N. Korea threatens military strike against S. Korean president

A future war on the Korean peninsula will be a different war. Not comparable with Iraq or Afghanistan. There's no religion involved. No clerics to mobilize people to attack the invaders. When the US invaded Iraq they were very welcomed until Sadam was gone. Job finished and now get out or we will attack you. The realtionship between NK and SK people is more like East and West Germany during the cold war. They used to live in the same nation.

What is China going to do? They hate that regime just like anyone else but they do not want a democratic Korea on their border.

A preemptive strike on NK will certainly draw condemnations from China and Russia and lose their support from in the beginning
.
NK military is no match for SK supported by US troops. NK will not be able to invade SK and I don't think they will. Without air superiority it is pure suicide. We are talking here about a big army and not a guerrilla one.
On the other hand SK and US troops will have a lot of casualties if they invade NK. The NK military is dug in all over the place with lots of known and unknown tunnels. They will not stop the invasion force but will make life very miserable for them.

So I think there will be no war, unless an accident gets out of control or a serious miscalculation occurs.

The number one priority for the big powers at the moment is to keep the global economic recovery on its tracks.
 
Although a conflict with North Korea will bear little resemblance to what was seen in Afghanistan or Iraq, what worked in those two conflicts – such as the heavy use of Special Forces, precision-guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles, a very robust Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance network and the ability to react quickly to unfolding battle conditions – will be exploited to the fullest.

It is clear that in any conflict with North Korea, U.S. forces will emerge victorious. The cost of the victory is another matter – indeed, there is a tremendous risk of loss of lives and massive destruction. Some military estimates put the civilian and military toll in the first day as high as 1 million.
 
Typical human behaviour.

I wonder how long they will sit idle with such rampant famine, before desperation sets in.


Indeed, if they (NK) wanted a war, they had created one long time ago after the first Korean War. This is their way of negotiations; the nuclear weapons only increase their position in these negotiations. If you give me something, I might deactivate my nukes. People think they are so unpredictable, they are not. Understand them and you will see it
 
Actually, Pyongyang seems to be following a familiar playbook in great-power politics. Its hardliners appear to have learned Thomas Schelling's teachings on the rationality of irrationality. Schelling saw the manipulation of shared risks as one of the best strategies to get one's way in international politics. Imagine, he suggested, a game in which you're walking on the edge of a cliff chained by the ankle to someone else. The first to cry uncle loses. What do you do?

You dance closer and closer to the cliff's edge. You increase the shared risk bit by bit, inch by inch, convince the other that you're crazy, that you're willing to get you both killed – convince him you're willing to incur greater risks than he is – and your enemy will give up. That's the essence of brinkmanship.
 
Actually, Pyongyang seems to be following a familiar playbook in great-power politics. Its hardliners appear to have learned Thomas Schelling's teachings on the rationality of irrationality. Schelling saw the manipulation of shared risks as one of the best strategies to get one's way in international politics. Imagine, he suggested, a game in which you're walking on the edge of a cliff chained by the ankle to someone else. The first to cry uncle loses. What do you do?

You dance closer and closer to the cliff's edge. You increase the shared risk bit by bit, inch by inch, convince the other that you're crazy, that you're willing to get you both killed – convince him you're willing to incur greater risks than he is – and your enemy will give up. That's the essence of brinkmanship.

I suspect we may find an unexpected unexpected outcome. A real risk that an accidental activation of war here may not come from N.K.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Pyongyang seems to be following a familiar playbook in great-power politics. Its hardliners appear to have learned Thomas Schelling's teachings on the rationality of irrationality. Schelling saw the manipulation of shared risks as one of the best strategies to get one's way in international politics. Imagine, he suggested, a game in which you're walking on the edge of a cliff chained by the ankle to someone else. The first to cry uncle loses. What do you do?

You dance closer and closer to the cliff's edge. You increase the shared risk bit by bit, inch by inch, convince the other that you're crazy, that you're willing to get you both killed – convince him you're willing to incur greater risks than he is – and your enemy will give up. That's the essence of brinkmanship.

They do, they are playing the Machiavellian game. Another term would be the game theory. NK is playing according to the game theory (Plato)
 
Last edited:
avatar3.jpg
I don't see much of a difference. It is getting to the point I wouldn't mind a series of assassinations of those in power (by whatever means).


Such as mass troop movements, the leveling of a captial millions of refugees and civilians displaced and killed,

And the most massive delpoyment of forces by regional and outside powers on the penisula by the likes not seen since 1950?

Because at this junction that is the only way I see this happenening anytime soon.
 
Actually, Pyongyang seems to be following a familiar playbook in great-power politics. Its hardliners appear to have learned Thomas Schelling's teachings on the rationality of irrationality. Schelling saw the manipulation of shared risks as one of the best strategies to get one's way in international politics. Imagine, he suggested, a game in which you're walking on the edge of a cliff chained by the ankle to someone else. The first to cry uncle loses. What do you do?

You dance closer and closer to the cliff's edge. You increase the shared risk bit by bit, inch by inch, convince the other that you're crazy, that you're willing to get you both killed – convince him you're willing to incur greater risks than he is – and your enemy will give up. That's the essence of brinkmanship.

Well my personal opinion is that we should sit back let them dance off the cliff and keep a hacksaw handy to cut the chain while they are hanging there.

North Korea has pushed the boundaries long enough it is time we stopped allowing them to hold the world to ransom and accepted the consequences now rather than later when they will only be worse.


Such as mass troop movements, the leveling of a captial millions of refugees and civilians displaced and killed,

And the most massive delpoyment of forces by regional and outside powers on the penisula by the likes not seen since 1950?

Because at this junction that is the only way I see this happenening anytime soon.

Tell me will placating them for another 12 months make the situation any better how about 10 years from now will there be less people in Seoul for them to shell?

I am sorry but I believe it is time to end this nonsense where some inconsequential sh*thole holds the region to ransom because it is too paranoid to fix its problems.
 
Last edited:
Well my personal opinion is that we should sit back let them dance off the cliff and keep a hacksaw handy to cut the chain while they are hanging there.

North Korea has pushed the boundaries long enough it is time we stopped allowing them to hold the world to ransom and accepted the consequences now rather than later when they will only be worse.




Tell me will placating them for another 12 months make the situation any better how about 10 years from now will there be less people in Seoul for them to shell?

I am sorry but I believe it is time to end this nonsense where some inconsequential sh*thole holds the region to ransom because it is too paranoid to fix its problems.



This right here is all I am saying... I believe we should stop this circle of appeasing NK. It is complete blackmail with what they are doing. I believe we shouldn't give no aide at all no more to them to see how long their regime last. I think we should tell them to either put up or shut up and ignore their silly chants and threats.
 
I don't think the North Korean leadership read Thomas Schelling's book "The Strategy of Conflict". The only thing they are interested in is staying in power and have wealth and luxury. They are very corrupt and rule with an iron fist. They also are very affraid to lose that lifestyle. That's why they bark and threat at anyone who points a finger at them. It has worked since the 50's. Such "leaders" also need a big army, secret service and frightening police force. The Generals are pampered so they have also a lot to lose if they fall into disfavor.

For decades China backed the NK regime. But they start to get the jitters because SK is getting sick of the threats and said enough is enough. China wants a status quo. NK functions as a buffer to SK democracy. If a conflict erupts they have to choose sides.
 
So offer China half of North Korea to help sort it out, they are territory mad so would probably go for it and they get a crappy piece of dirt as a buffer from the west.
 
Maybe so, maybe offer China some more legistration free banking in the U.S. or something to make it worth their while.

Offer them something better that N.K. offer, and they just may not refuse.

Hell maybe even co occupation and rebuilding, I am talking infrastructure not military force delpoyments this time either.

Of course I do feel a little naive about thinking for a moment of how well appeasment works...
 
Last edited:
If the North Korean problem is ever to be solved, it will be when China says that it has had enough and China cannot afford to let North Korea run wild forever.
 
Very Much agreed.

This would require China having something that benifits them more than the support of N.K.

As time goes on this may become more of a reality.
 
Back
Top