|
On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this.
The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion.
Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history.
An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't.
The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period.
One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits.
North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead.
And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do).
Have a nice day!
|
On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day!
Pretty sure I said that every government-like entity in NK will never start a war. so, not sure what your point is?
|
On April 06 2013 20:41 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! Pretty sure I said that every government-like entity in NK will never start a war. so, not sure what your point is?
Ok, fine, I thought you meant that there might be factions that wanted to start a war. Misunderstood.
Haven't heard anything about internal conflicts inside NK gouverment, I think we would have heard about it, so it's unlikely that's the real issue here.
|
I don't think we would've heard about any inside conflicts in North Korea. This is North Korea we're talking about. I'm also going to have to disagree with:
Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal.
Just look at the middle east.
I don't know why you keep saying "This isn't SC2" too. Everybody knows that and it's a very immature comparison to make when you're looking at an unpredictable country who is still technically at war with SKorea anyway. Countries are preparing for war because nobody knows whether it will happen yet, and not preparing would be stupid.
You can say "Moving armies is just a political measure" which will be true until war breaks out. They ARE preparing for war because if they didn't it could bring dire consequences to Americans and SKoreans. By saying it's just a political measure you're brushing off the fact this war might actually start, which makes me very glad you're not the leader of one of these countries.
|
On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day!
All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war.
|
On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war.
India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course).
Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war?
|
On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war?
gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914?
i have to agree with biff's line of reasoning but i do think that if NK miscalculates and tries to make a show of strength by shelling an island/minor military operations akin to what they've done previously it could escalate quickly given SK's current resolve to retaliate.
|
On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day!
Yeah, see, the thing is, I'm pretty sure this is false, and is demonstrably false. World war one was fucking stupid, in hindsight, but it could be argued that elites lacked information to properly evaluate the situation (although I think the czar was crazy, wasn't he?).
World war 2, on the otherhand, was really fucking stupid on Hitler's part. Let's commit an entirely irrational genocide backed only by pseudo scientific eugenic bullshit, take the entire world on in a war, and invade Soviet Russia during the Winter while fighting on other multiple fronts.
I'm pretty frickin' sure you could argue that Hitler was not the most rational decision maker.
And all it takes is one crazy dude in power. Isn't that part of the supposed appeal of democracy? Power is spread out and controlled, so it's harder for one crazy dude to go batshit and launch some nuke?
Now, I do genuinely believe this is all posturing, and that the situation is so overwhelmingly in favour of the US/SK and NK would face such annihilation that nothing will happen.
But I just wanted to point out that crazy ass dictators who belive megalomaniacle shit do crazy things every now and then.
|
On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history.
WW2 Operation barbarossa.
Don't underestimate fanatism and megalomania.
gg no re
|
On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914?
Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time...
|
On April 06 2013 22:46 ChApFoU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. WW2 Operation barbarossa. Don't underestimate fanatism and megalomania. gg no re
I heard that the attack on the soviet union was not as insane as a lot of people believe. Basically, a conflict with russia was pretty much unavoidable for the germans, both because of their ideology and because of the clearly stated goals of Nazi germany. Those reasons were all also known to the soviets, and the soviets were just in the process of recovering from Stalins purges. The longer the Nazis would have waited, the stronger russia would become when they inevitably would enter the war.
|
On April 06 2013 22:47 kafkaesque wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time...
israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, boston massacre sparking off the american revolution, blah blah blah.
point is, something stupid or minor could result in a great escalation
|
On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? i have to agree with biff's line of reasoning but i do think that if NK miscalculates and tries to make a show of strength by shelling an island/minor military operations akin to what they've done previously it could escalate quickly given SK's current resolve to retaliate.
Even though you can point to that occurrence as a starting point of WW1 (and I don't blame you; on the surface it looks like the war simply happened because of one declaration of war and everyone being tangled up in their own secret/open alliances), it had causes much deeper than that. A major one being the german military thinking it could overwhelm french forces like they did in 1870. They miscalculated in that sense, but it would be absurd to think NK can miscalculate to the point that they think they could defeat the SK and US military.
|
On April 06 2013 22:56 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:47 kafkaesque wrote:On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:
[quote]
Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time... israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, boston massacre sparking off the american revolution, blah blah blah. point is, something stupid or minor could result in a great escalation
I don't know much about the israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, but I hardly think that counts as a war (enlighten me if you feel it does). Boston massacre was an event that rallied public opinion in favor of the american revolutionaries and gave them strength, but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed (two sovereign countries going to war because of a minor military mishap).
|
On April 06 2013 22:46 ChApFoU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. WW2 Operation barbarossa. Don't underestimate fanatism and megalomania. gg no re
In retrospect, WW2 was a close war. It could also have turned out the other way around easily. One of my professors said if the Italians wouldn't have delayed Barbarossa (greece), Moskva and Leningrad would have fallen, which would in his opinion decided the war in the east.
Even in late 1943 Stalin was not sure that the Wehrmacht could not recover from their losses, thus he pressured the allies to open a front in the west to increase the chance of winning. If you alter 1 or 2 events slightly (for example Japanese declaration of war on the USSR instead of the allies in '41) there is little question that there was a good chance for a win of the axis.
Also the German Oberkommando saw the disastrous status of the red army during the finnish winter war.
Just because the last year of the war was one-sided does not mean the war was suicidal (or even against the odds) from the start.
|
On April 06 2013 23:12 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:56 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:47 kafkaesque wrote:On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:
[quote]
I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops.
Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time... israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, boston massacre sparking off the american revolution, blah blah blah. point is, something stupid or minor could result in a great escalation I don't know much about the israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, but I hardly think that counts as a war (enlighten me if you feel it does). Boston massacre was an event that rallied public opinion in favor of the american revolutionaries and gave them strength, but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed (two sovereign countries going to war because of a minor military mishap).
operation cast lead is also called the gaza war...
i dont think either of the "minor events" i cited are a real cause for the war. from basic history classes we know wwi was caused by an arms race, by german imperialism etc. what i am trying to point out here is that there is precedent for something really silly blowing up into something major, akin to a trigger. and i do think it is possible here, given the way kim jong un might suffer a serious loss of face if his bluff falls completely flat with no military action whatsoever.
|
On April 06 2013 22:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 22:46 ChApFoU wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:17 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 19:59 sekritzzz wrote:On April 06 2013 19:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
People who take Kim Jong Un seriously in that one have serious issue about understanding how politics work, imvho.
There are two motivations behind this verbal threatening diarrea of the last weeks. First, it strengthen Kim Jong Un towards his own people. He is supposed to be a great military leader (that's how propaganda presents him even if we all know it is absolutely grotesque) and there is nothing better that a war that will never happens and a clearly identified ennemy for a power to show its muscles, keep its grip over its people through crappy patriotic feeling and unite a nation.
(Just look at how hystericaly patriotic and utterly dumb even we, in the west, become at times of war. Remember Irak in 2003 and the ocean of crap about "freedom" and the messianic America that was gonna save the world, and then think of the huuuuge difference in maturity, information, democracy, education and critical possibilities between US and NK citizens, and you'll see what I mean.)
So that's the first point.
The second point is North Korea exists internationally because of all those threats and blackmails. North Korea is nothing. It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other. But still they receive a huge amount of help from the outside. The day they stop looking like lunatic psychopath, they stop to exist. The day they stop to exist, the regime falls.
Now, and those two points being made, remember one thing. Nobody wants it to change. Nobody. South Korea certainly doens't want to reunify with this horrendously poor neighbour. That would be like East Germany in 1991, a million times more painful. China doesn't want a new outpost for the US in the area, closer to its border. Japan doesn't want the mess that would be the political disorder after the fall of the regime. The US have enough problems with the countries they already "liberated" in Middle East to put their hand in a laborious process of being once again the non wanted savior at the opposite side of the globe.
So, before talking freedom, before going on with slogans (USA USA USA, seriously??), before counting how many nukes will fall where and how long the war will be, I think it would be a good idea to realize there won't be any war, and that's all dirty political manoeuvres. Not exactly sure how troop movement by China/USA/SK and movement of top-tier American planes to the area is political maneuvering. I know it feels like the guy who cried wolf too many times but this time is definitely different, Its not cheap to move troops around. I think you are both right: the current korean leaders use rhetoric to improve their internal stability, as was said. The reactions of China and the others are probably a response - but they are not a response to the imminent thread of war declared bei Kim, they are a reaction to his actions in the way that his rhetoric seems to be radical, suggesting that his internal position is very fragile. If the internal order of NK shifts, it is entirely possible that terrorists or deluded generals assume control over certain parts of the military/ it's weapons. This requires everyone to respond immediately which is why China (to possibly occupy and pacify a NK in civil war) and the US (defense against hardline attacks) are moving troops. Does this make sense or too sci-fi like? Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists". The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. WW2 Operation barbarossa. Don't underestimate fanatism and megalomania. gg no re I heard that the attack on the soviet union was not as insane as a lot of people believe. Basically, a conflict with russia was pretty much unavoidable for the germans, both because of their ideology and because of the clearly stated goals of Nazi germany. Those reasons were all also known to the soviets, and the soviets were just in the process of recovering from Stalins purges. The longer the Nazis would have waited, the stronger russia would become when they inevitably would enter the war.
Yeeaaahhhhhhh.......About that.
You can't really call their actions "rational" when their decisions were based on an entirely irrational ideology......
That's basically like saying you can't call crazy people crazy because their actions are logically consistent according to their crazy world view.
|
United States5162 Posts
You're getting a bit off topic here, guys.
|
On April 06 2013 23:24 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 23:12 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 22:56 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:47 kafkaesque wrote:On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists".
The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time... israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, boston massacre sparking off the american revolution, blah blah blah. point is, something stupid or minor could result in a great escalation I don't know much about the israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, but I hardly think that counts as a war (enlighten me if you feel it does). Boston massacre was an event that rallied public opinion in favor of the american revolutionaries and gave them strength, but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed (two sovereign countries going to war because of a minor military mishap). operation cast lead is also called the gaza war... i dont think either of the "minor events" i cited are a real cause for the war. from basic history classes we know wwi was caused by an arms race, by german imperialism etc. what i am trying to point out here is that there is precedent for something really silly blowing up into something major, akin to a trigger. and i do think it is possible here, given the way kim jong un might suffer a serious loss of face if his bluff falls completely flat with no military action whatsoever.
I agree with the possibility of triggers to wars, but then you need to point out the underlying cause of war.
You might have a point if you think that kim jong's serious loss of face would put his entire regime (not just kim jong's position as dictator) at a breaking point, but I think they're far from the instability necessary for them to even consider risking it all on a very bad gamble (war).
|
On April 06 2013 23:24 sgfightmaster wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 23:12 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 22:56 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:47 kafkaesque wrote:On April 06 2013 22:24 sgfightmaster wrote:On April 06 2013 22:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 06 2013 21:48 Tennoji wrote:On April 06 2013 20:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 06 2013 20:26 sephiria wrote:On April 06 2013 20:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Too sci fi. There are no "terrorists". What do you even mean by "terrorists".
The troops are there to say "move a little finger and you are dead, no kidding". It's just a way to shortcut his blackmail. I am just assuming that there is some sort of internal conflict Also the current internal indoctrination does not exactly prevent radical anti-west opinions. While the government knows that hitting the US is a bad idea, I would imagine there are probably some groups around that really want to show the US their strength. I also think that in the event of a coup or a similar situation China and the US just want to be safe. Even if it's unlikely that this happens nobody wants to take chances. I think that your explanation is more likely though, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was this. The question is not wheter ot not they have anti-west opinion. Look, a regime look after its interest. That's what politics is about. Sometimes they make mistakes, but you will never, ever see a regime doing something they know is stupid, or even worse, suicidal. That's how it works, that's how it always worked, that's how it will always work. Whatever the factions, whatever the internal conflicts. There is not a single counter example in history. An open war is a suicide for NK, they won't go for an open war. That's simple as that. They can't. The US and China bring their planes and stuff to draw a limit. Last time, Kim bombed an island. Bringing your B2 and F22 is a way of saying that this time, it wouldn't be a good idea to get there, because we would come with our immensely superior material, and kill you. Period. One last thing and I'm out of here because I have said everything I had to say; a very general thing: Most of the time, an army is not meant to be used. It is used in last resort. The primary function of an army is to draw limits. North Korea's army function is not to protect North Korea or to invade the South. It's function is internal. It is meant to be annoying enough to force countrries aroud to make compromises, and to keep people in line inside North Korea. US army function is to say: that's the red line, cross it and you are dead. And they won't cross it. Because they might be evil and everything you want, but if they have been in power for 70 years, they are certainly good at it and won't spoil it because suddenly they start mixing up real life and a RTS computer game (as some people seem to do). Have a nice day! All nice and true in theory, but in practice only one soldier needs to get anxious in some weird escalation of events to fire a gun or do some other stupid thing to actually start the war. India and Pakistan have had instances of armed skirmishes along their border without it devolving into war. And that's not just one soldier getting anxious and firing, there were military operations involved (small, of course). Now, I'm genuinely curious, which war would you attribute to a minor military incident escalating into full-out war? gavrilo princip shooting archduke franz ferdinand in 1914? Good example, for Franz Ferdinand was an armed soldier in a combat-situation at that time... israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, boston massacre sparking off the american revolution, blah blah blah. point is, something stupid or minor could result in a great escalation I don't know much about the israeli military incursion into gaza prior to operation cast lead, but I hardly think that counts as a war (enlighten me if you feel it does). Boston massacre was an event that rallied public opinion in favor of the american revolutionaries and gave them strength, but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed (two sovereign countries going to war because of a minor military mishap). operation cast lead is also called the gaza war... i dont think either of the "minor events" i cited are a real cause for the war. from basic history classes we know wwi was caused by an arms race, by german imperialism etc. what i am trying to point out here is that there is precedent for something really silly blowing up into something major, akin to a trigger. and i do think it is possible here, given the way kim jong un might suffer a serious loss of face if his bluff falls completely flat with no military action whatsoever.
more like british, french and russian imperialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
