<!--quoteo(post=1810826:date=Nov 26 2010, 03:49 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Nov 26 2010, 03:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1810826"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well the US is required by treaty to defend South Korea should the North invade and the North would have invaded by now if they thought they could get away with it.
So yeah, the US takes interest in Korea for a reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're obliged to by treaty. Is there any real reason for them to otherwise though? That's what I can't help thinking.
<!--quoteo(post=1811029:date=Nov 26 2010, 10:20 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Nov 26 2010, 10:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811029"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They're obliged to by treaty. Is there any real reason for them to otherwise though? That's what I can't help thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As stated you can not ignore your treaties so lightly but more importantly South Korea is an ally and trade partner, would you really want to just stand back and do nothing as a friendly and highly developed country gets taken over by an insane dictator so that it may be turning into a starving third world state?
There'd be nothing to gain and everything to lose from letting North Korea conquer South Korea. Not to mention it's sort of unfair to the south koreans.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1811363:date=Nov 28 2010, 03:59 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 28 2010, 03:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There'd be nothing to gain and everything to lose from letting North Korea conquer South Korea. Not to mention it's sort of unfair to the south koreans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's unfair to the North Koreans, too.
When was the last time they won something or did well, as a nation? Come on! Let them have something worthwhile go their way for once.
From what I understand, every time the rest of the world sends some kind of aid to NK, the government explains it to the people as "tribute" because everyone is so stunned by the sheer awesomeness of North Korea. Seems like things are going their way all the time.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
There are a hell of a lot of other insanely important reasons to keep SK going.
They're the home of the world's largest conglomerate(Samsung), are the 15th biggest economy-by-nation on earth. They're strategically important as one of our closest allies in the region, and for stupidly obvious reasons they're important to watch both NK and China with.
And whether anyone likes it or not, we are playing world cop. Whether we're doing it particularly well or not(we're not) is irrelevant; We're trying.
This is a BFD in every sense of the phrase. If SK falls, we're looking at insanely huge economic fallout, not to mention nearly a trillion dollars in GDP readily seized by a nation hostile to nearly every First World nation on the planet. And when that happens, you better bet people start caring, significantly, about North Korea- they could pull a China by illegally modifying their currency values while simultaneously tugging the leash on the entire Asian market, which would only exacerbate both human rights problems in all of Asia as well as economic problems across the world.
Also: If folks sincerely believe that China is behind this, I'd be pretty surprised. China is an economic superpower and just reached 2nd place in that fight. They DO have a vested interest in telling NK to stfu and play ball, but that train left the station decades ago.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1811407:date=Nov 28 2010, 07:20 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 28 2010, 07:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811407"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From what I understand, every time the rest of the world sends some kind of aid to NK, the government explains it to the people as "tribute" because everyone is so stunned by the sheer awesomeness of North Korea. Seems like things are going their way all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Things are going Kim Jong-Il's way. Things are going the NK government's way. Things are not going the NK people's way, at all. At least if they took South Korea they'd have access to computers and Starcraft.
Seriously though, nothing will happen. And even if it does happen, North Korea will lose. The only real ally they have is China, and China is not willing to get into an armed conflict with South Korea (and thus, the US and *it's* allies) over North Korea because they're not worth it.
From my armchair position, I'd say it's internal leadership struggles. NK basically operates on Kim Jong-Il's father's cult of personality. It translated to Kim Jong-Il himself <i>somewhat</i> well (it's basically still his father's carrying on by sheer momentum). It won't translate to <i>his</i> son's very well, and the other powers in the NK government know it, so there are groups and individuals within the NK government and outside of the Kim family who are making their own moves. Which is going to cause general hassle, I suppose.
Anyway, the next few years should be interesting as hell. North Korea is an interesting place to begin with, and it's going to become more so.
Taking a cue from their southern neighbours' gaming heritage, couldn't we just supply block the North? That threat should be enough to make a tiny island (half) country come to their senses.
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!
<!--quoteo(post=1811491:date=Nov 29 2010, 12:57 AM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Nov 29 2010, 12:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Taking a cue from their southern neighbours' gaming heritage, couldn't we just supply block the North? That threat should be enough to make a tiny island (half) country come to their senses.
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KJI has stated that it would only take 30% of the population surviving to rebuild the nation. Starving them out would come at horrific humanitarian costs.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
edited November 2010
To those that don't understand why military action against NK isn't much of an option - the North has the largest conventional artillery force <i>in the world</i>. Seoul is so close to the border to be within firing range of those big guns. If the US/SK/Japan try to do anything about NK, NK nerfs the South's capital <i>to the ground</i>. Add in the potential for artillery or rocket delivered nuclear weapons and war simply isn't an option.
As an aside, I can't help but worry about the GSL. <i>TEAM LIQUID HWAITING</i>
This ain't ending pretty. No matter how you look at it this will end in war sooner or later. Specially at a time where they are in the process of "electing" a new leader.
I honestly hope they'll get their ###### straightened out so they can join the rest of the world, with you know... the modern times. Electricity and stuff...
When I heard about China getting in on the action I couldn't help but think WW3 either. Those massive armies of the North are worrying, they gather countless people as far as your eye could see just to show off to their leader; Others are starving and yet an army seems to be the main force for its funds.
I like the South alot, but I wouldn't mind North getting crushed by a war. It's really getting ugly, isn't the US & SK army going to fight back as a deterrance: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Lee, who will make a televised speech on the crisis at 10am (1200 AEDT) on Monday, has come under pressure to take a tougher line after his military's counter-fire last week was seen as feeble." "The United States insists that the drill is defensive in nature and was planned long before the attack, but says it is intended to send a message of deterrence to the North." "It is led by the USS George Washington, which can carry about 75 aircraft on its 1.8-hectare flight deck and has a crew of 5500."!?!?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some serious stuff is going on. Can't help but think if the US has ever had a peaceful time in history since WW2. I believe the US is more interested then crushing communism/nuclear weapons, than helping the South. Because 1 little island with small damage (in scale to a super city) seems petty to want to start a war over.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1811594:date=Nov 29 2010, 01:22 AM:name=Narfwak)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Narfwak @ Nov 29 2010, 01:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811594"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To those that don't understand why military action against NK isn't much of an option - the North has the largest conventional artillery force <i>in the world</i>. Seoul is so close to the border to be within firing range of those big guns. If the US/SK/Japan try to do anything about NK, NK nerfs the South's capital <i>to the ground</i>. Add in the potential for artillery or rocket delivered nuclear weapons and war simply isn't an option.
As an aside, I can't help but worry about the GSL. <i>TEAM LIQUID HWAITING</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This, pretty much. If they weren't so close to South Korea, they wouldn't be a problem. They've got a hell of a lot of weapons and a *huge* army for such a small country (fourth largest in the world; highest military membership per 1000 people in the world), but they really couldn't support an ongoing war. Plus, like I said earlier, the chances of any other nation coming to their aid in a war is pretty slim because, frankly, they're not worth it. Probably not.
What they <i>could</i> do, though, is totally ruin South Korea's ###### in the opening stages, if they so chose. They'd lose in the end but they'd do a lot of harm.
Probably nothing will come of it, though. North Korea may be insane but it is controlled by some disturbingly sane people. Whatever you think of Kim Jong-Il and any other leadership elements in NK, they're fantastic at staying in charge. And even they know that war could only have one possible outcome.
What I could imagine in case of another korean war is the NK leadership fleeing to China, setting up a government in exile, and trolling international politics for a few decades.
However, I'm not quite so certain that North Korea would lose a war. No wait, that's not quite it. I'm not quite certain that North Korea would lose a war in a way that topples the regime. We all pretty much agree that South Korea would have the U.S. on its side, and probably some others. But what can they offer? The U.S. isn't "using" much of its navy right now, so they could probably spare a few carrier groups, and a few carrier groups sitting off the coast would raise hell in North Korea. The problem is, who's going to invade? The U.S. army is tied up in Afghanistan, and I believe much of it hasn't been fully pulled out of Iraq yet. From there they'd have to redeploy to the other side of the planet. That's going to take a while. Navy and air force can beat the enemy into the ground, but only the army can actually occupy enemy territory and end the war, and I doubt the U.S. or its western allies have the ability to do that right now.
That leaves us with South Korea. Now, SK wouldn't have to beat NK in a "fair fight," they'd have massive support from the U.S. navy and perhaps air force as well. But would they have the troops to invade? I don't know. Maybe weakening the NK's public image of invulnerability would be enough to effect an internal coup, but that is just as likely to merely install a different military dictatorship than the one they currently have.
So the question is, can the NK regime be toppled, and toppled in a way that "frees" the country, without an invasion? And if not, who's going to invade?
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1811626:date=Nov 28 2010, 06:36 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 28 2010, 06:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I could imagine in case of another korean war is the NK leadership fleeing to China, setting up a government in exile, and trolling international politics for a few decades.
However, I'm not quite so certain that North Korea would lose a war. No wait, that's not quite it. I'm not quite certain that North Korea would lose a war in a way that topples the regime. We all pretty much agree that South Korea would have the U.S. on its side, and probably some others. But what can they offer? The U.S. isn't "using" much of its navy right now, so they could probably spare a few carrier groups, and a few carrier groups sitting off the coast would raise hell in North Korea. The problem is, who's going to invade? The U.S. army is tied up in Afghanistan, and I believe much of it hasn't been fully pulled out of Iraq yet. From there they'd have to redeploy to the other side of the planet. That's going to take a while. Navy and air force can beat the enemy into the ground, but only the army can actually occupy enemy territory and end the war, and I doubt the U.S. or its western allies have the ability to do that right now.
That leaves us with South Korea. Now, SK wouldn't have to beat NK in a "fair fight," they'd have massive support from the U.S. navy and perhaps air force as well. But would they have the troops to invade? I don't know. Maybe weakening the NK's public image of invulnerability would be enough to effect an internal coup, but that is just as likely to merely install a different military dictatorship than the one they currently have.
So the question is, can the NK regime be toppled, and toppled in a way that "frees" the country, without an invasion? And if not, who's going to invade?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you seriously think the USA wouldn't move ###### Mount Everest to save SK, you're kidding yourself. Getting our army from Afghanistan to SK would take maybe two weeks at best. The <i>entire</i> thing.
The USA could definitely invade. Now, 'free'ing NK is functionally impossible. The people there are worse than 1940s Japan- a nuke wouldn't even stop them. They'd march into the fire singing Aegukka.
<!--quoteo(post=1811633:date=Nov 29 2010, 05:23 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quaunaut @ Nov 29 2010, 05:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811633"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Getting our army from Afghanistan to SK would take maybe two weeks at best. The <i>entire</i> thing.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I should probably respond more in-depth to this, but that's patently ridiculous.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1811642:date=Nov 28 2010, 08:49 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 28 2010, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811642"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I should probably respond more in-depth to this, but that's patently ridiculous.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The military figures I've heard for getting every last American troop out of the middle east ASAP in case of emergency is a week and a half. We have means; We don't spend stupid amounts of money on our military for nothing.
Supply block them? Dude war isn't that simple... there is also a great deal of politics involved, in which if we "supply blocked" them, that would not only disrupt NK, but also powerful countries like Russian and especially China, and piss people off. Also the only way we could do that is if we invaded NK and cut off the peninsula from the main land.
<!--quoteo(post=1811626:date=Nov 28 2010, 08:36 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Nov 28 2010, 08:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->From there they'd have to redeploy to the other side of the planet. That's going to take a while. Navy and air force can beat the enemy into the ground, but only the army can actually occupy enemy territory and end the war, and I doubt the U.S. or its western allies have the ability to do that right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Faster then you may think.
Launching a full scale war under ideal circumstances would involve a few months of staging and preparation but if NK attacked the US could still activate a small Army of various Army and Marine units kept on standby for 24 deployment anywhere in the world. Plus the nearly 30,000 troops the US already has in South Korea and a Marine Expeditionary Unit in Japan.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I think we all agree that NK couldn't invade SK as long as the U.S. doesn't allow it. What I'm talking about is the reverse, an invasion of NK. That's going to take some serious manpower no matter which way you slice it. *
Or would it? It's conceivable that the NK army would suffer from mass desertions when it becomes apparent that the war isn't going their way. The NK regime has cultivated an image based on invincibility, and that seems to work well for them considering nobody is doing much to challenge it. But once that image cracks, who knows what could happen?
Quaunaut: As for the "people" of 1940s Japan, those you refer to weren't the people, they were the elite. The people just wanted the war to end, because Japan was slowly starving to death. It was the leadership who refused surrender. The NK people are brainwashed, but on a fragile basis consisting of cult of personality, perception of invincibility, and lack of contact with the rest of the world. That can be changed.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* And even if possible, pulling everything out of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW is just not an option. Do you seriously see that happening? I don't.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
If NK really tried to invade SK US troops would not just push them back to the DMZ (unless there are political reasons) they would push into NK and dismantlement their military. Even if there were only 50,000ish troops it may not be the blitzkrieg style charge like Iraq was but there is still a huge difference in capability between the US and NK military.
As for securing NK even under ideal circumstances I am not so sure the US would attempt to occupy it, not when you could have the South do it, it would be better in the long run for the reunification of the country.
There will be no invasion, of South <i>or</i> North Korea.
First off, <i>nobody</i> can cross the DMZ. It is a series of minefields on top of minefields on top of minefields, with a gazillion artillery guns and weapon emplacements from each sides pointed at it. There is zero chance of a conventional invasion via the DMZ, which consequently means there is zero chance of North Korea invading South Korea, unless they've got an invisible navy that can break the US blockade and deploy a meaningful number of troops the other side of the line.
What they can do, as mentioned, is shell the crap out of Seoul. No-one really knows what NK's long-ranged artillery is capable of, but best estimates suggest they have at least <i>some</i> artillery that can hit Seoul. The moment the U.S or SK try to launch any kind of large-scale attack, Seoul is in trouble.
For that reason, this is going to be largely an artillery vs artillery, missiles vs missiles affair. It seems very unlikely that ground troops are even going to be involved.
If it actually got to the point where an invasion was starting to look desirable, wouldn't amphibious assault be an option? Land troops on beaches, secure airstrips north of DMZ, start flying troops in? If SK and its allies really wanted to invade, why would they have to slog across the DMZ?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
NK has pretty good anti-air coverage and I imagine they're well aware of the possibilities of beach landings.
Trying to assault NK would be very hard, kinda like trying to attack Japan at the end of WW2. Or at least the theories about attacking Japan in WW2.
Could probably still be done, though. Hell, I'm sure a lot of people in the US military have been idly planning attacks on NK in the same way I plan for zombie attacks.
<!--quoteo(post=1811924:date=Nov 30 2010, 05:09 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Nov 30 2010, 05:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->same way I plan for zombie attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Fall over, 2) Can't get up, 3) Get eaten.
I feel safer now that I know stickman has everything worked out. I'm sure his corpse would distract at least a dozen zombies long enough for me to make my escape.
Who knows how many they have but North Korean tunnels have been found under the DMZ big enough to fit a tanks through and I would not be very surprised if they would be willing to have conscripts charge the mine fields to clear the way for regular infantry and armor.
<!--quoteo(post=1811491:date=Nov 28 2010, 05:57 PM:name=sherpa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sherpa @ Nov 28 2010, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1811491"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Taking a cue from their southern neighbours' gaming heritage, couldn't we just supply block the North? That threat should be enough to make a tiny island (half) country come to their senses.
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because <a href="http://kotaku.com/5700983/south-korean-politician-on-korean-crisis-this-isnt-starcraft" target="_blank">Korean Crisis "Is Not Starcraft"</a>
Comments
So yeah, the US takes interest in Korea for a reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're obliged to by treaty. Is there any real reason for them to otherwise though? That's what I can't help thinking.
Also America has to defend truth freedom and democracy everywhere in the world or something.
As stated you can not ignore your treaties so lightly but more importantly South Korea is an ally and trade partner, would you really want to just stand back and do nothing as a friendly and highly developed country gets taken over by an insane dictator so that it may be turning into a starving third world state?
If you would your a terrible person.
It's unfair to the North Koreans, too.
When was the last time they won something or did well, as a nation? Come on! Let them have something worthwhile go their way for once.
They're the home of the world's largest conglomerate(Samsung), are the 15th biggest economy-by-nation on earth. They're strategically important as one of our closest allies in the region, and for stupidly obvious reasons they're important to watch both NK and China with.
And whether anyone likes it or not, we are playing world cop. Whether we're doing it particularly well or not(we're not) is irrelevant; We're trying.
This is a BFD in every sense of the phrase. If SK falls, we're looking at insanely huge economic fallout, not to mention nearly a trillion dollars in GDP readily seized by a nation hostile to nearly every First World nation on the planet. And when that happens, you better bet people start caring, significantly, about North Korea- they could pull a China by illegally modifying their currency values while simultaneously tugging the leash on the entire Asian market, which would only exacerbate both human rights problems in all of Asia as well as economic problems across the world.
Also: If folks sincerely believe that China is behind this, I'd be pretty surprised. China is an economic superpower and just reached 2nd place in that fight. They DO have a vested interest in telling NK to stfu and play ball, but that train left the station decades ago.
Things are going Kim Jong-Il's way. Things are going the NK government's way. Things are not going the NK people's way, at all. At least if they took South Korea they'd have access to computers and Starcraft.
Seriously though, nothing will happen. And even if it does happen, North Korea will lose. The only real ally they have is China, and China is not willing to get into an armed conflict with South Korea (and thus, the US and *it's* allies) over North Korea because they're not worth it.
From my armchair position, I'd say it's internal leadership struggles. NK basically operates on Kim Jong-Il's father's cult of personality. It translated to Kim Jong-Il himself <i>somewhat</i> well (it's basically still his father's carrying on by sheer momentum). It won't translate to <i>his</i> son's very well, and the other powers in the NK government know it, so there are groups and individuals within the NK government and outside of the Kim family who are making their own moves. Which is going to cause general hassle, I suppose.
Anyway, the next few years should be interesting as hell. North Korea is an interesting place to begin with, and it's going to become more so.
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KJI has stated that it would only take 30% of the population surviving to rebuild the nation. Starving them out would come at horrific humanitarian costs.
--Scythe--
As an aside, I can't help but worry about the GSL. <i>TEAM LIQUID HWAITING</i>
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><i>italics!</i><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I honestly hope they'll get their ###### straightened out so they can join the rest of the world, with you know... the modern times. Electricity and stuff...
I like the South alot, but I wouldn't mind North getting crushed by a war. It's really getting ugly, isn't the US & SK army going to fight back as a deterrance:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Lee, who will make a televised speech on the crisis at 10am (1200 AEDT) on Monday, has come under pressure to take a tougher line after his military's counter-fire last week was seen as feeble."
"The United States insists that the drill is defensive in nature and was planned long before the attack, but says it is intended to send a message of deterrence to the North."
"It is led by the USS George Washington, which can carry about 75 aircraft on its 1.8-hectare flight deck and has a crew of 5500."!?!?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some serious stuff is going on. Can't help but think if the US has ever had a peaceful time in history since WW2. I believe the US is more interested then crushing communism/nuclear weapons, than helping the South. Because 1 little island with small damage (in scale to a super city) seems petty to want to start a war over.
As an aside, I can't help but worry about the GSL. <i>TEAM LIQUID HWAITING</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This, pretty much. If they weren't so close to South Korea, they wouldn't be a problem. They've got a hell of a lot of weapons and a *huge* army for such a small country (fourth largest in the world; highest military membership per 1000 people in the world), but they really couldn't support an ongoing war. Plus, like I said earlier, the chances of any other nation coming to their aid in a war is pretty slim because, frankly, they're not worth it. Probably not.
What they <i>could</i> do, though, is totally ruin South Korea's ###### in the opening stages, if they so chose. They'd lose in the end but they'd do a lot of harm.
Probably nothing will come of it, though. North Korea may be insane but it is controlled by some disturbingly sane people. Whatever you think of Kim Jong-Il and any other leadership elements in NK, they're fantastic at staying in charge. And even they know that war could only have one possible outcome.
However, I'm not quite so certain that North Korea would lose a war. No wait, that's not quite it. I'm not quite certain that North Korea would lose a war in a way that topples the regime. We all pretty much agree that South Korea would have the U.S. on its side, and probably some others. But what can they offer? The U.S. isn't "using" much of its navy right now, so they could probably spare a few carrier groups, and a few carrier groups sitting off the coast would raise hell in North Korea. The problem is, who's going to invade?
The U.S. army is tied up in Afghanistan, and I believe much of it hasn't been fully pulled out of Iraq yet. From there they'd have to redeploy to the other side of the planet. That's going to take a while. Navy and air force can beat the enemy into the ground, but only the army can actually occupy enemy territory and end the war, and I doubt the U.S. or its western allies have the ability to do that right now.
That leaves us with South Korea. Now, SK wouldn't have to beat NK in a "fair fight," they'd have massive support from the U.S. navy and perhaps air force as well. But would they have the troops to invade? I don't know. Maybe weakening the NK's public image of invulnerability would be enough to effect an internal coup, but that is just as likely to merely install a different military dictatorship than the one they currently have.
So the question is, can the NK regime be toppled, and toppled in a way that "frees" the country, without an invasion? And if not, who's going to invade?
However, I'm not quite so certain that North Korea would lose a war. No wait, that's not quite it. I'm not quite certain that North Korea would lose a war in a way that topples the regime. We all pretty much agree that South Korea would have the U.S. on its side, and probably some others. But what can they offer? The U.S. isn't "using" much of its navy right now, so they could probably spare a few carrier groups, and a few carrier groups sitting off the coast would raise hell in North Korea. The problem is, who's going to invade?
The U.S. army is tied up in Afghanistan, and I believe much of it hasn't been fully pulled out of Iraq yet. From there they'd have to redeploy to the other side of the planet. That's going to take a while. Navy and air force can beat the enemy into the ground, but only the army can actually occupy enemy territory and end the war, and I doubt the U.S. or its western allies have the ability to do that right now.
That leaves us with South Korea. Now, SK wouldn't have to beat NK in a "fair fight," they'd have massive support from the U.S. navy and perhaps air force as well. But would they have the troops to invade? I don't know. Maybe weakening the NK's public image of invulnerability would be enough to effect an internal coup, but that is just as likely to merely install a different military dictatorship than the one they currently have.
So the question is, can the NK regime be toppled, and toppled in a way that "frees" the country, without an invasion? And if not, who's going to invade?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you seriously think the USA wouldn't move ###### Mount Everest to save SK, you're kidding yourself. Getting our army from Afghanistan to SK would take maybe two weeks at best. The <i>entire</i> thing.
The USA could definitely invade. Now, 'free'ing NK is functionally impossible. The people there are worse than 1940s Japan- a nuke wouldn't even stop them. They'd march into the fire singing Aegukka.
I know I should probably respond more in-depth to this, but that's patently ridiculous.
The military figures I've heard for getting every last American troop out of the middle east ASAP in case of emergency is a week and a half. We have means; We don't spend stupid amounts of money on our military for nothing.
Faster then you may think.
Launching a full scale war under ideal circumstances would involve a few months of staging and preparation but if NK attacked the US could still activate a small Army of various Army and Marine units kept on standby for 24 deployment anywhere in the world. Plus the nearly 30,000 troops the US already has in South Korea and a Marine Expeditionary Unit in Japan.
Or would it? It's conceivable that the NK army would suffer from mass desertions when it becomes apparent that the war isn't going their way. The NK regime has cultivated an image based on invincibility, and that seems to work well for them considering nobody is doing much to challenge it. But once that image cracks, who knows what could happen?
Quaunaut: As for the "people" of 1940s Japan, those you refer to weren't the people, they were the elite. The people just wanted the war to end, because Japan was slowly starving to death. It was the leadership who refused surrender. The NK people are brainwashed, but on a fragile basis consisting of cult of personality, perception of invincibility, and lack of contact with the rest of the world. That can be changed.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->* And even if possible, pulling everything out of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW is just not an option. Do you seriously see that happening? I don't.<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
As for securing NK even under ideal circumstances I am not so sure the US would attempt to occupy it, not when you could have the South do it, it would be better in the long run for the reunification of the country.
First off, <i>nobody</i> can cross the DMZ. It is a series of minefields on top of minefields on top of minefields, with a gazillion artillery guns and weapon emplacements from each sides pointed at it. There is zero chance of a conventional invasion via the DMZ, which consequently means there is zero chance of North Korea invading South Korea, unless they've got an invisible navy that can break the US blockade and deploy a meaningful number of troops the other side of the line.
What they can do, as mentioned, is shell the crap out of Seoul. No-one really knows what NK's long-ranged artillery is capable of, but best estimates suggest they have at least <i>some</i> artillery that can hit Seoul. The moment the U.S or SK try to launch any kind of large-scale attack, Seoul is in trouble.
For that reason, this is going to be largely an artillery vs artillery, missiles vs missiles affair. It seems very unlikely that ground troops are even going to be involved.
Trying to assault NK would be very hard, kinda like trying to attack Japan at the end of WW2. Or at least the theories about attacking Japan in WW2.
Could probably still be done, though. Hell, I'm sure a lot of people in the US military have been idly planning attacks on NK in the same way I plan for zombie attacks.
1) Fall over,
2) Can't get up,
3) Get eaten.
I feel safer now that I know stickman has everything worked out. I'm sure his corpse would distract at least a dozen zombies long enough for me to make my escape.
--Scythe--
Assuming that N. Korea don't have a good navy, then isn't their only threat to the world ICBM nunkes launched from their land? And don't we have Star Wars-esque programs to take them out? Not that I'm saying nukes are an insignifcant threat!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because <a href="http://kotaku.com/5700983/south-korean-politician-on-korean-crisis-this-isnt-starcraft" target="_blank">Korean Crisis "Is Not Starcraft"</a>