The North Korea Thread: Threats, Propaganda and a brewing Holocaust

[Candescence]

If South Korea wants to invade and the U.S. supplies them with resources like we always have, that would be a far better situation then any American bombing or invasion happening.

 

If their not willing to pull that trigger we certainly shouldn't pull it for them.

The US and South Korea aren't gonna pull the trigger first, because they know China would get involved if they did. They're mainly preparing and biding their time until NK finally decides to shoot first.

 

The chances of a revolution happening in North Korea is extremely slim as Patticus said, and chances of peaceful unification under a democratic government is very slim at best. War is inevitable, and the only way North Korea is going to see any kind of regime change in the foreseeable future.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Masaru Daimon

[Conando]

I just don't think it's particularly a good thing to be hoping for War. Though, I can't say it would be much of one.

[Candescence]

I just don't think it's particularly a good thing to be hoping for War. Though, I can't say it would be much of one.

Depressingly, war seems like the best case scenario at the moment. With peaceful reunification seeming like an impossibility, revolution would result in civilian deaths up the wazoo even if it did happen (the NK government is more than happy to slaughter or imprison dissenters, a revolution would be an absolute catastrophe), a quick war ending with SK and the US toppling the NK government would probably have the least civilian losses.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Masaru Daimon

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

To those of you actually encouraging that North Korea fire the missiles: are you insane?

No, I'm sick of their shit and their beating the war drum acting like a spoiled brat while hiding behind China (who are also sick of their shit, and would rather the Korea's be united under the South's government) as if they'll protect them from "big bad" America, who up until now wasn't concern with anything more than the well-being of their ally. (or that and more considering the North wanting nukes.) Pretty much what Patticus said.

 

Up until these few months, while I never liked North Korea, I wasn't really concerned with going to war with them. Before Jong-un took power, they weren't this willing to pick a fight with us, and everything was pretty much A-OK as far as hostilities being minimal. Granted, they did some stuff we didn't approve, but I wasn't concerned with egging them on.

 

Now? Their new leader is trying to go the next level here, and is threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike at us and our ally because of us commencing military drills in the event the North wanted to pull some shit like this. Had Jong-un been more sensible than that, I doubt many of us encouraging them to strike first would be doing so to begin with. At this point, I'm just tired of hearing them throwing a temper tantrum and I just want the child to grow up and stop crying. But since they don't want to do that, and they want to start a fight, I'd say we show them the consequences in doing so.

 

Everyone here, whether they're encouraging NK to strike (tho really, it's more that we're daring them) or wanting to avert war, doesn't want civilians to be killed in the process (I certainly know I don't), and it's not like we won't feel sorry for any lives that'll very likely be lost. I mean for crying out loud, we're already feeling sorry for North Korea's civilian population due to how poorly treated they are. But when war ends up becoming the best case scenario at this point, as a result of the new dictator being even more of a spoiled brat than his father whom he inherited his position from, it's sad to say that peace through diplomacy (which seriously hasn't gotten very far since the armistice) is off the table and it's inevitable that there will be lives lost. No doubt this is gonna cause even further problems such as Northern immigrants coming to South or China and making another problem in the future, but at the very least that future problem will no longer involve a childish government wanting to go to war for a military exercise or doing things that much of the global community does not like (primarily their nukes).

 

Now if NK decides to be more sensible than they have been, you'll likely see a change in our attitudes along with it. But that's not something I'm expecting from them at this point.

 

Edit: Also..

 

The mentality of poking the hornet's nest until they attack is a dangerous one,

 

The mentality is more so the equivalent of telling someone who wants to hurt you either to back off or I will fight back in defense. Oh I certainly made some quips about trolling them by continuing the military drills, but that still doesn't change that the DPRK is the one who is being the aggressor here.

 

Again, their leader threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike over military drills. How in the world is that not an act of aggression? (even if they probably couldn't launch them far)

Edited March 30, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Old dead account]

I think people want NK to launch the missiles because no matter what it seems that they're adamant about war. So there's 2 options:

Either US/SK can launch their attack on NK first and trigger an all out war with NK as well as China and Russia which is sure to be the most destructive war in human history and most likely nuclear

Or we can keep waiting for NK to attack and (in the even that they actually do launch an attack) then have China and Russia pull their support away from NK so that the South and the US is free to decimate them with much less casualties than the former scenario.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Prince Solaris

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Obviously we'd go for the choice that allows the use of self-defense against aggression, provided that the DPRK actually manages to hit us.

 

I don't think we'll get too involved if they only managed to strike at South Korea.

[Tani Coyote]

I just ask the DPRK this. Why can't they actually become a somewhat decent authoritarian nation? Do they think that openness will cause them to lose power? China, Russia, and countless other countries can attest that concentration of power is still very easy in a state that is nominally democratic. Even states that are fully democratic such as the USA have a concentration of power that is ludicrous. They won't lose power if they stop the human rights abuses and actually create mock elections. While stuff like the Arab Spring does roll around from time to time, it's so irregular it's easily ignored, and once it turns violent the incentive to protest quickly goes away; see how the Arab Spring fizzled out shortly after Syria and Libya went down the toilet.

 

The sooner the North Koreans slip over the line separating 'precarious peace' from 'obliteration', the sooner the country can be free, its concentration camps liberated, its people no longer starving.

 

Not to mention, I don't see how World War II can be seen as a just war for toppling the fascist regimes of Germany and Japan, but the deaths of civilians in this instance are too prohibitive. It's a much smaller amount of lives in the equation for one, and for two it will ultimately be best for the region. As was said it's not even comparable to Afghanistan or Iraq because there's already a stable, healthy democracy ready to pick up the pieces rather than being built from scratch.

 

If North Koreans want freedom, they can fight and die for it like every other revolution has.

 

Revolutions almost always have a foreign backer, though, since it's usually a poor population against a rich and powerful government.

 

The American revolution is the one that has inspired probably the most in modern history. And despite what many Americans are led to believe, we did not do it alone. We had French, Spanish, and Dutch aid, as well as some German states backing us. Our army was a complete and utter joke, and it was only with foreign assistance that we were able to actually train and arm it to a point it could face the British in the open and defeat them.

 

And what everyone else said as well; the people are broken and need some cause for hope, given that the government has all the chips.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, but Britain were focusing on the French back in Europe, weren't they? Had their priorities been reversed, they could have won the American Revolution despite losing their homeland in the process...and I'm not gonna go about an alternate history of what would possibly happen next.

 

At any rate, it's doubtful that they think openness would make them lose power than it is them just flat out abusing the power they have. When you have a nation that essentially worships it's leader, that's a classic case of absolute power corrupting absolutely, because they don't want to share a scrap of power with the civilians. And to say nothing of them ignoring the responses from their much more powerful ally who doesn't want them to go to war with the South or the US.

 

And considering how much lavishly their elites are living, I'm pretty sure they're not going to want to give up those benefits unless (or rather until) open war commences, and by that point I'm pretty sure we're going to see a lot of defectors from North Korea. I'm just waiting to see how this'll all play out, but since they've actually went as far as to declare war, anything's possible at this point.

[Tani Coyote]

Not wanting to give up their lavish lifestyle is inherently fallacious, though, since it assumes economics is zero-sum. Look at how exorbitant the lifestyle of America's wealthiest citizens are... and we're a free nation. Presumably North Korea's elites could also enjoy a quality of life far beyond the rank and file people if they liberalised their society.

 

If they abuse power for abusing its sake, it really highlights the immature, illogical nature of the regime. They can open up their society some yet still easily brand someone an enemy of the state if they get too noisy, as China does. They can still lock vocal opponents up on a whim, as China does. Really, all the fear, intimidation and abuse they have going on is just completely unnecessary, when you can still have a great degree of concentrated power in a much more developed and open society.

 

Which to me highlights the need to topple this regime even more.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Dude, it's North Korea. They're threatening nuclear strike over military drills, talking war rhetoric against a superpower as if they have the power to back it up, ignoring China telling them not to beat the war drum, imprisoning and/or killing 2 generations of civilians to prison camps for so much as one person in the family doing anything deviant from what the government wants them to do, and all around lying through their propaganda, and plenty of other stuff.

 

I don't think logic is what the higher echelons of the government has.

[Stacy]

For the shake of some British humour to break the tension if war does break can this be the theme tune?

 

 

Seriously though this is not cool.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's a potential war that's going to cost lives; it's not suppose to be cool... =/

[Stacy]

It's a potential war that's going to cost lives; it's not suppose to be cool... =/

 

Well the way some of you guys were acting I thought you wanted war? 

 

 

EDIT: I said it was not cool. I didn't say it was cool.

Edited March 30, 2013 by BW199148

[Tani Coyote]

War is never the desirable outcome, or a desired anything really.

 

What's important is that it satisfies a few key conditions, such as if things will be better in the end because of it. Iraq and Afghanistan, the jury's still out but I'd like to think that we've at least done something good there in the long run. Korea? I'm almost certain the end result would be good for both peoples. Germany was reunified 20 years ago; the time has come for Korea to likewise join the group of families reunited by the fall of the Wall.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well the way some of you guys were acting I thought you wanted war? 

Yeah, if only to get rid of a threat that keeps provoking us.

 

After everything we said, when we clearly told you we're going to regret that there are going to be lives lost with diplomacy being off the tables, do you really think we're actually going to enjoy the war going hot? Because if you do, then I really don't think you understood us beyond wanting them to make the first punch.

 

If North Korea actually wanted peace, we wouldn't be supporting war against them in the first place...

 

EDIT: I said it was not cool. I didn't say it was cool.

And I'm saying it's not suppose to be cool, whether you were for or against it.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tani Coyote]

Ultimately one should just view the war as similar to the self-defense excuse in criminal prosecution. It's not a desirable outcome for anybody, ever, to die. But ultimately it's for the greater good that the killer did than his would-be victim.

 

Unfortunately what muddles this here is that it's not just the regime that suffers. But, the countless North Korea unborn who could enjoy the benefits of the toppled regime will make up for the lost lives, I reason.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Ultimately, one should be a realist about this whole event. No one's gonna be proud of there being a war, especially when one side is willing throw nukes around and not give a damn about who it hits, but it's not something you should throw off the table and berate others for seeing it as an option like some of you have been doing.

 

We've tried option after option after option after option in negotiating or keeping the peace for over 50 years. Up until this point, we've at least kept the two from going at each other, but now we have a wolf that wants to go after the sheep. We have a gun pointed at the wolf, and unless that wolf stops in his tracks, we're way past peace talks at this point and should be ready for an attack...doesn't help that they've cut the lines between the two.

[Stacy]

War is never the desirable outcome, or a desired anything really.

 

What's important is that it satisfies a few key conditions, such as if things will be better in the end because of it. Iraq and Afghanistan, the jury's still out but I'd like to think that we've at least done something good there in the long run. Korea? I'm almost certain the end result would be good for both peoples. Germany was reunified 20 years ago; the time has come for Korea to likewise join the group of families reunited by the fall of the Wall.

 

Really? The past four pages have been arguments for and against. I was largely against the war breaking out, the rising tensions and the war hawkish behaviour. So I am annoyed to see that some of you are changing your tune from war hawking "let's get rid Kim Jong Un" and "curb stomping" and "come on fire those Missiles" to "yeah, war is a bad and a undesirable outcome".

 

But the aftermath will probably sparks tensions with China and Russia who will hate the idea of having a Pro-US client state near their boarders. After the war is finished the Chinese and Russians will call for the US military presence to be removed from the Unified Korea. 

 

Like people have said and I agree with them never rule out the possibility of a wider war.

 

Plus their is whole humanitarian mess its easy to say that the aftermath will be better when your not the one who got bombed on and had their family shot in the streets.

 

I hate how we have reached this point. Neither side as tried to come to table they continued to play chicken with each other until now it is probably too late to turn back.

 

Either outcomes good or bad their will still be death and destruction. If war breaks then both sides have lost by failing to prevent war.

Edited March 30, 2013 by BW199148

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Really? The past four pages have been arguments for and against. I was largely against the war breaking out, the rising tensions and the war hawkish behaviour. So I am annoyed to see that some of you are changing your tune from war hawking "let's get rid Kim Jong Un" and "curb stomping" and "come on fire those Missiles" to "yeah, war is a bad and a undesirable outcome".

Little FYI: my tune still hasn't changed from war hawking of "come on fire those missiles". I want to see this arrogant and spoiled regime put down for being stupid over this.

 

That doesn't mean I think "War is awesome" over this or anything similar to that brush you guys have been painting on us, if that huge post I made on the previous page is any indicator. Nevermind that I've told you before that that may follow up with this scenario.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Stacy]

Little FYI: my tune still hasn't changed from war hawking of "come on fire those missiles". I want to see this arrogant and spoiled regime put down for being stupid over this.

 

That doesn't mean I think "War is awesome" over this or anything similar to that brush you guys have been painting on us, if that huge post I made on the previous page is any indicator. Nevermind that I've told you before that that may follow up with this scenario.

 

But that is such selfish thinking. I don't like them so lets bomb them doesn't matter the cost.

 

Yeah your aware of the consequences but you don't care because its not your home that is being bombed. You may be aware of the consequences but doesn't look like you care about them.  

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But that is such selfish thinking. I don't like them so lets bomb them doesn't matter the cost.

It's selfish that I want to retaliate against someone threatening to throw nukes and shells at us or an ally?

 

I suppose you'd tell me that it's selfish that would break someone's arm when they pulled a knife to try and stab me or my friend. But I think I know you better than that.

 

Don't strawman me again, dude.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Stacy]

It's selfish that I want to retaliate against someone threatening to throw nukes and shells at us or an ally?

 

I suppose you'd tell me that it's selfish that would break someone's arm when they pulled a knife to try and stab me or my friend. But I think I know you better than that.

 

Don't strawman me again, dude.

 

That's largely not what you have been saying maybe if said that more in the first place instead of egging them on to attack you.

 

To me that like me going up to a Bully and asking him to give me a black eye. 

 

Its not self defence when you throw the first punch.

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah, we're not changing our argument, we're just showing a different side to it. That while we're open to the idea of a conflict, we're not exactly saying war's the best outcome. I think every person wants the two states to reunify peacefully and not degenerate into a state of war, but we've given them fifty plus years. Now normally a regime this poor would have collapsed on its own by now; analysts after World War II said the US should never fight the Soviets for the simple fact their system was bound to implode after a few decades, and sure enough, look what happened. North Korea shows no signs of collapsing, which is the worrying part. If there's no risk of collapse, there's no chance of internal reform; they're not going to get a Gorbachev or Xiaoping anytime soon.

 

Anywho, on the subject of bases: the biggest reason we keep troops there is probably exactly because of the Sino-DPRK bloc, as a deterrent. If the two Koreas are united, we would probably drawback our troops, and any troops in the North would be temporary. Heck, I'd be open to inviting the Chinese to cooperate with us in rebuilding the North, so they can get something out of this by keeping their clout in a unified Korea. We could shift the rivalry we've got to backing political parties in the region rather than militaries capable of mass slaughter. The vote is always better than violence.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

That's largely not what you have been saying maybe if said that more in the first place instead of egging them on to attack you.

 

To me that like me going up to a Bully and asking him to give me a black eye. 

Except the bully was already threatening me long before I asked him to give me a black eye. I just decided to take him on his threat and see if he would do it and give me an excuse to fight him back.

 

Its not self defence when you throw the first punch.

If you've read ANY of my previous posts, you'd know I was never about us throwing the first punch.

Edited March 30, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Stacy]

 

Except the bully was already threatening me long before I asked him to give me a black eye. I just decided to take him on his threat and see if he would do it.

 

If you've read ANY of my previous posts, you'd know I was never about us throwing the first punch.

 

Then why the big willy talk then?

 

You don't take someone up on their threat just leave the alone. It is like trying to see if that bee in the corner will sting you. You know that it can, just leave it be.

 

Also it is not like you not you have threatened the Bully yourself over the years.

 

Okay you're right you didn't want to throw the first punch but by hell you been wanting every excuse to do so. 

 

I have read your posts most of my post in this are replies to you I do  forget things you know.

 

Anyway the way this crisis has been handled its all been my willy is bigger than your willy and now where on the verge of a big playground scrap.

 

Sad really neither side has learned anything from the last conflict.     

Edited March 30, 2013 by BW199148