North Korea Attacks!

[ScienceRocks]

What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?

What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?" Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?

Military wise.

 

[Oldguy]

What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?

What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?" Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?

Military wise.

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

 

[Esmeralda]

China is run by a lot of old men. North Korea's new leader is under 30. China is not going to allow this lad to start any wars over there. China has grown quite a bit since it opened up in the 70s. They are a player on the international stage and do not want a war. And as has been posted, they prop up North Korea. I think the mouse is doing some loud squeeking right now, but China will be the cat, get it by the tail, scare the shit out of it, then let it go. The mouse will run back to its little hole and behave. This North Korean leader, he is so young and inexperienced and has no realisitic vision of the larger world: he has no idea what he would be getting into if he tried to start a war.

 

[FA_Q2]

What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?" Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?

Military wise.

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

 

[Unkotare]

Military wise.

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

In the same manner that we own SK...

We don't "own" South Korea in any way.

 

[Oldguy]

Military wise.

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

I disagree. China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea. China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's. IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.

 

[Lovebears65]

I guess you forget our soldiers are on the border in South Korea. I am worried for them not here.

 

[FA_Q2]

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

I disagree. China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea. China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's. IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.

Except China is ALREADY distancing themselves from NK as well as making statements to the opposite of supporting NK and nothing has even happened yet.
BBC News - Is China ready to abandon North Korea?
I think it is completely unreasonable to think that China is going to risk war with the US, their best customer with the most powerful war machine on the face of the planet because of a rouge leader starting a war he cannot win. As one post pointed out, nations go to war when there is something to be gained and China has NOTHING to gain by instigating the US. We would essentially destroy each other, with China ending up getting the short end of the stick.

They WANT NK there but NK would take any reason for them to keep it if it attacks the south. The devastation, loss of life and of American soldiers ensures our involvement and essentially removes China from being able to defend them.

We don't "own" South Korea in any way.

Then China doesn’t ‘own NK in any way. You can’t have it both ways; our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.

 

[Indofred]

They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

I disagree. China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea. China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's. IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.

Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.

Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
I don't.

 

[Unkotare]

our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.

In relative terms? Absolutely not. Not even close.

 

[WillowTree]

Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.

Remember Benghazi!

 

[Indofred]

Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.

If you bomb in the summer, China, Japan and Russia are going to be less than pleased but, if you bomb in the winter, you fuck yourselves.

Any other insane ideas?

 

[Oldguy]

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

I disagree. China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea. China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's. IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.

Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.

Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
I don't.

They did in 1950. Why shouldn't they now?

 

[Oldguy]

In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it. Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

Instead, we fight ‘proxy’ wars through smaller nations. NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm. In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor. If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved. It is simple as that.

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on ‘likely.’ Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator. IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.

I disagree. China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea. China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's. IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.

Except China is ALREADY distancing themselves from NK as well as making statements to the opposite of supporting NK and nothing has even happened yet.
BBC News - Is China ready to abandon North Korea?
I think it is completely unreasonable to think that China is going to risk war with the US, their best customer with the most powerful war machine on the face of the planet because of a rouge leader starting a war he cannot win. As one post pointed out, nations go to war when there is something to be gained and China has NOTHING to gain by instigating the US. We would essentially destroy each other, with China ending up getting the short end of the stick.

They WANT NK there but NK would take any reason for them to keep it if it attacks the south. The devastation, loss of life and of American soldiers ensures our involvement and essentially removes China from being able to defend them.

We don't "own" South Korea in any way.

Then China doesn’t ‘own NK in any way. You can’t have it both ways; our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.

China has voiced similar sentiments before and backed away when the chips were down. They'll likely do the same this time.

The situation right now makes me think of the Balkans at the beginning of WWI. A few radical hotheads pulled the whole world into a war nobody wanted, a war which offered "victory" to nobody...yet it happened all the same because events spiraled out of control after the assassination of the Arch Duke.

 

[konradv]

Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.

Remember Benghazi!

Remember Beirut!

 

[Circe]

As un civilized as this sounds WAR is always about gaining something.
It could be land resources or any other asset a nation has...We are the only nation thats fights defensive wars...this will bankrupt us sooner or later. The spoiles of war is not a joke when we waste American lives we need to make the countries we fight ours---Oh my god he is talking about conquest DAM right I'am. Wake up

We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose because we don't REALLY fight. Even Truman pulled back MacArthur, and look at the situation we are in now. So I agree with you: if we go to war, the only good way to fight is to fight to win.

Fighting to win really worked in WWII. Nothing since has worked, and we get bogged down ten years at a time and have to borrow all the money for the wars from China.

So if war is about gaining something and NK is aggressing, what does it want to gain?

I'm reading it's about getting normalized as a nuclear power so it can sell high-tech weapons and become less impoverished that way. After that, it will want to unify (conquer) the penninsula and take over South Korea.

 

[Unkotare]

We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...

Which one of those did we "lose"?

 

[Circe]

[Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved. The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear. It is one of the reasons that we no longer ‘conquer’ other nations. We don’t really want the land.

I don't agree with any of this.

You think humans are in a "War No More" mode? And that no one will ever use nukes?

Consider that the major international issue for years has been Iran and NK trying to nuke up; that suggests to me that someone is afraid of these weapons spreading and being used.

We go over and invade aggressively lots of places. The fact that we don't bother to conquer them and defeat them is ineffectiveness -- it has nothing to do with the land. We DO want colonization, we just want security colonization with many, many foreign bases rather than economic colonization like the British Empire did.

We are failing because we don't defeat anyone anymore and so we can't even get bases we can keep. Pax Americana has had a long run, but there was a period of no big wars in the "long 19th century," too, from 1815 to 1914, if you don't count the French-Prussian war, which wasn't a world war.

This long peace is purely down to us, but we are declining, apparently, and nothing lasts forever. NK and Iran smell this and are nuking up for big power in the new conditions ahead.

 

[Circe]

The South Korean strategy is to respond to any attack in kind. If the North launched an all out attack, Pyongyang along with all high valued targets would be leveled in a matter of days. However, when it's all over, there wouldn't be much left of Seoul or Pyongyang which should be enough to keep both sides in check.

I don't know why you say that, Flopper: that has NEVER been SK strategy so far. They let NK shoot their planes out of the sky, ships out of the water, shell their island and kill the islanders --- they don't respond to ANYthing and never have so far.

I know they are SAYING "this time is different," but I don't believe it.

We may see if they mean it by this week sometime: NK continues a steady pace of escalations, and did shut down the Kaesong complex entirely. What have they got left except one of the murderous provocations they do so often?

Flopper, do you think the South Koreans will treat another ship sinking/island shelling sort of provocation as an act of war and reply in kind? Or back off, as they always have done?

I think they'll back off again.

 

[Circe]

We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...

Which one of those did we "lose"?

All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?