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 It's an extraordinarily poor country, with a non-existent economy, an outdated army, isolated like no other.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?
Could it be that there are lots of such incidences but that they are "retcon'd" by historians? After all, historians want to understand history and going to war is such a costly, deadly and often incredibly stupid decision, that it's very tempting to find an alternate explanation. Like if there was a military build-up and then a minor incident that escalated into a costly, bloody war because of stupid decisions made by arrogant people. Wouldn't it be more plausible to say that this war was planned and coming, in light of the military build-up that preceded the minor incident? Of course, the military build-up had to be a prerequisite for war, but that doesn't mean it's the reason for the war, per se.
Take the Cuban missile crisis: If that had turned into a war, it would have been preceded by almost two decades of military build-up. In hind-sight, we may have said that the minor incident that ignited the war wasn't really the cause of the war and that we had it coming for a long time. However, with the war being averted, we say that the crisis was the closest we got to a war, like it was the one deciding factor that trumps everything else.
Of course, it may very well be that there's an actual assymetry with the minor incidents: The ones that led to war were, in actual fact, never accidental escalations and the ones that were averted would, in "actual hypothetically fact" never have led to a major war regardless, but without the power to look into alternate dimensions, we won't ever truly know. I still think, however, that it's worth questioning the conclusions we come to in hind-sight, if only to affirm that they were in fact the right conclusions.
On April 06 2013 23:51 Orek wrote: 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.
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.
What's depressing is that if you went with traditional inheritance, Kim Jong Nam would have been the leader right now. And this guy, his son would have been next in line.
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.
Based off of this, I would not be surprised if we see a China-supported coup in the next month or so. Definitely puts an interesting spin onto the recent NK activity.
NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un?
On April 07 2013 20:34 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un?
Bush lead a superpower into wars they would 100% win (not talking about the aftermath and what is happening now just the attacks on the countries) Kim Jong Un leads an incredibly poor country with an outdated military and if he strikes he will 100% lose. I don't know why you're even comparing them.
On April 07 2013 20:34 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un?
Bush lead a superpower into wars they would 100% win (not talking about the aftermath and what is happening now just the attacks on the countries) Kim Jong Un leads an incredibly poor country with an outdated military and if he strikes he will 100% lose. I don't know why you're even comparing them.
There are no winners in war though. Only losers and what Bush did reminded me very much of what Bush Sr. did. I wouldn't be comparing them either and if NK really did make an offensive I'm sure we all know how that would work out. I'm not all that surprised to hear about political strife in the inner circle. Kim Jong Un is a kid compared to everyone else in his camp.
On April 07 2013 20:34 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un?
Bush lead a superpower into wars they would 100% win (not talking about the aftermath and what is happening now just the attacks on the countries) Kim Jong Un leads an incredibly poor country with an outdated military and if he strikes he will 100% lose. I don't know why you're even comparing them.
My friend, I was not comparing the 2 military super powers. I was merely drawing the correlation to Bush finishing up his fathers dirty launder in Iraq. Similarly, NK wants to "reunite" the koreas once and for all. No doubt the US has a far superior army.. but do not forget the sleeping giants in Russia and China. Although, they may seem dormant and opposed to war.. they stand to gain alot from destabilizing the US. A protracted war thats at deadlock is all they need to push their agendas to cover more regional and international presence. We would be lying to ourselves if we were to say we are not tired of the wars the US have started.
I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
why do you think we are enemies with russia? i like russia
On April 07 2013 20:34 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote: NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un?
Bush lead a superpower into wars they would 100% win (not talking about the aftermath and what is happening now just the attacks on the countries) Kim Jong Un leads an incredibly poor country with an outdated military and if he strikes he will 100% lose. I don't know why you're even comparing them.
There are no winners in war though. Only losers and what Bush did reminded me very much of what Bush Sr. did. I wouldn't be comparing them either and if NK really did make an offensive I'm sure we all know how that would work out. I'm not all that surprised to hear about political strife in the inner circle. Kim Jong Un is a kid compared to everyone else in his camp.
Not all wars have clear winners, but at times there are clear winners in war in terms of geopolitics. The first gulf war was a clear win for the US, establishing it as the sole true superpower. WW2 was a clear win for both the US and the USSR, making 'old' europe irrelevant.
A NK conflict could be similar: Imagine a scenario where the north provocates the south, the south and the US (plus whatever other allies, there'll be many) strike back while taking minimal losses due to proper evacuation/missile defense procedures and you have another clear win for the US in its position compared to China.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
why do you think we are enemies with russia? i like russia
Well, maybe they don't like you back
The Cold War ended with the USA rising to the top with their military supremacy unquestioned, while Russia fell to the ground and is still barely standing even today. A country that used to be great and able to rivalize with the USA is now much much weaker than they were. Since they were crippled by them, I suppose it'd be normal that the government, and to some extent, the population, bares hatred towards the USA. And many other countries have reasons to hate the USA due to their imperialism.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves. Iran will stay a middle-sized power in the middle east even if they destroy Israel (so, assuming they go to war and don't get raped). Besides, Russia and China probably won't let Iran be wiped out by Israel because they need their presence to prevent Israel from expanding and conquering a much much bigger territory. EU armies won't get involved unless necessary, and they are considerably weaker than before. While they used to be a force to be reckoned with -- and still are, to some extent - they lost a big part of their might after WW2. There is close to no support for armies within western Europe, because it costs a lot to have a strong army (and it's pointless to have a weak one), and in this economical climate, it's difficult to justify that big of an expense. If they get involved w/ China, USA, ..., they'd be playing with powers that are far bigger than them. I can't really imagine France, Germany, UK, ... standing still while the rest of the world is at war, though. UK will most certainly provide help to the USA, but they aren't as strong as they used to be.
I doubt that a conflict involving Russia and China vs USA could be considered unwinnable. USA do have the tech advantage, but China and Russia have access to nuclear weapons, which basically render other tech powerless. If anyone puts their nuclear arsenal on the table, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it. Modern nuclear weaponry is much much much stronger than anything that's ever been fired, and could wipe out a small country in a single blow. Russia, China and USA (amongst others) have the power to destroy the country of their choice... I'm not sure how nuclear weapons play out in modern wars fought between countries that both have access to it. If I were KJU, I'd definitely nuke SK and the USA before shooting myself (because they ain't winning an all-out war againt the USA).
And btw, while Israel does have nukes ready to be fired, I highly doubt they'd use them against an enemy that lies so close to them. The main characteristic of nukes is the huge radius of the explosion, and the massive irradiation that follows. Nuking Iran would hurt them too much. But they probably have other weapons that work just as well. Neutron bombs would be a much better idea than standard nuclear artillery. The USA could use some to destroy NK's nuclear warheads, I think, since they destroy electronical components in a very big area
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves.
I'd like to address this point specifically. Selling weapons to a country is not the same as political support. The simple fact is, there is a market for guns, and Russia (and the US) make good weapons. There are plenty of internationals willing to buy guns, and there's no sense in ignoring a good market. The United States military is by far the strongest in the world. If they had to, they could manage to protect Israel and themselves without too much trouble (other than cost). War isn't cheap, but despite its large debt the US is quite solvent and pretty likely to get money if it needs a loan.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves.
I'd like to address this point specifically. Selling weapons to a country is not the same as political support. The simple fact is, there is a market for guns, and Russia (and the US) make good weapons. There are plenty of internationals willing to buy guns, and there's no sense in ignoring a good market.
You're right, but China and Russia support Iran politically quite often whenever the UN talk about them. They've said several times that they want to let Iran develop their nuclear program, and support their right to achieve that tech.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves.
I'd like to address this point specifically. Selling weapons to a country is not the same as political support. The simple fact is, there is a market for guns, and Russia (and the US) make good weapons. There are plenty of internationals willing to buy guns, and there's no sense in ignoring a good market.
You're right, but China and Russia support Iran politically quite often whenever the UN talk about them. They've said several times that they want to let Iran develop their nuclear program, and support their right to achieve that tech.
Of course they do because they'd make money off that by selling them the hardware and technological know-how
That doesn't mean they'd be backing Iran in the cause of an unprovoked attack on Israel. Unlike the US that will back Israel no matter what .
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
I don't think Iran would be ready to go all-out on Israel in the current political climate. Although everyone seems to hate Israel down there, they hate each other, too, and they would probably have to sort that out before any one of them could wage war on Israel. The Sunni/Shia split seems to stand in the way for the cooperation needed actually invade Israel. Just look at Syria, with Turkey on one side, supporting the opposition, and Iran on the other, supporting Assad. If Iran attacked Israel, I doubt the Sunnis (i.e. the other ones) would approve of the Shias (i.e. Iran) getting more powerful if they were to win.
However, the Muslims are waiting for a descendant of Muhammed to re-establish the Caliphate, and if such a person were to appear, it's possibly he may manage to mend the split between the Shias and Sunnis. And if they unified in some sort of coalition (the new Caliphate) and Turkey renounced secularism, left NATO and joined the Caliphate, then the Caliphate would be an entity on par with EU or China and there would be much less to stop them from attacking Israel in order to reclaim Jerusalem and make it their capital. Of course, at that point, the meddlings of North Korea would be of little consequence for the Middle East.
However, both Russia and China have significant Muslim populations in parts of their countries. Faced with a unified Muslim world, they may see the US as the lesser evil and certain alliances may shift. This is getting way off topic, though, so I'll stop here. The conclusion of my theorycrafting, though, is that I don't see North Korea acting as a catalyst for events in the Middle East.
On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote: I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ? Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided. Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China. Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable?
Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense.
I'm interested as to who you think the general population is that is overall pro israel in Europe.
Although i realise this might be in danger of derailing the conversation, so feel free to pm me or suggest a thread where we can talk about this.
EPT
