Thread: South Korea suspends trade with N. Korea

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11  
    Resident Grump
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,767
    Do you think it is right and doable by the US to be a major party in an upcoming conflict? If the US and the UN (preferably other forces such as russia and the EU) flexes their muscles enough to keep china out of it then maybe it would be for the best to leave most of this conflict to the south koreans.
    .. Dec 6, 1941
    .
    Perhaps I have misunderstood the condition of the PRNK but as far as I know they are basicly reliant on foreign aid for food. How the hell are they supposed to wage war against the south koreans, who have a well trained, well motivated, well equipped
    defense force with the possibility of strong supply lines.
    With a very powerful and highly mobile army.

    I actually believe that if the north invaded the south starvation would wipe out/cause rebellion in large parts of the northern civilian population while the purely military losses would be unfathomably unproportional in comparison to any territorial or tactical advances.
    ..and you'd just like to sit by and watch one of the US's biggest trading partners mauled in an unprovoked invasion.

    Barbarossa, anyone?

    From what little I know of this, the south wouldn't go unscathed through the conflict but the north would be obliterated partly by the weapons of the south, partly by reality and the domino effect.
    ..with a cost ion how many millions of lives...and you'd suggest the US just sit by and do nothing?

    If it could be avoided, wouldn't it be better if the US saved it's tax dollars and sorted out the conflicts it's already entangled in?
    Santayana...another student to add to the ever growing list....

    *slams head on desk*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8
    I'm not an american, these issues aren't exactly my academic specialisation and I might absolutely be wrong. Thanks for your reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by axxxel View Post
    Do you think it is right and doable by the US to be a major party in an upcoming conflict? If the US and the UN (preferably other forces such as russia and the EU) flexes their muscles enough to keep china out of it then maybe it would be for the best to leave most of this conflict to the south koreans.
    The question that you are asking, is if it is right for America to honor our treaty obligations to a nation that has provided us with troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and a host of other places where they had no obligation to fight but joined us because of a shared sense of mission, commitment to an ally and honor. What do you feel the correct response is when it is framed in that way?
    The second part of your question refers to the UN and others playing a part in this. They won't. The Russians and Chinese will prevent any action by the UN in the Security Council. Russia will do this out of spite, and China will do it out of a desire to avoid losing a critical buffer state. The EU nations will send token forces, and the gelded militaries of our allies will end up requiring more support from us in the form of transportation and logistics than their combat capabilities will be worth. Expect to see a US/South Korean/Australian force (depending on the current Labor PM's menstrual cycle), with token support from Europe and Japan (on the ground, at least, although Japan will provide tremendous support as a staging base). Oh, and the Islamist states that have gotten aid from North Korea, in the form of weapons technology and arms shipments, such as Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and the like will drive the rest of the Islamic bloc in the UN to oppose meaningful action.
    Quote Originally Posted by axxxel View Post
    Perhaps I have misunderstood the condition of the PRNK but as far as I know they are basicly reliant on foreign aid for food. How the hell are they supposed to wage war against the south koreans, who have a well trained, well motivated, well equipped defense force with the possibility of strong supply lines.
    They are reliant on foreign aid for food. One of the reasons for that is that they have stockpiled four months' worth in forward logistics bunkers along the DMZ, as well as munitions and other critical military stocks in order to sustain a four month long campaign of artillery bombardment from hardened bunkers. Seoul, with a population of 10 million, is within artillery range, and the entire peninsula is within rocket/missile range, as is pretty much the core of the Asian economic power. See below:

    Quote Originally Posted by axxxel View Post
    I actually believe that if the north invaded the south starvation would wipe out/cause rebellion in large parts of the northern civilian population while the purely military losses would be unfathomably unproportional in comparison to any territorial or tactical advances.

    From what little I know of this, the south wouldn't go unscathed through the conflict but the north would be obliterated partly by the weapons of the south, partly by reality and the domino effect.

    If it could be avoided, wouldn't it be better if the US saved it's tax dollars and sorted out the conflicts it's already entangled in?
    North Korea would not start a war that it could not win unless it planned to take others with it. Their goal is to continue to blackmail the west into providing food and other aid, while maintaining their current regime. In the event that they see their regime running out of time, they will initiate their endgame, which will entail the destruction of the surrounding democracies. That is the scenario that we must address. The only means to prevent that is the US nuclear umbrella, which can neutralize the North's offensive capabilities in a few hours. Otherwise, expect four months of horrendously destructive combat in one of the most densely populated and economically vital regions of the world. The fallout from that would be the collapse of financial markets and possibly even a global depression.
    Quote Originally Posted by axxxel View Post
    Edit: Besides, I don't think China would like to go to world war to protect that filthy concentration camp, sure it's an important buffert state but it's not much of an object of communist pride that North Korea is still barely alive. I could see that china would install a puppet regime of its own, which could be beneficial for "us" as well. Germany is still plagued by the inequalities between west germany and DDR even though the differences between the two states were marginal compared to the huge gap between the progressive, high tech, free, culturally thriving (starcraft!) economically gigantic south and the tragic, starving, dead north.
    China does not want a prosperous democratic US ally on its border and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. If the North initiates war, China will use its veto at the UN to prevent any change to the status quo. They will also provide any aid short of war required by the North to maintain their position.

    In short, the downside for not acting is huge, the upside for not acting is minimal.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •