Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Recommended Posts

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14471940"]This incident[/url] just occurred yesterday, just one of many that happens in the region. Last November a similar incident where artillery shells from the DPRK landed on the island of Yeonpyeong resulting in fatalities. This incident really got me convinced that the conflict would've immediately escalated into a full on conventional war once again.

Just an fyi to anyone who may not be convinced, the Korean War never ended. The fighting only lasted from 1950 to 1953 but only an armistice was signed. No formal treaty between the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea was ever signed and the two countries are still at war. I always hear stories of small skirmishes occurring along the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) which almost never make the news. It's only a matter of time before someone gets trigger happy and causes WWIII. Yes, it will become WWIII. I already know that Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China will be backing the DPRK (north) while the US, Japan and possibly NATO will support the Republic of Korea (south). I'm not sure where Russia will stand because right now they are the prime mediator between the two sides, they might be neutral if anything happens.

The tensions between the West and the Peoples Republic of China isn't helping either. Relations between the PRC and Japan/Vietnam/Philippines/Taiwan is very volatile.

There's some of my thoughts on the issue, what are yours? In my opinion, full on combat is inevitable. Edited by sirbenedictvs
Link to post
Share on other sites
A few years ago I would have seen it the same way, but now it seems less and less likely.
First thing is, do the US and China really want to risk all out war with its ruinous cost and destabilizing potential because of some weird and embarrassing regime in the north?
Second, I heard that by now the fighting power of the south is three or four times that of the north. Destructive power, not manpower. The shift to high-tech weapons and efficient combined arms tactics hasn't been kind to the ponderous, old fashioned mass conscript army of the north. We all know what happens to a huge mechanized army when caught in the open concentrated on a handful of roads without air superiority....and that is the one thing the north just can't achieve.
Attacking the south is countdown to suicide for Kim-jong-[i][b]ill[/b][/i].....

If there was open fighting, I think the US and China know its best to let the two Koreas slug it out, keep it contained, then go on doing business as usual. The chinese probably have more to gain from a "South Korea" directly on their doorstep than that maoist-style detention camp they have now!

In the 1950's-1980's, the chinese had little to loose....but now????;)Do chinese generals want to risk their pretty new military to help that sorry excuse for a ruler? I know what I would say if he called for help.....
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

North Korea is really making waves in the news in the United States again.  I think that a lot of the time Americans can kind of push these world conflicts aside in our thoughts until they really ratchett up.  I suppose that's only natural as being so omnipresent in World affairs would require a constant vigil by the American public if every skirmish or statement drew our attention.  Therefore it's not a criticism, simply an observation. 

 

Obviously South Korea has the most pressing concerns with the recent news, but I think it's important for the American public to pay attention to what's going on.  The biggest challenge is balancing the words/threats of Kim Jong-Un who has always been a bit unpredictable to say the least with the U.S. media reports.  In trying to do that I often find it difficult to determine what level of concern/attention I should pay towards what is happening.  Is there a legitimate concern of war World Wide?  I have read that Russia has been critical of recent U.S. actions/exercises in South Korea, suggesting that we are escalating tensions.  Does the U.S. have an agenda here that would make an escalation of tensions beneficial to America?  I simply don't see any reason or purpose towards that from my perspective.  I have to admit to not knowing a great deal about the current events.  How is the current escalation of tensions viewed by people from other countries?  Is it American bravado to believe that when America is involved that the world should pay attention?  Or maybe that's better said by saying that when American's become concerned that the world should pay attention (because we've been involved for decades now)?

 

I have to admit to to not knowing a lot about what life is like in North Korea, or South Korea for that matter.  It would be interesting to hear the thoughts and opinions of people more informed/knowledgable than myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also cannot see that a Korean conflict would spread. Or rather, the other way round; as long as there is no interest in escalation on the side of the major players, open warfare will not erupt.

 

Russia-Georgia was an interesting example of how contained military action can be nowadays, even with trigger-happy individuals in the mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I would have seen it the same way, but now it seems less and less likely.

First thing is, do the US and China really want to risk all out war with its ruinous cost and destabilizing potential because of some weird and embarrassing regime in the north?

Second, I heard that by now the fighting power of the south is three or four times that of the north. Destructive power, not manpower. The shift to high-tech weapons and efficient combined arms tactics hasn't been kind to the ponderous, old fashioned mass conscript army of the north. We all know what happens to a huge mechanized army when caught in the open concentrated on a handful of roads without air superiority....and that is the one thing the north just can't achieve.

Attacking the south is countdown to suicide for Kim-jong-ill.....

 

If there was open fighting, I think the US and China know its best to let the two Koreas slug it out, keep it contained, then go on doing business as usual. The chinese probably have more to gain from a "South Korea" directly on their doorstep than that maoist-style detention camp they have now!

 

In the 1950's-1980's, the chinese had little to loose....but now????;)Do chinese generals want to risk their pretty new military to help that sorry excuse for a ruler? I know what I would say if he called for help.....

I have to agree.

 

The other question is would the USA really dare to challenge China. I'm not convinced that this will happen anytime soon. Besides as you said Jeremy, the war has been going since the 1950's. I don't think there will be a full scaled war, not a-bomb wise at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, the media is over exaggerating things. What North Korea's doing now really isn't all that different from what it's always done. They're trying to be provocative and more likely Kim Jong-un is trying to consolidate power internally. He doesn't want to appear weak right now. These tactics are nothing new.

 

As for your guys' talk involving China and the US let me speak bluntly. China is pissed at North Korea's continued nuclear program. Believe it or not they don't want North Korea to have nukes. Why? For one North Korea's highly unstable, and who wants an unstable nuclear neighbor? Two, all the sanctions and ties severed from South Korea is hurting North Korea's economy, take a wild guess who's a major trade partner with North Korea. Three, China likes keeping control of it's allies. Kim jong-il was more agreeable to the policies of China. Nobody knows what kim jong-un will do. Don't get me wrong. North Korea and China still have strong ties, but if North Korea does something stupid like launch a couple of nukes don't be surprised if China cuts ties with them.

 

It's really unlikely North Korea will do anything, especially with nuclear weapons. It would pretty much mean the destruction of North Korea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dax.  The U.S. media was one of the things I was really wondering about.  I watch less media than I have ever watched before because I become more and more skeptical of the t.v. media.  I suppose the best or most reliable sources might come from print media, but one of the toughest decisions I make especially when it comes to world affairs is knowing where to get my news/current events from.  I know that virtually everyone has some agenda and to ask for an entirely unbiased news source is not realistic.  I believe it's good to have an opinion any way, I just don't feel comfortable shaping my opinions from sources more concerned with sensationalizing a story than reporting it accurately.  It's hard to not feel a little concern when each time I go to my MSN home page or each time I turn on even the local news I'm seeing another story about Kim Jong-Un and a threat against South Korea or the United States.

 

That said, to me this entire story is becoming as much about my skepticism over what I hear/read as it is about North Korea and Kim Jong-Un. Who do people trust most as legitimate news sources here?  I know most of what I see is from what I call the "popular media" now - that which is on the national news networks and thier websites. I'm not someone who desires being a news or current events junky, but I do desire knowing where news current events junkies turn to when something does peak my interest, so I don't just fall victim to the hype.

Edited by Mr. Pumpkinhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dax.  The U.S. media was one of the things I was really wondering about.  I watch less media than I have ever watched before because I become more and more skeptical of the t.v. media.  I suppose the best or most reliable sources might come from print media, but one of the toughest decisions I make especially when it comes to world affairs is knowing where to get my news/current events from.  I know that virtually everyone has some agenda and to ask for an entirely unbiased news source is not realistic.  I believe it's good to have an opinion any way, I just don't feel comfortable shaping my opinions from sources more concerned with sensationalizing a story than reporting it accurately.  It's hard to not feel a little concern when each time I go to my MSN home page or each time I turn on even the local news I'm seeing another story about Kim Jong-Un and a threat against South Korea or the United States.

 

That said, to me this entire story is becoming as much about my skepticism over what I hear/read as it is about North Korea and Kim Jong-Un. Who do people trust most as legitimate news sources here?  I know most of what I see is from what I call the "popular media" now - that which is on the national news networks and thier websites. I'm not someone who desires being a news or current events junky, but I do desire knowing where news current events junkies turn to when something does peak my interest, so I don't just fall victim to the hype.

 

Well if you don't want to fall for the hype, don't watch CNN or Fox News etc. They are one of the worst imo. That being said I wouldn't trust any media tbh. But if you want to see other opinions, I recommend Russia Today. 

The Guardian has sometimes good articles too.

As Dax pointed out though, the media is over exaggerating things. Creating panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

china better keep it's n. korean pet dog on a tighter leash. if those n. korean nutcases try to nuke japan as they are now threatening, the fallout will easily spread across the 200 mile-wide Sea of Japan, and hit those tons of chinese navy and army bases on the coast. china is shooting itself in the feet, if it doesn't reign in that fatboy waving around his insane daddy's nuclear fire-crackers. i am so sick of the chinese and their half commie/half capitalist country. pick one, morons. you can't have your cake and it eat it too. grrrrr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there is some truth in it.

 

But because China had always helped Korea they are trying again to get something more out of the west, some more privileges they want.

And self if they Shoot the weapons, they will probably still existing, because America and co can´t attack without chinas permission so maybe just the leader of the state will be another, the state will be the same or as good as.

 

it is said how complicated and frustrating war is today. If truth be told, i hate it. To much politic in it, to much rules and codes you have to obey who makes things so difficult that in the end for the war is after the war. Nothing changed. Ok a bit, but so few that you have to get a close look to realize it.

 

In the end. i think Nuclear weapons and other stuff like chemical weapons etc. should be totally forbidden and states who doesn´t obey should be punished by getting attacked by special forces who destroy the Weapons or steal them. So that every dictator and every state is thinking twice if he should stay against the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

china better keep it's n. korean pet dog on a tighter leash. if those n. korean nutcases try to nuke japan as they are now threatening, the fallout will easily spread across the 200 mile-wide Sea of Japan, and hit those tons of chinese navy and army bases on the coast. china is shooting itself in the feet, if it doesn't reign in that fatboy waving around his insane daddy's nuclear fire-crackers. i am so sick of the chinese and their half commie/half capitalist country. pick one, morons. you can't have your cake and it eat it too. grrrrr

 

Exactly why no one will use them. But North Korea can only get attention if they threaten. I mean the USA does it as well. They constantly threaten Iran. And they constantly threaten North Korea. Military maneuvers on the coast etc. It's a natural reaction. So why can't North Korea or any other country do the same? Or own nuclear weapons? Who are we to decide who can have them and who can't if the US, and everyone else owns them as well.

It's pretty pathetic how our media makes Kim Jong-un look. This isn't serious journalism.

 

Why should they "pick one"? It works quite well for them. 

 

Yeah, there is some truth in it.

 

But because China had always helped Korea they are trying again to get something more out of the west, some more privileges they want.

And self if they Shoot the weapons, they will probably still existing, because America and co can´t attack without chinas permission so maybe just the leader of the state will be another, the state will be the same or as good as.

 

it is said how complicated and frustrating war is today. If truth be told, i hate it. To much politic in it, to much rules and codes you have to obey who makes things so difficult that in the end for the war is after the war. Nothing changed. Ok a bit, but so few that you have to get a close look to realize it.

 

In the end. i think Nuclear weapons and other stuff like chemical weapons etc. should be totally forbidden and states who doesn´t obey should be punished by getting attacked by special forces who destroy the Weapons or steal them. So that every dictator and every state is thinking twice if he should stay against the law.

 

Since when wasn't war "complicated and frustrating" or sad? There were always politics behind it. And I don't really remember anyone ever obeying to rules in war. Nobody actually listens to the UN if they say "no". Look at the last Iraq War, or the Kosovo War. They were both wars of aggression that are not allowed. Both times they were unjustified.

Edited by I am Not Purple
Link to post
Share on other sites

They was easery in the past. You said you conquer in the name of the one true Religion and then you go. Of course the lords wanted power but they don´t had to let it look unbloody or had to make statements and so on.

 

And in the ancient world it was much simpler. In Rome to make a war you have to say it was to save Rom and then get an permission of the Senat, and then you go. And the Senat was often willing to give that permission because it got wealth in there homes.

 

And even in the later time, the 17/18th century and so on you don´t have to obey some human rights or had to make some politic specification that it is no war just a warlike expedition. You could say it is war and go in with it. Of course there were political consequences but nut the spider net we have today.

 

I don´t say i want that time back and war that spreads all over the world but it could be simpler and more truthful at least. You have to look so hard to guess if there rebels are working on there one alone or if there is some state or Organization behind it that wants that because it would destabilizes the state it is in what would be good for there one purpose because it is against another state.

 

Today i think we could make so much more if we would co operate more. But that seems impossible. Europe is one of the best examples, i think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the north korean buffoons now say they are open to talks...........lolz

 

yeah, you give us your nuclear weapons, all weapons-grade plutonium, centrifuges, and your complete research program and facilities, and we will give you food for your malnourished and starving 23 million countrymen, and cake for you, kim jon un fatboy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So he want some privileges he has´nt deserve. 

The WEapons he will keep, just don´t keep them in position. So he can bring them out again, when he want´s some new toy from the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should only North Korea have to undergo disarmament, why not America, and Russia, and the UK, and France? Any of these countries could radically become unstable tomorrow, and become rogue states, what if the nukes are Kim Jong Un's safety net, so that if America attack, he actually has some basis of defencive threat. 

 

Just an alternative view..

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

 

lucky thought. But yeah it could be a sighned. but he put them in position not America. it would be a view if he had them but not put them in an attacking position.

 

Also i want to say, that we are from outside of North Korea and influenced by western thoughts, so the eastern North Koreans are the bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should only North Korea have to undergo disarmament, why not America, and Russia, and the UK, and France? Any of these countries could radically become unstable tomorrow, and become rogue states, what if the nukes are Kim Jong Un's safety net, so that if America attack, he actually has some basis of defencive threat. 

 

Just an alternative view..

 

Ever heard of the START-1 and START-2? During the Cold War, both NATO and the USSR realized the potential dangers of having such weapons (both sides have thousands of nuclear weapons at this point). The agreement was to disarm their nuclear stockpiles significantly while still maintaining a 'healthy' number of weapons for deterrence. The two sides have matured after half a decade of trigger fingers getting itchy. The problem with regimes like Iran and the DPRK having nuclear weapons is that they will use such weapons offensively rather than in a defensive stance. The US does not even want Israel to have such a weapon for the same reason, considering their actions against Iraq in the 90's and threats against Iran and Syria recently.

 

-----

There was a discussion made not too long ago about why Saddam Insane did not deny any accusation of having WMDs. Whether or not the UN was absolutely sure he had such weapons. Saddam would've wanted to seem armed to the world. Why? To keep control of his own people. With the mustard gas attacks he ordered against the Kurds and the Iranians, his people knew what he's capable of. In order to deter a possible large-scale rebellion Saddam needed to have a major show of force.

Edited by The Midnight Q
Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is, people with Western-type views (America, Europe, NATO-allies, others) never actually want to use these horrific weapons and choose to leave them in the background as the unspoken deterrant, while these north korean clowns, and the nutty tinpot arab dictators like aberdinajhad, parade them out, brag and boast about them, and given half a chance would actually USE them directly or through their terrorist-puppet stooges, like hezbolloh and al-quaeda. when was the last time you heard the USA actually talking about their nuclear weapons and programs, much less even acknowledging said weapons deployed or actively in use? the USA does not discuss these programs, and Israel is even more secretive, as they have had the capability probably since the 1960s and still deny their existence to this very day. there is a huge difference in the views of these weapons, between the West, and the nutbags currently joining the nuclear club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is, people with Western-type views (America, Europe, NATO-allies, others) never actually want to use these horrific weapons and choose to leave them in the background as the unspoken deterrant, while these north korean clowns, and the nutty tinpot arab dictators like aberdinajhad, parade them out, brag and boast about them, and given half a chance would actually USE them directly or through their terrorist-puppet stooges, like hezbolloh and al-quaeda. when was the last time you heard the USA actually talking about their nuclear weapons and programs, much less even acknowledging said weapons deployed or actively in use? the USA does not discuss these programs, and Israel is even more secretive, as they have had the capability probably since the 1960s and still deny their existence to this very day. there is a huge difference in the views of these weapons, between the West, and the nutbags currently joining the nuclear club.

 

President Ahmadinejad is the head of a Persian country, not Arab. The common belief is that France sold one of their warheads to Israel during the Cold War when Israel was fighting their Arab wars. Any truth behind this is still yet to be discovered I guess. The US, or most nuclear armed country for that matter, have absolutely no intention of using these weapons for fear of global retaliation. Virtually every ally will cease to be one should a country use a nuclear warhead offensively; even if it is a pre-emptive strike. The concept of MAD still exists to this very day. This is why most wars fought by the larger nations are fought conventionally with the use of boots. Tactics nowadays use precision rather than destruction to achieve military goals so long as collateral and friendly damage is minimized. Although the exception would be the stupid drone strikes that Obama keeps ordering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

persia existed in the crusades and earlier. 90% of iranians today are shiites. shittes are arabs.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

 

Shia muslims belong to a religious/political demographic, not an ethnic one. It's like when people often use the "democracy vs. communism" notion, one is a political system and the other is an economic system. The two can not and should not be compared.

 

I called one of my Persian friends an Arab once and I he almost went nuts over it. Same happened when I jokingly called my Taiwanese friend Chinese, and he took it personal. (Even though the people of Taiwan are mostly ethnic Chinese, they're just not of China.)

 

Part of the post-invasion sectarian violence in Iraq was attributed to old embers from the Iran-Iraq War 20 years prior. With the "Sunni" dictator gone, and coalition support for the Shia minority, they were able to gain more influence over the events of the war. [Much of the rebels involved after Desert Storm that fought against the Iraqi regime were affiliated as Shia]. During OIF-2, it was widely believed that the Mahdi Army, one of the largest militia groups the coalition had to deal with, was supported by Iranian government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...