North Korea

Avenged7Fold said:
In the end Korea were reduced to rubble. With US money, technology and military support, South Korea they became the first world country they are today, with great global economic and political relations. Ont he other hand North Korea were starved of relations and trade, their only helping hand from the red countries and not without a price. Costly weapon and technology trades while the US nipped at them and kept them on edge. Tech moved at a rate a isolated country could not keep up with and China and Russia were happy to drip feed them old outdated crap for big dollar and brownie point when it kept to border disputes.
Click to expand...

It's interesting when you examine this view, because it seems to expose the long term flaws in US strategy that we've seen numerous times now, remotely isolate, bully and ostracise - in the hope that one day it'll force change, but the opposite seems to happen, with the target having a tendency to "dig in" for the long haul, rather than yield.

Even with Iran who abandoned their nuclear weapons program, I suspect they were rather cleverly playing the long game - and instead provided expertise to North Korea via a parallel program, to accelerate their efforts, if the US won't act militarily on a nuclear armed North Korea, then I doubt they would on Iran either.
 
cu3ed said:
China would get rather angry.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. I think China would be glad to have the only rebellious NK leader gone cleanly and also for the US to lose their supposed reason for keeping a huge military presence next to a Chinese border.

The replacement would likely be a general from his fathers regime and far more cooperative.

Kim Jong Uns clean death would suit China more than anyone else in the world, except maybe the people of NK.
 
ubersonic said:
They annexed half their country to make a new country, imposed sanctions, openly supported their enemies, conducted annual invasion drills with SK, have been critical of everything they do for 60+ years, and have been deliberately persecuting their civillians for decades in an an attempt to annoy them into rebellion. It's fair to say the US has been a total **** to NK, hence their belief that arming themselves with nukes is the only way to get the USA off their back.
Click to expand...

Uhm, the Soviets annexed the other half to create North Korea. I think we know which Imperial overlord brought prosperity and (relative) peace.
 
Screeeech said:
It's interesting when you examine this view, because it seems to expose the long term flaws in US strategy that we've seen numerous times now, remotely isolate, bully and ostracise - in the hope that one day it'll force change, but the opposite seems to happen, with the target having a tendency to "dig in" for the long haul, rather than yield.
Click to expand...

It isn't really a flaw imo. The US has accomplished exactly what they intended to do:

-Stunted the growth of an enemy power to the point that they are irrelevant outside their borders
-Keep them relevant enough in the media so that SK keep signing incredibly convenient military agreements that allows them to place military in great strategic locations for decades against what were real threats (China/Russia)

US involvement in Korea was never really about Korea themselves but the bigger powers in play. Countries don't play police unless it suits them and often can make the situation seem like it requires policing so that their involvement seems justified. Why would they otherwise? Wars are expensive and politically devastating unless the war's aim involves a grab for money or political power.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
It isn't really a flaw imo. The US has accomplished exactly what they intended to do:

-Stunted the growth of an enemy power to the point that they are irrelevant outside their borders
-Keep them relevant enough in the media so that SK keep signing incredibly convenient military agreements that allows them to place military in great strategic locations for decades against what were real threats (China/Russia)

US involvement in Korea was never really about Korea themselves but the bigger powers in play. Countries don't play police unless it suits them and often can make the situation seem like it requires policing so that their involvement seems justified. Why would they otherwise? Wars are expensive and politically devastating unless the war's aim involves a grab for money or political power.
Click to expand...

I suppose the only reason I was pointing it out as a possible flaw, is that in the final analysis - in the case of NK the country in question ends up arming itself with nuclear weapons, and potentially becoming more dangerous and also totally untouchable.

I see both sides of it though,
 
Schlong&Stable said:
Uhm, the Soviets annexed the other half to create North Korea.
Click to expand...
North Korea was the original Korea, SK was created by partitioning the south off from the rest of the country (which then became NK).

It's similar to how East Germany was partitioned off from the rest of Germany to create a new country and the remainder became known as West Germany*.

*I know that West Germany wasn't the official name, but neither is North Korea.
 
ubersonic said:
North Korea was the original Korea, SK was created by partitioning the south off from the rest of the country (which then became NK).

It's similar to how East Germany was partitioned off from the rest of Germany to create a new country and the remainder became known as West Germany*.

*I know that West Germany wasn't the official name, but neither is North Korea.
Click to expand...

Um....not quite. Korea was occupied by the Japanese prior to and during ww2. The Soviets invaded/liberated the country but only as far South as the 38th parallel. The United States then finished the job. This effectively left two governments each claiming legitimacy over the whole of Korea. The northern state, supported by Russia then invaded their southern neighbour.

The Soviets created the two state situation. Not the US.
 
Dis86 said:
Um....not quite. Korea was occupied by the Japanese prior to and during ww2.
Click to expand...
Yes but afterwards the north of Korea and the Korean capital Pyongyang were liberated by the Soviets and the south was liberated by US forces who then partitioned it off as a new country and created a new capital for it (Seoul).


Dis86 said:
The Soviets created the two state situation. Not the US.
Click to expand...
No it was the US, the only mistake the Soviets made was not liberating the whole of Korea thus allowing the US to partition off the south and create a new state.
 
But then all of korea would have been a crazy dictatorship, not just half of it.

Russia always seems to be the one backing the tinpot dictators.
 
ubersonic said:
North Korea was the original Korea, SK was created by partitioning the south off from the rest of the country (which then became NK).

It's similar to how East Germany was partitioned off from the rest of Germany to create a new country and the remainder became known as West Germany*.

*I know that West Germany wasn't the official name, but neither is North Korea.
Click to expand...

That's not really what happened at all.

The US and Soviets partitioned Korea after WW2. That is the root of the current division. The Soviets installed communist leadership in the north, whilst the US installed capitalists in the south.
 
Nasher said:
But then all of korea would have been a crazy dictatorship, not just half of it.
Click to expand...
If it had never been partitioned by the US or if the US had never gone to war to prevent reunification in the 50's then by now the crazy dictatorship would have ended just like it did in in China. The only thing that has kept the Kims in power this long is public fear that if the country doesn't work hard to be strong them the US soldiers that raped/murdered their way across the peninsula 60+ years ago and prevented reunification may return (not the exact same soldiers ofc).
 
Screeeech said:
I suppose the only reason I was pointing it out as a possible flaw, is that in the final analysis - in the case of NK the country in question ends up arming itself with nuclear weapons, and potentially becoming more dangerous and also totally untouchable.

I see both sides of it though,
Click to expand...

You can argue though that the US is fine with the weapon development as long as it does not have the capabilities to be used against them and that the political climate does not turn to it as well.

It is really only Trump that seems to be taking a more aggressive stance and i think this is just his personality fumbling with his standard big talk. Normally the US leaders and Generals are very good with teasing NK with empty threats, sanctions and statements of 'defending the people of xxx' but Trump as usual has tried to strong arm a bit to much and it has come out clumsy. The secretary of defence tried to down play the stuff he said after each statement when things were escalating but i think he has more or less given up now.
 
This might be a really daft question, but I assume that up until now NK are developing and testing weapons......by that, I mean they don't have an arsenal.

That being the case, how can they actually start a war? If they have one nuke in the testing phase they don't have a stockpile like the US does. Same with the ICBMs. Wasn't it only recently they developed one able to travel any real distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom