2009-04-17, 19:55 | Link #41 | |
Every word must conjure
|
Quote:
Probably there's such a mess regarding North Korea now because there's a merging of two different but related issues: how the "foreign" world should react to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and how to handle a civilian population largely held captive by the state. One possible way to deal with North Korea's nuclear ambitions might probably simply to ignore their leader's showboating. It seems quite obvious that he enjoys making the watching world anxious by either pulling out of Six-party talks, or firing a warhead every few months or so. Maybe he just wants attention? An interesting note is that the present North Korea situation intensified while the U.S was making overtures to Iran, the "other state with nuclear ambitions". There are several proponents of this foreign policy (ignore, instead of engage), including this guy who an editorial to a local paper. While the argument for ignoring Mr Kim (and the reasons why) sound quite rational, they ultimately don't solve the 2nd aspect of the North Korea issue which, unfortunately, is more social than political.
__________________
|
|
2009-04-17, 20:01 | Link #42 |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 31
|
Nothing can really stop North Korea from getting nukes at this point, I think/ They've been swaying to and fro over the last ten years with regards to the nuclear reactor issue, and most likely they've spent that time making their nukes (and missiles)work as well. We can pressure the DPRK all we want, but they don't really care since most of the world already sees them in the darkest of lights anyhow. The only way, short of war, to prevent NK from getting nukes, is for China to clearly and loudly threaten Kim-Jong Il. Everyone says that "China doesn't want North Korea to have nukes" or "China finds North Korea embarrassing," which do hold some truth, but if that were entirely the case, China would be cutting off all materials to that nation and making clear threats. IMO China wants to give the impression that it is undecided, because it does not want to anger the 1st World nations it does business with, but at the same time it finds North Korea to be a nice buffer state/ally.
tl;dr: North Korea will get a nuke b/cuz it doesn't care what the USA says and the only country that does matter to it, China, isn't going to say anything because they're allies. |
2009-04-17, 20:32 | Link #43 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-04-18, 00:58 | Link #45 | |
The Owl of Minerva
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
China did have pretty good relationship with NK during maybe Mao Zedong's era, to the extent that Mao mobilized millions of PLA and his own son to fight for NK. But by the time of Deng Xiaoping, the billateral relationship, at the very core, has already deterioated a lot. In the 80s, Deng made a trip Pyongyang. Seeing the Chinese financial aid got used on extravagant buildings and statures for promoting cult worship of Kim, but little was done on real infrastructures and economic development, he literally lectured the then DPRK leader, Kim II-Sung, on the spot. Since then, Pyongyang got bitter with Beijing, and China has significantly cut down the aid. At the same time, the improvement of trade volume between China and the world has rendered its relationship with NK largely obsolete. Kim Jong-II, who succeeded his father, continued to criticize Deng's "revisionism" of the socialist system. It was not until the 2000s that he retracted his statement and started praising "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," create a (failed) carbon copy of the capitalistic Shenzhen, and made a few visits to Beijing to repair the relationship. Still, from time to time, Kim tries his age-old attention-grabbing techniques like blocking Chinese tourists. To China, currently she cares little about the Kim administration at the very core. The only reason that it continues to prop up DPRK despite of all the embarassment and fiscal pain is that the collapse of DPRK and the reunification of Korea may mean the following. And at the moment there is no viable substitute to Kim. - Millions of refugees getting across the border - US army stationing right at the Chinese border - The reconstruction bill Rumours are that Beijing has a few backup plans in case the DPRK collapses, like setting up a puppet government there by supporting certain military generals to organize a coup and seize control, but without military intervention and bill paying. Pyongyang also understand Beijing's stance on the issue, and probably does not dare to make real moves to embarass/provoke Beijing. But it also has to from time to time remind the world of its presence and assert its "military pwness", because any sign that it is painlessly replaceable is a kiss of death to its survival. EDIT (out-of-topic): Has anyone gone to NK for a trip btw and how's that? Somehow I really want to grab the last chance to see the world's last socialist state before it collapses or reforms itself . But the cost of going to Pyongyang once is equivalent to going to Akihabara 4-5 times... Last edited by Doraneko; 2009-04-18 at 01:20. |
|
2009-04-18, 01:40 | Link #46 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Anyway, my point is that cutting off aid would either make N. Korea do one of two things: either collapse or go to war. And since it wouldn't even be able win such a war, the outcome is inevitably the same. If we were to go to war with N. Korea (again), there would be no stalemate this time around. We would definitely win, hands-down.
__________________
|
|
2009-04-18, 01:43 | Link #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Suburban DC
|
My Kissinger-esque realist classmate also proposes straight containment of the DPRK. I disagree with China's middling around on the issue (due to objectively important geo-politcal worries) but Russia escapes me. What is their relationship to the DPRK, and is the Kremlin just waving that veto power around just to strut their stuff?
|
2009-04-18, 01:50 | Link #48 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-04-18, 15:06 | Link #49 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I will elaborate when asked. It seems quite obvious how the battleplan might pull out of all sides.
__________________
|
|
2009-04-18, 15:50 | Link #51 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-04-18, 16:40 | Link #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
2009-04-18, 22:52 | Link #53 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
Then his quote should not be taken so literally. B52 was used since Vietnam War and will still in service till 2040. However, remember how few video footage are enough to trigger the vanishing all those B52+500,000 troops+supports into thin air (out of the country actually),and by the time it finished, the war fought for more than 10 years, ended within few months. Similar here. In modern warfare, a mistake is cost by thousands lives. And if US ever make one and by some crazy chance NK can exploit that (even with heavy cost) + good uses of propaganda, the war may be considered as ended(or for US at least)
__________________
Last edited by risingstar3110; 2009-04-19 at 10:12. |
|
2009-04-19, 10:18 | Link #54 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Yes I also included artillery missiles like the Scud and FROG SRBMS. With chemical warheads they can prove to be fatal. Besides it isn't just about the size of the gun, it is also about the chamber reaction and the shell that allows it to reach its desired range.One example would be ST Kinetics' Pegasus 155mm Howitzer. it is lightweight and small yet it can throw a shell over 30 kilometers when others of its caliber could only do half its distance (e.g - US's M114 155mm Howtizer has a max range of 14.6km). Most artillery use jet-assisted shells to hit longer distances, and the payload is pretty free-for-all, could be high explosive, chemical, thermobaric, etc. Another thing is that Korean is not a signee of the submunitions treaty, which means that they can use beehive rounds to shred people to pieces.
__________________
|
|
2009-04-19, 15:45 | Link #55 | |||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for using chemical weapons, that's a great way to get a bad end for the North. The US may consider using nukes in response. North Korea's chemical sites are going to be high proprity targets too, so unless they use them quickly, they might not get a chance to at all. Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2009-04-19, 16:22 | Link #57 | |||
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumgang-san_Tourist_Region I am not sure if this is still going on. Quote:
And if there was a war, which I wanted never to happen as it will damage the economy of SK through the aftermath effect, I want China, Russia, and Japan to stay out. The only country that should have influence after the war should be SK and little from US just because of the strong economic relationship between SK and the US.
__________________
|
|||
2009-04-19, 19:57 | Link #58 | ||
The Owl of Minerva
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
One of my friends who has been to both places found Pyongyang much more interesting. Kumgangsan is basically a natural resort; and you can find much better ones across Asia and Europe. A bit of info on non-Kumgangsan NK tours: http://www.seenorthkorea.com/ http://axisofeviltour.com/nk-trip1.htm http://www.travelpod.com/blogs/0/Kor...Pyongyang.html Sorry to talk so much on NK tours when the topic is the crisis related to it . Quote:
It may be a good idea to think from Russia, China and Japan's point of view. Hypothetically, if Cuba got rampant and Russia sent troops over there, even if the US was told/threatened to "stay out", you wouldn't expect her to gladly sit and watch either, would you? The whole issue is so complicated and involves so many stakeholders is the very reason why the talks involve six parties, instead of merely two or three. P.S. even from the view of trade instead of geopolitics, US is still not the only influential side either: SK major trading partners: China, U.S., Japan, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia (2004). NK major trading partners: China, South Korea, Japan, Thailand (2004). Last edited by Doraneko; 2009-04-19 at 20:41. |
||
2009-04-19, 20:31 | Link #59 | |
Ha ha ha ha ha...
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Right behind you.
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The South Koreans themselves, with UN support, could defeat North Korea. Maybe not easily, but they could eventually. The reason they haven't is because it would be long and bloody. North Korea is basically alone, unless China decided to get involved. I seriously doubt the North Koreans would be able to sustain a prolonged conflict given their limited food and natural resources. I mean, I would say they're barely getting by now and WE'RE GIVING THEM AID. If a war were to start, they wouldn't be able to last simply because they would have massive food shortages.
__________________
|
|
2009-04-19, 20:48 | Link #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|