North Korea

34 posts

Flag Post

I’m honestly surprised there wasn’t a thread on this already. Do you guys think that the DPRK is actually going to start a war with South Korea and the US? The recent fuss that Kim Jong Un has been making has been getting a lot of media attention, what do you guys think?

Personally, I really hope we don’t get into any conflict with them, but I know we’ve been fully willing to build up our forces on the peninsula in the past couple years. The fact that we’ve been showing force to shut them up is probably the right decision, but at the same time, who knows what they intend to do?

Anyway, I’ve also heard that it’s a lot of bark without much bite on their end, but you never know. What do you guys think will happen with this?

 
Flag Post

Well I would like to address the fact that America is the one who wants conflict. They use propaganda and war games in South Korea to keep the two Koreas divided. It’s likely they want to start a conflict so there would be a mass refugee influx into China, ruining their economy.

 
Flag Post

The South Korean government has more or less brushed it off – whether they actually think there isn’t much chance the North will attack or if they’re doing it to avoid panic, I’m not sure.

Everything NK does is saber rattling. Until they actually engage SK in combat, I doubt they’ll do anything serious. Kim Jung Un may be unstable, but I don’t think he’s stupid – he has to know he’ll be slaughtered if he embarks on a military battle with SK right now.

 
Flag Post

I highly doubt that that North Korea would attack any time soon. North Korean government would probably not see much help if any from China if North Korea were to attack the United States or South Korea in a full out war. This would ultimately leave them in a prime position for being “freed” by the United States which is probably not something their government particularly wants. North Korea is just puffing out its chest as usual.

 
Flag Post

I know for a fact that North Korea will not be starting a war with South Korea, there was never a peace treaty signed after the Korean war so technically they are still at war.

China’s economy is no longer growing at the rate it was a couple of years ago so they probably don’t want a costly war, add to that that a war with USA and other NATO sanctions would cripple their exports it would be economic suicide for China to burn those export bridges. I very much doubt even China would stand by, even diplomatically let alone militarily, any country that launched a nuclear missile (hit or intercepted) against a NATO country.

It’s just the NK leaders trying to whip their people up into a patriotic frenzy so they stop noticing how hungry they are and how they lack basic amenities. Think 1984, was the England that book was set in actually at war, or was it their own government launching the rocket bombs so people thought they were at war and didn’t question the rationing and marshal laws? NK is just doing this to control the people, make them patriotic enough and then do things “for the good of the nation” like cutting power, rationing food etc and nobody questions it because it is “for the good of the nation” so questioning your quality of life would be putting yourself before your nation, selfish and unpatriotic

 
Flag Post

OR, North Korea might be trying the ol’ The Mouse That Roared ploy.

Plot:
The tiny (three miles by five miles) European Duchy of Grand Fenwick, supposedly located in the Alps between Switzerland and France, proudly retains a pre-industrial economy, dependent almost entirely on making Pinot Grand Fenwick wine. However, an American winery makes a knockoff version, “Pinot Grand Enwick”, putting the country on the verge of bankruptcy.

The prime minister decides that their only course of action is to declare war on the United States. Expecting a quick and total defeat (since their standing army is tiny and equipped with bows and arrows), the country confidently expects to rebuild itself through the generous largesse that the United States bestows on all its vanquished enemies (as it did for Germany through the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II).

 
Flag Post

If North Korea is seriously stupid to start a war, they’re going to have a bad time. The U.S has half of the world on its side, Korea would be in a lose-lose situation.

 
Flag Post

In the nicest possible way, I hope they do try to start a proper war.

The long-term benefits to that poor, sheltered, beaten-down, starved population of being freed from such a ridiculous regime can’t be understated.

On the downside no one has a great record with such populations after brief wars, and swapping Korean oppression for Chinese-style (they’d probably be the main ‘fixers’) isn’t too great an improvement, but… can’t be worse than it is now.

 
Flag Post

The US has half the world on its side? In laughter!

 
Flag Post

Well, they have a chance to start a nuclear war. Even WW3

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by epicdude3:

Well, they have a chance to start a nuclear war. Even WW3

They have a chance of launching a nuclear weapon, but that doesn’t mean nukes will start flying both directions, and for WW3 you need more than a single country on one side of the conflict

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by KaisarDragon:

The US has half the world on its side? In laughter!

And… wrong.

If that’s true I wonder why so many countries participate in RIMPAC and other US hosted military training activities?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by epicdude3:

Well, they have a chance to start a nuclear war. Even WW3

More like North Korea has the chance to finish the end of North Korea.

 
Flag Post

You guys are stupid.

North Korea has been doing this for years. They make all these threats, the world ignores them, and their leaders claim that the rest of the world is “too scared” to stand up to them. This helps convince the people of North Korea that their leaders are the best.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

And… wrong.

If that’s true I wonder why so many countries participate in RIMPAC and other US hosted military training activities?

According to the UN the control over the seas is at the moment the most pressing topic of international politic. In the past nobody really cared owning the seas. But with things like deep sea mining, algae farms and even floating cities this changed. The RIMPAC is an absurdly complex political dance about this topic. Calling it military training activities is really missing the point of this insanity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Frostbringer:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

And… wrong.

If that’s true I wonder why so many countries participate in RIMPAC and other US hosted military training activities?

According to the UN the control over the seas is at the moment the most pressing topic of international politic. In the past nobody really cared owning the seas. But with things like deep sea mining, algae farms and even floating cities this changed. The RIMPAC is an absurdly complex political dance about this topic. Calling it military training activities is really missing the point of this insanity.

According to the UN?

C’mon, the UN would fail at changing some lightbulbs, if it came to that. They aren’t exactly a very solid source.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

According to the UN?

C’mon, the UN would fail at changing some lightbulbs, if it came to that. They aren’t exactly a very solid source.

The UN actually handled it pretty well to change the production methods of light-bulbs to reduce energy consumption. And even the USA finally broke down, although they where able to get longer deadlines. Just saying.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, North Korea makes threats all the time, entirely empty. They are poor and don’t have nukes, and even if they did, using them would be suicide for them.

 
Flag Post

I hate to say it, but that was an interesting post, Karma. That is how the US does.

For the rest of you, the US isn’t trying to promote war. It is flexing it’s muscle trying to scare NK into backing down. The problem is. NK has ramped up it’s threats and it is believed they may launch attacks on SK. I don’t think they can reach the continental US, but can reach Hawaii or Alaska. It could be the president of NK is trying to make a name for himself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
It could be the president of NK is trying to make a name for himself.

Well obviously.

And is “president” really the right word here?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:
It could be the president of NK is trying to make a name for himself.

Well obviously.

And is “president” really the right word here?

I don’t know if president is the right word. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 
Flag Post

Well as it is a Democratic Republic then I guess he is president, though I think he prefers the title of supreme commander, or supreme overlord or Dr Evil or whatever crazy title these non-elected democratic leaders of republics prefer

 
Flag Post

How do you know we are not being force-fed a bunch of horse shit by our biased media? Placing judgement calls on another leader who may just be saying a few of these things because he feels threatened. Maybe he knows that he is very close to losing it all to the military might of the West? Personally, I think we need to get rid of all our small leaders. Most of them do not act as sacrificial benefactors to their communities, but self-interested businessmen only looking out for their own agenda/s. A sacrificial world leader is what we need. One that is democratically elected—this system works moderately well, but needs some tweaking—and can take care of world interests of the world community, not just some silly individualistic want. Not just looking after Israel or Palestine, for example, but going back to their community oriented ways where religion, or small cultural backgrounds do not separate them, but help them to merge under one unified culture of understanding, and reduced hostility. The purpose for the hostilities is unwarranted if they can just learn to be empathic to each others needs, and help one another: the way communities should.

Anyways, nationhood and separation of property seems to be at the heart of many disputes. The choice for the U.S.A and Russia to meddle in the affairs of Korea for their own self-interested purposes after the Korean War, definitely allowed for terrible consequences to follow. If we had one World Leader that was sacrificial to the needs of its people, we may be able to settle these issues of unnecessary conflict through progressive diplomatic initiatives.
But who will make this sacrifice? Who will be our Jesus, our Buddha, our Confucius?
Tough to tell who will sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
After all, escaping our individualistic nature, is not only tough, but inherent.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

How do you know we are not being force-fed a bunch of horse shit by our biased media? Placing judgement calls on another leader who may just be saying a few of these things because he feels threatened. Maybe he knows that he is very close to losing it all to the military might of the West? Personally, I think we need to get rid of all our small leaders. Most of them do not act as sacrificial benefactors to their communities, but self-interested businessmen only looking out for their own agenda/s. A sacrificial world leader is what we need. One that is democratically elected—this system works moderately well, but needs some tweaking—and can take care of world interests of the world community, not just some silly individualistic want. Not just looking after Israel or Palestine, for example, but going back to their community oriented ways where religion, or small cultural backgrounds do not separate them, but help them to merge under one unified culture of understanding, and reduced hostility. The purpose for the hostilities is unwarranted if they can just learn to be empathic to each others needs, and help one another: the way communities should.

Anyways, nationhood and separation of property seems to be at the heart of many disputes. The choice for the U.S.A and Russia to meddle in the affairs of Korea for their own self-interested purposes after the Korean War, definitely allowed for terrible consequences to follow. If we had one World Leader that was sacrificial to the needs of its people, we may be able to settle these issues of unnecessary conflict through progressive diplomatic initiatives.
But who will make this sacrifice? Who will be our Jesus, our Buddha, our Confucius? Tough to tell who will sacrifice themselves for the greater good. After all, escaping our individualistic nature, is not only tough, but inherent.

Unless that certain leader is a lv350 legendary archmage who can kill everyone with magic, I don’t see how the president of [insert names of great countries here] will give up their powers. You are also neglecting the will of organizations like the freemasonry, the church, the oil supermajors and others which have exceptional influence over the world’s economy.

Laozi has already talked about the advantages of a small country. After 2500 years, it is still pure bullshit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Well as it is a Democratic Republic then I guess he is president, though I think he prefers the title of supreme commander, or supreme overlord or Dr Evil or whatever crazy title these non-elected democratic leaders of republics prefer

North Korea has democratic elections. But because of their plurality voting system only two parties matter, with both reaching about 50%. Although because the two parties have both the same manifesto (save for unimportant details) and have members of the same family as figure head western media tend to add this two numbers together. Strictly spoken this is comparable to adding the results of Democrats and Republicans in the USA together. But in my personal opinion this is valid. I’m pretty sure if the other party would have won this election, the country would be 100% the same. With the same people with the same commands in the same positions.

And to be fair, the communistic press also writes, that the capitalistic party has reached 98.27% in the last US-American election. Which in fact are the votes of Obama and Romney added together. Although I’m not that sure if this is valid, because at least I can observe a certain difference between this parties and the situation isn’t as extreme as in North Korea. But I guess this is also a matter of personal taste. At least for someone outside the USA the fine differences between these two parties blur pretty fast and you only see one big capitalistic party.