|
all NK needs now is some real, internal, power shifts/fights.
few generals to make a common front and split the army, get the support of some of the population and open a rebellion/revolution against Un.
that would be like a green flag for China to cross the border and i'm not sure US/SK/UN would wait for invites either.
|
I would have liked to see North Korea ruled by Kim Jong-nam, the eldest son of the late Kim Jong-il and an older brother of Kim Jong-Un. This guy is hilarious.
2001 Tokyo Disneyland incident
In May 2001, nam was arrested on arrival at Narita International Airport accompanied by two women and a four-year old boy identified as his son. He was traveling on a forged Dominican Republic passport using a Chinese alias, Pang Xiong,[6] which means "fat bear" in Mandarin Chinese.[7] Kim Jong-nam was reportedly wearing a white shirt and dark blazer along with sunglasses and a gold chain. After being detained for several days, he was deported, on the instructions of the Japanese government, to the People's Republic of China. Kim Jong-nam apparently told his questioners that he was in Japan to visit Tokyo Disneyland in Urayasu, near Tokyo. The incident caused Kim Jong-il to cancel a planned visit to China due to embarrassment.
|
That Kim Jong-nam news story sounds so close to Tyrion Lannister I can't stop laughing my ass off. Going to be thinking North Korea all through season 3 now thanks.
|
am I crazy in thinking that china's goal is to invade NK in case they start a war, to prevent US bases on their border without any diplomatic drawbacks?
|
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 think the difference in 1914 and now is, in 1914 everyone in Europe wanted war, but no one had a stonecold reason to go for it, and Franz Ferdinands death was the reason everyone was looking for
|
On April 07 2013 03:17 1Dhalism wrote:
am I crazy in thinking that china's goal is to invade NK in case they start a war, to prevent US bases on their border without any diplomatic drawbacks?
I view it more like they don't want NK to turn into Iraq/Afghanistan and have bases everyone, but same idea.
|
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?
Winter War 1940, Finland vs Soviet Union. Soviet Union apparently framed Finland attacking their own border guards near Mainila so that they had an excuse to attack. 4 dead, 9 injured. That's a pretty minor military incident that lead into a full-scale war.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i know that if i were put in a position of authority to decide whether to start a war or not, i'd never be able to pull the trigger. the decision may seem simple, but it involves a lot of people dying one way or another, and foreclose a lot of possible space of action.
as such the psychology of war commanders is very interesting. it'll have to view death and war in a drastically different way from the ordinary view. (same goes for psychotic murderers and the way they view victims, but digress) In particular, using people and soldiers in such a brutish way like NK does takes a particular track of mind in its leaders.
i guess this inhumanity is so monstrous that it's difficult for me to simulate it and see it acting with predictable reason. it's truly monstrous.
|
On April 07 2013 06:43 Shikyo 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? Winter War 1940, Finland vs Soviet Union. Soviet Union apparently framed Finland attacking their own border guards near Mainila so that they had an excuse to attack. 4 dead, 9 injured. That's a pretty minor military incident that lead into a full-scale war.
Ok, so the USSR created a minor military incident to justify a war and force Finland into submission. I didn't say minor military incidents can't be used as justifications for a war, though.
I was responding to a guy who was suggesting that a minor military incident (accidental) could create an escalation of tensions that would lead to war. I'm saying that this is very unlikely since there's no real justification for war beyond NK rethoric.
I may have miswritten what I meant to say. What I meant to ask was: can we point out a war that can be attributed to minor military incidents (and their escalation) in the absense of actual reasons to go to war, or, alternatively, presence of overwhelmingly strong reasons not to?
|
On April 07 2013 07:01 oneofthem wrote:
i know that if i were put in a position of authority to decide whether to start a war or not, i'd never be able to pull the trigger. the decision may seem simple, but it involves a lot of people dying one way or another, and foreclose a lot of possible space of action.
as such the psychology of war commanders is very interesting. it'll have to view death and war in a drastically different way from the ordinary view. (same goes for psychotic murderers and the way they view victims, but digress) In particular, using people and soldiers in such a brutish way like NK does takes a particular track of mind in its leaders.
i guess this inhumanity is so monstrous that it's difficult for me to simulate it and see it acting with predictable reason. it's truly monstrous.
I would argue in some cases it is seen as the "greater good" to lose soldiers to protect something the Nation/General cares about.
A really cheesy example is the Russian Generals in WW2. They knew they were throwing hordes of their own men into a meat grinder sometimes even unarmed. If they didn't do that the Germans could have won the war then enslaved and massecered all of the Slavic people. Sometimes you just do what you have to do.
The North Koreans are more than likely much more intelligent than they let on but this is their only option to maintain their position of power.
|
On April 07 2013 09:04 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 06:43 Shikyo 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? Winter War 1940, Finland vs Soviet Union. Soviet Union apparently framed Finland attacking their own border guards near Mainila so that they had an excuse to attack. 4 dead, 9 injured. That's a pretty minor military incident that lead into a full-scale war. Ok, so the USSR created a minor military incident to justify a war and force Finland into submission. I didn't say minor military incidents can't be used as justifications for a war, though. I was responding to a guy who was suggesting that a minor military incident (accidental) could create an escalation of tensions that would lead to war. I'm saying that this is very unlikely since there's no real justification for war beyond NK rethoric. I may have miswritten what I meant to say. What I meant to ask was: can we point out a war that can be attributed to minor military incidents (and their escalation) in the absense of actual reasons to go to war, or, alternatively, presence of overwhelmingly strong reasons not to?
One of my past teachers would say World War I. The assassination of one individual used as a pretext for a war that engaged much of the world. There were, obviously, other factors (such as the triple entente, interlocking treaties, etc) but the pretext used was apparently the assassination. The thing is, the complexity of interactions between nation states and their governments, and their people, make it a complex problem in which a few issues can start a cycle of escalation which gradually becomes a conflict.
|
Too bad they don't have Snickers in North Korea...
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
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!
Keyword is what they know is stupid. Hindsight is 20/20 and tons of the most catastrophic decisions in history were made without it. The leaders didn't know it was stupid, but they were certainly ambitious, power hungry, and arrogant. Only need to look at recent history. Hitler and Tojo, despite the alarm and dismay of their generals: the best military minds of their time in that period, unleashed two enormously unwinnable conflicts which summarize the events of WW2.
Whether or not he's stupid enough to risk war is one question, but the fact KJU would pit himself against the world and eternally starve his own population from relentless sanctions and logically conclude it empowers his regime in NK just miles from the respective polar opposites of another dictatorship and democracy, China and South Korea, both open to the world, is ultimately stupid.
|
As tensions rise, Mr Kim has stepped up his personal security, perhaps in fear of a military coup, a Japanese newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, reported. In particular, about 100 armoured vehicles have been deployed close to Mr Kim's official residence in Pyongyang, said the paper, quoting diplomatic sources.
"The situation inside North Korea is very unstable and the military are making a lot of complaints to their political leaders," said Toshimitsu Shigemura, an expert on North Korea at Wasaeda University in Tokyo. "The military needs tension with South Korea and the US to justify themselves and Kim is terrified of a coup."
Mr Shigemura added: "These are very clever old soldiers, but Kim is just a 29-year-old with limited experience who has been given the task of leading the country."
Fidel Castro, the retired Cuban leader, described the Korean confrontation as the most dangerous since the missile crisis that he helped to cause in 1962.
While hailing North Korea as a "friend", Mr Castro told the state media that his ally must remember its "duties to other countries". Nuclear war would "affect in a special way more than 70 per cent of the world's population," he said.
Source
|
On April 07 2013 03:17 1Dhalism wrote:
am I crazy in thinking that china's goal is to invade NK in case they start a war, to prevent US bases on their border without any diplomatic drawbacks?
no you're not. I wouldn't be surprised if some military officials, who are against kim jong-un, actually want that to happen.
|
Well, their "timeline" for the promised attack is up.
|
On April 07 2013 15:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As tensions rise, Mr Kim has stepped up his personal security, perhaps in fear of a military coup, a Japanese newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, reported. In particular, about 100 armoured vehicles have been deployed close to Mr Kim's official residence in Pyongyang, said the paper, quoting diplomatic sources.
"The situation inside North Korea is very unstable and the military are making a lot of complaints to their political leaders," said Toshimitsu Shigemura, an expert on North Korea at Wasaeda University in Tokyo. "The military needs tension with South Korea and the US to justify themselves and Kim is terrified of a coup."
Mr Shigemura added: "These are very clever old soldiers, but Kim is just a 29-year-old with limited experience who has been given the task of leading the country."
Fidel Castro, the retired Cuban leader, described the Korean confrontation as the most dangerous since the missile crisis that he helped to cause in 1962.
While hailing North Korea as a "friend", Mr Castro told the state media that his ally must remember its "duties to other countries". Nuclear war would "affect in a special way more than 70 per cent of the world's population," he said. Source
When Fidel Castro is the voice of reason...
|
the generals that are against KJUn might've already talked to the chinese.
|
On April 07 2013 11:47 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:Too bad they don't have Snickers in North Korea... + Show Spoiler +
omg, haha, nice one :D
on topic: NK would be really dumb if they try to nuke anyone. They would get smashed like instantly IMO
|
On April 07 2013 15:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +As tensions rise, Mr Kim has stepped up his personal security, perhaps in fear of a military coup, a Japanese newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, reported. In particular, about 100 armoured vehicles have been deployed close to Mr Kim's official residence in Pyongyang, said the paper, quoting diplomatic sources.
"The situation inside North Korea is very unstable and the military are making a lot of complaints to their political leaders," said Toshimitsu Shigemura, an expert on North Korea at Wasaeda University in Tokyo. "The military needs tension with South Korea and the US to justify themselves and Kim is terrified of a coup."
Mr Shigemura added: "These are very clever old soldiers, but Kim is just a 29-year-old with limited experience who has been given the task of leading the country."
Fidel Castro, the retired Cuban leader, described the Korean confrontation as the most dangerous since the missile crisis that he helped to cause in 1962.
While hailing North Korea as a "friend", Mr Castro told the state media that his ally must remember its "duties to other countries". Nuclear war would "affect in a special way more than 70 per cent of the world's population," he said. Source
I'm pretty sure the writers meant that Chosun Ilbo (조선일보) was a Korean newspaper, not a Japanese one.
Anyways, this article puts things in perspective. Kim Jong-Un himself is not the problem. It's more about the military trying to maintain/expand their vested interests. This 29-year-old who had only a few years of experience in military before becoming the leader seems to be not influencial enough within military compared to his father who had spent more than a decade in a military position under his father Kim Il-Sung. Had Kim Jong-Il decided which one of his 3 sons become his successor much earlier, and had that son spend more time learning how to work with military, then the leader would have done much better job declining military officials' out-of-touch aggressive suggestions. Without a firm grip on military, a dictator is powerless. Unfortunately(?) for Kim Jong-Il, his eldest son, Kim Jong-Nam who is 42-year-old today wasn't quite the ideal successor of him, so he had to wait for his younger sons. Then, Jong-Il died too early before Jong-Un could gain enough experience under his father. I'm no expert, but Jong-Il's failure to adequately prepare for his son after his death looks like the indirect reason for the current situation. Maybe he thought he could live much longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537092_10151567616203128_2042889818_n.jpg)
6605
3322
459
152
EPT
