TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

North Korea

Go To

Kinkajou I'm Only Sleeping Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Hiding
I'm Only Sleeping
#276: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:13:04 PM

The hardest part here isn't a prospective war, but the aftermath.

If SK manages to curbstomp NK (not improbable), it would have to deal with rehabilitating the North. Imagine the pains of German reunification, and multiply it.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#277: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:16:16 PM

Assuming Chinese intervention and subsequent World War III does not occur, that would be an apt comparison. But it is a necessary evil unless we are willing to declare all of North Korea a no-man's land and glass all human presence from the area with nuclear ordnance and write it off as acceptable losses to humanity.

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#278: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:24:41 PM

There's a lot of interfamily connections still alive between the two Koreas. I could see reunification going fairly quickly, given the culture.

Wreck their shit pretty much meant their military forces. Show up, bust all those bunkers and tunnels, slaughter their infantry, shoot down their aircraft, and pop all their tanks. Tear their military bases and outposts to pieces, and after that give South Korea operational authority in cleaning up and reunifying Korea while we have forces in the area in case they need help.
This sounds great. I just don't trust American military command to be able to do this, given their performance in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best we could do is give operational command and target selection to the Korean military, and trust that they want enough of the country left standing to avoid civilian casualties. Given that many of the SK troops will have second cousins and maybe even uncles on the other side, we can trust the South to have a vested interest in avoiding unnecessary bloodshed.

There's also the matter of cost. Our military is stretched thin and over budget right now, so if we do this, we'd have to do it fast - say, in less than a month. Unless Obama uses this as cover to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, which I can't say I would disagree with.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#279: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:29:52 PM

There's also the matter of cost. Our military is stretched thin and over budget right now

That's because they haven't got me done with training and ready for the front lines.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#280: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:30:02 PM

^^

It would take a few months for the actual operation to be completely closed. But we actually do have enough people, most of the folks fighting would be the folks at Kunsan and Osan Airbases, as well as the Army and Navy stationed there. With most of our troops out of Iraq, we could pull it off.

Most of the collateral damage you mentioned happened because we weren't fighting a military, we were fighting insurgents who were hiding in civilian buildings. There's a big god damn difference, it wasn't some sort of disregard by USCENTCOM for civilian casualties.

edited 24th Nov '10 6:30:14 PM by Barkey

Erock Proud Canadian from Toronto Since: Jul, 2009
Proud Canadian
#281: Nov 24th 2010 at 6:32:49 PM

If the USSR had showed up to the UN meeting and vetoed the motion to retaliate Korea (all of it) would be a post-communist country right now.

edited 24th Nov '10 6:50:12 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#282: Nov 24th 2010 at 9:08:37 PM

An alternative history scenario would be interesting to talk about - the people of the North might have had a better time over the last sixty years, anyway.

Really, when you step back a bit, that whole land mass has had one bad thing after another for a century. Some stuff done differently with regards to the USSR in the closing time of WWII might have spared us the time of talking about it now.

But that's not our current reality - this is, and we got to deal with it. If it means bombs and guns and shells, so be it. I'd love it if it could be fixed without having to resort to that.

I wouldn't mind being unemployed (defense contractor currently) if the whole world suddenly became pacifistic all of a sudden, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
FFShinra Since: Jan, 2001
#283: Nov 24th 2010 at 10:44:31 PM

If only China's influence was able to get them to force NK into a similar economy to China itself. Then Beijing could stop holding its hand and have a market partner.

Of course, that would perpetuate NK and Kim's reign, so maybe thats a bad idea anyway....

EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
CommandoDude Since: Jun, 2010
#285: Nov 24th 2010 at 11:56:59 PM

Am I the only one thinking...

The USN Iowa, mothballed Battleship sitting in California...sailing out to sea, for ONE. LAST. MISSION.

?

Dr. McNinja is rubbing off on me and I like Battleships too much.

edited 24th Nov '10 11:58:10 PM by CommandoDude

pagad Sneering Imperialist from perfidious Albion Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
#286: Nov 25th 2010 at 12:38:18 AM

"And by the UN we mostly mean the US because we were pretty much the only one with an unexploded military back then."

Hey, that's not entirely fair. For a start, there was at least 100,000 British Commonwealth troops there too.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
maledicted marked from an undisclosed location Since: Apr, 2011
marked
#287: Nov 25th 2010 at 1:48:20 AM

I'm all for curbstomping totalitarian states out of existance, as long as the US doesn't go in "gung-ho" mode or try to make this a precedent for some other military action. And then there's also the matter of civilian casualties and collateral damage.

adam850 Since: Dec, 2009
#288: Nov 25th 2010 at 2:31:50 AM

Do you think there is going to be more shit from NK when the naval exercises happen in the Yellow Sea? We are going to be pretty far south, off South Korea's southwestern coast, not up by North Korea.

pagad Sneering Imperialist from perfidious Albion Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
#289: Nov 25th 2010 at 3:42:15 AM

Whoopsie-daisy

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.
BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#290: Nov 25th 2010 at 4:35:54 AM

Assuming Chinese intervention and subsequent World War Three

I don't see how a Chinese intervention would automatically lead to WW III. It's much more likely that the UN (and NATO and South Korea) would just back off if China decided to take part in this - unless China takes part in a Northern offence instead of just helping them defend. That said, there's pretty much no way China's gonna help the North take the South over; if it takes any part at all (in terms of actual military action), it's going to either help defend the North, never crossing the border itself, or more likely help NATO destroy the North for political points and favours. (If China helps the North cross the border, then we're in WW III - unless we abandon South Korea (like the West abandoned Finland, the Czech Republic and to an extent Poland in WW II).)

(Before anyone tells me that there was a good reason for abandoning East and Central Europe back then, it's true - and it's true now, too - you have to make a decision that's based on how far we value our... ummm... values.)

But it is a necessary evil unless we are willing to declare all of North Korea a no-man's land and glass all human presence from the area with nuclear ordnance and write it off as acceptable losses to humanity.

There are more options than

  • Operation Nuking the North and
  • Operation Slow and Painful Integration with Good Korea.
  • (Operation Joint Asskicking by Conventional Means is one way towards OSPIGK)

EDIT: Made brackets somewhat more confusing.

edited 25th Nov '10 4:39:39 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
EricDVH Since: Jan, 2001
#291: Nov 25th 2010 at 6:11:03 AM

pvtnum 11: Eric, we've tried to negotiate with them for quite some time. Not just us, but others, as well.
Yes, but that was under a political regime with very little respect on the world stage. At some points in the 6-party talks, we were within inches of buying out their nuclear ambitions and stabilizing the country at a healthier point, the best in decades. If this recent fracas is entirely due to internal power struggles as has been speculated, there's an excellent chance it could blow over quite quickly, leaving NK much more open to rational discussion.

I understand that we'll do nothing but throw around the words "condemned" and "Sanctions" and other such terms. And they'll do something else in a few months. And something after tha…SNIP…en getting essentially little more than harsh language for six damn decades.
This is indeed frustrating, it would be great to just kill all the Obviously Evil Card-Carrying Villains in the world, knock their cronies out of power, and free their victims to live in peace, but that's just not how things work in most cases. There would be an enormous number of deaths on both sides of the DMZ, it won't be WWIII if it comes to that, but it would be extremely nasty, and it might not even work out properly (if, say, China seizes it ahead of SK.) Could you justify the ends to all those corpses?

Compare that to the status quo. It's bad, but it's better than what people have been holding off. And things can get better peacefully, Vietnam, China and Cuba are examples of that in action today, it's slow and still a ghastly violation of justice, but it's arguably the least horrible way forward. Life is like that sometimes.

Kinkajou: Imagine the pains of German reunification, and multiply it.
German reunification actually wasn't that bad. Keep in mind, however, that East Germany was something of a showpiece for the USSR, while NK is currently one of the most squalid places on the planet.

edit: durr, typo.

Eric,

edited 25th Nov '10 8:14:30 AM by EricDVH

Iaculus Pronounced YAK-you-luss from England Since: May, 2010
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
#292: Nov 25th 2010 at 6:16:49 AM

You mean NK, right?

What's precedent ever done for us?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#293: Nov 25th 2010 at 6:19:17 AM

^ That's what I'm thinking. South Korea is one of the richest places in Asia alongside Japan.

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#294: Nov 25th 2010 at 7:23:16 AM

"And things can get better peacefully, Vietnam, China and Cuba are examples of that in action today, it's slow and still a ghastly violation of justice, but it's arguably the least horrible way forward. Life is like that sometimes."

Leaving the citizens of NK to starve to death peacefully while the citizens of SK live in peaceful fear of being blown up for the latest propaganda showpiece for a few more generations does not, to me, seem particularly better or worse than causing some deaths to end it all. Peace should be valued in the beneficial results it has on the lives of those living in it, not for its own sake.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#295: Nov 25th 2010 at 9:56:49 AM

This is a simple question of maths, if you want to be coldly clinical.

Question 1: How many deaths will a direct confrontation with NK actually cost?

Question 2: What is the likely death toll per year from malnourishment and poverty, not to mention the occasional skirmirsh, in NK, and in terms of said skirmirshes, SK?

Question 3: What are the likely types of governmental collapse in NK? How severe will the casualties of each type of collapse be?

Question 4: Therefore, with the answers to the last three questions in mind, what will result in the best possible outcome to this situation?

edited 25th Nov '10 9:57:05 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
EnglishIvy Since: Aug, 2011
#296: Nov 25th 2010 at 9:59:14 AM

I prefer these questions:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

edited 25th Nov '10 9:59:26 AM by EnglishIvy

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#297: Nov 25th 2010 at 10:01:32 AM

Chainsaw, your set of questions is only useful if one considers QUALITY of life to be completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#298: Nov 25th 2010 at 10:03:45 AM

^You have a point... dangers of one dimensional thinking.

edited 25th Nov '10 10:04:01 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
carbon-mantis Collector Of Fine Oddities from Trumpland Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Married to my murderer
Collector Of Fine Oddities
#299: Nov 25th 2010 at 10:57:42 AM

[1]

BBC- SK defense minister resigned.

Can't say how this will affect anything, no word on his replacement.

BestOf FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC! from Finland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
#300: Nov 25th 2010 at 11:47:29 AM

Question 1: How many deaths will a direct confrontation with NK actually cost?

Question 2: What is the likely death toll per year from malnourishment and poverty, not to mention the occasional skirmish, in NK, and in terms of said skirmishes, SK?

Well if you wanna see it like that, I'm pretty sure that unless the North decides to use nukes (I'd bet a relatively good chunk of my cash that they won't if it were possible to place bets on this) a war would probably cost less lives than the North is losing every year as things are.

The figure I've heard is a quarter of a million deaths from starvation every year.

That's so fucking much that the country has its back so hard against the wall that the wall's wearing thin from the friction that the country's fear-induced shaking is causing; in fact, the dust that flies off the wall burns instantly because of the heat, making the shaking and the wear worse. Soon North Korea will simply rub through the wall and fall on its back, but despite the way tasteless people usually laugh at people falling on their ass, no-one's laughing at this old dude.

That said, if there were to be someone in the room going all Nelson and pointing at it with an exclamation of "Haa! haa!", it'd probably be the US - sorry, but that's the way you sometimes look from here. (I don't intend to derail this, just giving a small Take That! to the "bully of the world".) (North Korea is even worse of a bully, the kind that brings a gun to school.)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Total posts: 7,755
Top