Military and Politics

Discuss historical events and information concerning any culture, time, or location in our world (or even the frontier beyond).

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby agga » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:55 pm

Human5 wrote:If NOrth Korea is not so strong, why do the US fear their neauclear stuff. is the US paranoid?


ROK would win a war with the DPRK, and even faster with US help, but Korea would be decimated. if the DPRK decided to throw out a few atom bombs in their last throes, the destruction would be much worse.

so, the US priorities legitimately go: 1) prevent another Korean war (while maintaining sufficient tensions to prevent reunification and preserve a rationale for USFJ/USFK) 2) if 1 fails, prevent a nuclear Korean war.

1) seems unlikely anyways, so i think the real US priority is to prevent the DPRK from selling nuclear weapons technology to other states that the US/allies have disputes with.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby James » Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:57 pm

Mestre Will wrote:Another thing i care about: Every one have fear of Nuclear weapons but i fear if some country have a weapon even more powerfull.

If something more powerful comes along it will be developed by one of the big already-nuclear nations. Also note that the power and damage potential of nuclear weapons today makes the WW2 nuclear weapons look like playthings, so we're already to a point where we can pretty much destroy ourselves if we wish.

The threat today isn't so much more dangerous weapons, though that doesn't mean we should be pleased to see, say, North Korea messing around with them, so much as it is efficient delivery of those weapons.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17995
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby James » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:00 pm

agga wrote:so, the US priorities legitimately go: 1) prevent another Korean war (while maintaining sufficient tensions to prevent reunification and preserve a rationale for USFJ/USFK) 2) if 1 fails, prevent a nuclear Korean war.

I assume, by 'prevent reunification', you mean specifically under North Korea, yes?
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17995
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby Mestre Will » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:04 pm

James wrote:
agga wrote:so, the US priorities legitimately go: 1) prevent another Korean war (while maintaining sufficient tensions to prevent reunification and preserve a rationale for USFJ/USFK) 2) if 1 fails, prevent a nuclear Korean war.

I assume, by 'prevent reunification', you mean specifically under North Korea, yes?


I see in this way too James.
Knowledge is achieved with time, but Intelligence is born with it or without it. - Mestre Will
User avatar
Mestre Will
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:40 pm
Location: Starting to pratice Cuju with Kong Gui

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby agga » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:41 pm

James wrote:I assume, by 'prevent reunification', you mean specifically under North Korea, yes?


i don't think anyone believes the North could effect a reunification with or without a war, and to some extent this is due to the US presence and support of the ROK; at the same time, i do believe that the US presence has prolonged (not to mention is partially responsible for) the North-South division and conflict. i don't think it's intentional, exactly, (i.e. there's no reason in itself why the US should oppose a unified Korea) but it's both a self-fulfilling prophecy ("we are there and therefore we are needed"), and also a convenient means of keeping a large army in the Chinese vicinity.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby James » Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:50 pm

agga wrote:i don't think anyone believes the North could effect a reunification with or without a war, and to some extent this is due to the US presence and support of the ROK; at the same time, i do believe that the US presence has prolonged (not to mention is partially responsible for) the North-South division and conflict. i don't think it's intentional, exactly, (i.e. there's no reason in itself why the US should oppose a unified Korea) but it's both a self-fulfilling prophecy ("we are there and therefore we are needed"), and also a convenient means of keeping a large army in the Chinese vicinity.

If I'm reading this correctly it seems to me as if it underestimates the extent to which North Korea is profoundly f$#@!d up. While our presence in South Korea surely has increased tensions between the North and South I wouldn't take it as an extreme example of anything. It would be inhumane to allow the South to be taken by the North in a 'reunification'. Now, on the other hand, any 'reunification' that involved the end of North Korea as an isolated propaganda wasteland and offered some much-needed quality of life to her destitute citizens hardly strikes me as undesirable. It is the only means I can imagine of that happening that strike me as such.

Or I've misunderstood you.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17995
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby agga » Fri Aug 20, 2010 8:22 pm

James wrote:If I'm reading this correctly it seems to me as if it underestimates the extent to which North Korea is profoundly f$#@!d up.


i don't think i made any qualitative statements re the DPRK; just my guesses as to the US' motivations.

James wrote:While our presence in South Korea surely has increased tensions between the North and South I wouldn't take it as an extreme example of anything.


the former is an understatement; the US is an extreme example of foreign intervention in the modern world and its effects on other countries in the last ~60-70yrs have been profound. North and South both would be very different places today (for better or worse), even if they remained independent, without the intervention of the USA.

James wrote:It would be inhumane to allow the South to be taken by the North in a 'reunification'.


are you referring to june 1950? i don't think the korean war was waged on the basis of "humanity". if you're referring to present day, the situation is different, and for one thing i don't think there's any real danger of the South being taken by the North. the reality gradually transformed over the last 60 years, and there were times when the two sides were on more equal footing, or when the North was ahead. today the balance is clearly, heavily, with the South.

James wrote:Now, on the other hand, any 'reunification' that involved the end of North Korea as an isolated propaganda wasteland and offered some much-needed quality of life to her destitute citizens hardly strikes me as undesirable. It is the only means I can imagine of that happening that strike me as such.


it would be nice, yes.

James wrote:Or I've misunderstood you.


i think you over-understood me. i wasn't suggesting how things should be, rather how i thought they are. i don't believe that the US has primarily humanitarian objectives in maintaining USFJ/USFK, that is true, and probably is where we would disagree.
造反有理!
User avatar
agga
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:45 pm

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby Human5 » Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:01 am

i was just wondering. what if sombody shot down the WWII plane that held the atomic bomb?
James wrote:
Mestre Will wrote:Another thing i care about: Every one have fear of Nuclear weapons but i fear if some country have a weapon even more powerfull.

If something more powerful comes along it will be developed by one of the big already-nuclear nations. Also note that the power and damage potential of nuclear weapons today makes the WW2 nuclear weapons look like playthings, so we're already to a point where we can pretty much destroy ourselves if we wish.

The threat today isn't so much more dangerous weapons, though that doesn't mean we should be pleased to see, say, North Korea messing around with them, so much as it is efficient delivery of those weapons.
Human5
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby Xia Kyoto » Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:37 am

Human5 wrote:i was just wondering. what if sombody shot down the WWII plane that held the atomic bomb?
James wrote:
Mestre Will wrote:Another thing i care about: Every one have fear of Nuclear weapons but i fear if some country have a weapon even more powerfull.

If something more powerful comes along it will be developed by one of the big already-nuclear nations. Also note that the power and damage potential of nuclear weapons today makes the WW2 nuclear weapons look like playthings, so we're already to a point where we can pretty much destroy ourselves if we wish.

The threat today isn't so much more dangerous weapons, though that doesn't mean we should be pleased to see, say, North Korea messing around with them, so much as it is efficient delivery of those weapons.


The atomic bomb would still blow up in mid air, maybe causing less damage, but people would still be affected by the smoke and would effect generations of people still.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.. and if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche
User avatar
Xia Kyoto
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:34 am
Location: The Wall

Re: Military and Politics

Unread postby devtherev » Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:56 am

Xia Kyoto wrote:The atomic bomb would still blow up in mid air, maybe causing less damage, but people would still be affected by the smoke and would effect generations of people still.


It's already been established how much damage anything nuclear can do without neccasarily being a bomb. I lead you to my prim example of chernobyl (Is that spelled right? )
User avatar
devtherev
Scholar
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:45 pm
Location: 100% not hiding from reality

PreviousNext

Return to World History Deliberation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved