North Korea attacks South Korea

Exactly. If it weren't for the North's right to exist as a nation (wrong or not), NK should have been invaded and occupied and the populace re-integrated into SK, and as said before, there wouldn't be any opposition (China would probably bitch and moan like an underpaid whore though).

WTF "divine lineage" this isn't the Japanese emperor you're talking about. The North Korean leadership is not crazy, as much as the US media would have you believe otherwise. There are factions as well. Kim Jong Eun is a 27 year old punk with no military experience, and the only way he stays in power is if Kim Jeong Il stays alive long enough to legitimate his succession. If you don't think the very real possibility of a military coup exists, I might suggest you're the one who's been huffing the glue.

Joyrex, do you even read what I write? "If the North were going all out, they would launch their artillery pieces at Japan and South Korea." and

"What i believe is that there are factions in the North, and the hawks are saying "look, Kim Jeong Eun is coming to power but that doesn't mean we're going soft or anything."

It's pretty common knowledge that North Korea has about 7,000-8,000 pieces pointed at Seoul. I didn't think that I needed to reiterate that.

The regime has to exist for the people, because otherwise they lose in the end. They know this. If they didn't, they wouldn't have tried farmer's markets (where people buy and sell things) and opening the industrial park in Kaesong which allowed South Korean companies to build factories using North Korean labour where the labour actually got paid. The elite understand that in the end any regime which is too repressive will fall, they know they need to adapt. They just don't know how without giving up autonomy. The elite has to be made to understand that they will still be relevant in a more integrated North Korea.

Japan is not a nuclear power. China wants stability because stability is good for business, the US wants stability for the same reason. Pakistan, India and Iran don't come into play here.

I honestly don't think the US would bother getting involved. Not a whole lot of things of use to us up there. Besides, it would be kind of overkill.

NATO, maybe.

Braintree: the US would definitely get involved, if full on warfare broke out. If they don't engage on their treaty promises, the rest of the world based on alliances with the US would murder you lot.

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:37 PM, Braintree said:

I honestly don't think the US would bother getting involved. Not a whole lot of things of use to us up there. Besides, it would be kind of overkill.

 

NATO, maybe.

True - after all, what's the point of us having bases in Japan and helping fight the Korean War...

I honestly don't think public opinion here would allow us to start another expensive operation overseas. We might send a small aerial force, and some ships, or send financial aid, but if Obama wants to get elected for a second term, he better keep his interests closer to home.

I think the bulk of the outside military force would come from somewhere else.

We're still withdrawing from Iraq, after all.

Braintree: there is a huge difference between Iraq and treaty obligations to an ally.

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:36 PM, chenGOD said:

WTF "divine lineage" this isn't the Japanese emperor you're talking about. The North Korean leadership is not crazy, as much as the US media would have you believe otherwise. There are factions as well. Kim Jong Eun is a 27 year old punk with no military experience, and the only way he stays in power is if Kim Jeong Il stays alive long enough to legitimate his succession. If you don't think the very real possibility of a military coup exists, I might suggest you're the one who's been huffing the glue.

Woah there, Susy Creamcheese, I didn't mean that literally-- I'm not some jingoistic Faux-News-watchin' USAmerican hawk. I was only suggesting that Kim Jong Eun isn't going to step away (on his own accord) from the autocratic cult of personality (and it is a strong one, even if its far less effective with each successive generation) that Il-sung ["Eternal President"] began. I would certainly imagine that a coup is a strong possibility.

The U.S. has almost 30,000 troops contiously stationed in ROK and another 40k in Japan, and much of the Japanese based forces are there to support Korean operations. I was a military brat in Okinawa from 95-98 and my father, a MC-130 navigator, was deployed for training up to Osan and Kunsan AFB just about every other month.

US-Korean military cooperation is so deep that South Korean troops (who are drafted)must complete part of their service with US forces

We're not leaving until the North ceases from existing, if ROK gets involved, so do we. NATO might deploy troops, but they're not obligated to. Japan would be in a bind about military deployments, that's a very touchy constitutional and cultural issue there, but they would at least voice support and access to resources (with so many US bases they kind of have to) I have no idea how China would react militarily, but they and Russia would not assist the DPRK.

Meh, this happens every so often. The North Korean regime has all the footage they need now. It's probably all been spun out on state TV and had it's desired effect. I'm pretty sure they're not stupid enough to start an actual proper war anyway.

I would expect the US to be VERY reluctant to step in if things did get too hairy over there. What with the Chinese more or less propping up the US economy.

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:21 PM, joshuatxuk said:

The U.S. has almost 30,000 troops contiously stationed in ROK and another 40k in Japan, and much of the Japanese based forces are there to support Korean operations. I was a military brat in Okinawa from 95-98 and my father, a MC-130 navigator, was deployed for training up to Osan and Kunsan AFB just about every other month.

 

US-Korean military cooperation is so deep that South Korean troops (who are drafted)must complete part of their service with US forces

 

We're not leaving until the North ceases from existing, if ROK gets involved, so do we. NATO might deploy troops, but they're not obligated to. Japan would be in a bind about military deployments, that's a very touchy constitutional and cultural issue there, but they would at least voice support and access to resources (with so many US bases they kind of have to) I have no idea how China would react militarily, but they and Russia would not assist the DPRK.

I wonder, if push came to shove if they would... Russia and China already hate the fact the US is in their backyard as it is... and they've come to the DPRK's aid before (although not militarily).

baph: that's why it's important to show the elite that they can retain their authority and get richer under integration compared with isolation.

joshua: spot on.

richy: China props up the US economy, but they rely on exports to the US as well. china wants stability, and have been very reluctant to support North Korea of late. They have chastised North Korea on their recent actions.

Russia and China can hate all they want, but yes they have come to the aid of North Korea before, even militarily. It's not even a question of if they would Joyrex. They would lose all credibility if they didn't honour their treaty obligations with an ally.

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:40 PM, chenGOD said:

baph: that's why it's important to show the elite that they can retain their authority and get richer under integration compared with isolation.

 

joshua: spot on.

 

richy: China props up the US economy, but they rely on exports to the US as well. china wants stability, and have been very reluctant to support North Korea of late. They have chastised North Korea on their recent actions.

Russia and China can hate all they want, but yes they have come to the aid of North Korea before, even militarily. It's not even a question of if they would Joyrex. They would lose all credibility if they didn't honour their treaty obligations with an ally.

Lose credibility with whom though? the US? for turning their backs on NK? They'd probably gain some cred with the US if they did that! I suppose other countries would look at that and think it was shitty of them to abandon NK, but considering NK's actions, perhaps it would be a good time for Russia to distance themselves from Jong Il's little kingdom...

  On 11/23/2010 at 9:59 PM, chenGOD said:

Braintree: there is a huge difference between Iraq and treaty obligations to an ally.

Right. And I think the US would try to honor the bare minimum required, meaning no huge ground presence.

But I'm no political analyst. Who knows what will happen.

Wasn't this scenario the main plot to Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow?

I'll clarify my Russia/China statement. I do not think, despite China's treaties with the DPRK that ChenGOD pointed out, that either country will fight on behalf of North Korea, at least not in the sense of actually engaging South Korean military forces or its allies. They haven't supplied military hardware since the cold war and their economic aid and investment has been curtailed by 6-party talk limits. To put it simply, the DPRK is on welfare from those two countries, and even South Korea's limited aid to some degree.

The real question is how they would intervene. I agree with Joyrex, they don't want the US to occupy and station troops in ALL of the Korean penisula. They might even invade and occupy themselves, especially under a coalition "guise," for economic and strategic gain. It'll be a diplomatic mess once all is said and done, because the actual war would be brief.

If China/Russia start snapping up land that'll put the US' nose just as much out of joint. Who would stop them taking the South too? America would have to back down and finally admit it's new place in the food-chain.

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:46 AM, the anonymous forumite said:

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:12 AM, kaen said:

So when is Kim Jong il going to die already, I mean come on

 

Yeah, everything's gonna be solved then.

This was sarcastic right?

His son looks like a fucking douche as well. Who do they think they are anyways? Poor South Koreans, those guys are awesome.

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:47 PM, Joy Rex said:

  On 11/23/2010 at 10:40 PM, chenGOD said:

baph: that's why it's important to show the elite that they can retain their authority and get richer under integration compared with isolation.

 

joshua: spot on.

 

richy: China props up the US economy, but they rely on exports to the US as well. china wants stability, and have been very reluctant to support North Korea of late. They have chastised North Korea on their recent actions.

Russia and China can hate all they want, but yes they have come to the aid of North Korea before, even militarily. It's not even a question of if they would Joyrex. They would lose all credibility if they didn't honour their treaty obligations with an ally.

 

Lose credibility with whom though? the US? for turning their backs on NK? They'd probably gain some cred with the US if they did that! I suppose other countries would look at that and think it was shitty of them to abandon NK, but considering NK's actions, perhaps it would be a good time for Russia to distance themselves from Jong Il's little kingdom...

I mean the US would lose credibility if they didn't honour their treaties. I thought I had said that in my first post along those lines.

  On 11/23/2010 at 11:59 PM, joshuatxuk said:

I'll clarify my Russia/China statement. I do not think, despite China's treaties with the DPRK that ChenGOD pointed out, that either country will fight on behalf of North Korea, at least not in the sense of actually engaging South Korean military forces or its allies. They haven't supplied military hardware since the cold war and their economic aid and investment has been curtailed by 6-party talk limits. To put it simply, the DPRK is on welfare from those two countries, and even South Korea's limited aid to some degree.

 

The real question is how they would intervene. I agree with Joyrex, they don't want the US to occupy and station troops in ALL of the Korean penisula. They might even invade and occupy themselves, especially under a coalition "guise," for economic and strategic gain. It'll be a diplomatic mess once all is said and done, because the actual war would be brief.

AFAIK, China and Russia do not have any treaties with North Korea. Again, I had written in an earlier post that the US has treaty obligations with South Korea. I thought that was fairly easy to follow.

US policy in terms of reunification is to leave the two Koreas alone and let them deal with the matter internally. If the Koreas re-unite (and that's a fairly big if, at least for the foreseeable future) there would be a lot of pressure on the US to withdraw their troops from the country.

Again, China wants stability and has chastised the North for their actions, especially the nuke test (China cut off power to a region in North Korea in terms of sending a message). They are not likely to back the North in any sort of invasion.

Also Joshua: not every South Korean solider serves as KATUSA. In fact as far as I know, the KATUSA positions are highly sought after, cause then they get access to the US base's heavily subsidized shopping - which means black market goods out in the countryside (and to some degree in Seoul, although you can get almost anything in Seoul). BTW I'd like to thank all the US taxpayers, your tax dollars certainly helped me get some great booze for cheap through those black markets. :)

  On 11/24/2010 at 4:29 AM, chenGOD said:

I mean the US would lose credibility if they didn't honour their treaties. I thought I had said that in my first post along those lines.

 

  On 11/23/2010 at 11:59 PM, joshuatxuk said:

I'll clarify my Russia/China statement. I do not think, despite China's treaties with the DPRK that ChenGOD pointed out, that either country will fight on behalf of North Korea, at least not in the sense of actually engaging South Korean military forces or its allies. They haven't supplied military hardware since the cold war and their economic aid and investment has been curtailed by 6-party talk limits. To put it simply, the DPRK is on welfare from those two countries, and even South Korea's limited aid to some degree.

 

The real question is how they would intervene. I agree with Joyrex, they don't want the US to occupy and station troops in ALL of the Korean penisula. They might even invade and occupy themselves, especially under a coalition "guise," for economic and strategic gain. It'll be a diplomatic mess once all is said and done, because the actual war would be brief.

 

AFAIK, China and Russia do not have any treaties with North Korea. Again, I had written in an earlier post that the US has treaty obligations with South Korea. I thought that was fairly easy to follow.

US policy in terms of reunification is to leave the two Koreas alone and let them deal with the matter internally. If the Koreas re-unite (and that's a fairly big if, at least for the foreseeable future) there would be a lot of pressure on the US to withdraw their troops from the country.

Again, China wants stability and has chastised the North for their actions, especially the nuke test (China cut off power to a region in North Korea in terms of sending a message). They are not likely to back the North in any sort of invasion.

 

Also Joshua: not every South Korean solider serves as KATUSA. In fact as far as I know, the KATUSA positions are highly sought after, cause then they get access to the US base's heavily subsidized shopping - which means black market goods out in the countryside (and to some degree in Seoul, although you can get almost anything in Seoul). BTW I'd like to thank all the US taxpayers, your tax dollars certainly helped me get some great booze for cheap through those black markets. :)

Ah yes, good ol' AAFES! I remember seeing PSAs on the Armed Forces TV network with warnings about how selling goods off-base was illegal.

I was really mistaken about KATUSA, I read that wiki article too fast and confused regular conscription requirements with the KATUSA program. Same with the China-DPRK treaties (I'll cop out and blame it on my workplace induced skimming of threads)

And yes, if somehow the Koreas reunite in any circumstance, I didn't think that the US withdrawal would be fairly quick (in context anyway, so in other words we wounldn't hang around like we have in Germany) but that makes sense, especially since the DMZ and armistince are under UN authority as well. I'm also well familiar with the history of anti-US military protests in both ROK and Okinawa.

Where does google stand in all of this?

Right outside the great firewall of China.

joyrex, you are killing me.

So everyone; what do you think will happen? US stepping in? Russia stepping in? Something has to be done, because over the past couple of decades, NK randomly bombs SK for no apparent reasons... like just recently with sinking that ship and now bombing this island? ... also China needs to figure out what side they are on - then again no one can really tell them what to do seeing as how they have pretty much the fastest moving economy.

Like so many times before, nothing will happen. More useless sanctions. Scores more dead North Koreans that we'll never fully know about until it's too late.

No military involvement because no-one's got the balls to kick a rabid dog. There's vague hope that a new regime might be more lenient, so the focus will be on diplomacy.

Gary: no-one will initiate conflict with North Korea because they don't want to be responsible for the deaths of millions of Korean and Japanese citizens. Do try and keep up old chap.

There's no vague hope that if Kim Jeong Eun succeeds his father he will be more lenient, the old guard will still be in place. The focus should be on diplomacy, because diplomacy got us a lot further than any sort of military action or sanctions.