North Korea At It Again
 

So North Korea has just declared a state of war with South Korea. This is old news in terms of threats and attacks of South Korea but are the threats to US mainland just hot air?

Can anyone tell me why America allowed Stealth bombers in North K? Who is responsible for moves like that? Obama? The Democrats? The Air Force?

Do you think that one day a threat will turn into a reality? Are sanctions on North Korea going to stop them?

Here's a news article if you haven't already read one.

I know this has been mentioned but I always thought that North Korea was permanantly in a state of war with South Korea anyway. As for whether North Korea is a threat truly remains to be seen but I guess for any of their neighbours and the US, there is the threat that they could fire these missiles. Their overall ambitions just seem to be flying the flag and being the last bastion of hope for communism and for uniting Korea as one country. Life in North Korea is said to be pretty dire with constant food shortages for its brainwashed population.

According to the article you linked to the bombers were not in North Korea.

I think most would agree that the chances of North Korea attacking Hawaii or California is zero. More than the nukes (which nobody knows about the regime's capability), they have a load of traditional artillery well within range to raze Seoul. In any case, I think the United States should stick it up and stand their ground now. It's high time someone got rid of these maniacs. And it's certainly not going to be Russia or China to take the lead.

My brother lives in South Korea right now and he says most everyone there just kind laughs about the whole thing. They treat North Korea like a little kid that didn't get the new toy he wanted.

Oh I heard on the news they did.

I have a few friends teaching over there now and they've basically said the same thing.

To me it's pretty clear that the U.S is baiting North Korea into a war as an excuse to take over their central bank. North Korea, Iran, Cuba and (most recently) Iceland are the only nations with central banks who are not controlled by the IMF/World Bank/Rothschilds.

I've often found it ironic that Americans that say that more weapons make for a safer environment are usually the ones who are against Iran & North Korea having nuclear weapons.

It's because the people that say that don't think beyond themselves. THEY want weapons. Ask if they are ok if their neighbor has an arsenal in their basement and all the sudden it's a safety concern.

The flight wasn't over North Korea, and it was part of an ongoing exercise with South Korea, who are our allies.

However, it was quite obviously a deliberate show of force in light of the situation, even though inert munitions were dropped.

Whether you think it was necessary or not is another matter entirely. North Korea might be famous for not following up on their threats, but I'm wondering whether it's worth chancing boy-cried-wolf when it's a new leader threatening to nuke us.
Just saying... the logic of putting the name "North Korea" on the "Oh You!" dog meme, in essence, probably isn't a better solution.

I still really think it's a lot of hot air being blown out North Korea's ass. If they attack the US mainland, that's an act of war, and they know that they'd be targeted by the remaining US and their allies. North Korea is an overwhelmingly impoverished country, with technology that can't hang with the main powers. Everyone and their brother seems to have nukes now, so big whoop, North Korea. They don't have the capability to start a war and emerge unscathed, and they have to know it. They still have their own MO, however, and distaste for South Korea, and want to talk a lot of ****, because South Korea is a war they think they can win.

China tolerates them, but their relationship is strained, and if N. Korea ****s up, China is not going to deal with their bull****. Their main concern seems to be keeping Kim Jong Un in order, in power, and refugees the hell out of China.

A great deal of the world seems just to tolerate them, and they're not huge on diplomacy. If they did something stupid, they'd either be invaded and their government overthrown (best case scenario) or completely wiped off the map (obviously worst case scenario.)

So, ultimately, they wage war, and they either get their asses handed to them in the end, or the world kills itself. I doubt either one of these things are on North Korea's agenda, but you never know, I guess.

People massively underestimate how strong NKs military actually is though - That they have a million man army isn't exactly some silly irrelevant point.

Its true that if they waged war on the rest of the world they'd lose, but technology only goes so far in the face of superior numbers wielding a still significant amount of firepower. They'd potentially get a lot done before folding.

The other problem is that NK is actually very difficult to wage war against - much like Russia, the geography there confers a huge defending advantage - Its been tried before to wage war against NK and the losses were far larger than army strength and technology alone should have indicated.

Nothing will happen, because this is all a show of force and an attempt to provoke, but the fact of the matter is that it is a very real standoff - NK can't leave their country to attack others because their enemies have much stronger armies, but nobody can attack into NK because there's just not enough reason to suffer those losses if NK are only shouting and yelling.

They barely have enough money to maintain their army while it's doing nothing. I'm dubious that they would have enough money to keep it going for very long in wartime.

Actually, once the American army invaded Inchon the NK army got creamed all the way to the end of the country. It was the hordes of Chinese that poured over the Yalu River that saved them.

Everything is sex to you isn't it?

What can I say? Kim Dong Il and Pyongwang get me all hot and bothered.

This is appropriate for this thread:


Hans Blix.mov - YouTube

1 - I'm not about to predict the fiscal state of a country we know nothing about. We can safely state they have less money to throw around than "we" do, but the fact is they're willing to wage war and that's enough reasons to treat 1 million+ soldiers very seriously.

2 - I never said that beating the **** out of them wasn't possible, in fact the opposite, but the losses suffered would be unacceptable because of their smaller advantages, and no country is going to enter into that situation unless they absolutely have to - There's no sense in throwing away lives like that. And we won't nuke them because the political fallout (and actual fallout) would poison our relations (And the people within) the entire area - Not justifiable considering Korea and China's economies are strong and their political power significant.

One word: Nukes.

If America goes to war with them, one push of a button and it'll be over.

The Pirate Bay ‘Moves’ to North Korea (Updated) | TorrentFreak

I can't tell you how much I wished this was true.

I would really hope that the process for launching a nuclear weapon is a little more sophisticated than just merely pressing one button.

I believe it's two buttons that need to be pressed at the same time.

They're not going to nuke them - It would kill thousands if not millions of innocent people, completely cripple all international relations with at least 4 of the largest economies in the world, (China, South Korea, Russia, Japan) all of whom are members of G-20, and on top of that it would strain american relations with all other countries even further if they were shown to be willing to use nuclear weapons in modern warfare.

People really need to get over this idea that nukes are a practical weapon of war - They aren't. To even begin justifying their use requires someone willing to accept not only massive loss of life, but also massive loss of civilian life, on top of massive, almost irredeemable damage to the environment for hundreds or thousands of miles. Also people don't really understand how incredibly destructive these weapons really are.

Consider that the Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion sent radioactive material high enough into the atmosphere that it travelled as far west as the UK. That explosion was, according to wikipedia, equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or releasing 40GJ of energy. Its explosive radius was likely not more than a hundred meters. Almost all of the damage caused by Chernobyl was due to the massive amounts of radioctive products released.

In comparison, nuclear bombs are relatively "clean" but their destructive potential is completely insane.

Consider after Chernobyl that that the bomb used on Hiroshima released energy equivalent to 16kilotons of TNT - 67TJ - 1675 times larger an explosion than Chernobyl.

The "Fat Man" bomb used over Nagasaki on the other hand, yielded 88TJ of explosive energy.

These bombs decimated entire cities instantly. The fallout from their use continues to this day. While the areas were not intensely irradiated and returns to the area were possible after only 3 months, residual effects continue to this day, with radiation-related health problems still present 70 years later.

Now compare these early atomic weapons with what is now possible in an atomic weapon - The Tsar Bomba.

The Tsar Bomba was the largest nuclear device ever tested anywhere on earth. Its energy output was 240000TJ. Thats 3582 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, which is itself 1675 times more destructive than 10 tons of TNT.

It was originally designed to be TWICE that powerful, but the yield was REDUCED to prevent it from contaminating huge areas with radioactivity, and also destroying the plane that dropped it.

That means that by "Nukes" you potentially mean "Bombs 599,985,000 times more powerful than 1 ton of TNT.". In terms of weapons in ACTUAL READINESS owned by the US military (Excluding any remaining classified), the most powerful is the B83 Nuclear Bomb, which is a "mere" 75 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb (So, equivalent to 12,562,500 tons of TNT). Unfortunately for everyone ever, the US apparently stockpiled 650 of these things.

Dropping nukes on anyone, anywhere, is simply not in any way a justifiable action, excepting if the alternative is complete, utter, and total annihilation. The fact North Korea is so desperate to develop these weapons should already have given you a clue as to how utterly, utterly insane it is to want to use them.

I can't see North Korea ever acting on their threats because for all their claims of world revolution or whatever ridiculous dogma they're holding on to they're ultimately a collective of a small amount of people determined to hold onto the absolute power and affluence they've gained over their country, nothing more. This kind of absolute bull is nothing more than propaganda, or maybe attempts to try and scare the world into going easier on them so that the population can be oppressed more efficiently.

:(

It is really too bad such neocon jibberish such as the underlined is still being reproduced today. Military interventions should only take place when a nation's vital strategic interests are at risk. The United States has no such interest in the Korean peninsula, or throughout East Asia for that matter.

You forgot the secret handshake.

That's the optimistic view.

Anything could happen. World War 3 could start for all we know. Lets hope nothing actually transpires. Sadly enough though, I fear World War 3 will happen at some stage during this century.

Well, the US always has had a military presence in the South (Korea) and apart from the aircrafts already mentioned, there have also been a few warships moved in place to presumably....say hi and have no interest I suppose. Now, if the North really does attack, it's their shortcut to a swift end (doesn't mean the ensuing conflict won't be ghastly and horrible). Which leaves us with...when are they going to give up? Their downfall in any case seems like it is destined for an hideous conflict. Any delusions of this regime running its course should be shelved. And North Korea isn't some pseudo "we are the oppressed against the US" political case. They may have some grounds if they hadn't subjected their population to misery and tyranny, let alone the shameless propaganda. I'd be glad to be proven wrong - where there's some magical renouncement of their nuclear weapons program and lifting of the massive restrictions placed on the population, but the elements required for such a change seems to be missing.

Now, I wasn't really making a case for military intervention, but more for a resolve to not back down after their empty little threats. By 'getting rid of them' meant to be ready to intervene, if they do decide to commit suicide.

The North Koreans idea of their ruler, that Kim is some infallible divinity, is of course based on a lie and so much of their society is based on a lie. I've wondered to what degree these lies and illusions affect foreign politics and their will to war. To a large degree, it seems, but could they think of Kim as so infallible that losing a war is not a possibility? For many regular, civil North Koreans, I believe that may be the case, but for generals and so, I personally doubt it goes that far. Still, I find the question interesting.

If there is a war and North Korea is beat with Kim removed from rule, it will be interesting to see how North Korean society can adapt in the aftermath.

This would no doubt cause a power vacuum, but who knows how that would turn out. It would be interesting to see who fills the spot though.

I don't really know how such things go, but I guess the winners might try to or at least consider establishing a democracy (?). But how feasible that would be in a nation like that is hard to tell. Maybe they'd be ready for change or maybe they're so fiercely patriotic and loyal to the current rule that there'd be massive resistance. I've no idea!

The underlined should have no basis on American foreign policy in any part of the world, let alone that in East Asia. Foreign policy should be restricted to protecting a nations vital interests, not the projection of moralism via military might.

That's an interesting take on the way foreign relations actually work. Let me tell you about this mystical faraway land called Korea. This magical country is split in two, and one of them is good friends with Mr President and all his buddies in Washington. This South Korea also has lots of money and ways to make more that it shares with its friends in America so that the two can both have a happier time. But these friendly people are in trouble, because in the North mean old Kim Jong-un and his friends have turned over to their piggy banks and realised they're empty. They need to get more money if they're going to be able to buy more food for Kim so they've decided to try and bully the South for their lunch money. If Mr President doesn't try and stand up to Kim and protect his Korean friends then Mr China will start laughing at him and his other Asian friends might stop talking to him.

tl;dr The USA needs to preserve some role of credibility in the field of international relations and pulling out support for an ally they've had since the early days of the Cold War because they aren't going to see many short term benefits from it isn't going to do that goal many favours.

Yes, having an ally and then saying "we don't care" is a prelude for distrust from other nations. In any case, the US has already made their pledge to defend their South Korean allies and unless you think they are bluffing, I take it that "vital strategic interest" (? material interest?) isn't always a necessary precondition. Besides, apart from some of the industries in the South (electronics, ship building, vehicles), the United States also has a significant Korean immigrant population, most of whom are well educated. Nothing vital or strategic in that I presume...

A war seems highly unlikely though. Their nuclear bullying doesn't seem to be working in getting what they want.

American-South Korean trade amounts to about $90 billion a year. So, no, from an economic angle the USA certainly does not have a vital interest in South Korea.

Regarding the notion that treating South Korea in a manner consistent with it's strategic worth to the USA could lead to "distrust" from other nations; I should hardly think sending a message to the rest of the world that the USA will cease to fight other nations battles for them would be a bad thing.

Err, yes it will, wanna know why? Because like it or not, the US has developed an obligation over decades to collaborate with nations such as SK in ensuring they don't fall to aggressive foreign interests. Even taken away from a one-nation perspective, you're voluntarily on the UN Security Council. It is literally your job on the international stage to fight other nations' battles for them. And it's not just a matter of preserving alliances, it's one of not appearing weak. Sure, pulling out of Korea and dressing it up as you having better things to spend your money on might not get you open laughs from China, Russia and Iran, but something like that makes allies and enemies alike question the integrity of the USA. Nationalistic bastards might like to pretend that the UsA is somehow able to fend for itself and that isolationist autarky has a chance of working, but try looking at your reliance on foreign trade and foreign interests in preserving your place at the top.

As for the "aww dont be stoopid there trade isnt that importent" argument, try reading up on how economics aren't stagnant. This is quickly becoming the Asian century, with nearly every competent economist out there predicting that the majority of East Asian markets including SK are going to rapidly grow in the future at a rate far higher than the USA's traditional partners such as Europe. I'm not sure why I'm arguing this as anyone who genuinely believes the USA should pull out of Korea to save them a couple of dollars on their yearly tax bill must be either mad, stupid or completely cold-hearted but come on, your self-interests are absolutely here.

Its alright guys, kim Jong Un is just dyslexic, turns out he was making Unclear threats, not Nuclear.

Thank dog!