View Full Version : Atttack North Korea?
After reading about NK new threats I have a question for everyone: should the USA, with the help of South Korea, attack North Korea?
IMHO, I believe we should. I fairly certainly we have the technology to quickly knock out most of their nuclear and larger weapons. Like I said before, this is only going to get worse, not better.
King Ragnar
07-03-2006, 23:00
No most certainly not, you guys dont want another Iraq on your hands do you? 100's of soldiers being killed for absoloutely nothing, and nothing good coming from it.
I like the old america the 'America First' and we dont want to be World Police. Let the south koreans deal with it.
Perplexed
07-03-2006, 23:01
It would be very hard to destroy all of their nuclear weapon stockpiles in less time than it would take for them to launch them, so the chances of at least one ICBM getting through and hitting a populated area are just too great to be risked. So no, I don't think any attack on North Korea is worth it, both in terms of human lives lost in the war or in human lives lost in the nuclear attacks. The nuclear factor trumps everything, not even the USA would risk it.
I'm not going to go into how pointless a war like that would be, I'm just talking about how risky it would be.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-03-2006, 23:14
No way, although I expect it will happen and then it will all kcik off with China.
What's one more? I say, the more the merrier! Consequences be damned! Shock and awe, baby, shock and awe.:juggle2:
Louis VI the Fat
07-03-2006, 23:26
North Korea is not Iraq. It's an Iraq with the added complication of a China.
Divinus Arma
07-03-2006, 23:31
Yikes. This is just a bad situation no matter what. We invade and Europe mocks us. We stand Idle, and NK develops additional capability and potentially sells its weapons on the black market. I feel like Israel.
What do the Europeans want to do?
Kagemusha
07-03-2006, 23:32
Why attack North Korea becouse we only need to wait enough time and it will grumble by itself.Eventually Chinese will also realize that supporting them is not good PR and after that its just matter of time when it will collapse.North Korea is like former DDR.Its just artificial dictatorship that wont last.
Dutch_guy
07-03-2006, 23:33
What do the Europeans want to do?
Sit back and let you guys handle it ~;)
:balloon2:
Pannonian
07-03-2006, 23:40
Yikes. This is just a bad situation no matter what. We invade and Europe mocks us. We stand Idle, and NK develops additional capability and potentially sells its weapons on the black market. I feel like Israel.
What do the Europeans want to do?
It's nothing to do with us. Our interests and their interests barely overlap. We do not have anything they want, they do not have anything we want. Beyond diplomatic niceties, what can we do with each other when our interests are so far apart?
However, the US and the North Koreans cross interests over South Korea, so what you do is of interest to each other. It also interests China and Japan, the two main east Asian powers in the locality.
A parallel would be a Finland developing nuclear weapons and threatening Sweden and America (the US is the only global power) with them. China and Japan would be barely interested in this dispute so far from their lands that does not affect them.
South Korea will never help us in an attack on North Korea. They know that they will be the target of a nuclear retaliation, whereas the U.S. could remain safe in the knowledge that North Korea - even with this new missile - doesn't have to capability to deliver a nuclear warhead here.
It's pretty clear that NK will eventually fail. The only question is how much suffering will the people there endure in the meantime, and how much damage will the leadership cause on their way down. I think it's pretty clear that South Korea is prepared to wait it out and then pick up the pieces afterwards.
Papewaio
07-04-2006, 00:21
Use the US satellites to beam in a MMORPG to NK, I'm sure that will knock off a few who forget to eat...
Vladimir
07-04-2006, 04:42
South Korea says it want's reunification. Have them prove it!
I thought the Chinese told NK to back off all that? I don't know.
Tachikaze
07-04-2006, 07:04
I think someone needs to reduce their testosterone levels.
No.
1) One war at a time please.
2) The NKs have tested exactly 1 IRBM - the one they sailed through Japanese airspace a while ago. We really know nothing about this missile's capabilities and I think it's unlikely that they have managed to develop a true ICBM. So the situation remains basically unchanged.
3) We also don't know if they actually have nukes. If so, it's a near certainty that they don't have one small enough to mount on a missile.
4) The South Koreans wouldn't support it. In a 2004 poll, 20% said the US was more of a threat than NK, and 30% thought the US and NK threatened S. Korean security equally.
I think someone needs to reduce their testosterone levels.
I wonder if you'll say that when Kim's missile comes crashing through you're living room window, granted it doesn't fall apart mid trip due to quality communist craftsmanship.
Avicenna
07-04-2006, 08:18
:laugh4:
You think China would go to war with you over North Korea? Not a chance. That'd give America the excuse to wipe out the emerging superpower's power, so that will most definitely not happen.
Pannonian: everyone is interested in eveything in the world political scene. Don't forget that apart from territory, the economy and trade is important.
Ironside
07-04-2006, 09:07
Considering the state of South Korea after the war and the risk that China gets involved in the conflict, I wouldn't recommend an attack unless it's truly unavoidable.
Quite annoying situation though.
doc_bean
07-04-2006, 12:20
It would be a hell of a lot more justified than the Iraq invasion anyway.
China doesn't like 'em, South Korea doesn't like 'em, Europe doesn't like 'em, the US doesn't like 'em...
I think you might actually be able to form a coalition for this war !
Now wether it should be fought, i'm not sure. On the one hand a war is always a violent afair resulting in many casualties and rarely does anything good come from it. On the other hand, the North Korean people are already starving to death and the regime is just a time bomb with its acces to WMDs. :juggle2:
I wonder if you'll say that when Kim's missile comes crashing through you're living room window, granted it doesn't fall apart mid trip due to quality communist craftsmanship.
Yeah and I wonder if that happens to be the dumbest post for at least a week.
North Korea is slowly destablising through images and media being smuggled into the country. The question is whether the dissent can seep into the army - and whether there will be a significant power shift if perhaps one or two of the old guard in control pop their clogs.
Al Khalifah
07-04-2006, 15:24
Yes. I was anti-Iraq war but I am definately pro war with North Korea. There is a serious hummanitarian catastrophe going on there and they pose a serious danger to the security of the free world.
King Ragnar
07-04-2006, 16:30
Well im happy if its just america who go's id be very angry if they sent British troops there, very angry indeed, they posen no threat to us and we have no historical ties to them.
Tachikaze
07-04-2006, 16:59
I wonder if you'll say that when Kim's missile comes crashing through you're living room window, granted it doesn't fall apart mid trip due to quality communist craftsmanship.
Do you get your view of reality by watching movies?
In movies, people like Kim Jong Il have the sole purpose of being an antagonist against the heros. They have no other lives, no other aims, just a plot device.
North Korea is not a plot device; it's a land full of people. Kim Jong Il might be a nut, but he is not a marionette in a South Park movie.
Don't be governed by fear.
Tachikaze
07-04-2006, 17:20
There is a serious hummanitarian [sic] catastrophe going on there
Yes, that's true. War is not the answer. It causes even worse humanitarian catastrophes, and spreads them to all the nations involved.
Idaho: That's nice you think it's dumb because I certainly don't. The North Korean dictator has shown he is unstable, violent, and doesn't really care much about his people. Would it really surprise you if he took a pot shot at the United States given the chance?
Tachikaze: Nice blind accusation. I certainly don't base my view of the North Koreans off a crude, caveman image cartoon, nor any of other film that has been made.
Louis VI the Fat
07-04-2006, 18:07
Yikes. This is just a bad situation no matter what. We invade and Europe mocks us. We stand Idle, and NK develops additional capability and potentially sells its weapons on the black market. I feel like Israel.
What do the Europeans want to do?Employ a strategy of containment?
North Korea is such bizarre regime that nobody likes them, not even China. They consider them a loose canon. For the moment, they are not that keen on the US, Japan and South Korea intruding on what they consider their turf. With China's power gradually increasing, someday they should be able to be convinced that they don't need that set of muppets for an ally, that North Korea is not an asset, but a liability to them.
Once North Korea is politically completely isolated, we can just wait for it to either implode or for China to make an end to it.
Ourselves, we shall of course sit back, let you guys handle it and mock you while at it. ~;)
Divinus Arma
07-04-2006, 18:26
I'd be the first to sign up at the local recruiter, as well. :2thumbsup:
Sign up anyway. At least by joining early you'll have a little bit of rank on your sleeve before we go to North Korea. Ever wonder why only Privates jump on the Grenade?
I'd be for it on three conditions:
1) When the war was waged we would wage total war short of nuclear weapons. I would not support a war like it was in the 50s where the UN forces just stopped advancing and let the war drag on for years while peace talks happened.
2) If the People's Republic of China gave the US the okay to not help or harbor North Korea's military in addition to their remaining neutral in the conflict.
3) If the US had no other landwars happening at the time, we'd have to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan for that. North Korea is very mountainous which takes away the advantages of our long range fire power meaning we'd need to commit more troops to a moving front so that enemy units can infilrate between and behind our forces.
As a further note King Ragnar it wouldn't be hundreds of troops it'd be thousands. If the North Korean military manages to use their tunnel system effectively and negates the use of our airsuperiority to drag a war out for over a year expect at least 10,000 casualities as a minimum. Yes, the US has the best military in the world but the terrain just isn't permiting to many of our advantages. Mechanized forces just won't fair as well because we'll be restricted to roads and alright terrain. We'll need a lot of light infantry to cover the everything between the roads and like all dismounted infantry they are exremely venerable to indirect and direct fire meaning lots of casualties.
I don't think North Korea will come apart on it's own. It's a strict police state and despite it's crap economy it's gaining conccesions from the great powers each time we need them halt nuclear research.
Divinus Arma
07-04-2006, 20:51
Hell no. My government is engaging in a war I disagree with--that is, the war on terror in general--and using it to rape and pillage the fundamental freedoms of this country. I'm not going to reward that government by giving them my life.
I'll join when it gets its act together, or we start fighting for a cause I believe in.
I figured that you would say that.
I know it is tough to feel the honor bound call to service, though under leaders you dislike, distrust, or even fear. A soldier serves his country and trusts in the power of democracy to send him to the just fight. It is not always so, but if there were not those who trusted the people enough to get it right, we would not have a volunteer service. Many of my fellows disliked the leadership of Clinton when I served under him. And many do not trust our leaders now. This distrust will always exist so long as there are men of action and decision in service. A member in the profession of arms is merely willing to make the sacrifice, and trust his nation. This does not mean we are spectators, it means only that we are willing to give up on that component of the decision making process. This is why it is called servitude; I am given orders and willingly obey despite my personal will. I have chosen to make that sacrifice.
Some of us carry deep scars as a result of that sacrifice. It is not the risk of death. It is not from personal injury. We pay the price with our very souls. The honor of it is not in medals, nor survival, nor even experience. The honor comes when you step back on these shores and the way you perceive our freedom changes forever. When you look into the eyes of your loved ones, and realize that they will never know what you do, never experience what you have. That they continue to live in a veil of blessed innocence provided by the protection of you and your men. For most, that honor makes worthy the sacrifice. For others, they may be tormented unto the death.
Al Khalifah
07-04-2006, 21:06
Yes, that's true. War is not the answer. It causes even worse humanitarian catastrophes, and spreads them to all the nations involved.
Tell that to the people of Germany and the territories that they had occupied. Without a military operation to liberate Europe and topple the oppressive regime of the Nazi's the world would be a different place today.
War may cause humanitarian problems, but it can often be the only solution to prevent worse ones. If an invasion and subsequent invasion is handled properly, it needn't be bad for the population of the country in the long term [see Iraq for how not to do this]. The people of North Korea are far less in love with the regime than many were in Iraq. They would be far more willing to embrace western values of freedom than the people of the Middle East.
Proletariat
07-04-2006, 21:09
Yeah and I wonder if that happens to be the dumbest post for at least a week.
North Korea is slowly destablising through images and media being smuggled into the country.
ROFL
A destabalised dictatorship with nukes is just a problem that will resolve itself? And your picking out 'dumbest posts of the week'?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It's hilarious watching the few Euros here pretending this has nothing to do with them, and also everyone here pretending the nukes are the real problem.
Care to guess where South Korea is ranked as a global economy? Or where all of NK's artillery is aimed? Please, keep refusing to pretend anything America has an interest in matters to you.
Have fun when you can't afford your cheese and wine during the global depression that follows South Korea's ownage.
:2thumbsup:
Avicenna
07-04-2006, 21:15
I don't think North Korea will come apart on it's own. It's a strict police state and despite it's crap economy it's gaining conccesions from the great powers each time we need them halt nuclear research.
The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.
Divinus Arma
07-04-2006, 21:29
The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.
The Soviet Union, afeter realizing that it could not outspend the United States, embraced reform. Ending with Kruschev, the communist party had greater control than one single man. This is not the case in NK, where one man dominates the political environment as a totalitarian dictator. Additionally, NK is not in an arms race with anyone. Kim seeks viability through power and control, at the expense of the people.
Divinus Arma
07-04-2006, 21:29
The same could be said of Soviet Russia. Except they were a great power.
The Soviet Union, afeter realizing that it could not outspend the United States, embraced reform. Ending with Kruschev, the communist party had greater control than one single man. This is not the case in NK, where one man dominates the political environment as a totalitarian dictator. Additionally, NK is not in an arms race with anyone. Kim seeks viability through power and control, at the expense of the people.
Avicenna
07-04-2006, 21:55
Many of the structures of the Soviet Union made Gorbachev essentially the dictator of the USSR, where the rules favour the powerful. It was not said that the leader of the USSR was the most powerful man on earth for nothing.
Kaiser of Arabia
07-04-2006, 22:02
Attack North Korea? Sure.
Its not like their military would stand much of a chance. Basically, think of us fighting Al Qaeda, except, stupider, and wearing uniforms, and no IEDs.
Avicenna
07-04-2006, 22:04
...except they're organised, all working together, have ICBMs and nukes. Of course, that's all irrelevant.
...except they're organised, all working together, have ICBMs and nukes. Of course, that's all irrelevant.
The maybe massive, but the quality isn't there. Most of their military hardware is aging soviet era equipment which is not a match for the newer technology. The only have a single ICBM which is still in development. Now, I'm not saying they are a walk in the park to fight, just not the military some make them out to be.
North Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world. It is within firing range major population centeres in South Korea and Japan, many of which would recieve immediate bombardment. Anybody that is willing to immediately engage in a war that will automatically cost the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in an allied country without it being the last course of action is preemptive and hawkish. If you lived near the DMZ in South Korea, you would probably be less inclined to go to war with a nation whose status as a threat has not significantly changed. But, then again, it only matters because North Korea "might" be able to reach our(US) population centers. Who cares that they can already reach allied population centers and will do so if we start a war over a "might". Time is our ally and I suggest we continue to allow it to work.
What military are we going to use to smack down the North Koreans? Certainly not the U.S. military. It's already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq hunting for WMDs, or removing that evil dictator Saddam, or bringing stability to the Middle East, or bringing them democracy at the point of a gun or whatever the reason of the week is. So where are we going to get the troops to start a war with a pathetic little blustering toad like Kim Jung-il?
Are we going to drop the Bomb on them and be, once again, the only nation on earth to use the Bomb? Yeah, that'll win a lot of hearts and minds, won't it?
Here's what happened. Two troops of primates are at odds. It's just the way things work, they're separate troops with separate alpha males. Disgusting monkey #1 (Bush), full of the power of his status as the alpha male and flush with recent success, thumps his chest and tosses some branches about in a display of typical primate bluster (Axis of Evil, blah blah blah). So disgusting monkey #2 (Kim Jung-il), in predictable primate fashion, responds to said bluster and implied threat by a little chest thumping and branch tossing of his own. Now, #2 doesn't have an reasonable expectation of beating #1, but that isn't the point. #2 has to chest thump to maintain his status as the alpha male of his own troop. So he does. Whose overblown primate chest-thumping display is the real culprit? Does it matter? It's just overblown primate chest thumping. Each one using the display to maintain alpha male status in his own troop. It really is that simple. :wink:
Divinus Arma
07-04-2006, 23:57
Here's what happened. Two troops of primates are at odds. It's just the way things work, they're separate troops with separate alpha males. Disgusting monkey #1 (Bush), full of the power of his status as the alpha male and flush with recent success, thumps his chest and tosses some branches about in a display of typical primate bluster (Axis of Evil, blah blah blah). So disgusting monkey #2 (Kim Jung-il), in predictable primate fashion, responds to said bluster and implied threat by a little chest thumping and branch tossing of his own. Now, #2 doesn't have an reasonable expectation of beating #1, but that isn't the point. #2 has to chest thump to maintain his status as the alpha male of his own troop. So he does. Whose overblown primate chest-thumping display is the real culprit? Does it matter? It's just overblown primate chest thumping. Each one using the display to maintain alpha male status in his own troop. It really is that simple. :wink:
Ha ha. Cute. But what do you really think? If our President were a Democrat, the Crisis would be no less real.
And I belive it would be worse. Kim developed most his technology behind the back of the Clinton administration. I fear that a Democrat would yield further concessions and give in to NK. We really don't have much leeway, and the U.S. is doing everything it can to bring the world to the table with these guys.
Furthermore, if we had a Dem president, all troops would be pulled from Iraq, destabilizing the government and forcing it into failure. Say what you want about getting into Iraq, but we are there and we can either stay or go. Leaving has real consequences detrimental to U.S. Interests.
I'm not just spitting out talking points, these are real concerns of many Americans, myself and family included.
Tachikaze
07-05-2006, 02:11
Tell that to the people of Germany and the territories that they had occupied. Without a military operation to liberate Europe and topple the oppressive regime of the Nazi's the world would be a different place today.
War may cause humanitarian problems, but it can often be the only solution to prevent worse ones. If an invasion and subsequent invasion is handled properly, it needn't be bad for the population of the country in the long term [see Iraq for how not to do this]. The people of North Korea are far less in love with the regime than many were in Iraq. They would be far more willing to embrace western values of freedom than the people of the Middle East.
I don't believe our government tries to solve these problems adeptly. They are short on wisdom and long on military solutions.
If we had the right people in government, they would approach matters in a completely different way. The government we have now fights fire with fire, rather than water.
Ha ha. Cute. But what do you really think? If our President were a Democrat, the Crisis would be no less real.
And I belive it would be worse. Kim developed most his technology behind the back of the Clinton administration. I fear that a Democrat would yield further concessions and give in to NK. We really don't have much leeway, and the U.S. is doing everything it can to bring the world to the table with these guys.
Furthermore, if we had a Dem president, all troops would be pulled from Iraq, destabilizing the government and forcing it into failure. Say what you want about getting into Iraq, but we are there and we can either stay or go. Leaving has real consequences detrimental to U.S. Interests.
I'm not just spitting out talking points, these are real concerns of many Americans, myself and family included.
How many times do I need to explain that I'm not a Democrat before it sinks in? Must I condemn ex-presidents every time I condemn the current one?
Tell you what. Every time I criticize Bush, you can consider that a de facto criticism of all the faults of every president back to Washington. That way I don't have to list them every time, or play the "yes, but, Clinton did ..." game every time I criticize Bush. Fair enough? :grin:
NK wont last, so wait for the regieme to crumble and the people to have their way.
Samurai Waki
07-05-2006, 02:49
To think that having foresight enough to say that North Korea will collapse soon is rather fool-hardy, yes North Korea will collapse...eventually...maybe 10-20-30-50-100 years down the road. In the 50 years that North Korea has been an independent nation, it has had a severe humanitarian crisis.
Although I don't believe war, unless North Korea strikes first, should be persued. I firmly believe that if some intelligent diplomacy is used, not on north Korea but partners to the regime, we could completely and utterly grind the North Korean economy into a halt, including weapons trades, and when they have no material to build their weapons, nobody to purchase weapons from, nobody to purchase fuel to use those weapons, within 10 years Kim Jong-Il would be overthrown.
You would starve and impoverish a people for 10 years, like some kind of grand siege? A war would be humane by comparison.
That would force the people to rebel would it not though? Most likely ending the regieme before the suggested ten years?
You would starve and impoverish a people for 10 years, like some kind of grand siege? A war would be humane by comparison.
Crunch numbers, Cube. Americans have an obligation to save its citizens before others, which is why its "okay" that thousands of Iraqi citizens die each day in the pursuit of our national security.
We have an obligation to our allies in South Korea that their security is intact, something that will suffer if we go all Rambo on NK. Hate to sound harsh, but just as we pick U.S. security over other national casualties, S.K. security and casualties take precedent over the suffering in N.K.
This observation tastes so bitter in my tongue, but its how things work.
We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.
We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.
That disgusts me!
Avicenna
07-05-2006, 08:25
And that, my friend, is capitalism.
Banquo's Ghost
07-05-2006, 09:03
Wait a minute... Are farmers required to accept this bribe to artificially reduce crop size? If I ran a farm, I'd ignore the offer, grow more, sell for less, and ruin my competition.
I'm not up-to-date with US subsidy practice, but I don't beleive it's a requirement to accpet the subsidy. The problem is the artificial rigging of prices across the world market, which would mean your plan would likely fail in a maze of export bureacracy.
The EU is particularly bad at over-subsidising to avoid dumping - some might remember the wine lakes and grain mountains of the 80's (many still exist). There is also an environmental stewardship programme that attempts to reduce over-production in favour of making payments to maintain habitat and landscapes.
Making and exporting agricultural surplus to the developing world won't help. What is needed is an unsubsidised, free market (stripped of government and big agri) where the developing world can compete on something approaching a level playing field. But that's a whole new thread. :smile:
On both sides of the pond, it tends to be giant agri-business that benefits the most, and you won't be surprised to learn that the current EU/US governments have pandered to those interests.
A useful overview site is here (http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php).
And now I return everyone to their regularly scheduled war-mongering. :bounce:
The U.S. subsidy isn't mandatory; but only an idiot would refuse it. The price is linked to the current price of crop but lower. However, it is higher than the price would be if the crop were produced. It fluctuates based on the market. The idea is to create a financial incentive not to do the free-market thing as GC suggested, planting anyway to reap the profits. It wouldn't be a financial incentive if it paid less than planting anyway. :grin:
It's self-regulating the other way around as well. If too many farms take the subsidy then the market price goes up because there isn't enough grain being grown. This makes the subsidy to not grow less profitable than growing; so more farmers grow whatever that crop happens to be.
I'm reasonably certain that this is the current system; but every once in a while some Congressman gets an idea to monkey with it and it changes. Not often, though. The agri-business lobby is a particularly powerful one in the USA.
It's a fiendishly clever little subsidy system. Free market? Not even close. But you'll never hear a right-wing corn-belt Congressman, no matter how free-market he claims to be, ever say a word against it. :grin:
doc_bean
07-05-2006, 11:53
[QUOTE=Banquo's Ghost
The EU is particularly bad at over-subsidising to avoid dumping [/QUOTE]
The EU dumps its products on a massive scale in third world countries. Almost always at prices under the local production cost. We've ruined several African nations' growing economy that way (agriculture tends to be the first 'industry' to develop and is generally considered necessary to allow further industrial development).
Several of those countries tried to close their borders to the blatantly false competition. But then WTO decided they don't like them doing that. And Europe and the US decided they wouldn't send aid/money to countries using protectionist measures. And knowing how we threat Africa, there was probably the implicit promise of selling lots of guns to their neighbours/rebels...
I don't believe in a free world market, for several reasons which would take me too long to discuss here. I believe it would be best to 'divide' the world into several big regions which would have an internal free market. Like the EU or the US. :book:
yesdachi
07-05-2006, 14:38
We've been letting people starve all over Africa for decades, since when did that become the raison d'etre for invading North Korea? We pay farmers each year not to grow certain crops just to keep the price artificially high; the crops not grown would be enough to end starvation worldwide. Do we pay them to grow the crops instead and then ship the food where it's needed? Nope. We pay them to keep the fields fallow so there isn't too much surplus.
My grandfather participates, or has participated in the government program to not grow crops for money. I am not sure of the current process but in the past it was kind of a bidding process where the gov would set a secret price for the year and if your bid was below it you would get to put your farmland in “the bank” as my grandfather called it. By offering a very low bid you were almost guaranteed in, but a higher bid was a gamble. I’m not sure if this is a state by state thing or what but I am pretty sure that is how it was.
It is crazy how much the US could produce if it wanted to. If you get the chance to read an issue of “the farm journal” do it sometime, there are often statistics in there that blow my mind. I am curious how the new corn gas will affect the farm industry in the US. There is already a place near my grandfather’s farm that has announced that it will buy (at the standard going rate) and process into corn gas all the corn they can get from a 50 mile radius. I am aware of several other farmers in the area that have their farmland in “the bank”, I wonder if they will start growing crops specifically for the emerging industry.
As to war with NK, I say not until we are asked or they are a direct threat to the US. I am tired of saving ungrateful countries. I do think we should do as much as possible diplomatically to control NK, but I don’t think we should move until someone else makes a serious commitment and asks for our assistance. I wouldn’t be too surprised if China used NK as a training exercise and distraction for their military.
Tachikaze
07-05-2006, 17:29
I would take the opposite approach to seige. I think the worst thing the US has done to North Korea (and Cuba) has been opposing them.
I think if we had supported, or at least had good relations with, North Korea at the end of the Korean War, they would not be having a humanitarian crisis, not be poor, not have missiles pointed at us, not have Kim Jong Il as leader, and would by now be a market-driven state, much as China is becoming. Not only that, I believe they would be united with South Korea today.
North Korea has been driven into its present state by its externally-imposed isolation. If they hadn't have been treated as a pariah, they would have little reason to be so antagonistic.
doc_bean
07-05-2006, 17:32
It is crazy how much the US could produce if it wanted to.
Milk production from the Netherlands and Denmark supplies not only most of Europe but is exported on a massive scale to third world countries, where they teach mothers that breast feeding is unhealthy and they should use powder milk :dizzy2:
If we would allow the same, harmless, hormones as the US does we could QUADRUPLE the production of milk.
Similar things could be said for corn and other agricultural products (where we don't allow genetic manipulation). Some people like to talk about how the earth can't sustain much more people, but that's BS, with modern technology we could support 12 billion people easily...
doc_bean
07-05-2006, 17:42
I would take the opposite approach to seige. I think the worst thing the US has done to North Korea (and Cuba) has been opposing them.
I don't think it's fair to compare Cuba with NK, Castro (and his ilk) have led a rather benevolent dictatorship over the past few decades. Most of the poverty is due to the economic sanctions imposed by the US and not due to the evils of communism. Even so, it's probably still amongst the top of south american countries when it comes to average wealth (or wealth of the average person).
NK on the other hand, fought an insane war back in the day with no regard towards human life, has a dictator whose personal wealth is probably bigger than the country's. The regime seems so focused on advancing their military that they don't care if their people starve to death. They have purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (heck, they'll even piss of China).
In short, all communists aren't the same :bow:
Big_John
07-05-2006, 18:13
mm.. mods, how about a split for the subsidy stuff?
Avicenna
07-05-2006, 18:40
I don't think it's fair to compare Cuba with NK, Castro (and his ilk) have led a rather benevolent dictatorship over the past few decades. Most of the poverty is due to the economic sanctions imposed by the US and not due to the evils of communism. Even so, it's probably still amongst the top of south american countries when it comes to average wealth (or wealth of the average person).
NK on the other hand, fought an insane war back in the day with no regard towards human life, has a dictator whose personal wealth is probably bigger than the country's. The regime seems so focused on advancing their military that they don't care if their people starve to death. They have purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (heck, they'll even piss of China).
In short, all communists aren't the same :bow:
NK fought and beat the USA? Don't be silly, it was :china:
By the way, congratulations on being the first person I've seen on the org state that not all communists should be grouped under the stereotype.
:bow:
doc_bean
07-05-2006, 18:47
NK fought and beat the USA? Don't be silly, it was :china:
I never said they beat them...
We woulda had those damn commies if we had let McCarthur unload those tactical nukes! Shucks for missed chances!
/end sarcasm
Divinus Arma
07-06-2006, 05:04
Saying that they in any way at all beat the USA--China or NK--is silly. Militarily, they were totally out of their league. It was, in effect, the US government and its limiting policies that caused the war to go so badly. As soon as we started bargaining for peace, hostilities were restricted, and remained so for about 2 years. So, in effect, "losing" that war was a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by our own government.
Great point GC. You are spot on. Same with Vietnam.
DukeofSerbia
07-06-2006, 11:48
Why to attack N. Korea? They are treat to nobody. But IR Iran...
Avicenna
07-06-2006, 15:28
Why to attack N. Korea? They are treat to nobody. But IR Iran...
The USA are discussing this because they [North Korea] have finally got something that can touch the USA's soil. The Taepdong-2 (can't spell) missile.
The USA are discussing this because they [North Korea] have finally got something that can touch the USA's soil. The Taepdong-2 (can't spell) missile.
Yeah as long as it doesn't blow up on launch or worse not go at all.:laugh4:
The USA are discussing this because they [North Korea] have finally got something that can touch the USA's soil. The Taepdong-2 (can't spell) missile.
The United States, South Korea and Japan have been discussing North Korea for some time now, since about 1954. Its the rest of the world that is now just beginning to catch up, because of North Korea's nuclear program.
Not many heard about North Korea's Nuclear ambitions back in 1980's. Care to guess when the intelligence estimate about North Korea having a functional nuclear warhead started to happen? Or how about the discussion around Soeul and vicinity being targeted by Chemical Agents?
How about the multiple times that North Korea has been discussed in the United States Congress? The United Nations?
Is someone is generalizing based upon limited knowledge on the subject?
Question Redleg: You seem to know a lot about North Korea. Why doesn't the South Korean Government spend more time drilling Seoul in case the North actual does launch a chemical/biological agent attack? Couldn't every citizen buy/be issued a protective suit or at the very least be told what to do?
Question Redleg: You seem to know a lot about North Korea. Why doesn't the South Korean Government spend more time drilling Seoul in case the North actual does launch a chemical/biological agent attack? Couldn't every citizen buy/be issued a protective suit or at the very least be told what to do?
When one begins to look at the map of the Terrian around Seoul and the limited avenues out of the city, it begins to paint the picture. Then add that the vast Majority of the population resides from Seoul to TDC (can't remember the Actual Name of the city - jut the initials) which is about 40-50 kilometers north of Seoul. Now ask yourself this question - when a war is about to happen how in the hell do you evacuate that many people and get your forces mobilized to the front. (ie all the roads north of Seoul are going to be used for military movement.)
How do you supply the population as large as South Korea with that many protective masks - and clothing, since blister and blood agents effect not only the breathing but the skin?
Its best for South Korea to attempt to negotate with North Korea to prevent war. North Korea also views any exercise toward prep for war as an issue that must be coordinated, negotated, and otherwise talked to death before it can happen.
Ice, have you ever drilled putting on a NBC suit? It isn't easy and they aren't cheap. Seoul is the 3rd or 4th largest metroplitan area in the world. Something like 10-11 million people live there. It's just not feasible to give NBC gear to that many people, or even to train that many people in a substantive way. :wink:
Redleg, were you stationed in SK? For some reason I got the impression you were stationed in Germany. Blame my faulty memory.
Proletariat
07-07-2006, 05:06
Ice, have you ever drilled putting on a NBC suit? It isn't easy and they aren't cheap.
Just curious, what's difficult for you with putting on a NBC suit? It's really simple. I wouldn't expect oh, the entire population of New Orleans to get it down right, but I figure the residents of Seoul could master the diffuclt task of putting on a heavier-than-usual set of clothing and a mask with a proper seal.
Ice, have you ever drilled putting on a NBC suit?
Nope.
It isn't easy and they aren't cheap.
I'm sure it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put on a NBC suit. Tax the suit. I wouldn't mind paying a tax that would most likely save my life if the NK ever did attack.
Seoul is the 3rd or 4th largest metroplitan area in the world. Something like 10-11 million people live there. It's just not feasible to give NBC gear to that many people, or even to train that many people in a substantive way.
It could be done. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.
Redleg, were you stationed in SK? For some reason I got the impression you were stationed in Germany. Blame my faulty memory.
Well since you asked - I was stationed at Camp Essaysons in the Republic of South Korea.
Then ask me how many bloodly war game scenerios I had to particpate in from 1995 to 2000, featuring guess where? Korea. gads I can't always keep what is allowed to talk about from what is. Good thing its been long enough that most of what I know that was classified is no longer given that OPPLAN 5027 is available on the web.
I'm sure it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put on a NBC suit. Tax the suit. I wouldn't mind paying a tax that would most likely save my life if the NK ever did attack.
It takes some practice - to get it on right.
It could be done. Easy? No. Possible? Yes.
Possible no - that they can evacuate some, yes.
Remember Seoul will not be given weeks to evacuate in the evident of a possible war - but a matter of days and hours. One of the possible scenerios involved in the conflict is a major chemical weapons strike by North Korea to create major chaos and create and increase the number of choke points to prevent re-inforcments from getting to the Defensive lines.
Papewaio
07-07-2006, 05:19
But wouldn't a strike involving chemicals to the SK capital get a counter-NBC style attack?
I assume tactical nukes to the launch sites, HQs and capital city would be in order.
It takes some practice - to get it on right.
Possible no - that they can evacuate some, yes.
Why is it impossible? I know it's not easy, at all, but why couldn't they do it?
Papewaio
07-07-2006, 05:25
Remember the Hurricane and how long it took to get people out?
Add in a hostile military shooting at you and the evacuation would take agers.
Ever seen the pictures of the Iraqi evacuation from Kuwait? Sitting ducks.
Imagine first a chemical strike on the capital Seoul which is near the NK border, Slaughter. then as the people flee a traffic jam of South Korean citizens being hit with high explosives and chemcial tipped munitions from both artillary and bombers. More Slaughter. Then imagine trying to get out past those choked up roads. Even More Slaughter.
Remember the Hurricane and how long it took to get people out?
Add in a hostile military shooting at you and the evacuation would take agers.
Ever seen the pictures of the Iraqi evacuation from Kuwait? Sitting ducks.
Imagine first a chemical strike on the capital Seoul which is near the NK border, Slaugther. then as the people flee a traffic jam of South Korean citizens being hit with high explosives and chemcial tipped munitions from both artillary and bombers. More Slaugther. Then imagine trying to get out past those choked up roads. Even More Slaughter.
I meant chemical suits. Evacuation is understandable.
Divinus Arma
07-07-2006, 05:29
Only one answer for this:
Stealth bombers annihilating NK in a pre-emptive strike before they even knew what hit them. No opportunity for retaliation.
The only thing we have to worry about is that radiation. If we could find a way to cleanly and quietly obliterate NK with no damage to neighbors, I would support it. I feel awful for the people of NK, but I would feel worse for the people of Japan or SK taking an unprovoked attack.
Well since you asked - I was stationed at Camp Essaysons in the Republic of South Korea.
Then ask me how many bloodly war game scenerios I had to particpate in from 1995 to 2000, featuring guess where? Korea. gads I can't always keep what is allowed to talk about from what is. Good thing its been long enough that most of what I know that was classified is no longer given that OPPLAN 5027 is available on the web.
My sympathies. Too dang cold in the winter for my tastes. Have several friends who were there at various times in the military and one who is there now. We all think he's crazy. He spent most of his military career there, off and on, and when he retired he went back to teach at the SAHS in Seoul.
Papewaio
07-07-2006, 05:33
I would much rather have China feel that it needs to step in and let it handle it. They have NK by the nuts already as they give NK food and energy.
Sanctions on NK would have to include sanctions on China iff they did not go along. China is rapidly reforming itself. So if we can get it to slap NK silly all the better.
A worse scenario is Japan stepping in. In the short term people might go yay! the Japanese have armed up and stopped NK. In the long term the local nations will go sh!t Japan has armed up and they too will then arming up and all of them will look at pre-emptive strikes.
I think it is long past the day when Japan should be arming up. We could enrich ourselves by loosening the restrictions on their military, and selling them enough military equipment to make them a serious contender in an Asian War. They've our staunch allies for over half a century. Let them have some power.
We don't have any restrictions on their military. They put their own restrictions on their military. Well, OK, with a little help from MacArthur, but still. Since that time, they've had all the authority to make any changes they wished in their constitution. Perhaps one could say that they've willingly kept the restrictions we wrote for them after the war. At no point after were they not allowed to change it if they wished. Or are you saying that they aren't a sovereign democracy? :grin:
Papewaio
07-07-2006, 05:48
Yeah just like the buy all their public hardware off the US?
Which way does that high tech trade deficit swing?
As I understand it, a large reason why they're military is so small--aside from the obvious reason that the Japanese Public is mostly anti-military--is because of international pressure.
I'd like to see a diplomatic campaign aimed at getting them to beef up their military. And to buy the hardware from us, of course.
That's quite different than saying we should "allow" them to do it. They've been allowed to do it since the first elections they held after we ended our post-war occupation. We wrote the first constitution. They kept it. But they could have changed it any time. Otherwise they had the form but not the function of a democracy. Just like Iraq. If Iraq is truly now a democracy, then they have the right of self-determination, yes? And they're exercising that right, even! Just a day or so ago, the Iraqi PM called for a review of the policy of U.S. military personnel being immune from Iraqi law. :grin:
KafirChobee
07-07-2006, 07:00
Upon my return from the ROK in '68, I was a convert to the inevitabilty of a future conflict there. Only I figured it would be within 5 yeARS.
I also realised that we (as a nation) had the responsabilty to preserve American lives - even the GIs' - I mean allowing Americans to be killed for the cause of a President versus uphold the laws of America .. well? How shallow the rest of the world must think we are? Or, are we trying to prove that we are willing to lose our sons for any cause - no matter how small. ???
Going on.
People that have never spent time on the ROK have no idea what it would take to defeat the N.K. Let me advise you, it is an uphill fight. Without Nukes it cannot be won. First off, if the Chinesee weren't supporting the Jerk - he couldn't pull off the crap he is. It is all a test - and the present Administration is not up to it. After all they think all things revolve around economy - versus world domination. Oh, wait .... I mighta got tha back words. The (racist term removed by Ser Clegane) ain't. Numb nuts in NK is doing exactly as China is telling him to.
Still greed?
One would think we (the USA, GB, France, USSR) have always found ways to deal with the greedy. IT'S THOSE DAMN Libertians we hate. Those dicks that want more for their country than for themselves .... an exstinct species.
North Korea is less a threat to world peace than the Bush administration. And that is a fact.
However, we can win there - by feeding the people.
And later supplying them arms. Or by threatening China enough economically to force them to withdraw all support from KIm.
But, we got Bush - and his advisors. Only thing they can think of is how to stick us with another $1 for gas.
Korea ain't simple - but, it ain't got no oil. So, guess we're safe from invading it. Even if it is the gratest threat. Nuklar ... that is.
Buy into an idiot. Live with it.
Tachikaze
07-07-2006, 07:25
I don't think it's fair to compare Cuba with NK, Castro (and his ilk) have led a rather benevolent dictatorship over the past few decades. Most of the poverty is due to the economic sanctions imposed by the US and not due to the evils of communism. Even so, it's probably still amongst the top of south american countries when it comes to average wealth (or wealth of the average person).
NK on the other hand, fought an insane war back in the day with no regard towards human life, has a dictator whose personal wealth is probably bigger than the country's. The regime seems so focused on advancing their military that they don't care if their people starve to death. They have purposely isolated themselves from the rest of the world (heck, they'll even piss of China).
In short, all communists aren't the same :bow:
I agree with you about Cuba, and North Korea has been a nasty place. What I'm saying is that if the US had approached North Korea at the end of the Korean War with an attitude similar to they way they considered Japan and Germany after WWII, North Korea would be a very different place. The US would not consider benign relations with them due to dogmatic anticommunism. I believe that the antagonism of the US beginning in the '50s made the present situation possible.
Well, actually, you could take it a step further and say that Stalinism (which isn't communism, any more than the People's Republic of China is a republic, but we've had this argument before) was easily spread because of the after effects of Japanese occupation for the two decades prior. The same for Vietnam, China and other parts of the world as well (Nazi occupation in the case of parts of Europe).
The pendulum swings. Sadly, in the case of NK, it swung way to one side and got stuck. :grin:
I agree. We were content to let the French handle Vietnam. A task for which they were entirely unprepared after WWII. And we virtually ignored Korea. Stalin and Mao didn't ignore Korea. They got the drop on us, in that regard. There is no more fertile ground for a new totalitarian regime which makes promises of aid, than a country which has just been essentially demolished by another totalitarian regime which made no promises other than absolute conquest.
I agree. We were content to let the French handle Vietnam. A task for which they were entirely unprepared after WWII. And we virtually ignored Korea. Stalin and Mao didn't ignore Korea. They got the drop on us, in that regard. There is no more fertile ground for a new totalitarian regime which makes promises of aid, than a country which has just been essentially demolished by another totalitarian regime which made no promises other than absolute conquest.
A very good observation about North Korea. Japan then Russia.
But wouldn't a strike involving chemicals to the SK capital get a counter-NBC style attack?
Possible - but doubtful in the aspect that the chemical munitions will mostly have to be used on South Korean soil. Most scenerio's that I know of restrict the use of chemicals by the CFC.
I assume tactical nukes to the launch sites, HQs and capital city would be in order.
That was the old plan - the one before 5027, However the United States has removed its tactical nukes from the Field Artillery systems which leaves the limited warheads of the Airforce. Which will require the planes to deliver the systems through one of the better intergated air defense systems. (their system is old but the levels of coverage is pretty significant.)
The use of nuclear weapons will be restricted in my opinion to preventing the capture of Seoul. ie they won't be launched until the North Korean Attack begins to breach Defensive Line C - about 15 Kilometers North of the Seoul.
Tachikaze
07-07-2006, 17:30
The point still stands that the USA never had the means to rehabilitate North Korea after the war. I have no doubt that we would have, if we could have.
All that may have been necessary was to have good relations, and later full trade, with NK. The US does not have to paternalistically "rehabilitate" everyone.
The success of the US is that it can woo nations with its capitalism, wealth, and pop culture. It has done this with numerous former enemies, but not NK and, and to a large degree, Cuba.
Had it taken this course, as it has so many other times, things would be quite different and NK would be a better place—probably not great, but better. I am positive the government would be more benign.
Tachikaze
07-08-2006, 06:08
That's asking for something that would have been impossible. South Korea and North Korea--even without the influencing hand of their Superpower supporters--both wanted a swift re-unification of the country. The war was not started by Superpowers, it was started by North Korea.
If the approach I'm referring to had been followed, I believe the differences between the two Koreas would have narrowed to such a degree that unification would have occurred by now.
If the approach I'm referring to had been followed, I believe the differences between the two Koreas would have narrowed to such a degree that unification would have occurred by now.
And most likely you would be incorrect. The old man wanted and the son wants absolute control over Korea.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.