouldn't produce any direct military aid to NK. if taiwan ever declared independence from china in an unambiguous, unequivocal manner, expect china to attack no matter how pissed off USA gets. there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed. how do you know having american troops on the chinese border isn't an uncrossable line? to make such a confident statement that they wouldn't produce direct military aid Earlier in the thread they said that Obama was in talks with the Chinese leader, so maybe something diplomatic can be worked out. In any case, if the lack of a buffer zone is really what worries the Chinese, there's always the option of giving them the North Korean section of the peninsula or having a joint occupation or something of the like. I dunno, just tossing out ideas here. ...what? o.O i dont know about other koreans but i'll go batshit crazy Better than the status quo. Not that it would ever happen but the north would be much better off occupied by China.
That is a bullshit outcome south koreans will never accept.
On April 05 2013 12:52 Shival wrote:
If anything will occupy the north it will be the UN, not China nor USA, not even both. Any other entity than the UN will result in catastrophy, within the north and outside of it.
Wouldn't that be nice. Too bad the UN is completely useless because the US and china are just going to ignore it. They have completely different self-interests when it comes to north korea, so they are going to end up in conflict when both sides move in to occupy it.
|
On April 05 2013 10:12 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:58 jinorazi wrote:On April 05 2013 02:26 TheZanthex wrote:On April 04 2013 21:19 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 18:09 ConGee wrote:On April 04 2013 18:04 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 17:27 GoDannY wrote:On April 04 2013 17:06 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 04 2013 15:06 chimpandfrog wrote:On April 04 2013 14:45 white_horse wrote:
[quote]
You can't be serious or you are trolling me. The geopolitics haven't changed. North korea serves as the perfect buffer to a major US ally from their doorstep and they do not want to lose that.
[quote]
I think people are more scared than usual because the rhetoric is a lot worse in this round of warmongering, people are still uncertain about kim jong-un's intentions, and because of nuclear bombs as a factor that wasn't there before. But south korea has gone through all kinds of north korean antics (sending commandos on a bus to kill the south korean president or digging underground tunnels to invade south korea easily) so I don't think people are sitting at home scared for their lives.. Geopolitics of tin soldiers and horses is very different from geopolitics of spirit bombers, nuclear submarines and laser beams. If you don't see how or why I can explain. I really think your and many other posters ideas on "buffer states" need to be seriously revised. Btw I don't even understand what you wrote in your answer, who's doorstep?.. i'm not sure why anyone would be so confused or think buffer states are irrelevant. basically the balance of power would shift way in favour of USA if they could station troops/bases that close to china. this means they have more leverage in trade discussions, negotiations etc and thats not really what china wants, is it? I really doubt it is a benefit to inhale NK from a military/strategic standpoint tbh. Imagine if Korea reunites somehow, either by force or peaceful, this is not at all like the German reunion. I mean even with a fairly strong industry/infrastructure it took ages to get both parts of Germany to a fairly equal level economy-wise (which btw even today isnt the case really) . Now you have SK which is a modern, high-tech society but a heavily on trade relying economy. NK meanwhile is basicly living in the past for 50 years and way behind in every aspect. Building up this area will be more than a heavy burden that noone can afford, even with all force combined. By that, I dont want to neglect that the reunion would be beneficial from a human standpoint, considering the camps (KZ) in NK, the political prisoners and also the aspect of reuniting the nation itself. i dont know much about germany east or west so that was pretty interesting. all we were discussing is the possibility of china intervening in a war between NK and SK so i pointed out that having NK completely overrun would be strategically bad for china. It still makes less sense for China to support NK and risk pissing off its top trading partner. If NK launches a military offensive and SK and the US intervene, they wouldn't produce any direct military aid to NK. if taiwan ever declared independence from china in an unambiguous, unequivocal manner, expect china to attack no matter how pissed off USA gets. there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed. how do you know having american troops on the chinese border isn't an uncrossable line? to make such a confident statement that they wouldn't produce direct military aid Earlier in the thread they said that Obama was in talks with the Chinese leader, so maybe something diplomatic can be worked out. In any case, if the lack of a buffer zone is really what worries the Chinese, there's always the option of giving them the North Korean section of the peninsula or having a joint occupation or something of the like. I dunno, just tossing out ideas here. ...what? o.O i dont know about other koreans but i'll go batshit crazy Better than the status quo. Not that it would ever happen but the north would be much better off occupied by China.
Pretty much this. Like, I understand why South Koreans would be pissed but diplomacy needs to be looked at first. China could do a good job occupying this and it would help relations with them anyhow.
|
On April 05 2013 12:52 pebble444 wrote:
I feel really sad sometimes for North Korea' s people. Like the simple ones that have no idea whats really going on and have been brainwashed. Then again Brainwashing happens elsewhere too but not to this extent. Every human being should be born free
is any human being born free?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
