Jump to content

Home

War starting in Korea


GODKING
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really don't think a war's going to break out in Korea anytime soon... I actually find the idea of a peaceful reunification more likely than another war.

 

I don't think that it will be a peaceful unification when one side has nuclear weapons and the other side has nothing compared to the North Korea. Plus do you think that the South Korea want to be taken over by a country where their are massive starvation because they give all their food to the miltary. Plus the North Koreas don't have any freedoms. They have a closed border policy which means no one gets in or out. Who wants to live under those conditions? Not to meantion that they are Communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

 

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where exactly did Sabre write that North Korea would take over South Korea? How do you know it wouldn’t be South Korea absorbing North Korea? Plus doesn’t peaceful reunification suggest a mutual decision?

 

Do you really believe those in Germany today live under the same conditions of the former East Germans?

 

I meant no disrespect to her, but do you honestly think that the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power so another country can have his land? Now, you said, " that South Korea might absorb North Korea" that would mean that South Korea would rule over North Korea; that means that the North Korea dictator would lose his power over his people, do you think he wants that. Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule. Which one do you think he would prefer losing his position of power or gainning even more power.

 

If you look at the facts more than 60% of his people are in the miltary and he is building nuclear weapons what is the point of having that big of a miltary force if no one is going to attack you or your not going to attack someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I... really don't think the leader of South Korea would give up his position of power, and I made that clear before.

 

That South Korea might absorb North Korea refers to the fact that the Republic of Korea will take over, resulting in democratic rule across former North Korea, possibly retaining the capital at Seoul, or setting up a twin-capital system of sorts.

 

Power isn't only obtained by being and remaining a dictator - a lesson Musharraf will tell you as he campaigns for his party in Pakistan. But the point is moot, seeing as even though the fact that reunification under Kim Jong-Il is unlikely, it is even less likely that he will take up open war like his father. Besides, he's going to keel over in a decade or two, and his son will take over - we don't know what he will be like.

 

Actually, the facts tell me that "20% of men aged 17–54 [are] in the regular armed forces". North Korea has a bulked up army because they're (or he is, to be more precise), paranoid about the US, South Korea and Japan launching a surprise invasion on them. Nations are, unfortunately, required to have militaries for self-defence and this is true for NK as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule.
I was under the impression that it would not be easy to do that with the US forces defending South Korea. You know the same US that does have working nuclear weapons and an assortment of ways to deliver them anywhere in the world. Guess I’ve been terribly misinformed and I will have to inform my uncle that those frostbites on his fingers and toes from walking the DMZ were completely unnecessary as North Korea could have easily taking over South Korea if they wanted to. That does lead to the question why North Korea has not taking over South Korea in the last 50 years. Lack of ambition?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sabre and mimartin have handled this sufficiently, I think. GODKING, have you studied US history at all? Or the history of modern Korean politics? Not light reading, but it will help inform your opinions with a little facticity.

 

@Sabre - your first post was the most interesting, to me. It was stated simply and rather matter-of-factly, or casually maybe. Peaceful reunification seems likeliest to me as well, although I think there will be burps and hiccups.

 

@reunification - Reunification :to reunify. Reunify: bring back together two halves that were once whole. What part of reunification says that one party gets to "rule" the other? Seems like it would be a unified government?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Kim Jong Il MAY be crazy, but he's not a moron. The reason he won't invade S Korea is that the US would come in immediately. That would likely result in him losing NK, or at the very least lose him negotiating points.

 

The reason S. Korea won't go into NK is that there's this other country in the area with a few billion in the armed Forces(China) that would step in to defend NK.

 

So unless either China or the US abandon Korea, there won't be an armed conflict. Essentially, Sabre's point is more valid in that there may at some point come a peaceful reunification. Though in Germany it took the collapse of an empire to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim Jong II (I think is his name) could easily take over South Korea and unify it under his rule.

 

Take it over, perhaps.

 

I can't see the South Koreans giving up their free press, electrical goods and internet cafes, though.

 

EDIT: Oh, and their Freedom.

Edited by Astor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.

The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

 

Sabretooth that is from the same website where you got your information from. It was right under it so even if i got my facts wrong they can easily take them over. Do you not think that another country might step in a join North Korea things like that have happen in the past...

 

Plus the US may step it, but no one has considered that the US then would be fighting a war on two fronts Afghanistan and Korea how do you think that will look for President Obama. We are already having enough problems with the ecomony and stuff of that nature and our debt is in the trillions do you think that the US will want to put us in even more debt? A lot of the debt came from the Afghanistan and Iraq war how much support do you think the US people will have behind this war. It will be like the Vietnam war all over again.

 

South Korea is right now having drills getting ready for a war and this is what the North Korean government said in responds with this and i quote

 

"A similar exercise a month ago provoked a North Korean barrage that killed two civilians and two soldiers on the island. The North Korean government had warned that if Monday’s drill was carried out, its response would be “deadlier” this time “in terms of the power and range of the strike.”

 

That doesnt sound like unification to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime....
Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isn’t a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

 

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (around 2 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has one of the world's largest special operations forces, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime.

The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ).

 

You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that most of their tanks are outdated and from the old Soviet Union era? The people there also live in poverty, starvation, and in terrible living conditions? Believe me, the US and South Korea may not have "numerical" advantages over North Korea, but they certainly have technological advantages and a population that doesn't fear their own country...which in this day and age...is really all that matters for a large scale war like this could become.

 

That was a quote from the http://www.state.gov website so the government obviously thinks that they arent too outdated.

 

Please read more about the Korean War and the US obligation to South Korea. If South Korea is attacked it isn’t a question if the US decides to get involved. The US will be involved.

 

The only region the US may be faster in helping to defend would be the United Kingdom.

 

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

Edited by mimartin
merge double post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

 

Yer young, so I'm not gonna beat you up too much, BUT our obligation to S Korea is pretty well defined. Please take the time to read the cease fire agreement(we're still at war with N. Korea, just in a Cease Fire) and the defense agreements we have with countries in the region. One of whom is Japan who we would also have to be there to defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We may have obligation to help them, but nothing says to what extent. Our help maybe giving them guns. If we do supply soldiers if cant be that many because of all the troops in Afgahanistan and whats left in Iraq

 

We have an obligation to defend them with full force. They're an ally of the United States and that's a benefit of being an ally. South Korea would be gone by now if it wasn't for that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war.

 

I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

 

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know too much about US Military numbers, but doesn't the Army number over 500,000 personnel (and I realise not all of that number would be frontline troops)?

 

EDIT: And I thought US involvement in any war was a given, seeing as the North would likely end up killing numerous US servicemen in the event of an invasion.

 

I think its more like 523,000 in the army, but thats everything in the army rangeing from cooks, medics, etc like you said, but we do always have a majority of our troops at home in case of a attack on the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to meantion that they are Communist.[/Quote]

 

And what do you define as Communist?

 

I for one am under the impression that Communism is the idea in which the people govern equally and everything is shared. It was more appealing than democracy since a majority of the Asian nations were once colonies under world superpowers like England. What N. Korea is under is Facism. From my understanding.

 

Anyone who knows about political systems please feel free to correct any errors that I make.

 

If war does break out in Korea, I am hoping that this war will be a legal one as opposed to the illegal invasion of Iraq. As an optimist, I am hoping that some sort of compromise will come out of this conflict. It seems lately that the solution to any of our problems has been to shoot first and ask questions later. Now where has that gotten us?

 

I know in the US we have a huge deficit that is more than half owned by China, another "Communist" nation and a majority of that is in military spending. Not to mentioned bankrupted states within the United States. The United States seems to be under the impression that only they are the ones allowed to have nuclear weapons. Should another nation decide to start a program it is automatically assumed that they are going to use it to attack us and therefore we must attack first.

 

I am aware that the two nations that are in question are countries that have a history of strongly disliking our policies. Heck the Tehran embassy was held hostage under Jimmy Carter's administration. However by being quick to condemn, we only aggravate the situation. In fact I am wondering what changed between N. and S. Korea. They were unified during one of the Olympics, the first time since the armstice after the Korean war. I still think diplomacy is always the best choice and that one should not raise the weapon until there is absolutely no option left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't understand we can't use our "full force " because our full force is in another country fighting our war. (just so you know we are going to fight our war before someone elses) and any defence pact is for US to help defend a country if it is attack. Helping defend comes in many ways not just by sending our troops to do their dirty work. Now you find the Pact that says we have to defend them all our force and i'll submit after i read over it. and make sure you point out were it says we have to go full force

 

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking you are the one not understanding how the US military operates. We have stretched our military thin fighting wars on two fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan however they are not as depleted as you seem to be implying. Perhaps while reading about the Korean War you should also read about Selective Service and the fact that America has fought a war before on two fronts with forces way more depleted and nowhere near as modern (for its time) as the our military is today.

 

You maybe right, but back then we didn't have to worry about terrorist attacks and stuff of that nature. Plus the ecomony during those wars wasn't as bad as it is now. On top of that we are trillions of dollars in debt and another war would put our ecomony a but us soooo deep in the hole we would never get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...