North Korea vs South Korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Messy, Nov 23, 2010.

  1. Messy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #1
  2. stridemat Moderator

    stridemat

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Location:
    UK
  3. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #3
    Well no, absolutely not. If it does kick off, I see the use of Nukes, what with this event happening days after the news of the uranium enrichment plant, it doesn't bode well.

    South Korean Jets have apparently now been scrambled and are retaliating, associated press seems to confirm this.
     
  4. puma1552 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
  5. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #5
    hmmmm maybe the damn republicans balking at limiting the number of nukes isn't a bad idea, after all.
     
  6. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #6
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/9218848.stm

    Slightly more than a Skirmish tbh.

    India has mobilized additional troops to the Chinese border, Russia, UK and USA all condemning the attacks with Russia choosing not to comment whether they're mobilizing troops or not.
     
  7. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    I think they've finally gone too far TBH. There's a big difference between military and civilian targets in terms of how the world will respond. It'll be interesting to see if Beijing now distances itself. If they do they'll be US tanks in Pyongyang before Summer.
     
  8. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #8
    Interesting to note.

    While I appreciate that North Korea has stepped over the line, this report does go some way to explaining why the exchange has taken place.
     
  9. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #9
    Latest update.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    For "maritime territory" read "sea". Yeah, that completely justifies shelling a village full of civilians doesn't it? :rolleyes:
     
  11. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #11
    North Korea will continue to do this, simply because they know they can get away with it.

    They'll continue to push and push and push until someone presses the wrong button, and all hell lets lose.

    It has implications for the US, Russia, China, UK, India and beyond. One of the big deterrents at the moment, is the fact that N.Korea is Nuclear ready, and can deploy warheads if needed.

    They have a larger Army than the South, if it were simply a N vs S war then N would win.

    They'll continue to poke and prod and try and intimidate S Korea.
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    Not too sure about that. The last two Gulf Wars pretty much proved that a better equipped air force could easily overwhelm superior ground force numbers. North Korea does have Mig-19s and Mig-21s but the South has a large number of F-15s and F-16s even without US or Japanese assistance. There's also the problem for the North in that its army is constrained on the supply front through lack of materials, so its ability to keep up a sustained conflict is pretty much dependent on Chinese continued assistance.

    It comes down to whether those nuclear tests were real or not. If faked the North's advantage disappears.

    However, do we really want to put all this to the test? There would be a large number of deaths on both sides of the border. Certainly wouldn't be good for either nation.
     
  13. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #13
    Yea agree, there would be huge losses on each side, thousands.

    The North has a lot of ex Soviet hardware, most of which has been modernised. Whilt I do agree that Air Superiority would make a big different, the shear single mindedness that the North Koreans have will prove to be difficult to fight.

    In terms of pure numbers, N Korea have the upper hand. Thing is, when it comes to Nukes, N Korea will fire way before S Korea, and that could ultimately lead to who wins.

    The tests in 2006 and 2009 have been independently verified, the news earlier this week about their enrichment program and also how advanced the facility is does make the assumption that they are exploring other routes to create nuclear weapons.
     
  14. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #14
    I use the term 'wins' losely, ultimately there is no winner, if it gets to the point where fighting occurs, everyone loses.
     
  15. dXTC macrumors 68020

    dXTC

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Up, up in my studio, studio
    #15
    Agreed. If North Korea starts launching missiles, Seoul is toast-- its close proximity to the DMZ makes intercepting every North Korean missile impossible.
     
  16. darkplanets, Nov 23, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010

    darkplanets macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #16
    I guess I'll throw my two cents in: North Korea is playing on thin ice.

    They have one real ally in all of this, and that's only due to proximity (China). Iran, Venezuela, etc don't count; they're "allies" out of convenience since these are all blacklisted countries-- none of these countries can provide military support.

    That leaves us with China. China is in a precarious position themselves, they want to join the modern world and be engaged as a world leader, and benefit heavily from the trade. The US China trade, however you feel about it, is incredibly important to China's well-being, especially with other countries now clamping down on Chinese exports through tariffs, etc. This means that the US-China relationship needs to stand in order for their economic stability to remain-- any sudden change would have terrible effects on their economy. On the other hand, China also wants stability on it's Korean border, as I said before.

    This leads me to the following conclusions:

    1) If North Korea is the aggressor, China has no choice but to either stand aside, or join the international community in defending South Korea.

    2) If South Korea is the aggressor, China will likely side with North Korea, or remain neutral.

    3) If North Korea uses a nuclear weapon, regardless of the initial circumstances, China cannot align itself at all with North Korea due to the global political ramifications, and thus will either remain neutral or side with international pressure.

    With today's level of technology (read: satellite observation) China cannot get away with a Korean-war style of aid-- even if they simply pass supplies, and not troops, it will still be noticed, and thus political ramifications will ensue. This effectively binds China to the above outcomes.

    North Korea best be careful-- militarily they are no match for any country given their limited supply line; their own people are starving now and we aren't even in a period of conflict.

    As per the nukes; NK has good medium range ballistic missiles, but their long range ones are horrible-- they could only strike SK. We know they have plutonium weapons from their initial soviet style graphite moderated "research" reactor, as well as their new facility-- the IAEA inspectors back in the day noticed this and the post processing being done, and that was ~20 years ago. Provided they did detonate a weapon already (required for plutonium weapons), it means they're set. Given some calculations done by others based on the previous and current nuclear endeavors, I do believe I recall that NK should have between 1-10 nuclear weapons, depending upon size, style, and level of interest. As per uranium, it's been expected that they have been enriching uranium for some time now-- we don't have concrete proof but its very likely that they already have enough for a weapon; with that new facility it's likely we'll see more. The problem here is that they don't need to test these weapons.

    EDIT: Take the article for what you will, but here's a possible pontification that would tie uranium enrichment to North Korea.
     
  17. chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #17
    we should go to war now, but no we won't because we don't want another war so we will give in all while north korea develops nukes and continues building their army. Did we learn nothing from world war two and appeasement?
     
  18. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    The last thing the world needs is a conflict between minor countries pulling their far more powerful allies into the fray and causing far greater devastation. Did we learn nothing from world war one?
     
  20. Messy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    #20
    Just out of curiousity, when you say 'we' do you mean you are South Korean, or from another Country?

    Speaking from my point of view, coming from a Military family in the UK, I couldn't give a **** if the two Countries blew each other up, I don't think the British Military should be involved at all.
     
  21. chris200x9, Nov 23, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010

    chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #21
    right because north korea has so many allies :rolleyes:

    right because taking all of korea won't increase moral or boot mentaly ill's ego, he'll just stop there when he hates pretty much everyone. Also giving him more time to build nukes...

    edit: Also what a poor attitude, just think if no one cared about world affairs that didn't affect them you'd be speaking german right now
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    The one it has is enough IMO.
     
  23. chris200x9 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    #23
    Implying the have one. China won't do **** it'd kill their country if they did. They are nothing more than a fair weather friend.
     
  24. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #24
    Apparently not. If we did, there wouldn't have been the first Korean War or the Vietnam Conflict.

    I think he means the human race in general. Whatever happened to the old ways of conflict resolution? You know, the one where to two leader fought in single combat like during age of the Roman Empire. The winners army win, the dead guys army leaves. Let Mr "I shot 11 holes in one in my first game of golf" duke it out with the South Korean president. Young men dying at the whims of cowardly old men. No wonder the world is screwed up.:mad:
     
  25. darkplanets macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #25
    Or does it? Read my above post.
     

Share This Page