Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/13/13 12:53 PM, Korriken wrote: Strictly from a military standpoint, this is how I would bring an end to this problem.

If the world lets NK continue doing what it's going, it's not going to end well. If NK gets nuclear missile capability, it's going to use it to constantly make demands.

thats why there is a "no negotiation with terrorists policy"

What needs to happen is when Fat Bastard sets up a missile, the missile needs to be destroyed before it even leaves the ground.

thing that knowing the way NK has with missiles, it will happen alone

At 4/13/13 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

That's not the message that would get accross. The message that would get accross is that Un was justified in ratchetting up the intensity, and war would be the likely result.

Why do you think you hit their long range capability first? Also, taking out their capability to fire missiles and hit all the artillery you can and they're limited to infantry, armor (easy to hit from the air) and air force (ours is vastly superior).

You'd be taking away their 1 major advantage.

Saddam didn't really have any power by that point. After the first Gulf War Saddam's power was severely limited and his country was a mess. The act that ended Saddam's power was invading Kuwait, not being insolent with the UN inspectors.

Well there you go, if Saddam didn't invade Kuwait he might not have been the guest of honor at a necktie party. Damn shame the platform he was standing on collapsed.

At 4/13/13 07:01 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

thats why there is a "no negotiation with terrorists policy"

Problem is, we're negotiating with them. When we agree to send them aid in order to stop doing whatever it is they're doing at the moment to piss people off, we're negotiating.

the fact that they shelled Yeonpyeong island, which is an act of war, and didn't get crushed beneath a wave of SK and American military might shows that we're being weak in front of them. The fact that they give out overt threats and get nothing in response is showing weakness. The fact that they can test fire missiles and get no response is showing weakness.

NK knows we don't want a fight and they're using that to their advantage.

I'll put it like this, there is GOING to be a war eventually. Problem is, the longer we delay that war, the stronger NK gets. Once they develop a nuclear warhead they can put on a missile, it's game over. Like I said, if you think NK is crazy now, let them have an actual nuclear missile.

Also, if other nations stopped sending them aid, the entire country would collapse and the military would most likely revolt and toss Fat Bastard out on his ass, and probably fill him full of hot lead. other nations, like China, are keeping them on life support by sending them food and fuel enough to keep the military going.

Any major crisis in China to the point where they can't afford to support NK and NK is toast. Problem is, once that happens, NK has little choice but to go to war.

At 4/14/13 03:18 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/13/13 07:01 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

thats why there is a "no negotiation with terrorists policy"

Problem is, we're negotiating with them. When we agree to send them aid in order to stop doing whatever it is they're doing at the moment to piss people off, we're negotiating.

and how did it work so for?

At 4/14/13 12:10 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

and how did it work so for?

about as well as negotiating with anyone else who has no incentive to hold up their end of the bargain.

for having such 'smart' people in government, they seem to have a total lack of grasp on reality. If you make a bargain with someone and do your end of the bargain immediately, with a promise that they will hold up their end later, you're a damned fool.

what incentive does NK REALLY have to stop working towards nukes? none. they know no one is going to invade them and force them to stop, when they throw a tantrum and demand something in return for calming down, they get it, and of course, if they DO stop working towards a nuke, then they lose their bargaining chip that no one is willing to take away from them.

At 4/14/13 03:18 AM, Korriken wrote: Problem is, we're negotiating with them. When we agree to send them aid in order to stop doing whatever it is they're doing at the moment to piss people off, we're negotiating.

Depends, most of the people who provide the aide do it for humanitarian reasons not to pander politically.

the fact that they shelled Yeonpyeong island, which is an act of war, and didn't get crushed beneath a wave of SK and American military might shows that we're being weak in front of them.

Um that shit happens all the time. The Soviets for example back in the 80's shot down an American jet, these tense events happen all the time.

The fact that they give out overt threats and get nothing in response is showing weakness.

On who? The North Koreans for not exacting their threats or us for taking them seriously?

The fact that they can test fire missiles and get no response is showing weakness.

They got a response, it's just no one really takes them that seriously.

NK knows we don't want a fight and they're using that to their advantage.

NK also doesn't want a fight either.

I'll put it like this, there is GOING to be a war eventually. Problem is, the longer we delay that war, the stronger NK gets. Once they develop a nuclear warhead they can put on a missile, it's game over. Like I said, if you think NK is crazy now, let them have an actual nuclear missile.

Debatable because if anything the opposite has happened; they've gotten weaker. Ever since the fall of the USSR they've been less able to feed their people and their economy has gotten even worse.

Also, if other nations stopped sending them aid, the entire country would collapse and the military would most likely revolt and toss Fat Bastard out on his ass, and probably fill him full of hot lead.

.....And what would they do? Unite with South Korea? And no North Korea already is one of the most isolated and poorest nations in the world, it should've fallen a long time ago. If they lose aid now what would probably happen is well nothing other than more purges.

other nations, like China, are keeping them on life support by sending them food and fuel enough to keep the military going.

Everyone is at this point because the aftermath of the fall of the NK regime would be too great.

Any major crisis in China to the point where they can't afford to support NK and NK is toast. Problem is, once that happens, NK has little choice but to go to war.

I'm sure if you asked anyone as late as 1988 what will happen between the Soviet Union and the USA and they would say a war. Obviously it didn't end up like that. Similarly I'd doubt that you can predict NK will go to war.

At 4/14/13 10:57 PM, Warforger wrote:

Depends, most of the people who provide the aide do it for humanitarian reasons not to pander politically.

true, but they're feeding the NK military machine and it needs to stop. I'm amazed that these 'humanitarian' organizations haven't gotten the memo that NK military seizes food shipments from their civilians and use it to feed the military.

Um that shit happens all the time. The Soviets for example back in the 80's shot down an American jet, these tense events happen all the time.

Maybe, but that's a standoff between 2 nuclear superpowers. we're talking about North Korea, a pesky gnat with a loud buzz just waiting to be swatted. there is no mutually assured destruction to deter us from going on and taking them out... not yet anyway. Once North Korea develops nuclear missiles, they will become a far bigger problem when they aim nuclear missiles at neighboring countries and US military bases.

On who? The North Koreans for not exacting their threats or us for taking them seriously?

In a nutshell? Us for not putting a stop to the shenanigans. It wouldn't be all that hard to show NK who's boss. their military, outside of infantry, is very weak. They have have a lot of artillery emplacements, but even that is cold war era and wouldn't stand up to American weapons. They still rely on cold war era anti air artillery guns, none of which I don't think can reach the B2's maximum height of 50,000 feet.

They got a response, it's just no one really takes them that seriously.

and THAT is exactly the problem. no one is taking them seriously. to be more specific, no one is putting them in their place.

NK also doesn't want a fight either.

No, they don't. However, They realize they've found a system that works. make threats, get rewards, make threats, get rewards. Even if most of the rewards come from humanitarian missions (which the governments seizes).

Debatable because if anything the opposite has happened; they've gotten weaker. Ever since the fall of the USSR they've been less able to feed their people and their economy has gotten even worse.

Perhaps, but that leads to desperation. desperate people do crazy things.

.....And what would they do? Unite with South Korea? And no North Korea already is one of the most isolated and poorest nations in the world, it should've fallen a long time ago. If they lose aid now what would probably happen is well nothing other than more purges.

You never know. It could very well be that the military rises up, kills the Kim family, then asks to merge with the south, even if just for food and fuel aid. If the situation gets bad enough, crazy things can happen. and looking at the situation in North Korea, it very well may happen.

At the end of the day, Both Koreas want to merge, naturally both Koreas want to be the one in charge. However, if the situation gets bad enough in North Korea, the military brass may come together and decide that the Kim family is going to take them and their families down and do something about it. Then, without a cult of personality to hold the people together, something will have to give in order to prevent utter chaos from erupting.

Everyone is at this point because the aftermath of the fall of the NK regime would be too great.

Perhaps, but they also know that it's inevitable.

I'm sure if you asked anyone as late as 1988 what will happen between the Soviet Union and the USA and they would say a war. Obviously it didn't end up like that. Similarly I'd doubt that you can predict NK will go to war.

There's a difference here. the USSR wasn't one small country on a peninsula. it was massive, and was a union of different subnational republics under the soviet banner. North Korea doesn't have that. it's a small country with a single central government. The republics in the soviet union broke away and became, more or less, independent and did their own thing. The soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind. Also, the USSR screwed up in allowing the media some freedom, which only accelerated it's dissolution.

Also, you have to realize, Fat Bastard was born into power. He's basically a spoiled prince turned king, and I doubt he'd be willing to give up that power. the power of the soviet union changed hands many times before it all fell apart.

The military can't unseat Fat Bastard because his grandfather's 'Great Leader' legacy is about the only thing holding the country together. If the military were to purge the Kim family, all hell would break loose. Also, none of the military leaders want to piss off Fat Bastard because he can very easily have them executed, perhaps even along with their entire family, with no trial. The only way the military could really rein him in would be all of the high ranking officers agreeing that they are in charge and not him.

Also their media is locked down tightly, given that even their televisions and radios are preset to only receive specific channels, and modifying your equipment is illegal. the equipment also had to be registered with the government, is subject to random inspections and NK citizens have to get permission to even purchase one.

commoners have little to no access to outside information, and only the information the government rams down their throat. as far as they know, they're the most powerful country in the world and only Fat Bastard's generosity allows other countries to even exist. They have no idea what's on the other side, and they have no idea how much better they would be off in South Korea... of course, some do and they try to flee. those that make it and don't end up in China find refuge. China tends to send them back to North Korea for execution, or exploit them for profit.

SO yeah, big difference.

At 4/15/13 10:21 AM, Korriken wrote: true, but they're feeding the NK military machine and it needs to stop. I'm amazed that these 'humanitarian' organizations haven't gotten the memo that NK military seizes food shipments from their civilians and use it to feed the military.

There's multiple layers going on here. First off, any aid of any sort to an oppressive regime's people is aid to the regime. Even in cases where the regime does not take any of the aid from the people. Many think that food and medical supplies are not fungible, but they are. When aid is given to the people of a country that is less money, effort, and time the regime needs to spend on its citizens. For those regimes that actually would spend their money on the people (see Vietnam and many of the communist dictatorships) that money, which is no longer needed to be spent thnk to the aid, goes right back into the leaders' hands. In the more common case where a regime wouldn't be spending the money there either wy, the regime still gets the bonus of a more satisfied populous, which allows the regime to be more efficient, powerful and keep the will of their people longer. So ignorance is one factor.

The other factors are either a very blind naivete or an agreement with those in power. Some people are just so naive that they believe the gift is all that matters, not whether the gift is effective or useful (an example of this are those who give highway beggars money). Their gifts are FOB (shipping term) meaning that once they part with the gift, they no longer care what happens to it. Then there are those groups which tend to attract many idealogues who border on extremism, most often from the left, who don't mind if the warlord/dictators get some of it because they honestly believe that the warlord/dictator is fighting the good fight.

Maybe, but that's a standoff between 2 nuclear superpowers. we're talking about North Korea, a pesky gnat with a loud buzz just waiting to be swatted. there is no mutually assured destruction to deter us from going on and taking them out... not yet anyway. Once North Korea develops nuclear missiles, they will become a far bigger problem when they aim nuclear missiles at neighboring countries and US military bases.

You're very much underestimating here. When it comes to North Korea's ability to lay Japan and SOuth Korea to waste all nuclear wepons would do is add a degree of expedience. North Korea has a massive army and a large enough arsenal to accomplish severe destruction of both SK and Japan long before any outside powers (save China due to proximity) could really stop them. It's one thing to stop an army bent on strategic victory, it's a very different thing stopping one that is merely looking to create as much destruction as physically possible.

The difference between non-nuclear and nuclear Korea really only affects the medium range targets (Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa), and possbily long range ones (West Coast).

In a nutshell? Us for not putting a stop to the shenanigans. It wouldn't be all that hard to show NK who's boss. their military, outside of infantry, is very weak. They have have a lot of artillery emplacements, but even that is cold war era and wouldn't stand up to American weapons. They still rely on cold war era anti air artillery guns, none of which I don't think can reach the B2's maximum height of 50,000 feet.

That's nice and all, but you're forgetting the biggest obstacle to shutting Korea down. The 180 MILLION allied civilians within easy striking distances of their antiquated, but extremely large military. Close enough that NK could do flat out inhuman amounts of damage before our military readiness in th area could stamp out their offensive capabilities.

and THAT is exactly the problem. no one is taking them seriously. to be more specific, no one is putting them in their place.

How to you shut up a petulant child? By starving them of attention, not by engaging their attention. War is the utmost engagement.

You never know. It could very well be that the military rises up, kills the Kim family, then asks to merge with the south, even if just for food and fuel aid. If the situation gets bad enough, crazy things can happen. and looking at the situation in North Korea, it very well may happen.

Not likely. Most foreign affairs experts think that Un is ratcheting things up because the military doesn't like him. The military thinks he's too weak and soft. I find very unlikely the hardest of the hardliners in NK will ever voluntarily join the south.

At the end of the day, Both Koreas want to merge, naturally both Koreas want to be the one in charge. However, if the situation gets bad enough in North Korea, the military brass may come together and decide that the Kim family is going to take them and their families down and do something about it. Then, without a cult of personality to hold the people together, something will have to give in order to prevent utter chaos from erupting.

The military leadership IS the cult of personality there.

The soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind.

WHAT!?!? Are you even trying to insinuate the Lenin is any less of a God to the USSR Russian than Il Sung is o the North Koreans? The USSR had a very deep cult of personality, so deep that the people looked the other way when those personalities raped everything that they claimed was for the people.

The military can't unseat Fat Bastard because his grandfather's 'Great Leader' legacy is about the only thing holding the country together. If the military were to purge the Kim family, all hell would break loose. Also, none of the military leaders want to piss off Fat Bastard because he can very easily have them executed, perhaps even along with their entire family, with no trial. The only way the military could really rein him in would be all of the high ranking officers agreeing that they are in charge and not him.

The military has more power than Un does. I wouldn't be surprised if it's shown that Un is nothing more than a very well made marionette.

Also their media is locked down tightly, given that even their televisions and radios are preset to only receive specific channels, and modifying your equipment is illegal. the equipment also had to be registered with the government, is subject to random inspections and NK citizens have to get permission to even purchase one.

But videos and such from South Korea are smuggled in to North Korea like crazy. The state may have control over the broadcasts, but the people do see a lot of the outside world from other mediums.

Oh, and side note. Stop calling him Fat Bastard. We get the point, you don't respect Un. Neither do any of us. However, instead of conveying your disrespect of him, you're oly conveying your immaturity and making youelf look foolish. Just call him by his name, and let the disrepect come out in the tone of your arguments.

At 4/15/13 03:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You're very much underestimating here. When it comes to North Korea's ability to lay Japan and SOuth Korea to waste all nuclear wepons would do is add a degree of expedience. North Korea has a massive army and a large enough arsenal to accomplish severe destruction of both SK and Japan long before any outside powers (save China due to proximity) could really stop them. It's one thing to stop an army bent on strategic victory, it's a very different thing stopping one that is merely looking to create as much destruction as physically possible.

why do you think I'm advocating not letting them have the first strike? If you pussyfoot around and let them play on their terms, then yeah, they're going to cause all kinds of carnage. It's common knowledge they have artillery everywhere. The question is, how much of it actually works? Also, it's built into mountains. I wonder if a bunker buster dropped onto the mountains would create a strong enough shockwave to collapse the caves and tunnels that house them? We'd only need to hit the ones close enough to strike South Korean and Japanese (if any) cities. I'm sure it would cause rockslides that would bury a lot of it either way.

That's nice and all, but you're forgetting the biggest obstacle to shutting Korea down. The 180 MILLION allied civilians within easy striking distances of their antiquated, but extremely large military. Close enough that NK could do flat out inhuman amounts of damage before our military readiness in th area could stamp out their offensive capabilities.

Which is why you don't allow them the first move. you move in, neutralize all the long range weaponry that you can. I doubt NK keeps all their infantry inside tunnels under the ground. bombing their armories and barracks will go a long way in neutralizing their infantry as well. Problem is, you have to have the balls to make the first move. If you sneak up behind a guy and slap him in the head, he might turn around and pummel you. if sneak up on a guy and lay a baseball bat across his head, he's not going to do much fighting back. Be the guy with the baseball bat.

How to you shut up a petulant child? By starving them of attention, not by engaging their attention. War is the utmost engagement.

Maybe, but not disciplining a child only causes worse problem later on.

Not likely. Most foreign affairs experts think that Un is ratcheting things up because the military doesn't like him. The military thinks he's too weak and soft. I find very unlikely the hardest of the hardliners in NK will ever voluntarily join the south.

Maybe, but you also have to consider that they are also human. If they think they can get a better deal by joining the south, then they might do it. If and when such a war does start, when things begin going south for North Korea, the number of defections will be mind boggling. If Kim Jong Un happens to die, like, say, a bomb lands on his home and blows him to bits, then that would just hasten the demise of North Korea.

The military leadership IS the cult of personality there.

maybe, but it doesn't have a face once you kill off the Kim family. what's a personality with no face? Yeah, another person could rise to power, but he wouldn't be able to use Kim Il Sung's legacy to unify the people as well, being as he wasn't descended from him.

WHAT!?!? Are you even trying to insinuate the Lenin is any less of a God to the USSR Russian than Il Sung is o the North Koreans? The USSR had a very deep cult of personality, so deep that the people looked the other way when those personalities raped everything that they claimed was for the people.

Let me rephrase, Lenin's direct descendants did not gain control of the USSR when he died. There was no direct connection to Lenin as far as blood goes. As such, they couldn't rally people behind Lenin's descendants, like they can with Kim Jong Un. He was handpicked by his predecessor, Kim Jong Il, who was hand picked by his predecessor, the God-king Cavader Kim Il Sung.

The military has more power than Un does. I wouldn't be surprised if it's shown that Un is nothing more than a very well made marionette.

you never know. However, you have to remember that he's the face of the military and the military needs him because he's Kim Il Sung's descendant. killing him would be like destroying a holy relic in a theocratic nation (all hells gonna break loose), which be basically is. the people don't worship the military directly, they worship their god-king cadaver, Kim Il sung and his family. Without that, the military doesn't have much to really hold the people together, beyond the extreme repression thing they got going on.

Also, if Kim orders someone killed, they're dead. Knowing this, who has the power? they may be able to shrug Kim Jong Un's insanity off to a point, but it's like being a crowd facing a man with a gun. even though they could easily take him down, no one wants to be one of the people shot in the process.

But videos and such from South Korea are smuggled in to North Korea like crazy. The state may have control over the broadcasts, but the people do see a lot of the outside world from other mediums.

If and only if they have the means to view it. How many peasants in North Korea do you think have a dvd player? things like that are only for the wealthy elite, who have a vested interest in keeping North Korea the way it is.

Oh, and side note. Stop calling him Fat Bastard.

Fair enough, but I find it easier to type then Kim Jong Un, and Un sounds too much like UN (united nations) to me Reckon I could just call em Kim.

When a country has nukes, you don't get to just blow them up. NK has nukes, shitty nukes, but nukes nonetheless.

Leading nuclear experts have said all it will take to end life as we know is is the detonation of 10 warheads ANYWHERE on Earth. We shouldn't be so worried about NK. We should save our pants shitting for India and Pakistan. Much more likely to go crazy, fire nukes, and kill us all dead.

At 4/15/13 10:21 AM, Korriken wrote: The soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind.

Stalin's cult of personality is what Kim il-Sung based his model on, fyi.

At 4/16/13 04:06 AM, Feoric wrote:

Stalin's cult of personality is what Kim il-Sung based his model on, fyi.

and guess whose children didn't inherit daddy's rule when he died. Stalin's cult of personality worked until Stalin died. Of course, given his successor botched everything by denouncing Stalin's use of repression, which hastened the demise of the soviet union.

At 4/16/13 10:24 AM, Korriken wrote: and guess whose children didn't inherit daddy's rule when he died. Stalin's cult of personality worked until Stalin died. Of course, given his successor botched everything by denouncing Stalin's use of repression, which hastened the demise of the soviet union.

I don't see how that's relevant. You made the claim that "the soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind" and that's not true.

At 4/16/13 12:30 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

North Korea would need hundreds of its nukes just to end all life on America

to end all life with the initial blasts, yes. However, the fallout from Today's best nuclear weapons would cause such widespread damage over such a long period of time from the fallout that it could effectively end all life without using too many of them. Remember that the Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki only had a 21 kiloton blast.

by comparison, the Tsar Bomba, the biggest nuke I've ever heard of had a payload of 57 megatons. They had to reduce the payload by half to limit the amount of fallout.

Needless to say, if today's nukes are set off, the fallout is going to kill millions over hundreds of miles and turn it all into a radioactive wasteland.

Stalin died in 1953, can't you both be right on this one? But in terms of time frame Korri seems correct to me. In the same paragraph he mentions increasing the freedom of the media.

*shrug*

At 4/16/13 11:52 AM, Feoric wrote: I don't see how that's relevant. You made the claim that "the soviet union also lacked a strong cult of personality figure to rally behind" and that's not true.

Furthermore, before Stalin there was Lenin. Stalin created his cult of personality by piggybacking off of the one Lenin had and inserting himself into the history books of being side by side with Lenin in every phase of the revolution.

At 4/16/13 12:30 PM, Ceratisa wrote: North Korea would need hundreds of its nukes just to end all life on America

Sure. Because in the end NK has shitty rocket tech, and no ICBM's. They aren't the country to really be afraid of or go after that hard. Especially with new reports saying this is sabre rattling because Ung doesn't have full control of the military.

I wouldn't say it would be a World War but rather the allied forces turning North Korea into a parking lot.

At 4/16/13 03:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Sure. Because in the end NK has shitty rocket tech, and no ICBM's. They aren't the country to really be afraid of or go after that hard. Especially with new reports saying this is sabre rattling because Ung doesn't have full control of the military.

if that's the case, then it would be a perfect time to strike. infighting makes for an even less effective army.

At 4/16/13 10:20 PM, Korriken wrote: if that's the case, then it would be a perfect time to strike. infighting makes for an even less effective army.

Ok...did we not understand why I said ICBM's make them less dangerous? I meant it makes them not dangerous if we stay over HERE. If we go OVER there, then all they need to do is make a missle go up and detonate, they can then kill soldiers and poison their own people and the South with fallout. Which I expect they're more then willing to do so long as they have a way to save themselves and rule over the ashes.

At 4/17/13 12:43 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

If we go OVER there, then all they need to do is make a missle go up and detonate, they can then kill soldiers and poison their own people and the South with fallout. Which I expect they're more then willing to do so long as they have a way to save themselves and rule over the ashes.

Since when did we lack the technology to strike their missile platforms and vehicles? If we can launch a missile and land it on an enemy military base, surely a missile wouldn't be that much harder.

At 4/17/13 03:16 AM, Korriken wrote: Since when did we lack the technology to strike their missile platforms and vehicles? If we can launch a missile and land it on an enemy military base, surely a missile wouldn't be that much harder.

There's also the Chinese to consider. I know people are saying "well it's not the 50's anymore, they aren't ideologically alinged anymore" this is true, but treaties are treaties and countries don't break them because they don't want the reputation. Also last I checked we don't screw with countries with nukes because of unintended consequences and shit. Again I don't get the idea that any time cooks with weaponry act up the answer is to blow them to hell...but then we want to bitch about deficits, government spending, and etc. I simply don't want to hear that line anymore from people who advocate all problems should be solved by going to war and blowing our problems up.

At 4/18/13 01:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I simply don't want to hear that line anymore from people who advocate all problems should be solved by going to war and blowing our problems up.

If the problem is Vietnamese peasants who dislike the South Vietnamese government then that applies. If it is a weapon built for the express purpose of killing 100000s of people in Seoul to use as a bargaining chip so a tyrant can stay in power and ruin the lives of millions of North Koreans then that doesn't apply.