Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe NK is actually doing what the Chinesse wants them to do?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may be true. However my impression of the Chinese is that they would rather be left alone. I don't think China would want North Korea to stir things up so that the attention of the US gets focused on that part of the world.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe that's the impression they want to give.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I don't know. I think it is a lot of adieu to make weapons in which it is stupid to use, in the first place. Oooh, nuclear weapons, when the very people they are trying to threaten with them is too close. It's amazing how people will repeat the same mistakes because they can't learn until they do it themselves. We already learned quickly about the futility and self-damaging effects of nuclear weapons, but some people don't realize that by far nukes are a double-edged sword, except worse. Imagine the double blade also being the handle. Its use is like some desperation act of taking your enemies out along with yourselves.

The weapons they want are not surgical with harmful effects that not only carry in wind, water, and soil, but possibly have half-lifes. And if they do use them, the effects will probably bleed into their own country and kill their own people off.

Or they just want some trophies to sit by doing nothing, but costing them loads of money to make, just to have a local health hazard, with hopes that nothing leaks into their water or other supply lines. I don't know. It sounds like somebody declaring to the world that they wanna commit suicide. Like the above poster said, it's like wanting a grenade when everybody is in the telephone booth with you.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

But the world is such a big bad phone booth that some tiny countries need to threat their enemies to blow themselves up with them to keep them from invading.
You gotta be realistic. Only a nuclear power can deterrence conventional war.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

After spending a year in South Korea courtesy of Uncle Sam, I wouldn't mind seeing both Koreas get bLasted into nothingness. That was the worst year of my life. But realistically, I think it will take the intervention of both the U.S. and China to see this one resolved. Who knows, after seeing "Shock and Awe" taking place in Iraq, maybe the North Koreans will see the ligth of reason

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was your unit?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I don't remember my unit number now, but I was stationed at Kunsan AB (airbase) in the southern part of S. Korea. I was attached to the medical unit there. I was there from June 87 to June 88. Just missed my chance to see the 88 Olympics in Seoul.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

Technically,
Iraq conditionally surrendered and they did not honor the surrender conditions. That can be used by some to justify the invasion and claim it is different than a war of aggression.

North Korea is not in the same boat. Their natinal soveriegnty is not compromised the way Iraqs is (was).

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gee, thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Debate on North Korea.
 

Debate on North Korea.

I think this problem deserves its own thread. It is equally as serious as Iraq, just not as easily solvable. The north has the bomb, and the country is a very small place. It would be like having a hand grenade battle in a phone booth. Everyone would loose. In any war, the south would be badly damaged, and the north would never allow us ½ a year to build up our forces. So what to do? Personally I feel that this has to be handled with diplomacy, and if the new leaders of China want it to end, it will. If (I said if) we go to war in Korea, it would be much like the Last war, but perhaps with out the help that was given to the NK’s Last time. We should remember that it was a Soviet gambit that caused the war, China was very unhappy about it. And the Chicom direct involvement destabilized their government and led to a cooling of relations with the USSR. This cooling resulted in a shooting war some years later. Today, American air power would carry the war, but not save the south from being destroyed. If the north used a nuke, then we would be closer to the beginning of the end than ever before. Personally, I think this is a job for the Chicoms. It is their client and their front yard. They are best positioned to handle the situation. Also it is time for the south to provide for their own defense.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

Some of us feel the same way about southern California, but there would be too high a negative impact on our gaming/modding community here at Shrapnel. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

IMHO, North Korea is a lot more dangerous then Iraq. They are more radical, have a larger army which is better trained, have better weapons, plus the bomb. In addition, Korea is not good tank country, to many hills, knolls, mountains, woods, etc. Would be a very different type of war then what is going on in Iraq.

Plus, NK never surrendered during the Korean war, we only have an Armistace, basically is became a stalemate.

just some ideas mac

[ March 22, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: mac5732 ]

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I agree Mac, North Korea would be much more of a challange than Iraq. The real big factor is China, it's 'big brother' to the north. In the Korean War, we had North Korea all but beaten until China entered the war. My uncle has some exciting war stories about the 'human waves' of Chinese pushing the US forces back.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

There is a North Korea? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I did not know this. I wonder what South Korea thinks of this?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope you are joking. You are, aren't you?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I am being synical. North Korea is feeling a bit under appreciated in the world arena and is rattling its saber in order to get noticed.

If they want nuclear power, and will not use that knowledge to make weapons, then I say let them and Iran have it. If they choose to make weapons, then no, they should not have it.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

Oh, I am just wondering how could a thread just like this one appear on a space strategy game forum. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I suggest that you American guys discuss this topic on the Usenet group soc.culture.china or soc.culture.korean or soc.culture.japan. It will be interesting. It will be MUCH MORE INTERESTING for you to know the extream nationalism in China and Korea.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I don't think nationalism exists in a homogenous(sp?) country, and why whould that play a factor in a war against North Korea?

Also, Why would china join in if there was a war against North Korea? The cold war is over; even though there may be tensions between China and the US, it's not what it once was 50 years ago. Also, China's Foreign policy is "mind your own business, and we'll mind ours". China already has enough to worry about how it's going to have to control it's economy, keep it's ethnicities in line, and it's war on drugs. I hardly doubt that it's going to sacrifice thousands of people for a backwards "ally". Although in case of war, it wouldn't like US forces near it's borders.

And Atrocities, NK is rattling it's sabre in order to LIVE, not get love and attention from CNN. The NK demands Food and Oil shipments for it to abandon it's nuclear program entirely. If NK wanted attention, it would have bombed Tokyo by now.

Mac, there is no armistice, not on the SK side. President Syngman Rhee (I think that's the correct english spelling) never signed it. Both sides can still attack at will.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

neomax.... I believe that the reason for all these debates is that we are all confertable with each other now. and pretend were at a coffee shop or pub when we chat here. The opinions differ as does the delivery. But if some one is offended by a post they are informed and given a chance to defend it or re type it after looking at what they typed.

I tried to stay out of the debates... But hey you read this site every day... And your friends are in a heated conversation. One must join in.

So Neomax. I hope that you and all the new people stay around this forum so that one day we can become friends.

Take Care

Simon

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

"And Atrocities, NK is rattling it's sabre in order to LIVE, not get love and attention from CNN. The NK demands Food and Oil shipments for it to abandon it's nuclear program entirely."

And this gets laughed at because that's the exact same thing it had before. It just wants more to not break its agreements now.

The way I see it, it worked like so:
US: quit your nuke program, we'll send X amount of food and fuel oil.
NK: OK
NK 1 year later (resumes nuke program)
NK years later: we're starting again. Nyaa.
US: OK. No food for you.
NK: WHAT?
US: you heard me.
NK: Give us 2X food and fuel oil and we'll stop..

Phoenix-D

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well I was going to say the reason is that everyone here is pretty mature but since someone seems to have rated you a one I'll rephrase that to most people here are pretty mature so it makes for a good discussion. I know other forms (such as any forum on F1 racing) are so full of imature people name calling they are not much fun. (PS If you know a good F1 forum e-mail me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC, are you sure on the not signing, From the books I've read, I've been under the impression that we (UN) only have an armistice with them, and yes, the war could start again at any time because there really was no signed agreement to end the war. I'll have to do some research, I could have sworn we have an armistice..

Neomax, The members of this forum discuss a lot of topics on SE4 and game related items. However, Off Topic discussions do appear once in awhile by the members, and its enjoyable to discuss these OT subjects with the friends you've made here at the forum. That's what is enchanting with the members here, you can discuss the game and sometimes other OT subjects. I think that after you've been here awhile you'll see that for yourself.

If you think this topic is OT, I can see you've never been to the cantina http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

just some ideas mac

[ March 23, 2003, 04:00: Message edited by: mac5732 ]

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

I agree, tangling with NK, brings up a whole new set of diplomatic and potential excalation problems. China is NK's big brother and so any war with them must take into account the possibility of involving China, more so then the Soviets. I don't believe China approves of a lot of things NK does, but they are close allies, so therefore, one must tread warily in this area and obtain a commitment from China of non interferance if the balloon goes up.

just some ideas mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC,

Military History, April, 2003, page 73

"With the final signing of the armistice agreement at Panmunjom on July 27th, 1953, Pork Chop hill became part of the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea..."

If that is the case then maybe the UN signed but SK didn't?

just some ideas Mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

The NK leaders are power mad control freaks. There is nothing they would enjoy more than extending that control beyond the present boundries.
They rattle their sabers because they do not know how to bargin or show gratitude (it is a weakness to them).
Their control at home has destroyed the economy, food production and the peoples hope. Let us pray they collapse from internal rot before they cause more trouble.

NK - Bush, Do Not go there.
I hope and pray Bush can be stalled until the next election.

MAC is right, we have no pretext to intervene.

NK may be a potential threat. It is a matter of perception.
A USA that is aggressive, beligerant, and militeristic will be seen as a threat by most nations. Should we teach the world that pre-emption is acceptable behavior? What would become of us when we are in decline?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, but they should go about it a in a better fashion than they have wouldn't you agree?

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree, but they should go about it a in a better fashion than they have wouldn't you agree?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, but fidelity isn't in their vocabulary.

Mac, Go here. Look at the Last entry.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

TC

July 27
The United States, North Korea and China sign an armistice, which ends the war but fails to bring about a permanent peace. To date, the Republic of Korea (South) and Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (North) have not signed a peace treaty. North and South Korea did sign a non-aggression treaty in 1991

Therefore, there is an armistice, however, no peace treaty was ever signed by either side, except for the non-aggression treaty in 91

So we have an armistice, but no peace treaty, a non aggression treaty means zippo.

NK is more dangerous to world peace then any other nation (IMHO) In fact, I believe they would instigate it just so they can once again invade So. Korea. Why? Look at the economy for both countries, who has the most to lose and who has the most to gain? The question is, would they take the chance of a major war again with the US or UN. I would not count on the UN as they can't even enforce their own resolutions and IMHO are not even paper tigers but paper pussy kats, therefore it would be the US and its supporting allies, other fair weather allies would probably back out with one excuse or another, in fact some of our allies are in name only, all they want is our money and techonlogy, not our friendship.. but this is only my opinion.

just some idea mac

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the NK leaders are control freaks, and they would go beyond enjoying themselves once they have control of the whole Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese Archipelago, as they see those areas of land as their rightful domain.

But Wardad, What does NK have to bargain with? The Nuke card is only usable once in a trading table in this game of Geopolitics. But it can be used every turn as an effective tool of extortion. And show their gratitude for what? The US not having bomb their A**es off?

It'd be hard for a brainwashed populace to rise up against their leader. 40 years of "love the leader" propaganda have serted itself firmly into the minds of North Koreans, except the few.

The US have lots of reasons to intervene, should it choose to.

Edit: and NK is a threat only by a person's perception? Well, then it must be a global threat, since 6 billion people knows that NK has nukes and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder.

[ March 24, 2003, 04:23: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ok. There is an armistice in effect.

But I think there would be a world-wide support for the US should it choose to strike; The world knows that NK has nukes, it starves it's populace, and it has already provoked a world war 2.1.

Re: Debate on North Korea.
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The way the UN has been in regards to use of force lately, I don't know if they would sanction a war with NK even if they started it, The Reason in My Opinion = China and possibly Russia, China and in some regards Russia, would feel compelled to back and support NK even if NK started a war.
NK has a whole new dimension to the concept of war with them... US must tread carefully on this one. NK has designs on SK without a doubt, I would also think they have somewhat design On Japan due in part to WW2, But that would embroil the US and our allies, China could also use this as a pretext against Taiwan if a war should start with them & NK against us. Quite intertwined in that part of the world.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif just some ideas Mac