North Korea fires at island in South Korea

[unit]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

I think that SK would be overjoyed to see NK be wiped off the map, as long as the nuclear fall out didn't spill over into their borders, which the US wouldn't allow to happen.
China has many reasons to preserve North Korea, so many its almost unpredictable what they would in the event of war. My knowledge of Asian politics is limited, but to my knowledge China doesn't have any other allies in the area if something happens. Let alone a fascist, communist country, so completely reliant on China's aid that they would do anything to protect it. Plus, the human rights violations committed in NK distract the world from anything China could possibly do wrong.

south koreans dont want to see north korean casualties.

[shawn79]

when north korea gets attacked and about to surrender, china will take over and north and south korea will no longer exist anymore. South korea will be known as Korea and north korea will be part of China millitary training ground.

[Culture_Vulture]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

war strategists say america cant win a war with NK unless they go nuclear

i imagine the USA wouldnt do anything if NK did attack SK they may feel like they have to since its an affront to them (since they're stationed there) but they just cant afford it and the risks would be too great

And this is why North Korea as a regime is still problematic today: America's unwillingness to engage in conflict. Disregarding the potential of a "nuclear winter" in the face of an all out conflict, the cost of America's (and the West's) relative success to other parts of the world is their overwhelmingly shitty cost-tolerance.
This is why they done goofed in the Vietnam War (and to some extent, in the middle east) despite being superior in all aspects of its military and technology.

The reason why thinkers like Waltz have suggested that it was actually more peaceful throughout the Cold War than after the Cold War ended is because both America and the USSR had (at least, on the exterior) a high cost tolerance during that period.
We're not just talking about the overkill production of nuclear arms, we're talking about fighter jets that have never seen the inside of a hanger and the constant patrol of fighter jets, submarines carrying nuclear warheads and aircraft carriers on both American soil and out in international waters, 100% ready to fight to the bitter end, however undesirable a nuclear war may be.

When you have two states in conflict with a substantial difference in their cost tolerance, you end up with an rational egotist and a retarded bigot.

[darkfroggy]

Japan: We spend $47 billion on military.
China: Since when were you guys allowed to have a military?
Japan:

[Kamui712]

Meanwhile in Canada.... our "problems"...

[darkfroggy]

Originally Posted by Kamui712

Meanwhile in Canada.... our "problems"...

Guy in the third pic is just asking to be punched.

God dammit, what a trollface.

[The_AK]

^+1 for life
Posted via RS Mobile

[BlacknJean]

ruports said that south korea strike first, they accidently shot one of the shell durinng practice game at the border into north korean territory. and nk was like wtf is this and sot back 200 shells. but south korea shot back 80 shells after .

btw i typed this when i was high as shit last night but the story is true though.a asouth korean told me he heard about this.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Culture_Vulture

When you have two states in conflict with a substantial difference in their cost tolerance, you end up with an rational egotist and a retarded bigot.

good point on cost tolerance. by allocating a higher an enormous amount of resources to military spending, you reduce your financial capital which you can invest on employing more police officers, doctors, set up a public healthcare system, and the list goes on. that's totally valid logic, and i wholeheartedly agree.

i strangely get this feeling that there's a bandwagon of US military strength haters on this board. i can see the logic stemming from this group, i guess whenever the military mobilizes, tonnes of budget is allocated on tools of death, when in fact, they could be allocated to medical research, creating jobs, increase standards of living, etc.

but is allocating more resources to social security than national security feasible that feasible? consider the variables:

a) japan needs to expand
b) china wants to expand
c) enough terrorist groups in the world to form their own country
d) north korea actually has an international agenda (eg, google north korea syrian nuclear facility)
e) russia is becoming less western-friendly and more nationalist each year
f) tonnes of south african pirates would love to rain oil tankers
g) middle east is... a given, you can figure it out

that's a lot of potential beef. although we'd never know for sure, we can logically estimate the outcome of the following: in a hypothetical world, if america pulled out of kuwait in the 90's and sized its army down to nothing, how likely is it that all 7 of the above will remain peaceful?

you could argue that if china was in america's current position as the worlds military super power, nothing would be different. i havent read up on chinas foreign policy, but would you really want a capitalist country with huge gaps in society levels to be the worlds superpower? what about a country with this thing called the first amendment, which if they upheld at least half the things on it, we'd be alright.

anyways, im sure you can already agree that the US, with its first amendment, is the most ideal country (than any of the above list) to lead the world as the greatest military force. and you'd have to be a totally far left hippy to think that the worlds a nice place, we can all shake on new unifying policies. even if you doubt that the first amendment serves any purpose, you gotta admit, at least the US is trying to seem like a free country.

lastly, to all those that had a rebuttal ready at the halfway point of this post, just pretend you're the leader of a country with problems (population density, lack of resources, climate sucks, you're getting pushed into a corner by an opposing country). now lets develop a criteria list of ideal characteristics of a place to expand in:

huge coast line
good climate
plenty of resources
far away from other countries
nice geographic terrain to build on

given the US had a (hypothetically) low-cost tolerance for their military, with the combination of a no-nukes policy, highly developed city infrastructures, meets all the criteria above, etc etc, then it would be retarded not to take advantage of this opportunity.

[Culture_Vulture]

I try to be objective as possible, but if anything, I'm pro US military dominance; I also see them as the most fit country, of all the economically qualified states, to be the world's leading military force. They're just going about it the wrong way.

There's a difference between "being" the world's greatest military force and actually BEING the world's greatest military force. Sadly, America's military isn't all that great after you consider it's technological factors.
America's (or any other EDCs, for that matter) prosperity and capitalist ideals create the social notion that the only way for people to have basic, petty material needs and a "minimal" standard of living, is through the systemic, but peaceful oppression of lesser countries like Peru or Mexico.
This is why the United States have had so many conflicts with Japan, and increasingly China's, economic status: the Americans DON'T want to engage in a military conflict with China, and they WON'T get any public support for a war. For China, it's a simple matter of pulling some strings and spreading some elitist nationalist propaganda.
So when challenged with a third world country like North Korea who doesn't take any shit from a self-boasting country like America, all American riches and advanced weaponry become part of an intricate paper tiger scheme.
What does a death account for America? If ten coffins filled with dead American soldiers killed in the front lines of battle get media coverage in the United States, public support for the war drops drastically and the politicians get their asses fried by the public. That's ten soldiers. More people than that die on a DAILY basis from famine and diseases in Vietnam or North Korea.

So really, America's brand image courtesy of its capitalist society doesn't really cut it in terms of practical intentions.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

war strategists say america cant win a war with NK unless they go nuclear

Total BS IMHO. There are both aerial and ground forces within the US military alone that could cripple the North Koreans before they knew what hit them - it's just not politically correct to do so. If everyone (including China) wanted the conflict on the Korean peninsula to end it could be done overnight with simultaneous strategic strikes to take out key equipment and personnel.

The North Koreans have 1960's military technology, absolutely no match for a modern military in every sense.

[Alphamale]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641

Mr Chun said the Chinese officials "were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state - a view that since North Korea's 2006 nuclear test had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders."

"Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [Demilitarised Zone]," the ambassador's message said.

"The PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the United States in a 'benign alliance' - as long as Korea was not hostile towards China," it added.

[SkinnyPupp]

That sounds like a "go for it" to me!

[Ch28]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

That sounds like a "go for it" to me!

It's open season on North Korea!

[The_AK]

this should be interesting