Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

maybe/depends

only if it's <insert country/organization here>

[lordcooper]

But...dead Kim also liked western films.

Here comes the new Kim, same as the old Kim.

[chaoticag]

Attacking North Korea is a terrible idea. It's political suicide unless NK does something to start things off. People have been avoiding it for a reason, and we're going to need more than "China is not going to support North Korea if we do this, probably" in order to do so. As is, this would be terrible for US relations. And US intervention with other countries lately have been colossal fuckups.

And even if China does not in fact intervene, how do we know this is not going to be another Vietnam? As is, most of the US is war weary. The past 8 or so years have been spent at war, and it's causing a lot of stress. And you can't be asking to cause more stress to the system to do something that most of the world would not support, adding more stress to the tense sociopolitical relations that other countries have with it?

China might not intervene, but if the US attacks North Korea, will they still trade with the US? If wars are A-OK to declare over humanitarian reasons, what's to say that China won't think it's going to be next, or that it's a good idea to intervene in a highly volatile situation.

North Korea might be in a terrible state, but believe me things are going to get worse if war is declared. War never helped Iraq, it just destablised it further. Removing the head of the cult of personality is not going to resolve all issues.

[Sheb]

Also, I'm sure the Second Best Korean will love seeing Seoul shelled by NK.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tell me, how exactly do you want to garner Chinese support for invading a country that serves as a more or less annoying yet useful buffer against South Korea, Japan and other countries aligned with the USA without resorting to the UN?

Standard diplomacy. How would you get it with the UN?

And for an unrelated question, how do you convince people you're not invading said country only for the coal? Somewhat silly, I am aware, but it can be converted into oil and all...

For the US? The US has 150 years of coal on its own soil, and North Korea's land is going to South Korea anyway.

First of all, to call them 'crazy' underestimates them greatly. They know exactly what they are doing, and thus far it has worked out quite well for them.

Of course they know what they are doing. Knowing what you are doing does not preclude being crazy.

Furthermore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-North_Korean_Mutual_Aid_and_Cooperation_Friendship_Treaty
If NK is brought down by a third party, World War 3 will have begun.

China isn't going to go to war with the US to protect North Korea. North Korea almost useless to them, the US is critically important to their economy. This is geopolitics, treaties stand and fall based upon if they are functionally useful to the entity maintaining it.

Aside from that, there have been recent changes in NK which suggest it may be aiming for reforms akin to China's. The new Kim has only just come into full control of the country, what with the upper level military shake-ups of the past couple weeks.

I don't think there is any way to successfully reform a system like NK's. The system itself is broken. It needs to be destroyed.

The new Kim is thought to have spent several years of his education outside of NK, and is a fan of western material, especially Disney.

He also grew up raised by someone who either thought he was a god or was fine with everyone believing that to their own expense.

Any reforms which come won't be fast, of course, as rapid reforms in a country so isolated would almost certainly end up with him deposed by the military, but they may in fact come.

Any reforms at all would get him deposed. The higher echelons of the military are the only group in NK with any desirable lot in life. They aren't going to let that go.

You wanna take down north korea, you support whatever revolutionaries are inside.

I have never once heard of North Korean revolutionaries. Anyone who recognizes the horror of that place seems to leave or die trying.

If you want to talk about avoiding WWIII it is even more important that North Korea is taken down soon. Incompetency in building nukes won't last forever.

[kaijyuu]

You wanna take down north korea, you support whatever revolutionaries are inside.

I have never once heard of North Korean revolutionaries. Anyone who recognizes the horror of that place seems to leave or die trying.

I haven't heard of any either. I guess the cult of personality thing really is quite powerful. Or the authoritarian rule is very efficient and effective.

Point being, if we rush in guns ablaze, we're the bad guys. Subtlety is key.

[Flying Dice]

You wanna take down north korea, you support whatever revolutionaries are inside.

I have never once heard of North Korean revolutionaries. Anyone who recognizes the horror of that place seems to leave or die trying.

I haven't heard of any either. I guess the cult of personality thing really is quite powerful. Or the authoritarian rule is very efficient and effective.

Point being, if we rush in guns ablaze, we're the bad guys. Subtlety is key.

You're also missing the point that they've already got a crazy military dictatorship. Now if they suddenly started having open elections and ended up with a socialist president... 

[GreatJustice]

How would you pay for it? Last time I checked the US was running a massive budget deficit and its only fighting a few wars right now (and none against a conventional enemy).

[Loud Whispers]

There is no possible way any action we could take against North Korea would make life worse there.

Killing them would.

What control? N. Korea is run by what is essentially a group of lunatic personality cultists. You can't really ever control that, only mitigate the crazy.

And this is just sick thinking. If they were all lunatic cultists, there would be none trying to run the borders. But hey, why bother with that? It's not as if they're human beings, that makes it ok to kill them!

...

No.

China would benefit from this. S. Korea takes control of N. Korea's land and makes more productive use of it to trade with China, and they don't have to deal with N. Korea's mentally unstable leadership anymore. Not to mention their relationship with N. Korea makes them look bad, and if there is anything the PRC hates it is looking bad. For all of China's faults, and there are a lot of them, life there is not even remotely as bad as the horrors of North Korea.

1. China would support N. Korea. No doubt about it. It wouldn't simply let super powers - especially ones intent on limiting it's industrial capabilities show up on its borders. It'd be much the same way as the USA would defend Canada or Mexico if someone were to invade either.
2. China doesn't openly support N. Korea. Anyone who ever releases a public statement of defending N. Korea is usually a low ranking general, heavy enough to throw the point across, but low ranking enough that if shit got serious, they could redact any statements.
Even then, PR didn't stop them from liberating N. Korea and "resisting US aggression" before, and it wouldn't stop them again. Not to mention their local police would aid in the image. The worst part? They'd be right by saying they were resisting US aggression if the US attacked.

Now, onto the invasion part!

I like Korea. North and South, so of course I'd oppose the idea of war.

Firstly :
If the American army invaded with the S. Koreans, you can bet there'd be hell on the first few weeks.
It wouldn't achieve a lot. The N. Koreans have been entrenching their country for decades, tunnels, bunkers, silos and who knows what else. Heavy weapons, air and navy support would fail to root out the N. Koreans.
But it would succeed in doing two things:
*Destroying most of N. Korea, turning the zealots into angry angrier zealots.
*Antagonizing N. Korea into bombing S. Korea, with a heavy risk of chemical WMD's being used
Making Korea completely uninhabitable. Everybody loses.

Secondly :
N. Korea's terrain would be slaughter for troops to cross. Very hilly, N. Korea military installations everywhere. The amount of human lives lost on both sides would not be worth it. Advances would be slow. Very slow. N. Korea can afford to lose more men than the U.N. could.
And what would it achieve? Suddenly you're now facing civil unrest from a meatgrinder that serves no purpose when an armistice was already active. Did I mention the death and destruction part?
Anyways. Yes, pretty much almost everyone else has better weapons. Better tanks, aircraft (the independent submarines would be a definite issue), but the N. Koreans would be much more determined to hold onto their country against the devils who would attack their homes and their families. For all it's worth, a gun can kill just as well as another gun can - and that's before everything gets booby trapped.
In fact, good luck on clearing the DMZ alone. Hell, with all the aforementioned tunnels, you could expect N. Koreans to appear within S. Korea without anyone noticing in time.
And above all, you'd be giving the North Koreans someone to fight. And the N. Koreans won't care if you've got shinier gear, they'll not go down without trying to kill everyone first.

Thirdly :
WMD's. Unless you want to give the S. Koreans national radiation sickness day as a new holiday on the calender, nuking the N. Koreans = bad.
However, if the N. Koreans happened to be losing - terribly, guess what they wouldn't be opposed to?

[Leafsnail]

It would lead to millions of deaths, even without Chinese intervention.  A constantly brainwashed side doesn't tend to surrender easily.

[Loud Whispers]

It would lead to millions of deaths, even without Chinese intervention.  A constantly brainwashed side doesn't tend to surrender easily.

Plus with the people's ridiculously large armed forces on their side... I'd be inclined to say that U.N. forces on S. Korea could actually lose.

[Sheb]

And China would be more than happy to support North Korea if only to turn it into a quagmire and bog down the US.

[lordcooper]

A constantly brainwashed side doesn't tend to surrender easily.

Tell me about it.  We still haven't given up on the whole Afghanistan thing.

[alway]

Any reforms at all would get him deposed. The higher echelons of the military are the only group in NK with any desirable lot in life. They aren't going to let that go.

I'm not sure you know how powerful the Kims are in NK government; nor have you been paying attention to the news.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the most powerful figure in the NK military was dismissed by the new Kim. So long as he is careful to maintain the god-emperor status of the family lineage, he can reform whatever he wants. Which means if reform is an aim, he does have to do it very carefully over the course of years, if not decades; anything faster and he would risk a military coup (because while dismissing powerful members is within his power, if the whole army turned against him due to his actions, he would be dead).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Killing them would.

People die. Far fewer will die in the long run if NK's government falls, since I don't think SK will be wanting to keep NK's death camps open.

What control? N. Korea is run by what is essentially a group of lunatic personality cultists. You can't really ever control that, only mitigate the crazy.

And this is just sick thinking. If they were all lunatic cultists, there would be none trying to run the borders. But hey, why bother with that? It's not as if they're human beings, that makes it ok to kill them!

...

No.

I don't know where you got that idea. I quite clearly said that NK is ran by lunatic cultists. The vast majority of North Koreans do not run North Korea, they are victims of its unmitigated brutality. Hence why so many try to leave, as you said.

1. China would support N. Korea. No doubt about it. It wouldn't simply let super powers - especially ones intent on limiting it's industrial capabilities show up on its borders. It'd be much the same way as the USA would defend Canada or Mexico if someone were to invade either.

I explained earlier that having NK cease to be would be more good for China than not. I can't imagine that China doesn't know that's the case. Canada and Mexico are normal, stable countries. North Korea is anything but.

Anyway, the US isn't really interested in limiting China's industry, nor is the reverse true. The USA and PRC put up a good show, but at the end of the day China and America are linked in a way that can't be severed without economic annihilation on all sides.

2. China doesn't openly support N. Korea. Anyone who ever releases a public statement of defending N. Korea is usually a low ranking general, heavy enough to throw the point across, but low ranking enough that if shit got serious, they could redact any statements.
Even then, PR didn't stop them from liberating N. Korea and "resisting US aggression" before, and it wouldn't stop them again. Not to mention their local police would aid in the image.

"Last time" was 50 years ago and Mao Zedong was still alive then. Remember Mao? Military genius but absolutely insane, ordered the Cultural Revolution and killed millions? Was so off the wall that China completely moved away from his policies after he died?

That they could feasibly retract any support for North Korea shows how trivial their relationship really is. China supports North Korea as long as they aren't more trouble than they're worth, and that's almost changed now even without this hypothetical war.

The worst part? They'd be right by saying they were resisting US aggression if the US attacked.

So what if we're being aggressive? Aggression can be justified. When your opponent runs death camps like North Korea does it is very justified indeed.

Firstly :
If the American army invaded with the S. Koreans, you can bet there'd be hell on the first few weeks.
It wouldn't achieve a lot. The N. Koreans have been entrenching their country for decades, tunnels, bunkers, silos and who knows what else. Heavy weapons, air and navy support would fail to root out the N. Koreans.

North Korea does not have the capacity to sustain a war. You can't fight without supplies, and North Korea won't be able to supply anyone under an invasion. Entrenchment is the last thing they'll be capable of under those conditions.

But it would succeed in doing two things:
*Destroying most of N. Korea, turning the zealots into angry angrier zealots.

Just so I've got this straight. Invading North Korea would fail miserably but somehow also destroy most of North Korea, rendering the populace of angry zealots (who you criticized me of considering angry zealots when I did not) willing to fight to the end with equipment they don't have?

*Antagonizing N. Korea into bombing S. Korea, with a heavy risk of chemical WMD's being used
Making Korea completely uninhabitable. Everybody loses.

Care to substantiate your magical chemical weapon which can render hundreds of miles of land uninhabitable forever and tell me how North Korea got their hands on it? Maybe North Korea deploys mustard gas bombs or something similar, but I don't even think the kind of thing you are describing even exists, much less is it in the hands of one of the most technologically backwards places on Earth.

Secondly :
N. Korea's terrain would be slaughter for troops to cross. Very hilly, N. Korea military installations everywhere. The amount of human lives lost on both sides would not be worth it. Advances would be slow. Very slow. N. Korea can afford to lose more men than the U.N. could.
And what would it achieve? Suddenly you're now facing civil unrest from a meatgrinder that serves no purpose when an armistice was already active. Did I mention the death and destruction part?

Once the rout starts, and it will because NK can't sustain their own forces, moving across NK would be easy enough.

So what does this achieve? Did I mention stopping all the horrible things North Korea does all the time and will never stop doing until they're forced to? No liberty, barely any food, your entire family sent to a death camp because someone thought your grandparents disrespected the Eternal President?

Thirdly :
WMD's. Unless you want to give the S. Koreans national radiation sickness day as a new holiday on the calender, nuking the N. Koreans = bad.

Bad and totally unnecessary. No one is arguing we should deploy nuclear weapons against North Korea. Or deploy nuclear weapons at all, for that matter.

However, if the N. Koreans happened to be losing - terribly, guess what they wouldn't be opposed to?

NK has somewhere on the order of ten nuclear weapons total and no effective launching system. The Cold War this ain't. It is completely feasible to take down NK's strike capacity completely and utterly using conventional weaponry. Learning about things like this is the kind of thing the CIA was made for, so I imagine we already have a plan to cripple NK's nukes if need be.

A constantly brainwashed side doesn't tend to surrender easily.

Thousands of North Koreans have fled the nation, and those are just the ones who managed to escape, which isn't easy. The percentage of North Koreans who are well and truly brainwashed is for the most part an unknown factor.

Tell me about it.  We still haven't given up on the whole Afghanistan thing.

It is complacency, more than anything else, that allowed the Taliban to control Afghanistan and still allows North Korea to control its people. It isn't right to be complacent to monstrous regimes like those.

I'm not sure you know how powerful the Kims are in NK government; nor have you been paying attention to the news.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the most powerful figure in the NK military was dismissed by the new Kim. So long as he is careful to maintain the god-emperor status of the family lineage, he can reform whatever he wants.

If he institutes reforms then it will appear to lessen his absolute power. If he lessens his appearance of absolute power then it makes the Kims look bad and he'll be deposed for that. That is why this isn't a problem that can be solved from the inside.

Which means if reform is an aim, he does have to do it very carefully over the course of years, if not decades; anything faster and he would risk a military coup (because while dismissing powerful members is within his power, if the whole army turned against him due to his actions, he would be dead).

Decades just isn't fast enough when your country is committing the abuses that North Korea's is.

[lordcooper]

You can't use death camps as casus belli until you shut down Guantanamo.