Print

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

[Solifuge]

My worry extends a bit beyond North Korea, its nukes, its bond-villain plots, and its general batshit insanity.

The UN has been relying on China to keep NK in line using economic sanctions, but they've only made a token effort to appease the UN... nothing serious. In fact, they've practically condoned it, I fear because they could probably take the war-torn Koreas for their own, under pretense of bringing order and stability.

That, and the growing sense of rebelious comraderie between Iran, China, and North Korea... and their boldfaced rejection of UN deterrants, and blatant nuclear tests.

I'm a bit worried that, given the wrong circumstances, and too much outside involvement, and we could have a larger conflict at hand, should they come to blows... and a lot of countries are poised to come to blows right now.

[DJ]

China can't afford to go to lose it's American and European trade partners. The sudden drop in Chinese workers' standard of living and loss of millions of jobs would seriously destabilize the country.

[smjjames]

Most of those aren't insane anyways and only a few of them have nukes.

Pakistan and India have had disputes for years over the kashmir region.

Even if Israel has nukes, it nuking Palestine would be the equivalent of shooting oneself in a vital place.

The various Middle East conflicts and potential fights between countries, etc.

I don't know which other countries you are referring as close to coming to blows right now.

[Vector]

China can't afford to go to lose it's American and European trade partners. The sudden drop in Chinese workers' standard of living and loss of millions of jobs would seriously destabilize the country.

Wouldn't we be a bit fucked over if we suddenly lost all our cheap labor/factories/waste disposal towns over there?

[Aqizzar]

That, and the growing sense of rebelious comraderie between Iran, China, and North Korea... and their boldfaced rejection of UN deterrants, and blatant nuclear tests.

No.  Just, no.  There is no rebellious camaraderie.  China buys oil from Iran because Iran sells oil cheap.  China gives aid while sanctioning North Korea, because NK is a useful tool for pressuring the US and the South.  There's a lot of other countries in this "web", not because they enjoy fucking with America or the UN and congratulating each other on their villainy.  It's because they've all been ostracized from the international community for one reason or another, and deal together by necessity and convenience.  The only one with a real global agenda is China, and that's purely economic.  If America or any other "Western" power structure went to war with North Korea or Iran or whoever, China might slip them one last ace for good measure, before throwing them under the bus as fast as it can.

[HAMMERMILL]

Frankly the idea of a new Korean war with a nuclear armed NK is terrifying, South Korea or the USA must have a really good idea where NK's nuclear weapons and a solid plan for destroying the launch site are since nobody seems even remotely worried about it.

[smjjames]

China can't afford to go to lose it's American and European trade partners. The sudden drop in Chinese workers' standard of living and loss of millions of jobs would seriously destabilize the country.

Wouldn't we be a bit fucked over if we suddenly lost all our cheap labor/factories/waste disposal towns over there?

It wouldn't be just us since China is a major economic powerhouse, so the world economy would be affected in a massive way.

[SIGVARDR]

edited.

[DJ]

We could get Africans to work for cheap. Chinese themselves are using them as cheap labour, and that's saying a lot about how cheap they are.

[HAMMERMILL]

Its hard to say if there would even be a significant guerrila movement in a post-war North Korea. What reason would they have to fight?

Even if there was one, it would be primarily South Korea's responsibility to fight it.

[Solifuge]

That, and the growing sense of rebelious comraderie between Iran, China, and North Korea...

No.  Just, no.  There is no rebellious camaraderie.

I didn't mean to say that North Korea, Iran, and China were in an evil league bent on fucking with the Western world, while twiddling their wicked mustaches.

China has openly supported Iran's efforts to pursue nuclear arms, and poo-pooed efforts to disuade them by the UN. I daresay they're doing the same with North Korea as well right now, albeit since more is expected of them in dealing with it, in a more politically savy way.

It serves them, by keeping pressures on their opponents in the world fiscal arena, and war being waged by a burgeoning nuclear power carries the potential for China to sell arms, and flex their shiney new industrial complex.

[SIGVARDR]

edited.

[HAMMERMILL]

I', going to stand by and say North Korea would not pose much of a problem post war. They would be fighting their fellow Koreans. The civilians in NK have no access to firearms, unlike in Veitnam, Iraq, ect. South Korea winning the war would be the best thing that could happen to the people in North Korea. I really doubt people would rise up in anger against a nation that liberated them from the most repressive and backwards reign in history.

What motive do they have to fight? Nobody is going to fight on behalf of a dispised and disposed dictator. Are these North Korean peasants going to want to murder South Korean soldiers in the name of some vauge communist idea of a "radiant socialist future"?

I think it will be more like a post-war Germany.

[Dwarf]

I am by no means an expert, but is it not possible China would siphon weapons to the potential North Korean guerilla group?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

It would be nice if people who Don't know shit about the u.s. military or war in general stopped posting.

This is hilarious given the rest of your post.

Heres one of the bottom lines:It's about money.If they can send in infantry cheaper than they can send in a bomber,they will.

Uhh... no. The two fill entirely different roles. Unsupported infantry aren't worth shit (at least in a modern conflict, which is basically defined by the presence of armor and air support), and a bomber can't hold ground or search buildings. That said, the US has neither the swarms of infantry nor the masochistic desire to throw them into a fucking meat grinder because "hey, we don't have to pay them if they die!". Money is less an object in military endeavors than in just about any other conceivable field, especially given the US military's open strategy of "victory through having really fucking awesome shit that we totally get to drive and shoot and shit!" (which is, admittedly, a piss-poor tactic when you're fighting a bunch of untrained kids with ancient guns and explosives made from chewing gum and duct tape (lol middle east), although it still pummels the shit out of them through sheer overwhelming force).

It's about civilian casualties too.you should stop right now with the fantasy of The U.S. wanting to just kill everyone.We try and keep civilians out of it as much as possible.But guess what,in war,shit happens.Who knew,right?

The fuck is this responding to? The facetious comments people are making about glassing NK?
 

And guerrilla warfare works just as well against us as it does every single other military.Yeah,you know what,it would make our lives easier if we just bombed everything and said to hell with the civvies,Because 1/10 of those civvies is going to pull a gun on us or blow themselves up.And their kids are going to want revenge on us,its fucking a never ending cycle.

 There's a reason,we have pulled out of Vietnam,and the gulf war,and Korea.Not just because of popular support for withdrawal,but because eliminating the guerrilla threat would require near total extermination of the populous.

You mean the brutal, decade long war of attrition against a sovereign nation backed by China, with combatants who received aid from local sympathizers (who were then given a nice warm napalm bath in thanks), and who just so happened to use guerrilla tactics to back up their unending tide of bodies?

The crowning success of US air superiority, where Sadam was only left in power because removing him would create a power gap (like what happened when we went back under false pretenses and removed him)? (Or even the grossly mismanaged followup war, where we still pummeled the conventional army into submission, only to find ourselves stuck keeping the fuckers Sadam was keeping down down?)

The conventional war of attrition against another sovereign nation backed by china that was fought to a stalemate, and which we are still technically fighting? (and in fact talking about right now...)

I', going to stand by and say North Korea would not pose much of a problem post war. They would be fighting their fellow Koreans. The civilians in NK have no access to firearms, unlike in Veitnam, Iraq, ect. South Korea winning the war would be the best thing that could happen to the people in North Korea. I really doubt people would rise up in anger against a nation that liberated them from the most repressive and backwards reign in history.

What motive do they have to fight? Nobody is going to fight on behalf of a dispised and disposed dictator. Are these North Korean peasants going to want to murder South Korean soldiers in the name of some vauge communist idea of a "radiant socialist future"?

I think it will be more like a post-war Germany.

They've been brainwashed into thinking that the eccentric loon leading them is a living god, and that everywhere else in the world is even worse off than the squalid conditions they live in. Now, once shown undeniable proof that those are lies (well, at least the second one could be objectively proven, although when the world doesn't end with Kim Jung Il's death, and their lives improve because of it, perhaps they'd see the lie there too), it's unlikely that they'd keep fighting a fratricidal war against people who are (in some cases literally) their brothers.