North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:46 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
torontoraptor wrote:So basically the only way we would attack NK is if they had already launched a large attack on SK?


Yes. Preemptive military strikes don't win you any friends in the international community, no matter who you're attacking, and if you win that will make controlling the aftermath very difficult. I would have hoped that recent history would have already made you aware of this. Starting wars is generally, and in this case specifically, a really bad idea.


But in this case we wouldn't be starting the war, NK started it by firing on civilians. Of course, that doesn't make a strategic strike against NK in order to make Seoul safe any easier.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Aetius » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

What would be the cost (in dollar terms) of pulling all civilians out of the range of NK's artillery and sacrificing the physical infrastructure of Seoul and other targets? Billions? Trillions? More? Is it even a feasible maneuver or would the mere act induce a preemptive NK attack before the evacuation is complete?

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Dark567 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:02 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:What would be the cost (in dollar terms) of pulling all civilians out of the range of NK's artillery and sacrificing the physical infrastructure of Seoul and other targets? Billions? Trillions? More? Is it even a feasible maneuver or would the mere act induce a preemptive NK attack before the evacuation is complete?

The entire economy of South Korea is ~$1.4 Trillion dollars. So its probably not in the trillions. Seoul's economy is about $300 Billion. Lets say you lose a week of production due to the pullout, $6 billion of production lost in Seoul, but that would probably have pretty catastrophic effects to the rest of the Korean economy, plus damage to the city and country. It would probably be in the tens of billions to the low end of the hundreds of billions. So I can give you something within 2 orders of magnitude?

tl;dr: Pulling numbers out of my ass.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
PhoenixEnigma
Posts: 2303
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:11 am UTC
Location: Sasquatchawan, Canada
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PhoenixEnigma » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:03 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:What would be the cost (in dollar terms) of pulling all civilians out of the range of NK's artillery and sacrificing the physical infrastructure of Seoul and other targets? Billions? Trillions? More? Is it even a feasible maneuver or would the mere act induce a preemptive NK attack before the evacuation is complete?
My understanding is that evacuating Seoul (and everything else in range, but Seoul is the largest and most important) would be understood by North Korea as a prelude to war and grounds for an attack. At any rate, it would also be highly destabilizing, in much the same way an effective missile shield would have been during the Cold War. North and South Korea are functionally playing the MAD game, and upsetting the balance is risky.

I don't actually imagine South Korea would attack, even if there were no repercussions, as they don't have anything to gain. I imagine N Korea is aware of this. However, the threat of wiping Seoul off the map is one of N Korea's stronger bargaining chips, and one they can't afford to lose. Bearing in mind N Korea can destroy a city much, much faster than S Korea can replace one, there's no practical way to move everyone regardless of cost.
"Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." -Elon Musk
Shivahn wrote:I am a motherfucking sorceror.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:39 pm UTC

Not to mention, much more importantly, it would be highly destabilizing to South Korea to lose their largest city, and have millions of homeless and jobless people milling about.

It's not an option.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:41 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
torontoraptor wrote:So basically the only way we would attack NK is if they had already launched a large attack on SK?


Yes. Preemptive military strikes don't win you any friends in the international community, no matter who you're attacking, and if you win that will make controlling the aftermath very difficult. I would have hoped that recent history would have already made you aware of this. Starting wars is generally, and in this case specifically, a really bad idea.


But in this case we wouldn't be starting the war, NK started it by firing on civilians. Of course, that doesn't make a strategic strike against NK in order to make Seoul safe any easier.

To the DPRK the war never ended. Obviously this is a significant escalation, but calling it the beginning of the war is both inaccurate and drawing a foregone conclusion that there has to be one at all. South Korea has already returned fire; with any luck North Korea will go home satisfied that they've thrown their weight around sufficiently and South Korea will know that MAD doesn't end well for either party.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Marbas » Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:48 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Marbas wrote:
What I don't understand is that South Korea seems so unprepared for these incidents.


My guess would be that any visible preparation would be met with more threats of artillery fire. But I too am curious about this.


The DMZ is the most heavily guarded zone on the planet (granted this is taking both sides into account). SK keeps half of their active military on the border. They run regular drills, as evidenced in this case (NK attacked the island due to drills, at least as an excuse). They are as prepared as they can be. There is only so much you can do to "prepare" against an enemy that has that many missiles, rockets, and artillery pointed at you. You don't honestly expect them to be able to shoot all those projectiles out of the air if KJI decides to use them, do you?



I...I thought all South Korean people were wizards!
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby BlackSails » Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:08 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Not to mention, much more importantly, it would be highly destabilizing to South Korea to lose their largest city, and have millions of homeless and jobless people milling about.

It's not an option.


Thats why a slow shrinking of the city by incentivizing moving elsewhere would be vastly preferable. Increase real estate taxes in Seoul and the other areas near the DMZ, offer a tax credit for people who move, and the city will shrink.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:55 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:Not to mention, much more importantly, it would be highly destabilizing to South Korea to lose their largest city, and have millions of homeless and jobless people milling about.

It's not an option.


Thats why a slow shrinking of the city by incentivizing moving elsewhere would be vastly preferable. Increase real estate taxes in Seoul and the other areas near the DMZ, offer a tax credit for people who move, and the city will shrink.


I don't know much about South Korean culture: would this type of government interventionism fly there? And is abandoning Seoul, even slowly, economically feasible?

Not to mention I know there are a lot of spy games going on over there. Is there any way to pull this off without NK knowing whats going on, and then panicking?
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:08 am UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
BlackSails wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:Not to mention, much more importantly, it would be highly destabilizing to South Korea to lose their largest city, and have millions of homeless and jobless people milling about.

It's not an option.


Thats why a slow shrinking of the city by incentivizing moving elsewhere would be vastly preferable. Increase real estate taxes in Seoul and the other areas near the DMZ, offer a tax credit for people who move, and the city will shrink.


I don't know much about South Korean culture: would this type of government interventionism fly there? And is abandoning Seoul, even slowly, economically feasible?

Not to mention I know there are a lot of spy games going on over there. Is there any way to pull this off without NK knowing whats going on, and then panicking?


I also have a serious problem with a government basically forcing people to leave their homes just because their neighbor is a bully. In fact, NK would like nothing more, I'm sure, since it would prove to their leaders that they are big and bad, and be one more piece of enormous propaganda they can flaunt to their own people. You'd also be basically forcing SK to have an enormous chunk of their country be rendered effectively useless to them, since they wouldn't be able to use it for anything.

The correct response to NK is to completely ignore the little stuff, IMO, and getting China to keep them on a short leash so they don't do anything nasty.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Glmclain » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:36 am UTC

But North Korea is fucking crazy. Have to keep that in mind...
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Arancaytar » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:42 am UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:
torontoraptor wrote:So basically the only way we would attack NK is if they had already launched a large attack on SK?


Yes. Preemptive military strikes don't win you any friends in the international community, no matter who you're attacking, and if you win that will make controlling the aftermath very difficult. I would have hoped that recent history would have already made you aware of this. Starting wars is generally, and in this case specifically, a really bad idea.


But in this case we wouldn't be starting the war, NK started it by firing on civilians. Of course, that doesn't make a strategic strike against NK in order to make Seoul safe any easier.


Indeed - responding to this incident with full-scale war will mean that NK technically started it, but only in the loosest sense that the international community couldn't pretend to accept. It would still be a disproportionate escalation for preemptive reasons.

Migrating a capital city like Seoul as a peacetime measure would be economically and politically infeasible. It would make sense to evacuate it temporarily if war was imminent, but only if they could then resolve the situation by actually striking against that artillery...
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:54 am UTC

Glmclain wrote:But North Korea is fucking crazy. Have to keep that in mind...


That is true. However, they usually tend to follow China's advice. Hence, my suggestion that we ignore the little stuff while China keeps them from doing anything inordinately stupid (for them).
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Glmclain » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:07 am UTC

China's not going to back them for this, they've ditched NK in the past, no doubt they'll do it again. China is evil, but not crazy.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:28 am UTC

Glmclain wrote:China's not going to back them for this, they've ditched NK in the past, no doubt they'll do it again. China is evil, but not crazy.

China's not evil, just resistant to political change. They'll do what every nation does and act to protect their own interests.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Glmclain wrote:China's not going to back them for this, they've ditched NK in the past, no doubt they'll do it again. China is evil, but not crazy.


I'm not saying they will. I was just throwing out a suggestion to keep NK in line that was a little more sane than "move Seoul."

Hawknc wrote:
Glmclain wrote:China's not going to back them for this, they've ditched NK in the past, no doubt they'll do it again. China is evil, but not crazy.

China's not evil, just resistant to political change. They'll do what every nation does and act to protect their own interests.


However, they won't hesitate to throw anyone under the bus if it means some gain for them, and that's just talking about their very shady foreign policy.

Ideally, NK and SK will reintegrate and make the region a lot safer (and a much better standard of living for MK's citizens), but I don't see that happening at all as long as this crackpot family is in charge of NK.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby BlackSails » Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:59 am UTC

Does SK even want to reintegrate? Long term sure, thats definitely a good thing, but in the short term, south korea basically gets a ton of malnourished, uneducated people to support, and some crappy military infrastructure.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jahoclave » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:07 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Does SK even want to reintegrate? Long term sure, thats definitely a good thing, but in the short term, south korea basically gets a ton of malnourished, uneducated people to support, and some crappy military infrastructure.

On the plus side. I doubt there will be any Nordstalgia in this case. Still, I think if people actually made a long term plan on how to reintegrate they'd do a decent go at it.

Chances of people pulling their heads out of their asses long enough to do that? None.

On the plus side, at least we're closer to figuring out who it is that wants to eliminate Seoul in order to advance their Starcraft rankings.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:16 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Does SK even want to reintegrate? Long term sure, thats definitely a good thing, but in the short term, south korea basically gets a ton of malnourished, uneducated people to support, and some crappy military infrastructure.

True, and don't forget that those poor people are the enemy, with a bloody war between them (with both sides rather viscious). It is different from Germany, where the two halves never fought. From what I understand there are enough people in south Korea who don't want to help much at all. On the other side, ordinary North Koreans are not necessarily expecting much good from the South.

Of course, it is more complicated than than simple love or hate.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:23 am UTC

There are a non-insignificant amount of families that have members in both countries. It is in fact almost the only reason NK tolerates a rail link between the two.

I'm not saying there isn't animosity among members of both countries, mind you, I'm just saying there is a surprising amount of positive support from within SK's general populace. From only what I have heard, so take it as you will, for the most part the worst attitude SK citizens have to the citizens of NK (not counting the political leadership in NK, mind you) is pity, with a splash of the arrogance that 1st world folks tend to feel towards inhabitants of 2nd and 3rd world nations. In short, most realize that the NK populace is just a victim.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:50 am UTC

O, sure, I didn't want to suggest that hatred was the dominating feeling. Just a caution that the animosity makes the situation different from the German reunification, which many people seem to have in mind as natural or preferable outcome of the situation.

I got gthe impression that many South Koreans see the north in fact in a more favourable light than their government, with many for example being skeptical that the North blew up the Cheonan. But altogether, I don't meet enough South Koreans to make good judgement, and never any North Koreans at all.

Mypartner was once in school with North Koreans, but she still doesn't have a clue what they think about anything. They all had families back home and were presumably already selected to be loyal citizens. so they just kept quiet and only talked amongst each other.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:33 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Glmclain wrote:But North Korea is fucking crazy. Have to keep that in mind...


That is true. However, they usually tend to follow China's advice. Hence, my suggestion that we ignore the little stuff while China keeps them from doing anything inordinately stupid (for them).

No, it is not true. The DPRK is a rational actor, just one tempered by highly unusual circumstances. The war was the first major conflict of the Cold War, and the current setup of North Korea is an artifact of that period. Secretive and eccentric, yes, but a superficial understanding of the conflict will tell you North Korea isn't crazy.

BlackSails wrote:Does SK even want to reintegrate? Long term sure, thats definitely a good thing, but in the short term, south korea basically gets a ton of malnourished, uneducated people to support, and some crappy military infrastructure.

You're right, a reunification would be an absolute mess. What's more likely is a policy of association, somewhat similar to the China-Hong Kong thing, where the countries would maintain their individual sovereignty. It would be a united state sharply divided, with heavy restrictions on travel between the halves, for quite some time before true reuinification would occur. It is on the cards, but still a long way off.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Looks like civilians were killed. That's going to cause some anger.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:21 pm UTC

Image

based on this picture form Sly's link, I can understand why full-scale military exercises in that place are controversial. Apparently, the South Koreans even fire live shells towards North Korea, but aim them to land in the water.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:53 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
BlackSails wrote:Does SK even want to reintegrate? Long term sure, thats definitely a good thing, but in the short term, south korea basically gets a ton of malnourished, uneducated people to support, and some crappy military infrastructure.

You're right, a reunification would be an absolute mess. What's more likely is a policy of association, somewhat similar to the China-Hong Kong thing, where the countries would maintain their individual sovereignty. It would be a united state sharply divided, with heavy restrictions on travel between the halves, for quite some time before true reuinification would occur. It is on the cards, but still a long way off.


i don't think anyone really has a clue about what a peaceful Korean peninsula will look like. We're a long way off from it atm, that's for sure.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:14 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:i don't think anyone really has a clue about what a peaceful Korean peninsula will look like. We're a long way off from it atm, that's for sure.

It has been a serious element of South Korean policy for, on and off, about ten years now: what would a workable unified Korea look like and how could it happen? Unfortunately, the Japanese were dead against it at the appropriate times, the US only mildly more enthused at the prospect, and it's not an option South Korea has been pursuing since the last government was formed.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

Rackum
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Rackum » Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:57 pm UTC

Glmclain wrote:I've talked to some Air Force buddies and they said that since we're allied with the South, if they want help militarily we're going to back them up. If China decides to get involved (although it's unlikely they will since they've ditched the North in the past) we could have WWIII on our hands :(

It's not so much that we're allies and therefore would jump into war with them, but that an attack on Seoul would invariably injure/kill US military personnel and damage/destroy US military assets since many of the military installations in that region are joint bases with both SK and US Soldiers and Airmen (and to a much lesser extent Marines and Sailors). China, in this particular case, would probably not be thrilled about backing NK militarily since it is sort of a "dog got off the leash" situation. As has been said, China will act to protect China -- if they feel that defending NK is in their best interest then that's what they'll do. However, this is a case where NK would have international sentiment against them and so it would most likely not be beneficial for China to intervene on NK's behalf. At least that's my take on it.

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Duban » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:15 pm UTC

Rackum wrote:It's not so much that we're allies and therefore would jump into war with them, but that an attack on Seoul would invariably injure/kill US military personnel and damage/destroy US military assets since many of the military installations in that region are joint bases with both SK and US Soldiers and Airmen (and to a much lesser extent Marines and Sailors).

I'm not sure where you're getting this "we'd only intervene to protect our assets" idea from. The US has strong ties to S. Korea and has stated explicitly that we would support the South if a war were to break out. Sure we have military bases, that's nice, but N. Korea is the primary reason why we have bases there.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

Rackum
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Rackum » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:25 pm UTC

Duban wrote:
Rackum wrote:It's not so much that we're allies and therefore would jump into war with them, but that an attack on Seoul would invariably injure/kill US military personnel and damage/destroy US military assets since many of the military installations in that region are joint bases with both SK and US Soldiers and Airmen (and to a much lesser extent Marines and Sailors).

I'm not sure where you're getting this "we'd only intervene to protect our assets" stuff. The US has strong ties to S. Korea and has stated explicitly that we would support the South if a war were to break out. Sure we have military bases, that's nice, but N. Korea is the primary reason why we have bases there.

I'm more pointing out the difference in "justifications" for US involvement vs Chinese involvement in such a hypothetical conflict. But do you have a source of any doctrine that states the US will, in all situations, declare war on NK in the event that a conflict were to emerge? Typically, when you use words like "explicitly" it's appreciated if you include a reference.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby The Reaper » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:37 pm UTC


Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Duban » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:43 pm UTC

Rackum wrote:I'm more pointing out the difference in "justifications" for US involvement vs Chinese involvement in such a hypothetical conflict. But do you have a source of any doctrine that states the US will, in all situations, declare war on NK in the event that a conflict were to emerge? Typically, when you use words like "explicitly" it's appreciated if you include a reference.

"President Barack Obama Tuesday pledged "unshakable" support for South Korea"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/101124/u ... ilitary_us

If you look up Obama South Korea Support there's tons of websites stating this. I know Obama also pledged full support during the submarine Crisis. Here is a source for that

"The Republic of Korea can continue to count on the full support of the United States"
http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-engl ... 3e-02.html

I'm pretty sure even the Bush administration pledged to protect S Korea when it became clear that N Korea was building nuclear weapons. I don't think I could find reliable articles on information that old though. I think Bush's statement on N Korea being part of an "Axis of evil" could be considered common knowledge.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:i don't think anyone really has a clue about what a peaceful Korean peninsula will look like. We're a long way off from it atm, that's for sure.

It has been a serious element of South Korean policy for, on and off, about ten years now: what would a workable unified Korea look like and how could it happen? Unfortunately, the Japanese were dead against it at the appropriate times, the US only mildly more enthused at the prospect, and it's not an option South Korea has been pursuing since the last government was formed.

That's the position of one side and some of the powers involved. I think you've gotta consider what China sees as being in its interests.

Have a look at the countries that border China: Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kygyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, and, last but not least, North Korea. Excluding members of the commonwealth of independent states, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Bhutan, they are (nominally) far left, authoritarian regimes. As far as I can see, if they can push a neighbor towards that style of government, they do it. Nepal is a good recent example. If there was a railway to Bhutan with a few more tonnes of load tolerance, it would likely have gone the way of Tibet a long time ago imo.

It seems to me they see it as being in their interests to have puppet states under the thumb of authoritarian regimes as neighbors. That's their deal. I don't think that they'll be cool with the DPRK amalgamating with the ROK. I think they want a nice buffer between themselves and anyone they don't control.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:Have a look at the countries that border China: Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kygyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, and, last but not least, North Korea. Excluding members of the commonwealth of independent states, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Bhutan, they are (nominally) far left, authoritarian regimes. As far as I can see, if they can push a neighbor towards that style of government, they do it. Nepal is a good recent example. If there was a railway to Bhutan with a few more tonnes of load tolerance, it would likely have gone the way of Tibet a long time ago imo.


You are a bit too quick in assuming that authoritarian left regimes are China's friends. Vietnam in particular is not China's ally by a long shot. The rest have varying degrees of good relations, but a lot of those regimes have been hostile with China at some point in the last decades. They are not automatic allies of China.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby jestingrabbit » Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

I'm not saying that China is best buds with all those countries, but I think they believe that they know what to expect from them, and know how to handle them. The Sino-Vietnamese war was essentially businesslike, they had a short, conventional conflict. They knew what they could expect. Especially now that there are no other major communist powers around, they have the whip hand against those states.

Regardless, North Korea is definitely a client state, and is a geographical buffer between china and countries that are well within the US sphere of influence. They're not just going to walk away from that.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Wnderer » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:47 pm UTC

Now we are sending in an aircraft carrier. What are we prepared to do if North Korea shoots at our aircraft carrier?

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:51 pm UTC

NK has very little that could damage the aircraft carrier. I am not in the least bit concerned that it is under orders to be SOF only.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Glmclain » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:51 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:Now we are sending in an aircraft carrier. What are we prepared to do if North Korea shoots at our aircraft carrier?


Spoiler:
Image
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Brooklynxman » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:52 pm UTC

Wnderer wrote:Now we are sending in an aircraft carrier. What are we prepared to do if North Korea shoots at our aircraft carrier?


Given the amount of protection a carrier typically has, I'd imagine anything attempting to shoot at the carrier would result in the threat being obliterated quickly. More interesting question: from what I've heard China is not happy with the carrier group, what do we do if China starts threatening/firing at the carrier group.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:55 pm UTC

China would not do anything to the carrier group. It is in international waters, and China is not so stupid as to risk their growth to deal with a single carrier group.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Wnderer » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:56 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:
Wnderer wrote:Now we are sending in an aircraft carrier. What are we prepared to do if North Korea shoots at our aircraft carrier?


Given the amount of protection a carrier typically has, I'd imagine anything attempting to shoot at the carrier would result in the threat being obliterated quickly. More interesting question: from what I've heard China is not happy with the carrier group, what do we do if China starts threatening/firing at the carrier group.


Start paying a lot more for sneakers.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests