Another Korean War?

[Big Mac 19]

Tensions continued to rise on Tuesday as North Korea’s state run news agency KCNA reported from a source within the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea that the nation was severing all ties with South Korea. In addition, according to the Associated Press, Kim Jong-Il has ordered the North Korean military to prepare for war after claiming that South Korean ships had entered North Korean waters earlier in May.

There has been an escalation in vocal hostilities after a report from South Korea last week deduced that a North Korean torpedo had sunk the South Korean ship the Cheonan in March.

Due to the sinking, South Korea has cut trade and denied entry into its waters. It has also, after a pause of six years, restarted its psychological and propaganda campaign against North Korea in an attempt to educate and inform citizens of the Northern nation.

According to Reuters, North Korea claims that the leaders of South Korea are “military gangsters, seized by fever for a war.†In addition, the nation also stated that if South Korea violates its territorial waters, North Korea will “put into force practical military measures to defend its waters.â€

North Korea also claims that the Cheonan incident was created by the South Korean government to bolster South Korean president Lee Myung-bak’s ability to gain support in upcoming parliament elections.

The United States has stated its support of South Korea. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday, “We endorse President Lee's call on North Korea to come forward with the facts regarding this act of aggression and, above all, stop its belligerence and threatening behavior.â€

http://www.examiner.com/x-27431-World-News-Examiner~y2010m5d25-North-Korea-prepares-for-war-severs-ties-with-South-Korea

[sparks50 0]

Well, technically the first war never ended.

[Big Mac 19]

Well, technically the first war never ended.

True, but I was dying for a shower and didn't feel like figuring out how to phrase it so that it'd be "technically" correct. :p

So any opinions?

[vektorboson 8]

Well, despite all the sabre rattling, it does not look like war. I cannot find the article from yesterday anymore, but according to US intelligence the DPRK did not mobilize their land troops.

And that's pretty odd, considering that the DPRK threatens 'all-out war'. Of course things may change when the south has installed those propaganda loudspeakers.

The DPRK 'only' expels all South Koreans (especially from the Kaesong-complex), stops all trade with ROK (which was already the punishment from ROK) and will not communicate with ROK until the next President is elected.

To say that you won't talk to someone till the next president doesn't sound like war.

[Tonci87 163]

I think the DPRK knows that they couldn´t win a full scale war, so this is only sabre rattling

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, in fact North Korean regime cannot survive without mobilizing its people against an external vital threat. The question is : how long will China support this country ?

[Tonci87 163]

Well, in fact North Korean regime cannot survive without mobilizing its people against an external vital threat. The question is : how long will China support this country ?

This is right too.

The real question is, how crazy are the DPRK Leaders? Are they crazy enough to start a war?

If we only look at Kim, I would say crazy enough, but I hope there are also some People with their Brains turned on.

[JdB 151]

Unless the ROK starts it, or responds to a DPRK provocation in full force, there won't be a continuation of the war in the foreseeable future. DPRK = Kim Jong-il, and the only objective of Kim Jong-il is to keep Kim Jong-il in power. A war against the ROK and the US is suicide for the regime unless China backs them up fully.

[slatts 1978]

i think if this incident started a few years back when america was busier elsewhere

N.Korea could have dared

now i think this guys just cant do it

[Baff1 0]

If anyone gives them any shit they will nuke someone, maybe Okinawa, maybe Seoul. Maybe both.

Don't expect the Americans to start anything. This is a war they don't want. They have nothing to gain and a pacific empire to lose.

[echo1 0]

Does North Korea have any usable nukes? From what I've gathered, the ones that have been tested so far are more experimental than anything...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Does North Korea have any usable nukes? From what I've gathered, the ones that have been tested so far are more experimental than anything...

Personally i also wouldnt want to risk pissing someone off who has an experimental nuke. :p

[Big Mac 19]

Personally i also wouldnt want to risk pissing someone off who has an experimental nuke. :p

A nuke isn't much good to ya if you don't have delivery system (unless its a backpack nuke) and as far as I know all their missiles make Saddam's SCUDs look like smart bombs. I could very well be wrong though.

[vektorboson 8]

A nuke isn't much good to ya if you don't have delivery system (unless its a backpack nuke) and as far as I know all their missiles make Saddam's SCUDs look like smart bombs. I could very well be wrong though.

It doesn't matter if you miss your target by 3km if you have a target as big as Seoul.

[Big Mac 19]

It doesn't matter if you miss your target by 3km if you have a target as big as Seoul.

It does if the missiles are so unreliable that it's head or tails if it gets off the ground.

[VanhA-ICON 11]

Thinking of the famine and misery in the north could it be possible that the sinking of Cheonan was intentional provocation and they knew the evidence would be located...

I mean maybe the situation up there is so bad that getting into war is the only honorable way out of their situation?

Remember that in Asian cultures "keeping face" is the most important thing.

[max power 21]

If their objective wasn't war, why would North Korea sink a ship in the first place?

[echo1 0]

North Korea has been testing the waters (to pardon the unfortunate pun) for years with all sorts of border clashes, incursions of saboteurs and even an almost-successful raid on the presidential palace back in the 60s/70s... I think they're probably thinking that they can get away with anything.

Then again, given the fact that they aren't taking responsibility, perhaps some half-wit low-level commander thought he could get his 15 minutes of fame by sinking a South Korean ship, and his superiors weren't very amused.

Edited May 27, 2010 by echo1

[Baff1 0]

A nuke isn't much good to ya if you don't have delivery system (unless its a backpack nuke) and as far as I know all their missiles make Saddam's SCUDs look like smart bombs. I could very well be wrong though.

You could very well indeed.

They have proven able to launch satelittes into space.

Their last missile test was believed to give them range to hit Alaska.

I wish my countries ballistic missile tech was as advanced as theirs.

[Daniel 0]

Then again, given the fact that they aren't taking responsibility, perhaps some half-wit low-level commander thought he could get his 15 minutes of fame by sinking a South Korean ship, and his superiors weren't very amused.

That's what I was thinking. Their military equipment must be ancient by now.

It'd be interesting to see how their old school anti-aircraft batteries stood up to modern stand-off weapons.

[Baff1 0]

If their objective wasn't war, why would North Korea sink a ship in the first place?

Because they felt they had no choice?

Because they felt it was operating in their territorial waters?

Because they feel that there is a large military force camped on their border that constantly threatens them with attack.

Because they see their neighbouring countries practising for naval mounted invasion of their country every year.

Because last time the war was hot a marine based landing almost cost them the war.

Because they feel that they are being placed under an aggressive sanctions regime designed to overthrow their government, or weaken their military to the extent tht it can be successfully destroyed. Much as they just saw us do with Saddam recently.

Because they do not want enemy forces gathering intelligence about their disposition?

Or perhaps they just want to raise the stakes for the negotiating table?

Perhaps they thought it was engaging them!

Perhaps it was, perhaps it tried to force them to the surface.

Who knows?

The top ones would be my gut feeling. I find the whole diplomatic blackmail arguement to smell too much of demonisation to give any particular credence.

This is a country that has been under siege for 60 years. (Or as they see it, half a country). I wouldn't assume they don't consider their actions to be anything short of defensive.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 77]

You could very well indeed.

They have proven able to launch satelittes into space.

Their last missile test was believed to give them range to hit Alaska.

I wish my countries ballistic missile tech was as advanced as theirs.

While I don't like to pose myself as an authority on things I know little about, if I remember correctly, our nuclear weapons are delivered by submarine which can obviously be placed where there is open ocean provided it is under friendly control.

I very much doubt their technology is superior.

Fell free to correct me if I am wrong with your vast knowledge on nuclear weapons and North Korea's nuclear capability.

[Baff1 0]

Here in the U.K. we stopped developing ballistic missiles in the 60's (Blue Streak?) and we launched our final weather rockets in the 90's.

What they make is more advanced than anything we have ever produced.

We buy ours off the Americans.

The French, the Russians, the American's and perhaps even the Chinese launch our satelittes for us.

We have that amateur guy still, at a push I suppose. Starchaser.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXedPa_boKI&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXedPa_boKI&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Or the post office. They fire the post to Scottish islands by mail rocket!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UHoMMzlvnU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UHoMMzlvnU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Edited May 27, 2010 by Baff1

[-Snafu- 77]

Here in the U.K. we stopped developing ballistic missiles in the 60's (Blue Streak?) and we launched our final weather rockets in the 90's.

What they make is more advanced than anything we have ever produced.

We buy ours off the Americans.

The French, the Russians, the American's and perhaps even the Chinese launch our satelittes for us.

IIRC the UK held other nuclear option up until the late 1990s but with the threat of the USSR gone it would have been increasingly hard to justify their existence and cost. Submarine delivery systems can be moved and offer way more flexibility.

Complete independent development of nuclear weapons would have been costly and very time consuming. The UK shared similar views and geo-political objectives so it was logical from that point of view as well to work with the US in nuclear weapons. This meant access to nuclear weapons produced by one of two of the world superpowers. No, they have not developed anything better than the UK has.

Furthermore, there was no real need for the UK to pursue its own development in the areas you mention. By the end of WW2 the world had completely changed, it had killed off the Great Power system as the Western European nations had exhausted themselves and it had thus introduced the Superpower system which consisted of the US and USSR. Both of these countries filled the vacuum left by the European powers vastly increasing their power and commitments.

Nuclear weapons became one of the key parts of this new power status. Sure, Britain and France eventually acquired their own arsenals but all this did was separate them from other powers and giving them more of a say in international affairs. The British and French no longer had they power they had before WW2 so they simply had no need to participate in the space race or solely develop their own nuclear weapons.

Britain's nuclear weapons and coming aircraft carriers are important for maintaining a foothold as a global power of sorts. North Korea's pursuit of these weapons is to give it a big stick so it can stay a regional power and ward off any advances by the US. South Korea, on the other hand, doesn't really need them as it has the US Superpower as an ally.

The French, the Russians, the American's and perhaps even the Chinese launch our satelittes for us.

For the reasons mentioned above Britain had no need to bother itself with the space race and AFAIK it has worked with other friendly nations which has included the US, France (which AFAIK doesn't have much of a space program) and Russia. I can't recall cooperation with China.

North Korea's launching of a satellite is more posturing than anything else, IMHO.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Snafu

[max power 21]

Because they felt they had no choice?

Because they felt it was operating in their territorial waters?

Because they feel that there is a large military force camped on their border that constantly threatens them with attack.

Because they see their neighbouring countries practising for naval mounted invasion of their country every year.

Because last time the war was hot a marine based landing almost cost them the war.

Because they feel that they are being placed under an aggressive sanctions regime designed to overthrow their government, or weaken their military to the extent tht it can be successfully destroyed. Much as they just saw us do with Saddam recently.

Because they do not want enemy forces gathering intelligence about their disposition?

Or perhaps they just want to raise the stakes for the negotiating table?

Perhaps they thought it was engaging them!

Perhaps it was, perhaps it tried to force them to the surface.

Who knows?

The top ones would be my gut feeling. I find the whole diplomatic blackmail arguement to smell too much of demonisation to give any particular credence.

This is a country that has been under siege for 60 years. (Or as they see it, half a country). I wouldn't assume they don't consider their actions to be anything short of defensive.

None of these reasons preclude war as a direct result. If the ship was in their territorial waters, then fair game as far as I'm concerned. Violating the territorial waters of an enemy nation gathers what it sews. Was this boat in undisputed NK territory?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Max Power