PDA

View Full Version : N Korea shells S Korean Island - 1 Dead, Several Injured


scoopy_loopy
23-11-10, 10:23
SOUTH Korea scrambled F-16 fighter jets and returned fire after North Korea launched an artillery barrage against a populated South Korean island near the countries' western border.

In what appeared to be one of the most serious border incidents since the 1950-53 war, South Korea's government convened in an underground war room and air force jets were reportedly scrambled to the Yellow Sea island.

The firing came after North Korea's disclosure of an apparently operational uranium enrichment program - a second potential way of building a nuclear bomb - which is causing serious alarm for the United States and its allies.

Some 50 North Korean shells landed on the South Korean border island of Yeonpyeong near the tense Yellow Sea border, damaging dozens of houses and sending plumes of thick smoke into the air, YTN television reported.

One South Korean Marine - part of a contingent based permanently on Yeonpyeong island - was killed, the military said.

The military said 13 Marines were injured and YTN said two civilians were also hurt.

"A North Korean artillery unit staged an illegal firing provocation at 2.34 pm (0534 GMT) and South Korean troops fired back immediately in self-defence," a ministry spokesman said.

"A Class-A military alert issued for battle situations has been imposed immediately," the spokesman said.

One island resident, Lee Jong-Sik, told YTN: "At least 10 houses are burning. I can't see clearly for the smoke. The hillsides are also on fire.

"We were told by loudspeakers to flee our homes."
Yeonpyeong lies just south of the border declared by United Nations forces after the inconclusive war six decades ago, but north of the sea border declared by Pyongyang.

The Yellow Sea border was the scene of deadly naval clashes in 1999, 2002 and last November.

Tensions have been acute since the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, which Seoul says was the result of a North Korean torpedo attack. Pyongyang has angrily rejected the charge.

In late October, North and South Korean troops exchanged fire across their Cold War border, coinciding with a state of high alert for the South's military in the buildup to the G20 summit of world leaders in Seoul earlier this month.

South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak convened an emergency security meeting in response to the latest incident, a presidential spokesman said.

"He is now in an underground war room to discuss possible responses with ministers of related agencies and national security advisers," the spokesman said.

President Lee urged the officials to "handle it (the situation) well to prevent further escalation", the spokesman said.

The firing comes after Kim Jong-Un, the little-known youngest son of Kim Jong-Il, was officially recognised as number two in North Korea's political system, clouding outsiders' view of its military and nuclear intentions.

The new crisis erupted as a US special envoy headed to China Tuesday to seek its help in curbing North Korea's new nuclear project, revealed to US experts who described a sophisticated program to enrich uranium. Stephen Bosworth has also visited South Korea and Japan this week to discuss the disclosure, which US officials say would allow the isolated North to build new atomic bombs.

Mr Bosworth, speaking in Tokyo, ruled out a resumption of stalled six-nation talks - aimed at disarming the North of nuclear weaponry in return for aid and other concessions - while work continues on the enrichment program.

China chairs the talks and is also the North's sole major ally and economic prop. It has come under pressure to play a leading role in resolving the latest nuclear dispute.

China appealed for the six-party talks to resume after the new revelations, and expressed concern over today's cross-border firing.

"We have taken note of the relevant report and we express concern over the situation," foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters.

"We hope the relevant parties do more to contribute to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula," he said.

Russia also warned against an escalation of tensions on the peninsula.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/world/bombardment-of-south-korean-island-sparks-artillery-clash-with-north/story-e6frfkyi-1225959632651).

Another breakout of hostilities... do not want. This is far to close to home, and there's quite a bit of ocean between my Country and those involved. My heart goes out to all any closer than myself, and especially those on the affected Island and the Korean and other involved militaries.

Avalon SARL
23-11-10, 10:34
This is bad and sad :(
Won't leaders ever solve their problems the peaceful way :(

scoopy_loopy
23-11-10, 11:22
Not when they're psychos stuck in yesteryear thinking! :rolleyes:

ajrich17901
23-11-10, 13:25
Sadly I knew it was just a matter of time..

matrix54
23-11-10, 13:31
This feud has been going on a bit too long, me thinks.
Bury the hatchet already... sheesh...

Catapharact
23-11-10, 14:31
Ah North Korea... They really know how to light up the Powder Keg don't they? Between this and the torpedo incident, its only a matter of time before South Korea decides to hammer NK good. And they should hammer NK!

scoopy_loopy
23-11-10, 14:35
Ah North Korea... They really know how to light up the Powder Keg don't they? Between this and the torpedo incident, its only a matter of time before South Korea decides to hammer NK good. And they should hammer NK!

I'd prefer a combined effort, alongside SK bring in Australia, America, Japan... they're the 3 loudest voices I hear against NK at the moment. I want their propaganda feeding government ground into the dust (You know they've told their citizens that the SOUTH started all this?), and I don't want to risk a single mishap. You know, like a Nuke being launched... :(

Mad Tony
23-11-10, 17:03
They keep on doing this because they know they can get away with it. Part of me thinks South Korea (along with their allies) should call their bluff one day because it's getting pathetic. Would love to see Britain back up South Korea if ever a war did break out.

patriots88888
23-11-10, 17:06
They keep on doing this because they know they can get away with it. Part of me thinks South Korea (along with their allies) should call their bluff one day because it's getting pathetic. Would love to see Britain back up South Korea if ever a war did break out.

I think that is what they (NK) are hoping for, which kinda scares me tbh. The last thing this world needs is another global conflict.

Mad Tony
23-11-10, 17:08
I think that is what they (NK) are hoping for, which kinda scares me tbh. The last thing this world needs is another global conflict.Is it really? They know nobody's going to fight back. That's why they do it. They can get away with it. Despite having more soldiers than South Korea I'm pretty sure the South combined with the western powers could wipe the floor with the north technologically.

Catapharact
23-11-10, 17:12
I think that is what they (NK) are hoping for, which kinda scares me tbh. The last thing this world needs is another global conflict.

Actually I with Tony on this. I think NK just wants to test the tolerance level of SK and its allies and see just how far they can push things and demand significant monetary and technical support goods from the world. If the world doesn't complies, then they start rattling their sabers and pull off antics such as this little shelling incident.

patriots88888
23-11-10, 17:17
Is it really? They know nobody's going to fight back. That's why they do it. They can get away with it. Despite having more soldiers than South Korea I'm pretty sure the South combined with the western powers could wipe the floor with the north technologically.

My reasoning for believing so is based on the fact that NK has that reputation for being confrontational and pushing the right buttons. If a mega power such as the US were to get involved, they know exactly just how much they could get away with without any serious repercussions because they have seen how the world has already viewed the US's involvement in the Middle East. They may not be as tough as they think they are, but they are not stupid either.

Mad Tony
23-11-10, 17:19
My reasoning for believing so is based on the fact that NK has that reputation for being confrontational and pushing the right buttons. If a mega power such as the US were to get involved, they know exactly just how much they could get away with without any serious repercussions because they have seen how the world has already viewed the US's involvement in the Middle East. They may not be as tough as they think they are, but they are not stupid either.To be fair I think most people would support action against North Korea. North Korea as far as I know isn't resource rich so the public wouldn't view this kind of intervention with as much cynicism.

patriots88888
23-11-10, 17:24
To be fair I think most people would support action against North Korea. North Korea as far as I know isn't resource rich so the public wouldn't view this kind of intervention with as much cynicism.

I'd believe that if and only if I actually saw it. It's easy to assume such when things are cold, but when the actual guns start a'blazin', people have a tendency to change their views real quick.

ozzman
23-11-10, 17:43
wow, this is interesting :D

Sir Croft
23-11-10, 17:46
I'm not one fond of using violence to solve problems, but diplomacy doesn't seem to work with them. Somebody better put them back in their place before they get ideas.

Cochrane
23-11-10, 17:49
To be fair I think most people would support action against North Korea. North Korea as far as I know isn't resource rich so the public wouldn't view this kind of intervention with as much cynicism.

The oil thing wasnít the only reason why people were opposed to the war. Iraq was also not a direct threat to anyone but its own citizens (this isnít true for North Korea, of course), but also the US seriously screwed up the post-war phase. When Bush stood on the aircraft carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner, he was actually right, but the lack of a proper plan for the post-war phase led to fighting continuing for years after the initial target, Saddam Hussein, had been eliminated.

Which brings me to this rather important point: How do you propose to manage North Korea after its fall? On the plus side, there does not appear to be the same tribal issues as in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no opposition to speak off either, which means there is no default new government. Putting all of North Korea under the Southís control directly would also be difficult. It wasnít easy in Germany, and there we had a much higher standard of living in the east and a working and growing opposition when the wall fell.

Donít get me wrong, Iím all for a peaceful, free, democratic North Korea, and I wouldnít mind if that was the result of a war (as long as itís not german soldiers fighting). But I just donít see any obvious road to that.

Mad Tony
23-11-10, 17:51
Which brings me to this rather important point: How do you propose to manage North Korea after its fall? On the plus side, there does not appear to be the same tribal issues as in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no opposition to speak off either, which means there is no default new government. Putting all of North Korea under the Southís control directly would also be difficult. It wasnít easy in Germany, and there we had a much higher standard of living in the east and a working and growing opposition when the wall fell.

Donít get me wrong, Iím all for a peaceful, free, democratic North Korea, and I wouldnít mind if that was the result of a war (as long as itís not german soldiers fighting). But I just donít see any obvious road to that.Well, I don't have a proper answer for this but perhaps the occupiers could hand over power in a similar way the Allies did with West Germany after World War II?

Ward Dragon
23-11-10, 17:54
I don't think other countries should intervene on our own, but we should definitely give South Korea any and all support that they ask for to defend themselves. As long as they are the ones who ask for us to get involved, we shouldn't face any of the issues we're having now with Iraq.

ozzman
23-11-10, 17:56
hope none of this crap comes to Western PA :D

Sgt BOMBULOUS
23-11-10, 18:05
I'd like to remind all of the people saying "They should get it over with", that Seoul is only 30 miles from the DMZ. Regardless of how dilapidated NK's Army is, they could cause horrific devastation just hurling shells & missiles into a city this massive. I can't imagine what it's like there right now, but it must be tense. I've lived in Korea, I've been on the DMZ, and it's no joke.

patriots88888
23-11-10, 18:15
I'd like to remind all of the people saying "They should get it over with", that Seoul is only 30 miles from the DMZ. Regardless of how dilapidated NK's Army is, they could cause horrific devastation just hurling shells & missiles into a city this massive. I can't imagine what it's like there right now, but it must be tense. I've lived in Korea, I've been on the DMZ, and it's no joke.

Exactly, people tend to think that conflict such as this would be a 'piece of cake' if the US were to become involved, but it's never that simple. All one has to do is look at how long that other conflict in the M.E. has been drawn out. As I said, I believe NK's flexing of its military muscles has a much deeper agenda than only what has previously been stated. Right now, I'm not sure how much longer anyone can be tolerant of their actions and I believe NK is well aware of that.

tomblover
23-11-10, 19:19
NK needs to GTFO. And fast.

Alpharaider47
23-11-10, 19:35
Ah North Korea... They really know how to light up the Powder Keg don't they? Between this and the torpedo incident, its only a matter of time before South Korea decides to hammer NK good. And they should hammer NK!

Forget the hammer, just bust out the steamroller and get rid of the problem. I mean it would suck, because not all the NKs deserve that, and there'd be a lot of death and destruction. But how long is this going to go on if nobody does anything about it? It's a situation where I think one side has to take over the other, and I think we can all agree on what side needs to be on top :o Is there really any viable peace option?

voltz
23-11-10, 20:23
I'd like to remind all of the people saying "They should get it over with", that Seoul is only 30 miles from the DMZ. Regardless of how dilapidated NK's Army is, they could cause horrific devastation just hurling shells & missiles into a city this massive. I can't imagine what it's like there right now, but it must be tense. I've lived in Korea, I've been on the DMZ, and it's no joke.

I can probably imagine that place is on top of Kim Jong's priority list before he croaks. I would seriously consider fleeing by now.

Forget the hammer, just bust out the steamroller and get rid of the problem. I mean it would suck, because not all the NKs deserve that, and there'd be a lot of death and destruction. But how long is this going to go on if nobody does anything about it? It's a situation where I think one side has to take over the other, and I think we can all agree on what side needs to be on top :o Is there really any viable peace option?

I don't think anyone wants to be hit with negative publicity for "striking first", but I'm beginning to think that intervention will become necessary at some point. If anything, we may need to run a tactical air strike against that nuke plant before Kim gets the jolly's to fire one off.

Hell if he does fire one, Kim's fair game.

Chocola teapot
23-11-10, 22:13
FFS, They should just get in there and deal with North Korea.

The regimes are ridiculous and they treat their citizens like Scum, One of the worst human rights records in the modern world.

voltz
23-11-10, 22:42
Want to see another problem? Take out N. Korea, China's going to make a push to move in.

Mad Tony
23-11-10, 22:53
Want to see another problem? Take out N. Korea, China's going to make a push to move in.Seriously doubt it. China is North Korea's only ally but they're not a staunch ally. China would not go to war with the west over North Korea.

voltz
23-11-10, 23:01
No, but the problem here is that if Kim were removed and somehow that territory were up for grabs, this leaves the possibility of South Korea still having a conflict to deal over it rather then re-uniting both countries.

EDIT: Come to think about it, I wouldn't like Russia getting fully involved again.

Cochrane
23-11-10, 23:14
China does not have to go to war to express that it is displeased. China wields a lot of economic power. Not enough that they can actually afford to annoy the west too much right now, but if China feels that things arenít going the way they want, they have a lot of leverage over us. Rare earth metals would be a good example: Produced almost entirely in China, needed for all sorts of electronics, and they want to restrict and stop exporting it in the future. Moving that schedule up and restricting exports of other resources would put western economies in a really difficult situation. A credible threat by China to do this might be reason enough for the west to just let North Korea be. Under which conditions China would use those powers is a more interesting question.

Personally, I donít think a war is the right way to go about it. North Korea doesnít want to invade the south, no matter how much they claim so. What they want is to be seen as a threat, as someone incredibly mad, so that everyone else thinks it is better to appease them by giving them economic aid, than to attack them. Their nuclear bomb program goes in the same direction.

I think there must be a peaceful long-term solution. If the local standard of living rises, then so will exposure to capitalist culture, and it is very likely that this can, sooner or later, lead to a weakening and toppling of the regime. The current model North Korea operates on is not sustainable, and one of Kim Jong Ilís successors will realize that sooner or later. When that happens, I think the most important goal is to subtly steer NK into a free, democratic direction, instead of it trying to become a second, smaller, China. I have no idea how that will work in detail, but in my opinion something along those lines sounds more appealing to me than a war.

@Mad Tony, concerning the suggestion to do something like in (west, I assume) Germany after the second world war: Yeah, that might work. But the situation is obviously different enough to make sure one canít just copy it.

robm_2007
24-11-10, 01:46
Ah North Korea... They really know how to light up the Powder Keg don't they? Between this and the torpedo incident, its only a matter of time before South Korea decides to hammer NK good. And they should hammer NK!

IDK much about either Korean military, but does NK or SK have the better?

i could imagine that NK does, but only cuz they are crazy are are bound to have a ****-load of weapons and soldiers awaiting for the time to attack any "lesser" country.

Tommy123
24-11-10, 01:55
Sadly I knew it was just a matter of time..

same here :(

scoopy_loopy
24-11-10, 02:31
"US support for South Korea was "unshakeable", Barack Obama said today ahead of talks to co-ordinate a response to a fatal artillery attack by North Korea." (http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-assures-seoul-of-us-support-in-korean-peninsula-crisis/story-e6frfkyi-1225960137431)

NK needs to be blown out of the water. (At least the government does. Then the people need to be shown that they've been lied to for generations.)

"SOUTH Korea's President has ordered his military to strike North Korean missile bases if the North shows further signs of provocation." (http://www.news.com.au/world/bombardment-of-south-korean-island-sparks-artillery-clash-with-north/story-e6frfkyi-1225959632651)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned of "colossal danger'' from Korean tensions. "This could degenerate into military actions,'' he said.

The US urged nuclear-armed North Korea to "fully abide by the terms of the Armistice Agreement" that ended the Korean War of 1950-53.

Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said that North Korea's actions were threatening stability in Asia and called on Pyongyang "to abide by international law and norms and to cease its hostile acts".

Japan's Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, said he had ordered his ministers to prepare for any eventuality.

ozzman
24-11-10, 02:39
if i was obama i would have been like HELL NO, we already are suffering enough, here's some of china's Money back , use it wisely. in other words, we need to stay out of this as much as possible

scoopy_loopy
24-11-10, 02:43
if i was obama i would have been like HELL NO, we already are suffering enough, here's some of china's Money back , use it wisely. in other words, we need to stay out of this as much as possible

Yeah, try staying out of it when NK launches Nukes.

Bullethail
24-11-10, 02:44
Kim Jong-Il is an absolute madman. I think North Korea is going to learn sooner or later that its not as bulletproof as it believes. Still, here's hoping this gets solved reasonably.

Mad Tony
24-11-10, 07:29
if i was obama i would have been like HELL NO, we already are suffering enough, here's some of china's Money back , use it wisely. in other words, we need to stay out of this as much as possibleIsolationism never works.

Ikas90
24-11-10, 10:55
Some governments just need to cease to exist.

Then we can say goodbye to most, if not all of the world's problems.

Ward Dragon
24-11-10, 12:39
if i was obama i would have been like HELL NO, we already are suffering enough, here's some of china's Money back , use it wisely. in other words, we need to stay out of this as much as possible

I hate Obama as much as the next guy XD However I'll support him on this one. We shouldn't intervene of our own accord, but we absolutely should support South Korea with whatever they need. Not only is South Korea completely innocent in this (as far as I know they have not done a single thing to justify the attacks against them), but additionally we can't afford to let North Korea start a war and nuke people. This isn't going away if we just ignore it. It has to be dealt with, although like I said South Korea should be in the driver's seat since they are the ones who are most at risk right now.

Catapharact
24-11-10, 14:47
IDK much about either Korean military, but does NK or SK have the better?

Numerically speaking, NK has the advantage but their military hardware is... Obsolete. SK has 600+ planes where as NK has about 1,700; But most of NKs hardware if 2nd generation Soviet crud; Where as SK's primary fleet consists of the F-15K "Slam Eagle" which is basically a F-15 E with even more advanced avionics and a JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing) System.

The South Koreans Navy consists of 170 ships and 10 Subs (with additional support aircrafts and equipment.)

The SK army has 522,000 troops and 5,850 tanks/armored vehicles, 11,337 artillery systems, 7,032 missile defense systems and 13,000 infantry support systems.

Now all of these are just estimates.

TRfan23
24-11-10, 17:56
If I was Obama I would have been like HELL NO, we already are suffering enough, here's some of china's Money back , use it wisely. In other words, we need to stay out of this as much as possible.

If you're using China as an example:

Well yeh but you may find that your country would be depriving of resources ;)

Getting on their bad side would be a very bad idea :o

I think it'd be best if us Western countries stick to being their 'friends' for now.

tampi
24-11-10, 18:20
Today's news has been rather disappointing.
I don't know what some leaders are thinking about.

Some days it seems that the world has gone mad. :o

Goose
24-11-10, 18:35
Numerically speaking, NK has the advantage but their military hardware is... Obsolete. SK has 600+ planes where as NK has about 1,700; But most of NKs hardware if 2nd generation Soviet crud; Where as SK's primary fleet consists of the F-15K "Slam Eagle" which is basically a F-15 E with even more advanced avionics and a JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing) System.

The South Koreans Navy consists of 170 ships and 10 Subs (with additional support aircrafts and equipment.)

The SK army has 522,000 troops and 5,850 tanks/armored vehicles, 11,337 artillery systems, 7,032 missile defense systems and 13,000 infantry support systems.

Now all of these are just estimates.

The south is similar to Western forces, they have a Regular and Reserve status. You join up, do your time which could be around 3-4 years then you go back to being a civilian, but the military still has the right to sign you back up in the event of war for a certain amount of time after your service, could be around 5 or 6 years, and they may have to do annual training to keep there skills up to date during that time.

So with that in mind the South has 3.5 million troops with the knowledge to fight a war at this point. The US has 28500 troops based near the borders as part of the peace keeping force so thats around 3.75 million troops. Not including Japan who would im sure fight this one for there own safety, and the 50,000 US troops stationed in Japan with them.

North Korea has around 9 million troops who are within the age range to fight a war, but not many people know what standard of training they would be at, considering they havnt fought a war since the 50's, they would be pretty poor at fighting any western trained force who have been in conflicts for decades.

I only know abit about there air force. Due to fuel shortages, there pilots fly jets for around 7 hours a year each, compared to hundreds for our guys.

The best they have to offer is the Mig-29, Which vs a F-22 or Typhoon, would barely have entered the same time zone before getting destroyed. Once air defence is gone, no matter how large an army, they will loose.

Cochrane
24-11-10, 18:49
Why do so many people here (not all, obviously) think that North Korea wants to start a war? Kim Jong Il would have nothing to gain from that at all, and I think he knows it. If he didnít, what exactly is he waiting for? His chances arenít getting any better.

What he wants is attention and economic aid. He is not an actual threat to south Korean security, at least not as long as he keeps acting as he does. However, he needs to be seen as one, so others will appease him. That has worked reasonably well for North Koreaís ruling elite so far (not the people, obviously), and thereís fairly little reason to believe that he wants to change it anytime soon.

North Korea will only be a danger if it becomes quiet. If we stop caring about it, then the US might get the impression that it does not have to buy North Koreaís not doing anything with economic aid. And if North Koreaís money was cut off, theyíd feel the need to prove that they are still a threat and do something stupid.

patriots88888
24-11-10, 18:53
Why do so many people here (not all, obviously) think that North Korea wants to start a war? Kim Jong Il would have nothing to gain from that at all, and I think he knows it. If he didnít, what exactly is he waiting for? His chances arenít getting any better.

As far as I'm concerned, NK has already not only violated long standing treaty, but has also now drawn first blood. Sorry, but that does qualify as something more than just simple attention seeking.

Ward Dragon
24-11-10, 18:54
And if North Koreaís money was cut off, theyíd feel the need to prove that they are still a threat and do something stupid.

They've already escalated their attacks on South Korea to the point where they've blatantly killed people. We can't keep buying them off because that only encourages them to kill more people every time they want something. I think the best long-term solution is to show unwavering support for South Korea and help them with anything that they ask for help with.

Mad Tony
24-11-10, 18:56
Why do so many people here (not all, obviously) think that North Korea wants to start a war? Kim Jong Il would have nothing to gain from that at all, and I think he knows it. If he didnít, what exactly is he waiting for? His chances arenít getting any better.

What he wants is attention and economic aid. He is not an actual threat to south Korean security, at least not as long as he keeps acting as he does. However, he needs to be seen as one, so others will appease him. That has worked reasonably well for North Koreaís ruling elite so far (not the people, obviously), and thereís fairly little reason to believe that he wants to change it anytime soon.

North Korea will only be a danger if it becomes quiet. If we stop caring about it, then the US might get the impression that it does not have to buy North Koreaís not doing anything with economic aid. And if North Koreaís money was cut off, theyíd feel the need to prove that they are still a threat and do something stupid.North Korea is unpredictable and completely isolated from the outside world. The likes of China and Russia I would trust not to be stupid enough to start firing nukes or launching invasions but you just never know with North Korea, because of that isolation.

Cochrane
24-11-10, 19:41
North Korea is unpredictable and completely isolated from the outside world. The likes of China and Russia I would trust not to be stupid enough to start firing nukes or launching invasions but you just never know with North Korea, because of that isolation.
It is indeed scary how little we know about North Korea, but you can form models that explain its behavior pretty well. Obviously NK is more dangerous than any other country in the world, but the question is whether it is dangerous enough to justify the drastic measures that some people in this thread are advocating.

They've already escalated their attacks on South Korea to the point where they've blatantly killed people. We can't keep buying them off because that only encourages them to kill more people every time they want something. I think the best long-term solution is to show unwavering support for South Korea and help them with anything that they ask for help with.
Sounds like a good plan. I am certainly not happy with the current "buy them off" situation. But is what you suggest really a change from the status quo?

As far as I'm concerned, NK has already not only violated long standing treaty, but has also now drawn first blood. Sorry, but that does qualify as something more than just simple attention seeking.
Does it qualify as that for North Korea? The question isnít whether NK is evil; theyíve been that for a long time now. The question is whether they are an actual, immediate threat. Iíd think the sinking of the South Korean vessel some time back was actually worse than this. NK doesnít really care about the south koreanís that were killed, itís just another step in the same old thing theyíve been doing for years.

I donít actually mind disposing Kim Jong Il by force, as long as it doesnít require my money and german soldiers. But I do think it is important to see this new provocation in context. Considering all other things North Korea has done ó and gotten away with! ó in the past, this is far from the worst. This is no "they crossed the line" moment here, and itĎs not a good idea to start anything serious based on this. If you want to attack NK, then a better reason than this would be nice, but most important would be a master plan about what to do next. And that will take more time than such a random display of madness allows.

Ward Dragon
24-11-10, 19:46
Sounds like a good plan. I am certainly not happy with the current "buy them off" situation. But is what you suggest really a change from the status quo?

The article implied that South Korea has had enough and wants to fight back, so if that happens it would definitely change the situation.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
24-11-10, 19:51
North Korea's best opportunity for action was during the Gulf War. Their Army was stronger then, their equipment newer, and the most technologically advanced army in the world was tied up elsewhere. I agree with Cochrane that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. In the past 20~ years they've had some golden windows of opportunity which have slipped by, and have done nothing.

patriots88888
24-11-10, 20:04
Does it qualify as that for North Korea? The question isnít whether NK is evil; theyíve been that for a long time now. The question is whether they are an actual, immediate threat. Iíd think the sinking of the South Korean vessel some time back was actually worse than this. NK doesnít really care about the south koreanís that were killed, itís just another step in the same old thing theyíve been doing for years.

I donít actually mind disposing Kim Jong Il by force, as long as it doesnít require my money and german soldiers. But I do think it is important to see this new provocation in context. Considering all other things North Korea has done ó and gotten away with! ó in the past, this is far from the worst. This is no "they crossed the line" moment here, and itĎs not a good idea to start anything serious based on this. If you want to attack NK, then a better reason than this would be nice, but most important would be a master plan about what to do next. And that will take more time than such a random display of madness allows.

Why don't you ask the same to those of S Korea. If you are suggesting that I am all for duking it out with NK, then you would be mistaken. I am not any more for warfare than you appear to be, but there has to be a point when enough is enough. Implying that these past events are nothing more than attention seeking and ploy tactics is rather insulting when considering non military citizens have been involved (whether that was intentional or not is irrelevant). It seem rathers obvious to me that NK is intent on keeping this up indefinitely and that is simply not acceptable.

Where do you draw your line? Is it only if Germany were somehow directly involved in the mix?

disapearing-boy
24-11-10, 22:05
To be fair I think most people would support action against North Korea. North Korea as far as I know isn't resource rich so the public wouldn't view this kind of intervention with as much cynicism.

True, but aren't they allied with China and Russia? Now if the US and co support such a war, it could escalate into a more global conflict between China and US, or a new Cold War. Although I understand (and hope) both China and Russia are tired of N. Korea's antics and wouldn't support any new conflict If N. Korea are the aggressors (which they are). China could put a lot of pressure on them and avoid a war, and it's in their interest to do so.

I don't want a war although the world would be a safer place without Kim Jong II but the risk of chemical and possibly nuclear warfare isn't worth it. The war isn't on our doorstep here, and we forget the true cost of war (all those innocents) and it's easy for someone in the UK, US, Europe or wherever to support such a thing without realising the true cost.

TRfan23
24-11-10, 22:36
So I guess the only thing we can do is wait until Kim Jong-il dies from old age? :/

Then see what transpires from there?

Librarian
24-11-10, 23:12
^ Well, I guess that depends on what his son is like.

Archetype
24-11-10, 23:36
^ Well, I guess that depends on what his son is like.

http://jeffpruett.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/kim-jong-nam.jpg?w=455&h=636

Shame he didn't pick him... : o (kim jong nam, btw)

Mad Tony
25-11-10, 00:16
True, but aren't they allied with China and Russia? Now if the US and co support such a war, it could escalate into a more global conflict between China and US, or a new Cold War. Although I understand (and hope) both China and Russia are tired of N. Korea's antics and wouldn't support any new conflict If N. Korea are the aggressors (which they are). China could put a lot of pressure on them and avoid a war, and it's in their interest to do so.

I don't want a war although the world would be a safer place without Kim Jong II but the risk of chemical and possibly nuclear warfare isn't worth it. The war isn't on our doorstep here, and we forget the true cost of war (all those innocents) and it's easy for someone in the UK, US, Europe or wherever to support such a thing without realising the true cost.North Korea's only "ally" so to speak of is China. However, China aren't all that supportive of North Korea and I doubt they would go to war with US over it. As for Russia, they're not that close to North Korea as far as I know.

The problem is it could one day be on your doorstep. Because nobody knows what goes on inside that country we don't know what their capabilities are.

Cochrane
25-11-10, 00:20
Why don't you ask the same to those of S Korea. If you are suggesting that I am all for duking it out with NK, then you would be mistaken. I am not any more for warfare than you appear to be, but there has to be a point when enough is enough. Implying that these past events are nothing more than attention seeking and ploy tactics is rather insulting when considering non military citizens have been involved (whether that was intentional or not is irrelevant). It seem rathers obvious to me that NK is intent on keeping this up indefinitely and that is simply not acceptable.

Where do you draw your line? Is it only if Germany were somehow directly involved in the mix?

There were plenty of points to draw the line, and they slipped away because nobody was willing to do anything. The nuclear program, the frequent border disputes, sinking of south korean ships, abducting south korean citizensÖ*Thereís plenty of stuff where the line could and, arguably, should have been drawn, but wasn't. All Iím saying is that this is not much over what North Korea has been getting away with for ages, if at all. If the previous stuff wasnít justification for a war, then this isnít either.

Realistically speaking, the line would have to be drawn by China and nobody else. All other members of the security council are annoyed at NK enough as it is, but attacking without China allowing it is not a realistic possibility.

Ward Dragon
25-11-10, 00:43
There were plenty of points to draw the line, and they slipped away because nobody was willing to do anything. The nuclear program, the frequent border disputes, sinking of south korean ships, abducting south korean citizensÖ*Thereís plenty of stuff where the line could and, arguably, should have been drawn, but wasn't. All Iím saying is that this is not much over what North Korea has been getting away with for ages, if at all. If the previous stuff wasnít justification for a war, then this isnít either.

Everything adds up though. This could be the last straw -- not that big on its own, but when taken in context enough is enough.

Realistically speaking, the line would have to be drawn by China and nobody else. All other members of the security council are annoyed at NK enough as it is, but attacking without China allowing it is not a realistic possibility.

What if South Korea retaliates? Does South Korea need China's permission to defend itself? :confused:

scoopy_loopy
25-11-10, 01:58
They've already escalated their attacks on South Korea to the point where they've blatantly killed people. We can't keep buying them off because that only encourages them to kill more people every time they want something. I think the best long-term solution is to show unwavering support for South Korea and help them with anything that they ask for help with.

I agree with this implicitly. :tmb:

So I guess the only thing we can do is wait until Kim Jong-il dies from old age? :/

Then see what transpires from there?

He's already on the way out, there is speculation that this whole attack may have been escalated into what it was because of a feud between his successors. As it stands, I think his youngest is being groomed to take control on Jong-il's death -- but as I understand it, there are people with power not content to sit and encourage the transition.

patriots88888
25-11-10, 01:59
To save myself the hassle of combining both yours and Cochrane's posts, I'll just add to yours WD, because I happen to share your views on all this.

Everything adds up though. This could be the last straw -- not that big on its own, but when taken in context enough is enough.

I have to agree, and it doesn't appear NK is in any hurry to open up any peaceful or diplomatic channels any time soon... based on what we have witnessed as of late, quite the opposite actually.

What if South Korea retaliates? Does South Korea need China's permission to defend itself? :confused:

Of course not. While I understand what Cochrane is saying about diplomacy and the complexities involved thereof, no country needs special permission from another to defend itself, and to even suggest such a thing is ludicrous. Which is why I asked him where he would personally draw his line, which he appears to have conveniently avoided by stating where others might have considered doing so.

It's easy to say just sit back and hold tight, eventually we'll help and come to your aid, when this sort of thing is not directly affecting you. Which is why I asked (as did you) how he feels S. Korea should feel about all of this. Maybe taking that into consideration, it might give Mr. Cochrane some added perspective on the current situation. For some reason though (knowing how he views things) I seriously doubt that.

Killercowz
25-11-10, 02:08
The last thing this world needs is another global conflict.

Wouldn't it be exciting to live during a World War? :whi:.

scoopy_loopy
25-11-10, 02:10
Wouldn't it be exciting to live during a World War? :whi:.

God, no thank you. That's one of my worst fears right there. :(

patriots88888
25-11-10, 02:24
Wouldn't it be exciting to live during a World War? :whi:.

I personally do not wish to see another, two was enough. I am thankful I'm not the one in position to have to make the tough calls but I will say that the way things currently stand, simply sitting back and waiting for the next attack, strike, or whatever hostilities NK is cooking up wouldn't be acting responsibly either. Something needs to be done, and if all other more peaceful resolutions have been exhausted and failed, then that really leaves only one alternative. You can't let the bully in the backyard run the show indefinitey, and that is exactly what NK is doing right now.

NK doesn't appear to have any care whatsoever about the consequences of their actions, which is what I find to be the most unsettling part about all of this.

mudkip25
25-11-10, 04:39
I was just in South Korea! :yik:

I'm tired of the North brainwashing all those people... Kim Jong Il may be worse than Hitler since Hitler only put people he captured in Concentration Camps, Kim Jong Il places the people's entire family in a Concentration Camp. Even if they say just one thing that opposes the North Korean government at the very least and even jokingly. :(

You would get binned if you said Mary Bale was from North Korea... :hea:http://fun.resplace.net/Emoticons/Angry/BangHead1.gif

voltz
25-11-10, 04:44
Did we know what it is that's killing Kim Jong atm? His transition was obviously because he doesn't have much time left.

knightgames
25-11-10, 06:22
i'm tired of the north brainwashing all those people... Kim jong il may be worse than hitler since hitler only put people he captured in concentration camps, kim jong il places the people's entire family in a concentration camp. Even if they say just one thing that opposes the north korean government at the very least and even jokingly. :(





huh??!!??

Keir_Eidos
25-11-10, 10:21
North Korea's only "ally" so to speak of is China.

I think you're forgetting the longstanding friendship and alliance between North Korea and the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/24/sarah-palin-north-korea-allies


:D

xXhayleyroxXx
25-11-10, 10:34
God, no thank you. That's one of my worst fears right there. :(

I agree :( Its one of mine too x

scoopy_loopy
25-11-10, 11:25
I think you're forgetting the longstanding friendship and alliance between North Korea and the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/24/sarah-palin-north-korea-allies


:D

*Chortle* :D

Mad Tony
25-11-10, 12:01
I think you're forgetting the longstanding friendship and alliance between North Korea and the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/24/sarah-palin-north-korea-allies


:DAnd the media frenzy continues...

Personally I'm tired of hearing about her. :p

tampi
25-11-10, 12:15
I think you're forgetting the longstanding friendship and alliance between North Korea and the USA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/nov/24/sarah-palin-north-korea-allies


:DI had never previously paid much attention to the statements of this lady.:whi:

I see that every country has its own "characters.":o:D

voltz
25-11-10, 13:19
Don't forget Kim likes basketball.

Cochrane
25-11-10, 13:36
Patriots8888: I wanted to reply, had a long post all typed out, then accidentally lost it. As ashore summary because I'm on my phone: I don't like NK at all, and I do think that we cannot and should not accept this behavior indefinitely. I just don't see a good alternative right now. Attacking NK is difficult for three reasons: China backs them, there is no plan for a post-communist China, and NK's army, while probably unable to win, could still cause major problems for South Korea if it came to a war. In that situation, the only realistic line I could draw would be an all-out attack on SK, because China would probably not defend NK then.

Obviously that sucks for South Koreans. So I am wondering if there are other solutions. A revolution in NK would be kind of neat. Similarly, if NK were to **** of China, then China might agree to drastic measures way earlier — possibly even at an attack like this already, which would have crossed the line for me if it weren't for the difficult diplomatic situation. Or someone finds a completely different solution. Sadly, I have no idea what this would be.

I hope that answers all your questions about my point of view. If not, then that's because I forgot something and/ or am stupid, not because I am trying to evade your points.

Forwen
25-11-10, 17:14
There is one thing that seems strange to me in those WWIII speculations.

Why assume that anyone would back North Korea in the first place? That place is worthless - or near enough to make it implausible that China and Russia would risk their relatively good relationship with the West (and MUCH more important trade and economical links) for a sham of a country with no important resources or exports. Politically speaking, if the Chinese society started questioning the Party's mandate to rule (which I understand is quite unlikely) then I could imagine China supporting NK with more fervour just to validate themselves. This doesn't even begin to apply to Russia who have no ideological interest in NK's political system anymore. NK is a bit of an albatross to its old 'allies' and maybe - here's hoping - has outlived its usefulness.

So yeah, at the end of the day I can't really see China, Russia, US and Japan wanting to **** each other off too much. Should the worst happen, I could see them semi-openly supporting one or the other in this one conflict and resuming business as usual everywhere else. WWIII? Probs not, not without some other factors elsewhere in the world.

scoopy_loopy
26-11-10, 09:15
NORTH Korea staged an artillery firing drill today near the South Korean border and warned that planned US-South Korean naval exercises at the weekend would bring the peninsula closer to war.

-Source. (http://www.news.com.au/world/north-korea-artillery-drill-after-war-warning/story-e6frfl00-1225961681646)

God... The North is, as usual, acting like a child. Seriously, what can they possibly hope to gain? If they want war, they'll be flattened. Do they really expect China to go to war against the entirety of the Civilised World with them? Pur-lease.

tampi
26-11-10, 11:01
Yesterday, I spoke with someone and commented on how hard it must be to govern.
I talked about the sudden hair's color change in Obama, just take the presidency.

Kim Jong should know, necessarily, that his mandate is over, that his "race" is over. He should know that on this planet, countries like that, sooner or later will disappear.

Now think of the person who has to go and negotiate with him.


Is like.......

*Helloo:wve::whi:*


:vlol:

EDIT: Just now I hear he wants to "....annihilate...." !!!!

The Great Chi
27-11-10, 01:15
The poor guy is in such a Ronely position :D

xh_9QhRzJEs

tampi
27-11-10, 11:14
^^:vlol: Yes exactly.

OMG! Did not remember that scene! loool:D