PDA

View Full Version : South Korean ship sunk. Rumours of North Korean involvement



Cullion
26th March 10, 01:46 PM
Earlier today, the south Korean naval vessel Cheonan sank after an explosion tore a hole in it whilst it was patrolling near Baengnyeong island, close to the disputed sea border.

South Korean officials are playing down earlier suggestions that the sinking was caused by a North Korean torpedo, and that another South Korean vessel is said to have fired on an unidentified vessel in retaliation.

There were 104 crew members, and so far at least 58 have been recovered alive by the South Korean navy and coastguard.

I hope the remainder of the 104 make it home safe, and I hope that this is an accident, and if not, I hope calm heads prevail.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7077655.ece

HappyOldGuy
26th March 10, 01:48 PM
This makes me nervous.

Hope they get all the crew.

Cullion
26th March 10, 01:52 PM
The North and South Korean navies last traded fire in 2002 without it leading to a conflagration, so even if this was the North's doing, it doesn't have to result in carnage.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 10, 02:19 PM
The North and South Korean navies last traded fire in 2002 without it leading to a conflagration, so even if this was the North's doing, it doesn't have to result in carnage.

2002 was happening in a context. North Korea often gets frisky when stuff is happening on the international stage. I'm not seeing the context here, but we know that alot is happening internally. That's why it makes me nervous. Kinda like seeing the shark by it's wake.

KO'd N DOA
26th March 10, 02:20 PM
I think I will go back and see the terms of the truce, just to know if countries in the last war automatically are at war.

Cullion
26th March 10, 02:21 PM
I read some speculation about the glorious leader getting more paranoid of late. You think he's thinking 'blaze of glory?'.

HappyOldGuy
26th March 10, 02:28 PM
I'm more worried about his health and the inevitable fight for succession. But I wouldn't rule out crazy either.

Phrost
26th March 10, 02:33 PM
This better not fuck up the plot to my book.

Robot Jesus
28th March 10, 03:56 PM
just throw in a dragon and make it cyberpunk, you wont need to change anything really

Cullion
24th May 10, 04:22 AM
After careful investigation, it seems that it almost certainly was North Korea. They found part of a North Korean torpedo propeller at the site.

North Korea's response to this was 'You better not do shit, or we will give you total war! you want total war?'

South Korean have now begun an economic embargo of North Korea and taken the matter to the UN security council

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1280806/The-North-pay-brutality-South-Koreas-warning-threatens-UN-Security-Council.html

I must say, I think South Korea has handled this in a pretty dignified and patient manner, waiting for all the facts to be on the table and allowing other countries to verify the findings to be sure, and they are still providing humanitarian aid to children and the elderly in North Korea, but the North Korean government can't just be allowed to get away with shit like this by barking like a dog and throwing threats around every time they get caught.

What next?

Arhetton
24th May 10, 05:35 AM
North Korea's leaders probably WANT war. They would know they are fucked and its probably some 'guns blazing' visionary nonsense.

South Korea should just saber rattle and continue to outpace the North economically and socially.

Considering the magnitude of importance a new war between the north and the south would have for all parties, it should be avoided at great cost.

Despite the lost lives of the sailors, it is not worth war over.

If north korea continue to develop/acquire nukes, the south should assasinate the leadership or invade.

Hidden Ronin
24th May 10, 05:39 AM
Would assasinating the leadership accomlish anything though? Wouldn't it be better to incite or encourage rebellion and revolt and hope the North Koreans sort themselves out?

Cullion
24th May 10, 05:42 AM
North Korea's leaders probably WANT war. They would know they are fucked and its probably some 'guns blazing' visionary nonsense.

South Korea should just saber rattle and continue to outpace the North economically and socially.

Considering the magnitude of importance a new war between the north and the south would have for all parties, it should be avoided at great cost.

Despite the lost lives of the sailors, it is not worth war over.

If north korea continue to develop/acquire nukes, the south should assasinate the leadership or invade.

How many more South Koreans should die whilst they're waiting ?

Arhetton
24th May 10, 06:01 AM
How many people should die to maintain a peace? Well, a lot actually. peace is significantly less costly than a traditional 'victory' with lives lost into the unknown.

Should the south strategically tolerate the norths belligerence and potential future threat?... well thats a more tasty question. Especially with the involvement of the great powers.

jubei33
24th May 10, 06:23 AM
I was planning on seeing Seoul, the tickets are cheap. Maybe I'd better hurry up and do it before the artillery strikes evaporate half of the capital?

Cullion
24th May 10, 07:12 AM
How many people should die to maintain a peace? Well, a lot actually. peace is significantly less costly than a traditional 'victory' with lives lost into the unknown.

How many Australian ships would you allow another country to sink. What would their quota be ?

billy sol hurok
24th May 10, 07:22 AM
How many Australian ships would you allow another country to sink. What would their quota be ?

Be fair now. More information needed.

What are the sinkers' grievances?

Is there a Peace Process® concomitant?

How much time is allowed to cram for the International Test®?

You wouldn't want to go issuing stern rebukes or harshly worded letters if Russia and China won't sign on, after all.

jubei33
24th May 10, 07:28 AM
Be fair now. More information needed.

I suppose this would fall in line with what our enemies teach us what we must do,then?

billy sol hurok
24th May 10, 07:46 AM
There are no "enemies." There are only friends to whom we have not yet capitulated!

jubei33
24th May 10, 07:49 AM
So do we capitulate them with armored division or aerial deployment? or both

Ajamil
24th May 10, 07:53 AM
With proper journalism, it only takes one.
http://unix.temple.edu/%7Esusanj/jou55/nyworld.jpg

Shit shit shit. I really don't want to see this war start up again. The US is in no shape for a third front in our world policing, and it'll be a bad show to take a back seat in this one. Not to mention what China'll think of our warships parked on their lawn.

Cullion
24th May 10, 08:03 AM
If calm heads prevail China might help. They must be annoyed with all the trouble the clown in charge of North Korea causes. Maybe the Chinese can just have him killed or taken away or something.

EvilSteve
24th May 10, 10:52 AM
^ This. China has too much to lose economically from conflict in the region and North Korea doesn't exist without their support. I expect back channel communications with China would allow this to be solved without further bloodshed.

Madgrenade
24th May 10, 11:18 AM
There isn't going to be any war. The South can't move against the North, because of their deterrent. And the North won't move against the South because their leaders know they would lose their plush existence as master of their own little piece of universe. It would mean no more pussy for the dear leader. You don't think he's that crazy, do you?

Cullion
24th May 10, 11:20 AM
When you say 'move', doesn't that include stuff like torpedoing the other side's Navy?

Madgrenade
24th May 10, 11:25 AM
When you say 'move', doesn't that include stuff like torpedoing the other side's Navy?

Thats minor skirmishing. They probably only did it for the lulz.

Madgrenade
24th May 10, 11:41 AM
Also, I saw on T.V a South Korean analyst saying that there were numerals on the recovered torpedo, and that the NK's tend to write the words for numbers rather than using the numbers themselves. He wasn't convinced that NK was behind the attack. Maybe one of SK's other regional rivals was trying to provoke them into doing something silly, like facilitating the destruction of their capital. Who benefits?

Ajamil
24th May 10, 12:02 PM
Link? That'd be some interesting intrigue right there.

Can't find anyone remarking on the NK being framed angle, but I did find a pic of the writing.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/_data/photo/2010/05/21083200.jpg

Apparently that says "1 beon" or "Number 1."

More from the news article (http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2920777):

At the media conference, the ministry also presented what it called “critical evidence.” Components from the North Korean torpedo, collected from the seabed of the sinking site near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, were made public. The key piece of evidence was a 1.2-meter-long (four foot) propulsion unit, consisting of two propellers, a shaft and a motor, which was discovered by fishermen last Saturday. The unit was covered with white powder, oxidized aluminum powder used in the explosives of the warhead.

The piece, according to the ministry, is identical to the blueprint of a North Korea-built CHT-02D torpedo the military obtained earlier, the team said.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Hwang Won-dong, head of the intelligence analysis team, said the blueprint was included in an arms export catalog from North Korea.

The torpedo believed to be used for the attack would have been 7.3 meters long and 53 centimeters in diameter. The warhead contained 250 kilograms (551 pounds) of explosives, while the torpedo itself weighed 1,700 kilograms.

Another key piece of evidence was a North Korean marking found on the propeller shaft, said Yoon Duk-yong, professor emeritus at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, who co-chaired the team. The marking read “1 beon” using an Arabic numeral and a Korean letter that means “number.”

“The marking is consistent with a marking on another North Korean-built torpedo that the South obtained earlier,” Yoon said.

South Korea found a light torpedo in 2003 in the waters west of the peninsula. That torpedo was marked with the numeral four and the Korean character “ho,” meaning “unit.”

“A North Korean-manufactured torpedo that carried a 250-kilogram warhead is confirmed to be responsible for the explosion,” Yoon said. “The underwater explosion, only six to nine meters below the ship, caused a bubble jet shock wave that tore the Cheonan in two.”

According to the team, the piece was found by civilian fishing boats cooperating in the evidence collection operation by using special nets. The military asked fishermen to support the operation in order to exploit their knowledge of the area.

After finding the “smoking gun” on Saturday, the investigators thoroughly examined and analyzed the piece. The marking appeared to be handwritten, and Army Brig. Gen. Yun Jong-seong, head of the scientific investigation bureau of the joint probe, said an analysis of the ink, although it will take time, may further reinforce the team’s conclusions.

“No country [other than North Korea] marks a torpedo component with a Korean letter,” General Hwang added.

The experts also based their conclusions on evidence collected from the site of the sinking, the hull of the salvaged ship, postmortem examinations of the dead sailors, seismic waves, simulation of underwater explosions and currents near the sinking site, Professor Yoon said.

Madgrenade
24th May 10, 12:15 PM
No link I'm afraid. He was some talking head who breifly appeared on one of the many news channels on Sky. But it does beg the question- What does North Korea have to gain from sinking a Southern ship (apart from lulz). If it was the North then all it does is give the South a kick up the arse and they all scramble to develop their anti sub. Thus you lose your advantage for the time you may actually need it, i.e full scale war. There's no profit in sinking one patrol boat. Seems a bit silly to me.

Keith
24th May 10, 10:06 PM
No link I'm afraid. He was some talking head who breifly appeared on one of the many news channels on Sky. But it does beg the question- What does North Korea have to gain from sinking a Southern ship (apart from lulz). If it was the North then all it does is give the South a kick up the arse and they all scramble to develop their anti sub. Thus you lose your advantage for the time you may actually need it, i.e full scale war. There's no profit in sinking one patrol boat. Seems a bit silly to me.

Probably this:


North Korea's leaders probably WANT war. They would know they are fucked and its probably some 'guns blazing' visionary nonsense.

Who else has a motive? There's only 3 other countries in that area: Japan, China and Russia. China seriously does not want to deal with the ass-load of refugees that will come swarming across the boarder. Japan knows that if war starts there's a definite possibility that a wayward, possible nuclear, missile would come their way. Russia doesn't really give a shit.

The most plausible explanation is that dear leader got his panties in a bunch and needed to cause some drama to make him forget for a little while longer just how inadequately small his penis is.

BadUglyMagic
24th May 10, 11:14 PM
More importantly, what is the NK leadership saying about the incident or broadcasting internally.


International aid (cheap or free loans) or some kind of special trade status or goods would be a benefit to the NK leadership.


Another way to look at the incident would be to repeat: "This is a test, this is only a test. In the event of an actual eruption of conflict, Seoul would have been melted to its foundations. This is only a test."

Hidden Ronin
25th May 10, 04:52 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but why is Seoul in danger? How can S.K not protect it's capital from these barbarians?

Cullion
25th May 10, 05:06 AM
The North Koreans apparently have a massive line of heavy artillery on their side of the DMZ aimed at South Korean cities, and have done for decades.

Kein Haar
25th May 10, 06:18 AM
That south korean ship was loaded with kimchi.

This is war.

Hidden Ronin
25th May 10, 06:24 AM
The North Koreans apparently have a massive line of heavy artillery on their side of the DMZ aimed at South Korean cities, and have done for decades.

As much as we don't need another war, I can't help but think we need a country like North Korea kicking around even less the more I read crap like this.
Sometimes I wish we'd just take the plunge and glass the whole damn wasteland that lies north of the DMZ.

Arhetton
25th May 10, 07:03 AM
I would tolerate the death of many Australians before signing a declaration of war, especially considering it would likely drag other third parties in because of strategic alliances and interests. Anyone who wouldn't consider the peaceful resolution to a potential conflict is a poor leader. War is harmful to soldiers & their families, civilians, it causes inflation etc.

88 Australians died in 2002 in a bomb attack and basically nothing was done about it. We're not about to go to war with 150 million Indonesians over an attack like that.

The Korean situation is not like the isolated USA sending its soldiers to the far off sands. Its more like the conflicts in Europe where millions of civilians suffered and died along with soldiers in the conflicts.

Like you said Cullion, these countries are so close they can bombard each other from their entrenched positions.

There is all sorts of middle ground to be occupied here. Who says it has to lead to a fully fledged war and not some naval skirmish to control a small amount of territory. Who says the involved submarine attack wasn't acting independently of its command as a rouge?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
25th May 10, 07:07 AM
As much as we don't need another war, I can't help but think we need a country like North Korea kicking around even less the more I read crap like this.
Sometimes I wish we'd just take the plunge and glass the whole damn wasteland that lies north of the DMZ.

North Korea needs to or thinks they need to do this to prevent themselves from getting steamrolled like Iraq. They're not doing it out of megalomania.

Cullion
25th May 10, 07:08 AM
I would tolerate the death of many Australians before signing a declaration of war

How many?

Would you be willing to sacrifice, say, one cruise liner every few years ?

Arhetton
25th May 10, 07:19 AM
The hypothesized death of 2000 Australians every few (4-7?) years?

Attacks from China? yes.

From Indonesia? no.

Its about consequences. Would we retaliate, tit for tat, escalate, declare all out war? Who would be our allies? What are we willing to lose? What do we want to gain from the conflict? etc.

Cullion
25th May 10, 07:22 AM
How about if you let China take out a few thousand every few years, and then some smaller countries just each started taking a few hundred every year. Because, y'know Australia's scared of escalating things.

There's a cost attached too being to willing to appease as well you know. Ask Neville Chamberlain.

jubei33
25th May 10, 07:44 AM
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/jubei33/FPnewsNKorea5252010a.jpg

News here today in Japan says that S. Korea wants an apology and punishment for those responsible and they're discontinuing trade and relations with them. Will Refer the problem to UN security council. Will exercise right of self defense.

N. Korea replied that they will retaliate if the south starts up their 'propaganda machine'.

Arhetton
25th May 10, 07:51 AM
Scared is hardly a word I would use to describe the average Australian.

Now why don't you go and masturbate in front of a fresco of your former empire.

Kein Haar
25th May 10, 07:58 AM
The average Australian thinks a "wog" getting capped with a "glock 9" is "awesome".

Cullion
25th May 10, 08:13 AM
Scared is hardly a word I would use to describe the average Australian.

No, the average Australian isn't as much of a clueless pussy as you.



Now why don't you go and masturbate in front of a fresco of your former empire.

Ooh yeah.

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Prince+William+Visits+Australia+Day+2+ZcMR7SJNbtWl .jpg

Was it good for you?

Arhetton
25th May 10, 09:48 AM
Here's an idea of the shit I look at in my spare time

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg/800px-PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/MV-22B_combat_radius_in_Iraq_compared_with_CH-46E_combat_radius.JPG

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/f35/f16-f35-f22.jpg

I might have some gaps in my knowledge or experience Cullion, and nobody is perfect. But I know where I will be when world war III starts. Flying that one in the middle as an officer.

Cullion
25th May 10, 09:52 AM
Expect some time in the middle east then, flying over countries that haven't attacked you at all.

What a strange career choice for somebody who doesn't think any kind of armed response would be necessary if a foreign power actually sank one of your ships close to home.

Arhetton
25th May 10, 09:55 AM
I meant the F35 Cullion.

The other images just quickly outline military concepts I think about. Like ballistic missile range and operational capacity of different hardware. The second image is of the v22 osprey operational range compared to a traditional chopper.

Arhetton
25th May 10, 10:05 AM
What a strange career choice for somebody who doesn't think any kind of armed response would be necessary if a foreign power actually sank one of your ships close to home.

It's not a choice, it is an option that is open to me, one I have thought carefully.

You are exaggerating my original argument which is that to escalate and declare war over a small loss of life should be a cautious decision balanced by the military consequences of any action.

You seem to be concerned with school-boy tactics of 'if the kid hits you, hit him back harder' which seems simplistic to me. It is far too simplistic for a nation like Australia which is not a major world power, only a minor regional one. We have to balance diplomacy with militarism and have done so quite successfully I think.

Cullion
25th May 10, 10:07 AM
You really believe that the F-35 won't be used overseas, or wouldn't be used against a power that sunk one of your country's ships ?

You really think Australia wouldn't consider sinking one of its naval vessels by a named country worthy of any kind of armed response ?

Arhetton
25th May 10, 10:13 AM
I'm not a pacifist.

I would fight and kill my nations enemies.

I would not however, immediately react to an issue SUCH AS THIS ONE WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE THREAD with a military response. It is not justified.

Costs outweigh benefits.

You seemed to ask what I thought would be justified, which is the other side of the coin.

When do the benefits of war outweigh the costs? When victory is possible, likely certain, when the cause is worthy etc.

Cullion
25th May 10, 10:14 AM
The benefits outweigh the costs when you're trying to deter people from launching direct and lethal attacks on your own military in your own waters. If you start letting people do that, you may as well not have a military.

Arhetton
25th May 10, 10:25 AM
So what do you think is the appropriate response Cullion?

To kill 46 north korean sailors? or 47? or more (escalation - how many?) To sink the offending vessel? To declare war against the entire nation? To destroy a port, a city? What? how much retaliation and of what kind? And what would be the likely consequence of that retaliation?

Fact of the matter is that direct and lethal attacks can be launched from hundreds of kilometers away now with missiles and aircraft. Submarines can move largely undetected and attack ships behind enemy lines. This has been the case since the cold war started.

Cullion
25th May 10, 10:29 AM
I think they should talk to China and get agreement to have the north korean leadership deposed. That would be the first thing I wanted to try.

Scrapper
25th May 10, 10:54 AM
Attacking another country's military is an act of war. South Korea is exercising great restraint and strategic forethought here, but I don;t think they are going to let this slide. North Korea just made an overt act of war, and regimes have been toppled for far less.

If Kim stays in power in the North, there will be open war within the next few years between the Koreas. China would be wise to stay the fuck out of it for many reasons, not the least of which is how hopelessly intertwined their economy is with the US. Neither the US or China has an economy that needs to take another major hit right now; so I suspect Beijing is going to strongly discourage any more shenanigans from Kim. Whether or not he listens is another story.

I have no idea how this is going to play out, but everyone is going to blame the US for whatever happens, anyway.

BadUglyMagic
25th May 10, 11:29 AM
The hypothesized death of 2000 Australians every few (4-7?) years?

Attacks from China? yes.

From Indonesia? no.

Its about consequences. Would we retaliate, tit for tat, escalate, declare all out war? Who would be our allies? What are we willing to lose? What do we want to gain from the conflict? etc.



China has billions of people. The death of a few millions is nothing to it as a country.

China will one day be the world's number 1 economic and military superpowersimply because of its cultural and racial ethics. (yes, the word ethics is used correctly)

North Korea has been compared to a parody of a science fiction movie where everyone bows to the leader or loses their head. The leaders live in plush first world surroundings and the "peasants" live in a plush third world workers paradise cpmlete with crumbling buildings, poor water, and low quality food.

It has all the reasons Iraq was invaded for. The difference is that it is currently able to effectively retaliate.

And many US politicians suck at the teat of Chinese commerce.

BadUglyMagic
25th May 10, 11:38 AM
Attacking another country's military is an act of war. South Korea is exercising great restraint and strategic forethought here, but I don;t think they are going to let this slide. North Korea just made an overt act of war, and regimes have been toppled for far less.

If Kim stays in power in the North, there will be open war within the next few years between the Koreas. China would be wise to stay the fuck out of it for many reasons, not the least of which is how hopelessly intertwined their economy is with the US. Neither the US or China has an economy that needs to take another major hit right now; so I suspect Beijing is going to strongly discourage any more shenanigans from Kim. Whether or not he listens is another story.

I have no idea how this is going to play out, but everyone is going to blame the US for whatever happens, anyway.


It may be, then again it may not.

Kim will stay in power until he is deposed or dies. It is unlikely that SK will invade given that NK is an adherent of MAD.

China is the major player is SEA and is said to provide life support for the NK regime. If NK has done something, China probably knew about if beforehand and gave some kind of approval.

Ajamil
25th May 10, 04:01 PM
At least this time we're pretty damn certain they have WMDs.

jubei33
25th May 10, 04:03 PM
or that NK's saber rattling pushes more regional influence onto China as people look to them to help solve the problem. In japan, there is already public opinion in favor of building closer ties to China at the expense of ties to the US, but luckily not with this current government. These usually come up in relation to the US military bases in Japan.

Cullion
25th May 10, 04:36 PM
I think they're getting tired of you raping the shit out of okinawan school girls and not sharing the pics.

elipson
25th May 10, 08:56 PM
You know, after 50 years of peace, you'd think South Korea would be able to steam roll NK.

Think about it for a second.

You've got 50 years of pretty much unhindered economic aid from the USA, Europe, and big parts of Asia. On top of that you have a military alliance with the most advanced military in the world, which at the very least would allow to purchase unlimited quantities of their best (or nearly best) weapons systems.

You would think an economy buying nothing but Abrahms tanks, Cruise missiles and f-16's would able to wipe out an organized military armed with AK-47's, RPG-7's and obsolete Russian or Chinese tanks.

I really DON'T want to underestimate the North Korean military, but it just seems so counter-intuitive to me. How is it possible that NK can keep up with South Korea militarily? Forced conscription aside, the technology gap is growing larger as years go by.


And I know NK has enough artilery within range of Seoul to make it into a steaming crater, but wouldn't SK counter with its own overwhelming artillery positions that should have, by now, been placed within range to give effective counter-fire?

HappyOldGuy
25th May 10, 09:09 PM
You know, after 50 years of peace, you'd think South Korea would be able to steam roll NK.

Think about it for a second.

You've got 50 years of pretty much unhindered economic aid from the USA, Europe, and big parts of Asia. On top of that you have a military alliance with the most advanced military in the world, which at the very least would allow to purchase unlimited quantities of their best (or nearly best) weapons systems.

You would think an economy buying nothing but Abrahms tanks, Cruise missiles and f-16's would able to wipe out an organized military armed with AK-47's, RPG-7's and obsolete Russian or Chinese tanks.

I really DON'T want to underestimate the North Korean military, but it just seems so counter-intuitive to me. How is it possible that NK can keep up with South Korea militarily? Forced conscription aside, the technology gap is growing larger as years go by.


And I know NK has enough artilery within range of Seoul to make it into a steaming crater, but wouldn't SK counter with its own overwhelming artillery positions that should have, by now, been placed within range to give effective counter-fire?

Counter fire on what? What exactly are you going to target in NK? The north korean artillery is in dug in positions that are immune to anything other than nukes. And most of the rest of the country doesn't have anything worth spending shells on.

I think you young pups are having a tough time understanding the concept of MAD.

elipson
25th May 10, 10:12 PM
Please explain how the concept of MAD applies to artillery duels.

And as for the artillery being dug in, well that's just information I didn't have. Don't get all high and mighty here now.

HappyOldGuy
25th May 10, 10:18 PM
This isn't about artillery duels. This is about a city of 10 million people being flattened in hours.

Hence the mutually assured destruction. South Korea can wipe the floor with the north one on one, but the north can guarantee that any victory costs more than it possibly gains.

BadUglyMagic
25th May 10, 11:54 PM
^ That. Also remember that for the most part the subjects of NK have been indoctrinated/propagandized for a number of generations. Imagine the personal and cultural schizophrenia that would emerge after the ruling class was removed and the people were self-enabled and told to become self-determining. Re-integrate NK into SK? Not for the current three living generations.



Note too, at least for now that lines of commerce, communication and economic cooperation remain open and in effect. War or further military operations are unlikely.

jubei33
26th May 10, 04:08 AM
I think they're getting tired of you raping the shit out of okinawan school girls and not sharing the pics.
Dude, your package is in the mail! Just keep your pants on, geez

Arhetton
26th May 10, 08:52 PM
You know, after 50 years of peace, you'd think South Korea would be able to steam roll NK.

Think about it for a second.

You've got 50 years of pretty much unhindered economic aid from the USA, Europe, and big parts of Asia. On top of that you have a military alliance with the most advanced military in the world, which at the very least would allow to purchase unlimited quantities of their best (or nearly best) weapons systems.

You would think an economy buying nothing but Abrahms tanks, Cruise missiles and f-16's would able to wipe out an organized military armed with AK-47's, RPG-7's and obsolete Russian or Chinese tanks.

I really DON'T want to underestimate the North Korean military, but it just seems so counter-intuitive to me. How is it possible that NK can keep up with South Korea militarily? Forced conscription aside, the technology gap is growing larger as years go by.


And I know NK has enough artilery within range of Seoul to make it into a steaming crater, but wouldn't SK counter with its own overwhelming artillery positions that should have, by now, been placed within range to give effective counter-fire?

Just as easy as the most advanced army in the world occupying an ill equipped middle eastern nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_Army

They look better equipped than Iraq was.


I think you young pups are having a tough time understanding the concept of MAD.

I do. But apparently I'm a 'clueless pussy' for wanting to maintain the peace.

Cullion
27th May 10, 02:11 AM
Just as easy as the most advanced army in the world occupying an ill equipped middle eastern nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_Army

They look better equipped than Iraq was.

The difference here would be that the South Koreans have in depth cultural understanding and family ties here. If it comes to war between the north and the south, we won't be talking about confused western troops who don't speak the language wandering around Pyongyang.



I do. But apparently I'm a 'clueless pussy' for wanting to maintain the peace.

Yes, yes you are. You don't seem to understand that the peace is already broken. 'meh I don't care if you sink my naval vessels' is no sane way of maintaining any kind of peace, it's simply a way of ensuring that it happens again.

elipson
27th May 10, 02:14 AM
The US defeated the army of Iraq quite easily, twice.

Beating a countrys military is different than occupying that country.

Arhetton
27th May 10, 03:27 AM
The US defeated the army of Iraq quite easily, twice.

Beating a countrys military is different than occupying that country

If you think one would not require the other in this case that would be pretty surprising. It would probably be less of a clusterfuck than iraq but who is to say. The cost nevertheless remains, very high.

Cullion
27th May 10, 04:11 AM
The South Korean army would occupy north korea. Some of the soldiers would be able to see relatives they'd been cut off from for decades. I think it would be different.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th May 10, 06:05 AM
The South Korean army would occupy north korea. Some of the soldiers would be able to see relatives they'd been cut off from for decades. I think it would be different.

Assuming SK wins of course.

Cullion
27th May 10, 06:19 AM
Yes, that is the assumption everything else rests on.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
27th May 10, 06:20 AM
For some reason NK always reminds me Jones Town.

Kein Haar
27th May 10, 02:54 PM
Oh, you've been?

Cullion
27th May 10, 06:23 PM
Oh you've been?

Kein Haar
27th May 10, 07:03 PM
I did a report on it in high school.

Truculent Sheep
27th May 10, 07:04 PM
North Korea's response to this was 'You better not do shit, or we will give you total war! you want total war?'

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

E-YoY60BRsc

Truculent Sheep
27th May 10, 07:13 PM
China will one day be the world's number 1 economic and military superpowersimply because of its cultural and racial ethics. (yes, the word ethics is used correctly)

BOLLOCKS.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/06/business/fi-china-old6

Any punch-up over the 38th parallel will not be a pretty sight either. The Norks are actually serious:

http://www.slate.com/id/2243112

Cullion
27th May 10, 07:20 PM
As a long term strategy I suggest sending the Norks Mike Oldfield albums, out of date D & D rulebooks and hashish.

HappyOldGuy
27th May 10, 07:57 PM
As a long term strategy I suggest sending the Norks Mike Oldfield albums, out of date D & D rulebooks and hashish.
They're onto your clever notions.

Hence the ban on record players and oreos.

Vieux Normand
28th May 10, 10:37 AM
It has all the reasons Iraq was invaded for.

NK has oil?

As for WMD, their troops can do that combination bunny-hop-goose-step without knocking those oversized cold-war-era peaked caps off their noggins.

Be vewwy afwaid...

BadUglyMagic
28th May 10, 10:40 AM
BOLLOCKS.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/06/business/fi-china-old6



Wow. You used an article from the latimes. The article might have greater or some relevancy if china's population were somewhat less than its billions.

Ajamil
28th May 10, 12:35 PM
So you didn't have any counters to the claims in the article, I take it?



[Bachelor Zhu Zi Ran] spends about $200 out of his $250 monthly pension to stay at the retirement home.
"I have to save the rest because my health is not good," Zhu, 67, said. "The only thing I spend money on is cigarettes. I'm not that addicted, so I only smoke half a pack a day." I like him. He's crazy.

BadUglyMagic
28th May 10, 01:39 PM
So you didn't have any counters to the claims in the article, I take it?

I like him. He's crazy.


No counters are needed. It is a form of population control.

Truculent Sheep
28th May 10, 02:14 PM
Wow. You used an article from the latimes.

And?


The article might have greater or some relevancy if china's population were somewhat less than its billions.

Of old people who will eventually cripple the country.


No counters are needed. It is a form of population control.

Don't tell me you take that Malthusian claptrap at face value, pu-leeeez...

DerAuslander108
29th May 10, 04:07 PM
How many more South Koreans should die whilst they're waiting ?

You need to shut the fuck up.

Cullion
29th May 10, 06:35 PM
You need to shut the fuck up.

Make me.

Go on. Make me.

HappyOldGuy
29th May 10, 07:13 PM
Make me.

Go on. Make me.


He would if you didn't have 15,000 artillery pieces dug into mountain caves 40 miles from his capital.

Plus maybe nukes.

Cullion
29th May 10, 07:21 PM
That's a capitalist lie. Cullionovia is of peace. Always.

BadUglyMagic
1st June 10, 03:05 PM
And?



Of old people who will eventually cripple the country.



Don't tell me you take that Malthusian claptrap at face value, pu-leeeez...



Help us out. Explain how it is Malthusian and specifically how it is claptrap. Plus bonus points for explaining why and how it is wrong.