How do you feel about the Koreas?

[blah the Prussian]

Well, how likely is it that Kim Jong Un will pick a reformer as his successor? North Korea isn't hereditary, it's whoever the current dear leader wants.

[Dwalin2010]

I see your point, but how come after Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao died, the repressions went down and the successors never reached the same level of bloodshed? Maybe North Korea is an exception since it became a sort of dynasty, but usually it's built on a cult of ONE personality, it's rare for them to be able to go on in the same manner for generations.

[blah the Prussian]

But North Korea has BEEN PASSED DOWN THE KIM LINE FOR GENERATIONS, so it can only be assumed that it will go on in the same manner.

[Dwalin2010]

But North Korea has BEEN PASSED DOWN THE KIM LINE FOR GENERATIONS, so it can only be assumed that it will go on in the same manner.

Well, you are right then. But I understandably wouldn't like a war to break out right now because my aunt is presently going to the part of South Korea right near the borderline. I wouldn't like to sacrifice somebody of my family for the greater political good. This is personal of course, but just to explain part of my point of view.

[blah the Prussian]

That is understandable, I suppose. When considering political issues, I like to pretend I have no personal stake in anything, but to each his own. In any case, I'm going to bed.

[Tetragrammaton]

Wow, seeing all your comments now I can understand why a lot of young men eager to join the Vietnam war and died in vain in a foolish war.

Just because your nation is ally of South Vietnam or South Korea, it doesn't mean you are on the right side.

It's their war, please stay out of it.

[Blaze The Great]

Wow, seeing all your comments now I can understand why a lot of young men eager to join the Vietnam war and died in vain in a foolish war.

Just because your nation is ally of South Vietnam or South Korea, it doesn't mean you are on the right side.

It's their war, please stay out of it.

I won't disagree on your first point, because it seems valid to me. Someone else with a more solid argument can take it on.

Your second, however, hints at ignorance of how foreign policy works. Right and wrong isn't what matters when fighting a war (though it should be A governing principle). What matters is who you are allied with, and if you don't support your allies in war, that takes away a huge reason for forming alliances in the first place. In war, it is in one's best interests to back up their allies instead of standing on the sideline.

[Naughx]

Well South Korea isn't a NATO member so Canada -doesn't- have to defend it in case of agression from the North.

[Soapbar]

I think at this point it would be better for America to attack North Korea before North Korea attacks South Korea. North Korea has consistently proven it cares fuck-all for human rights, which leaves a lot of unfortunate implications for any South Korean Citizens caught in the crossfire if North Korea struck first. I can practically guarantee you that if the United States attacked first that there would be less civilian deaths than if North Korea were to be the aggressors unless America decided to go absolutely crazy.

Then you factor in a war between the United States and NK would be an absolute steamroll for the US unless North Korea decided it to do something completely insane such as busting out a WMD, so I think it would end quickly and with minimal blood-shed.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Soapbar

[The_Vernster]

I absolutely hate North Korea with a passion, Communism can go eat a sack of ***** for all i care.

South Korea is just fine. I like their tv shows from time to time lol.

[Tetragrammaton]

US citizens are so aggressive, they think they have the right to kill people who doesn't think they have that right.

[blah the Prussian]

Wow, seeing all your comments now I can understand why a lot of young men eager to join the Vietnam war and died in vain in a foolish war.

Just because your nation is ally of South Vietnam or South Korea, it doesn't mean you are on the right side.

It's their war, please stay out of it.

The United States is allied with South Korea. We were always prepared to defend it in case of war. I don't know about you, but I hate liars almost as much as I hate North Korea. My country might become a corporatist dystopia run by Donald Trump, but at the very least it won't break its word.

US citizens are so aggressive, they think they have the right to kill people who doesn't think they have that right.

If I'm a soldier, I absolutely have the right to kill the enemy.

I think at this point it would be better for America to attack North Korea before North Korea attacks South Korea. North Korea has consistently proven it cares fuck-all for human rights, which leaves a lot of unfortunate implications for any South Korean Citizens caught in the crossfire if North Korea struck first. I can practically guarantee you that if the United States attacked first that there would be less civilian deaths than if North Korea were to be the aggressors unless America decided to go absolutely crazy.

Then you factor in a war between the United States and NK would be an absolute steamroll for the US unless North Korea decided it to do something completely insane such as busting out a WMD, so I think it would end quickly and with minimal blood-shed.

The problem is if we struck first that might bring in China, as they have a defensive pact with North Korea. On the other hand, if the North struck first, it would be pretty hard for them to justify helping their ally.

[Dwalin2010]

If I'm a soldier, I absolutely have the right to kill the enemy.

It depends on what "right" are you talking about. If you are talking about the so-called "right of the strongest" like among animals, then sure thing. But if you are talking about moral rights, then it isn't even funny.

[blah the Prussian]

It depends on what "right" are you talking about. If you are talking about the so-called "right of the strongest" like among animals, then sure thing. But if you are talking about moral rights, then it isn't even funny.

Please explain this in more detail. What is morally wrong about killing someone who is trying to kill you on the field of battle. I do not condemn being a conscientious objector, but you should not condemn wanting to fight for ones country.

[Snowy_One]

*sigh*

Okay. First off... Should America attack North Korea? Answer: Initiating in any war, regardless of the aggressor, will galvanize the North Korean populace against the outside world. Their whole lives they've been taught that, effectively, the U.S. and Japan have propped up South Korea as a puppet so that they can invade the North and pillage the land for resources. The reason why things are different now is that Korea is in a peacetime... Well... What passes for peace there. America and Japan are distant. So even if North Korea did another nuke test tomorrow and the world as a whole decided it had to stop the populace would be firmly on Un's side. However there is another, more important, question to answer.

What price are you willing to pay? Ignoring that WWIII could easily start should China or Russia opt to back up North Korea, NK has several low-yield nukes and all it takes is one use to have the third atomic bomb used upon the world. Even if it blows up harmlessly in a field with a grand kill total of a ton of mosquitos and one cow there WILL be a lot of international backlash and chaos and a lot of people WILL question if we should have ever been involved; even if it was South Korea being outright invaded by the North. That's not to mention that a highly-resistive populace will likely fight to the last and not yield. Exterminating entire towns down to the women and potentially children may not be a war-crime so much as simply soldiers trying to take a city with minimal casualties to both sides. This is a nation where children sing nursery rhymes about killing U.S. soldiers after-all. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that their kindergartners tried to weaponize their macaroni paintings.

Next up. One foolish mistake people seem to keep making is the assumption that, because NK's tech is old, it will be destroyed. It may, very well, be true that North Korea cannot win a prolonged war and is outclassed but a mortar shell is a mortar shell and North Korea can, basically, Zerg Rush for massive damage. If war breaks out it will not be some curt and pretty engagement like in Iraq where troops were relatively few and numbers limited. It will be a big front with a sizable chunk of deaths on both sides and, even if America outright destroys, it will almost certainly be the largest loss of American lives since the end of the Cold War. That's not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands, of South Koreans and Japanese that will likely be killed, the potential fallout if a nuke DOES go off, the North Koreans who will die, and heaven forbid if China comes to their aid.

I'm not saying that America should avoid war, far from it, but it needs to be understood that there will almost certainly be a huge sacrifice of lives and that is something a lot of people today are terrified of.

Moving on...

Will China side with North Korea? Honestly, should a war kick up, I don't think China will 'side with North Korea' so much as 'try to minimize the damage'. Like it or not both Japan and South Korea are simply very valuable as trading partners and North Korea declaring war puts both of these at risk; not to mention that, heaven forbid, they WIN they'll make trading with the U.S. a lot harder. So, no, I don't think China will 'aid' NK so much as it will try to keep the trade of South Korea and Japan intact... which may take the form of offering military aid to try and end the war swiftly and with minimal casualties by taking South Korea before the North does too much damage.

BUT! China already sees NK as a headache and their provocations haven't helped at all. It may not matter who fires first because any war that could even accidentally spill into China would raise their ire. Course, once again, that could backfire as it sides with the North to try and gain ground in its island disputes with Japan and the like. I think China is more LIKELY to stay out of any war or try to keep damages down/side with the South, but that is NOT a guarantee by any means. More like a '31/30/29/10' type of split.

So, what about after the war? That's really the kicker. If the North wins a LOT of pressure is going to end up on Japan. Their history with China is already pretty bad and North Korea is the most hateful nation in the world. If America either doesn't back up the south or is routed they'll see this as a chance to strike Japan. If the South wins there are five nations that might foot the bill. South Korea is the lead obvious, but China, Japan, America, and North Korea itself are all viable choices.

South Korea would take a huge economic toll and, at this point, considers itself a different nation than the North. Despite this they are the most LIKELY, seeing that they are neighbors and plenty do feel as if they are one nation, but their infrastructure is also the most likely to be damaged.

China would be the next up and access too the raw materials in the North, the worker populace, and so-forth would be tempting and the NK's would almost certainly be better-off regardless, however, once again, it's a matter of cost. Despite what people seem to think China's economy isn't massive and, honestly, a sudden influx of workers like this in addition to the burden of supporting another nation would probably make them pull away.

Japan hates NK and the feeling is mutual. Even if every Japanese person decided that helping NK would be their good deed for the day NK would probably do their best to fight back and lash out. However it does have a positive stake in this as it can seek to ease the painful history of its past by providing support. Japan likely won't foot the bill, but they might offer minor aid.

The U.S. is actually pretty likely to try and help. They've shown willingness in the past and the U.S. economy is robust enough to take the hit and could manage a worker-influx, but ignoring that they're just as hated as the Japanese in NK, it's very likely the American people will see this as being expansionist and limit aid. I, personally, believe that if the U.S. were to commit itself to the cause, it could vastly help the North. I don't think the U.S. society would do much more than feel-good measures with mass protests erupting whenever something substantial tried to get passed through congress. It might work if NK was made into a colony but that would come with a whole HOST of diplomatic problems, supply issues, and so-forth not to mention a ton of hate from a populace conditioned to believe that exactly this would happen if they lost, so... yea. U.S. might offer aid and some feel-good measures but its unlikely they'll offer more.

North Korea could try to pick itself up afterwards, but it would be a lost and confused nation at best and likely devolve into anarchy held together only by the collective hate they'd harbor towards everyone.

Even in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia there was at least the understanding that it was a war of ideals and diplomacy. The west did not desire to give into communism and the East did not desire to give into capitalism. But I seriously doubt either side was convinced that losing the war would mean complete destruction of their national identity. That is not the case with North Korea.

I don't believe myself to be an expert on North Korea. I firmly believe a war with them will be costly and said cost will grow higher with each passing year. The question is what will happen and if the world should put a stop to this now or hope that the dynasty will collapse on its own.

[blah the Prussian]

Well actually for the Soviet Union losing the war would have meant the destruction of their national identity. The Nazis wanted to kill 80% of all Russians and turn the rest in to slaves. That, I suppose, is why the Soviets resisted the Nazis so heroically, so your point still stands. Regardless, if North Korea attacks, we need to get involved. We are obligated to due to our alliance with South Korea, after all.

[Dwalin2010]

Please explain this in more detail. What is morally wrong about killing someone who is trying to kill you on the field of battle. I do not condemn being a conscientious objector, but you should not condemn wanting to fight for ones country.

Well, if you talking about people trying to kill you... I just wasn't sure who exactly you implied as being an "enemy". Because the quote was "I have the right to kill the enemy" in reply to another posters quote that "American citizens feel they have the right to kill whoever thinks they don't have this right". I mean, self-defense when you kill whoever wants to kill you is one thing, but many people extend the concept of "having the right to kill for their country" to more than just self-defense.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, if you talking about people trying to kill you... I just wasn't sure who exactly you implied as being an "enemy". Because the quote was "I have the right to kill the enemy" in reply to another posters quote that "American citizens feel they have the right to kill whoever thinks they don't have this right". I mean, self-defense when you kill whoever wants to kill you is one thing, but many people extend the concept of "having the right to kill for their country" to more than just self-defense.

Yes, see, he was wrong when he said that. I find nothing morally wrong about a soldier killing an enemy soldier who is not surrendering. Make sense?

[Dwalin2010]

Yes, see, he was wrong when he said that. I find nothing morally wrong about a soldier killing an enemy soldier who is not surrendering. Make sense?

I understand, but in my opinion it depends on whether your country is in the right or in the wrong in that case. If the country is in the wrong, I don't think it's right to fight for it. However, maybe this would be better to discuss in the earlier "Morality of war" thread, otherwise if will be considered off-topic maybe, since it's a more general subject than just Korea.

[Tetragrammaton]

First of all, they are not your enemy until you force them to become your enemy.

It's just a lame excuse for your desire to kill people.

If you kill people in your own society, you will face the law in your country.

But killing people from other country will give you medal of honor.

Admit it, you serial killer.

Edited August 24, 2015 by hanhnn

[Snowy_One]

First of all, they are not your enemy until you force them to become your enemy.

It's just a lame excuse for your desire to kill people.

If you kill people in your own society, you will face the law in your country.

But killing people from other country will give you medal of honor.

Admit it, you serial killer.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

People are not your enemy unless you 'force' them. There are a multitude of reasons why someone might be your enemy and some of them are downright stupid, but also not 'forced'. Some people just don't get along. Sometimes disputes become too big. Sometimes... someone just wants to watch the world burn. War isn't some excuse propped up by a group of murderers to kill people without repercussions. It's a sad reality of the world we live in where many people will go to war for many things. The Roman's warred to repress barbarians and conquer much of Europe. The Mongals warred to unify their people and redirect their constant squabbling outwards. America and Canada almost went to war over a pig (seriously. Look it up.). There are many, MANY, reasons why people fight and start wars. This... is just a horrifically naive and pessimistic view that seems more likely to be found coming from a middle-schooler wearing heavy amounts of make-up and thinks that their reading a few news stories makes them more knowledgeable than most of the world.

[blah the Prussian]

I understand, but in my opinion it depends on whether your country is in the right or in the wrong in that case. If the country is in the wrong, I don't think it's right to fight for it. However, maybe this would be better to discuss in the earlier "Morality of war" thread, otherwise if will be considered off-topic maybe, since it's a more general subject than just Korea.

Yeah, you're right. In this case, however, can you agree that if North Korea attacks then the US would be in the right for protecting it's ally?

First of all, they are not your enemy until you force them to become your enemy.

It's just a lame excuse for your desire to kill people.

If you kill people in your own society, you will face the law in your country.

But killing people from other country will give you medal of honor.

Admit it, you serial killer.

So now we have personal attacks to add to some of the worst reasoning I've seen since Woodrow Wilson argued for self determination. The problems with this post should be self evident. First off, you will get arrested if you kill citizens of a country you are at peace with. Second, if North Korea is the aggressor North Korea is forcing me to become their enemy. I will begin to charge money if I have to continue educating you in common sense.

[Snowy_One]

So now we have personal attacks to add to some of the worst reasoning I've seen since Woodrow Wilson argued for self determination. The problems with this post should be self evident. First off, you will get arrested if you kill citizens of a country you are at peace with. Second, if North Korea is the aggressor North Korea is forcing me to become their enemy. I will begin to charge money if I have to continue educating you in common sense.

I'm half-convinced he'll claim that money is a patriarchal construct created by evil capitalists and he does not have any and would refuse to support 'the system' if he did.

[Esau of Isaac]

US citizens are so aggressive, they think they have the right to kill people who doesn't think they have that right.

While we're making sweeping generalizations, what is your country of origin? I'm sure it's got some skeletons in its closet we can apply to millions of people.

[Dwalin2010]

Yeah, you're right. In this case, however, can you agree that if North Korea attacks then the US would be in the right for protecting it's ally?

Yes, with self-defense there is absolutely nothing wrong. If North Korea attacks, it would only make sense to push them back from South Korean territory.