Gawain 0 #1 May 20, 2010 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/19/skorean-president-vows-stern-action-nkorea-sinking-warship/ The shit is hitting the fan over there. Today it was announced that it was a North Korean (Chinese built) torpedo that sunk the South Korean Navy ship. Response? So far, it sounds like a lot of "heated talk"...vows to take "swift and decisive measures" and "condemnation of such an act"... I know ROK has a difficult situation to measure. Seoul is well within rocket artillery range of DPRK on their side of the DMZ. Now that DPRK has nukes (deployed to any extent we don't know), what do we do. Unfortunately, I think the time for talking is over. China is not helping (either by direct counter-action or inaction). Do we just give up? I say the answer is no. I just hope that ROK chooses a stronger answer than I know we (the US) will. Everyone is worried about starting a war. My response is: 1. We did not start a war; 2. We are still technically at war; 3. If they are taking direct action already, then a de facto state of war already exists. What do you think?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 May 20, 2010 QuoteIf they are taking direct action already, then a de facto state of war already exists. Am I nuts or was peace never declared?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf they are taking direct action already, then a de facto state of war already exists. Am I nuts or was peace never declared? ROK never signed the armistice that the other participants did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 May 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteIf they are taking direct action already, then a de facto state of war already exists. Am I nuts or was peace never declared? The 1953 agreement is a cease fire, a truce, not a peace treaty or declaration of any end of hostilities.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #5 May 20, 2010 Quote http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/19/skorean-president-vows-stern-action-nkorea-sinking-warship/ The shit is hitting the fan over there. Today it was announced that it was a North Korean (Chinese built) torpedo that sunk the South Korean Navy ship. Response? So far, it sounds like a lot of "heated talk"...vows to take "swift and decisive measures" and "condemnation of such an act"... What do you think? Should we put forth further influence and have more of the world turn against us for doing the right thing again? Nope - bring home our troops - all of them. It's time we let the world police its self. Lets reduce the budget considerably, break thhe military down to about 20% of what it is and just defend our own borders. Recall all our loans and stop foriegn aid to everyone. Let em beat each other up - why should we send our troops in to get hurt and killed? I think we should follow NK's example and unilaterally withdrawl from every where. That way no one can say that the US is bad for sending troops in. They would probably be all upset then if we didn't though. edit: stray apostrophy needed to be eliminatedI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #6 May 20, 2010 you forgot to add "and start paying off the loans the US owes"-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #7 May 20, 2010 He's trying not to use emoticons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #8 May 20, 2010 i say we send some mid-level administration guy over there to apologize for arizona's new immigration law. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 May 20, 2010 Quotei say we send some mid-level administration guy over there to apologize for arizona's new immigration law. They could then sort the whole problem out by playing ROK, Paper, Scissors..... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 303 #10 May 20, 2010 technically speaking, we were NEVER at war. It was a UN police action that the US backed when Truman sent troops there. Did Congress ever pass a real 'declaration of war'? Either way - another problem we do not need to solve in the world. stay the fuck out of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #11 May 20, 2010 We need to engage in conversation with the North Koreans. Remember that's what Clinton did and things were great. We gave them food and oil and they stoped making nukes and hostile acts towards SK.Then Bush came along and called them part of the Axis of Evil, and decided not to talk unless thru the party of six. Bush the cowboy turned our relationship with the NK's to shit.China is the stinking turd in this situation. North Korea is just the fart. Remember it was the Chinese we were fighting at the cease fire. Paragraphs one and two are sarcasm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #12 May 20, 2010 Quote China is the stinking turd in this situation. North Korea is just the fart. probably a pretty accurate description "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 May 20, 2010 Quoteyou forgot to add "and start paying off the loans the US owes" You are absolutely right - that is a necessity!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 May 20, 2010 This is not good. If there was merely conventional warfare, NoKo could sweep across the DMZ and take Seoul in 72 hours. They've got a million crazy fools on the DMZ with loads of equipment and weapons who would rather be killed in combat than executed by their superiors. There are few good options with this. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #15 May 20, 2010 Remember the Maine? Sorry; I meant: Remember the Maine!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #16 May 21, 2010 QuoteThis is not good. If there was merely conventional warfare, NoKo could sweep across the DMZ and take Seoul in 72 hours. They've got a million crazy fools on the DMZ with loads of equipment and weapons who would rather be killed in combat than executed by their superiors. There are few good options with this. That's assuming their army wouldn't starve to death in 72 hours and that the ROK army didn't blast every pass across the DMZ. I still believe the biggest threat to Seoul is all the artillery that's pointed at them. DPRK doesn't need to use a nuke to take out the city...several hundred salvos of conventional might do the trick.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 May 21, 2010 Right. I still think that conventional war means NoKo kicks serious ass. They've also got plenty of chemical munitions and are nuts enough to use them, too. Ground forces are there to slow the advance enough to evacuate key personnel from Seoul... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #18 May 21, 2010 I doubt China would let North Korea go crazy. There is too much at stake, and there's no better way to screw up economic growth (which China is still experiencing, close to double digits) than a regional war. In addition, neither China nor the ROK want to see a total collapse of the DPRK, as it would mean 20 some million mostly uneducated and unqualified people pouring over the border in a mass exodus, which would make the BRD/DDR merger of 20 years ago look like a picnic party. The status quo serves China and other countries in terms of geopolitical wrangling, but it is highly unlikely China would let anything bad happen. They'd probably remove Kim Jr rather than allow him to go war with the ROK. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,485 #19 May 21, 2010 Do you think China really has that much control over the DPRK and Kim Jong IL? (Honest question, I don't know the answer) I know they think he's had a stroke, so he may not be completely rational. The DPRK is also dealing with the horrible fallout of the revaluation of the currency they tried a little while ago. He may have decided that provoking a war is a better option than letting the economy disintegrate and face a genuine revolt."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #20 May 21, 2010 QuoteDo you think China really has that much control over the DPRK and Kim Jong IL? (Honest question, I don't know the answer) The PLA has a pretty large fairly modern air force. it wouldn't be that big of a deal for them to seal the passes and suppress the arty in range of Seoul. Demonstrating that to NK, would probably be enough to keep the NK generals honest. What I'd really like to know is who fired the shot and why. I supect that this whole crisis is because some poorly-trained commander put his ship in a position where an over-eager, under educated rating had the opportunitty to accidentally push the button. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #21 May 21, 2010 China probably has the power to let him rot by cutting off all aid, which would in turn mean the end of Kim's regime. Or simply to cool things off between the protagonists so the status quo remains. I think China wouldn't mind seeing his regime gone, but would like to see a transitional change, not a sudden one (and I reckon the ROK will concur with that approach). And a friendly new regime of course... Unless he has nothing to lose AT ALL, I don't see Kim going to war. He wouldn't survive a defeat. He could probably obliterate parts of the ROK on sheer fire power alone, but then what? He would lose in the long run, as his army is still mostly a bunch of peasants in uniforms, and the ROK is much better prepared and equipped (and has powerful allies). His army has very little lasting power. And Kim's regime can only survive in a state of "cold war", therefore he has to keep things tense enough without crossing the line... For these reasons, I don't see China allowing a war to happen. Neither will the ROK. And neither will Japan, as they would have to side with the ROK, but know that China wouldn't mind finding an excuse to point few missiles at Tokyo for payback of what happened in the 1930's and 1940's. So it would be a huge cluster fuck for everyone involved (not to mention the US), so I reckon no one will let it get that bad. The ROK's response to the sinking of their ship is pretty telling. Besides, there is already some positioning happening within the DPRK to succeed Kim, and I reckon that's where the Chinese are going to be very active (being closed doors that is). "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #22 May 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteThis is not good. If there was merely conventional warfare, NoKo could sweep across the DMZ and take Seoul in 72 hours. They've got a million crazy fools on the DMZ with loads of equipment and weapons who would rather be killed in combat than executed by their superiors. There are few good options with this. That's assuming their army wouldn't starve to death in 72 hours and that the ROK army didn't blast every pass across the DMZ. I still believe the biggest threat to Seoul is all the artillery that's pointed at them. DPRK doesn't need to use a nuke to take out the city...several hundred salvos of conventional might do the trick. I tend to agree with this. The ROK won't go with military retaliation because even though they'd "win' in the long run, Seoul (and their economy) would almost assuredly be fucked. If, on the other hand, the DPRK decided to come across the border, I think they'd make some quick advances for about 72 hours but would then stall out. They'd be pushed back over the DMZ within a couple months and the DPRK would probably completely collapse shortly thereafter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #23 May 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThis is not good. If there was merely conventional warfare, NoKo could sweep across the DMZ and take Seoul in 72 hours. They've got a million crazy fools on the DMZ with loads of equipment and weapons who would rather be killed in combat than executed by their superiors. There are few good options with this. That's assuming their army wouldn't starve to death in 72 hours and that the ROK army didn't blast every pass across the DMZ. I still believe the biggest threat to Seoul is all the artillery that's pointed at them. DPRK doesn't need to use a nuke to take out the city...several hundred salvos of conventional might do the trick. I tend to agree with this. The ROK won't go with military retaliation because even though they'd "win' in the long run, Seoul (and their economy) would almost assuredly be fucked. If, on the other hand, the DPRK decided to come across the border, I think they'd make some quick advances for about 72 hours but would then stall out. They'd be pushed back over the DMZ within a couple months and the DPRK would probably completely collapse shortly thereafter. As much as everyone is worried about a DPRK collapse, in the end, I truly think we need to be ready for a collapse regardless. South Korea needs to have their plans at the ready if DPRK implodes so that they can fill the gap/void quickly, and keeps China at an arm's length.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #24 May 21, 2010 QuoteAs much as everyone is worried about a DPRK collapse, in the end, I truly think we need to be ready for a collapse regardless. South Korea needs to have their plans at the ready if DPRK implodes so that they can fill the gap/void quickly, and keeps China at an arm's length. If the DPRK collapses, I don't think China would tolerate being kept at arm's length. It's very much China's immediate back yard, as well as their long-term investment in blood and treasure; and they've got the power (military and economic) to stand their ground. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #25 May 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteAs much as everyone is worried about a DPRK collapse, in the end, I truly think we need to be ready for a collapse regardless. South Korea needs to have their plans at the ready if DPRK implodes so that they can fill the gap/void quickly, and keeps China at an arm's length. If the DPRK collapses, I don't think China would tolerate being kept at arm's length. It's very much China's immediate back yard, as well as their long-term investment in blood and treasure; and they've got the power (military and economic) to stand their ground. All the more reason for ROK to be on the ready. Why they would accept anything other than reunification if DPRK collapses is something the world should support. DPRK is nothing more than a crumple zone for China. If China can live with Taiwan off its coast, then they can live with a unified Korea. The long term economic benefits would good for China too. Of course, walking on egg-shells with Kim Jong-Il won't help...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites