AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-05-28, 08:26   Link #2741
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 28
The thing is: Would the South be willing to risk all they have for this fight? The unification of Korea would be a great thing for future generations, but at what price?
__________________
Those from the lower levels cannot hope to surpass those from the upper.

RIP, Oba-chan (1935-2008)
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:29   Link #2742
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
The thing is: Would the South be willing to risk all they have for this fight? The unification of Korea would be a great thing for future generations, but at what price?
The situation's simple: Either constantly pay this thug a "comparatively" meager sum to pacify him, or risk a much larger sum so that they don't need to pacify them no more. Unification is out of the question. It's one nation looking after its own now.

Thing is, they have the muscle. do the have the balls?
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:37   Link #2743
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 28
If a war is fought, it would be for unification. The destruction of the N.Korean communist party is probably the only way to permanent peace. The Chinese are also fed up over this "ally" of theirs.

Like I said, everything will be on the table. The US/S.Korean alliance would do well to inform China beforehand, so that the Chinese would be able to stop N. Koreans from flooding the border. If the Chinese could be assured of future deals with the new Korea, we can expect a two front war, which could be the way to go.
__________________
Those from the lower levels cannot hope to surpass those from the upper.

RIP, Oba-chan (1935-2008)
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:37   Link #2744
KimmyChan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Diabetes diagnosed at 13 months -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8071624.stm
KimmyChan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:44   Link #2745
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
If a war is fought, it would be for unification. The destruction of the N.Korean communist party is probably the only way to permanent peace. The Chinese are also fed up over this "ally" of theirs.

.
Yes. Dealing with the devil (china) could help, but the aftermath will be a problem. North Korean civil society is built around the dear leader. When that rat's gone, they will have to be built from the ground up. The south will ultimately be unable to bear rehabilitating the North on its own. That's why unification is out. It's better to set up a temporary UN administration in any post-war North Korea.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:48   Link #2746
yezhanquan
Observer/Bookman wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 28
The choice is reunification, or Chinese intrusion into N.Korean territory. The nationalist backlash against China could hold this new old country together. They have been together longer than they have been apart.
__________________
Those from the lower levels cannot hope to surpass those from the upper.

RIP, Oba-chan (1935-2008)
yezhanquan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 08:52   Link #2747
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
The choice is reunification, or Chinese intrusion into N.Korean territory. The nationalist backlash against China could hold this new old country together. They have been together longer than they have been apart.
The disparity between the economies is too great for reunification. NK must be rebuilt as a separate entity before reunification is possible.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 09:01   Link #2748
KimmyChan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Hewlett Packard to cut 840 jobs -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/8071596.stm
KimmyChan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:21   Link #2749
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR THREAT / Should Japan possess an attack capability?

Quote:
Many of the 30 or so attendees at the meeting argued that the nation should possess an attack capability.

"It [an attack capability] should be stipulated in the guidelines, from the standpoint of securing a deterrent that meets [potential] threats," House of Councillors member Ichita Yamamoto said.

Before gaining the capability to attack enemy bases with cruise missiles and bombers, it would be necessary to boost the nation's intelligence-gathering abilities with hardware such as satellites, a process that would require time and money if the nation were to proceed alone.

However, upper house member Masahisa Sato, the panel's secretary general who was once a member of the Ground Self-Defense Force, said the change would be feasible if the United States supported Japan's aims and cooperated in achieving them.

"It wouldn't cost an extraordinary amount of money to mount cruise missiles on Aegis-equipped destroyers by upgrading the vessels [already in service]," Sato said.

According to the government's interpretation of the Constitution, it is currently only possible to strike an enemy base if no other self-defense alternative remains.

"Rather than waiting passively for death, possessing the capability [of attacking enemy bases] would work as a deterrent," said Gen Nakatani, chairman of the LDP Research Commission on Security.
Its about time...

There seems to be no other alternative to North Korea's nuclear threats as of now when taking a realistic approach to the issue.

Possessing nuclear bombs aren't necessary, however as that true military conflicts should never include nuclear weapons as that. Pre-emptive attacks had existed even before the Sengoku era, it has nothing to do with Bush and his copycat tactics.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:23   Link #2750
Circular Logic
土は幻に
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
True military conflicts should never include nuclear weapons as that.
Try telling that to the North Koreans when they're about to get bombed into the ground by American aircraft
Circular Logic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:32   Link #2751
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Anyway, who in his right mind would put up with one nation taking another hostage. Wtf is with threatening to flatten a foreign city because they don't like what their government doing? No one is obliged to provide the North with food and fuel so they better not impose.

The sunshine policy only took it too far. What did it achieve? Its time for bombshine policy.
Love the hypocritical humor.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:40   Link #2752
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Aso, Hatoyama fail to shine in debate



The good thing is that the two leaders seem to be having a good time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Logic View Post
Try telling that to the North Koreans when they're about to get bombed into the ground by American aircraft
Well...

Nations that use nukes during military conflicts are somewhat cheating as that they don't need careful strategic planning, tactics, military technology and fighting capability. All they do is launch some nuclear warheads or drop them off from typical jet fighters. The battle ends in minutes. Most unfortunately, nukes target civilians more than the military and this questions its existence in the first place as that it is in fact an inappropriate deterrent.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:54   Link #2753
Circular Logic
土は幻に
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Nations that use nukes during military conflicts are somewhat cheating as that they don't need careful strategic planning, tactics, military technology and fighting capability. All they do is launch some nuclear warheads or drop them off from typical jet fighters. The battle ends in minutes. Most unfortunately, nukes target civilians more than the military and this questions its existence in the first place as that it is in fact an inappropriate deterrent.
Of course it isn't an inappropriate deterrent, it's the most effective deterrent. Why spend millions and millions on soldiers and jets, when you can just make a few nuclear-armed missiles and be immune from military attack for evermore? You can hardly fault North Korea's reasoning.
Circular Logic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 14:59   Link #2754
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Logic View Post
Try telling that to the North Koreans when they're about to get bombed into the ground by American aircraft
Most of them would be wearing KPA uniforms, so it's moot. I have yet to hear that killing uniformed soldiers counts as a war crime.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 16:56   Link #2755
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Logic View Post
Of course it isn't an inappropriate deterrent, it's the most effective deterrent. Why spend millions and millions on soldiers and jets, when you can just make a few nuclear-armed missiles and be immune from military attack for evermore? You can hardly fault North Korea's reasoning.
Generally, you are implying that North Korea's nuclear activities are justified?

Through the formation of six-party talks, it is well-known that the involved five nations are to support North Korea financially and provide them with necessary technology to aid their survival if they were to abolish their nuclear complexes but instead.. They decided to build nukes and test missiles, for what purpose does it serve to perform hostile actions?

Its not that I can hardly fault North Korea's reasoning but that North Korea have absolutely no legitimate reasoning to begin with.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 16:58   Link #2756
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Logic View Post

Its not that I can hardly fault North Korea's reasoning but that North Korea have absolutely no legitimate reasoning to begin with.
That's infuriating enough, but what's more infuriating is that the "rational" nation-states are more than willing to put up with it (the unreason) . (i.e Sunshine Policy, food and fuel by the truckloads etc).
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 17:00   Link #2757
Circular Logic
土は幻に
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Generally, you are implying that North Korea's nuclear activities are justified?

Through the formation of six-party talks, it is well-known that the involved five nations are to support North Korea financially and provide them with necessary technology to aid their survival if they were to abolish their nuclear complexes but instead.. They decided to build nukes and test missiles, for what purpose does it serve to perform hostile actions?

Its not that I can hardly fault North Korea's reasoning but that North Korea have absolutely no legitimate reasoning to begin with.
I said they make sense, I never said they were justified.

If a paranoid state on the verge of collapse, convinced that its enemies are about to strike, wants to ward off any threat of military invasion, what better way than nuclear weapons?

Anyway, the blame for the collapse of the Agreed Framework lies partly with the US. The closest North Korea came to opening up was under Clinton.
Circular Logic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 18:17   Link #2758
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circular Logic View Post
I said they make sense, I never said they were justified.
That's a good one!

Quote:
If a paranoid state on the verge of collapse, convinced that its enemies are about to strike, wants to ward off any threat of military invasion, what better way than nuclear weapons?
Good question. So, nations without nukes are hopeless and won't be able to do anything but let the world decide? Makes no sense..

Not every paranoid state on the verge of collapse may possess nukes at the time of happening and in that case, what action will the leaders of those particular nations decide? First, they should keep their diplomatic channels open and prepare to engage to communication with their enemies as that most nations aside from a few peculiar ones (not going to point fingers) are always hoping to avoid needless bloodshed and thus, peace treaties are always formed whenever it is necessary. Most nations would never attack an enemy if they do not have the will to fight as it hurts the pride and honor of the attacker as if they are the villians even though it may not be the case. For that matter, a better method of deterrent to nukes would be diplomacy that involves peace treaties and cease-fire agreements.

Quote:
Anyway, the blame for the collapse of the Agreed Framework lies partly with the US. The closest North Korea came to opening up was under Clinton.
No, unless you are not very familiar with what's actually going on. Generally, North Korea sees this as their opportunity to make a move because their time is coming to an end as that there is no capable successors to their regime and the fact that China is rooting for them in the shadows make it more opportunitistic, not mentioning that the United States also have their share of problems to deal with:

1) they do not have enough troops as that too many of them are already deployed to the Middle East,

2) they do not have sufficient military fundings as that American citizens are already sick and tired of the Iraq War and they do not support or approve any further military conflicts that would harm the already collapsing American economy, and

3) with China acting as North Korea's main veto-wielder backer, the US would not want to offend this rival/enemy of theirs as that China is a nation to be feared because they have the guts to sacrifice those treasury debts of theirs to accomplish some long-term goals and if that's the case, the US economy will take a severe blow and the Americans will no longer be the leading nations in the world to maintain balance and order globally as that they won't be capable of doing so. More importantly, the United States cannot do anything in terms of coming up with a UNSC resolution that has "teeth" as long as one or more of veto-wielders don't support it, it will not get passed deeming their actions useless.

And thus, North Korea has one great opportunity to carry out their ambitions that consist of primarily a nuclear threat to the national security of Japan as that they are most likely to fire their missiles and nukes at Japan rather than any other nation. Chances are they will try to avoid hitting South Korea as that they would like to control the territory for themselves, gaining access to a large sum of cash flow; Korea Republic's economy is much greater than that of DPRK. Supposedly, North Korea would also attack the States but for now, they don't have the sufficient capability to do so with the exception of Hawaii as that is closest to their target range.

And thus, the blame of the agreed framework has nothing to do with any nation as that the agreed framework was trash to begin with; it was merely something China came up with to stall time which benefits everybody as that nobody want to be involved with a military conflict or sour bilateral ties with the problematic North Korea, yet at the same time.. Nobody wishes the collapse of their regime as that their citizens may end up as immigrants that feed on the economy of others. In other words, regardless of the administration or leadership of the United States, it does not matter when it comes to dealing with North Korea as that things are proceeding the way it should have been, no matter how you look at it even from different perspectives. North Korea's actions are most likely predicted and it happened just the right timing too.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 20:46   Link #2759
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
After the Civil War, the South was devastated and now everyone respects each other.

After WWII, those crazy Europeans become reasonable beings again.

Etc...

See: if the destruction is great enough, the aftermath is always brighter. Those yearn for hell mostly have no idea what hell is. Why not let them taste a bit of it? I bet a couple of nukes would bring those people to their sense. At this rate, the world is only trying to avoid the inevitable.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-28, 21:34   Link #2760
Terrestrial Dream
勇者
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
I thought that Pyongyang was the historical capital of Korea.
Well it was the capital of one of the three kingdom, Goguryeo, which was the strongest kingdom and controlled even Manchuria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
The thing is: Would the South be willing to risk all they have for this fight? The unification of Korea would be a great thing for future generations, but at what price?
I doubt we would risk a fight. Even if there is a unification there is still large chance that lot could go wrong, the potential of what it could be is great but shouldn't really be done through fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
After the Civil War, the South was devastated and now everyone respects each other

After WWII, those crazy Europeans become reasonable beings again.

Etc...

See: if the destruction is great enough, the aftermath is always brighter. Those yearn for hell mostly have no idea what hell is. Why not let them taste a bit of it? I bet a couple of nukes would bring those people to their sense. At this rate, the world is only trying to avoid the inevitable.
Yeah not a good idea.
__________________
Terrestrial Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.