Wow. More juvenile posturing, or the beginning of the end for North Korea? Depends on whether anyone takes them seriously. And with a growing nuclear capability, they can't be taken not-seriously. This is suicide for them.
Joel Skousen has an interesting analysis. North Korea attacks South Korea, the US defends South with tactical nukes. Then there is a nuclear strike on the US from Russia and China in retaliation, which might explain why the US gov is building super bunkers in the Ozarks .
Our military got caught with its pants down when going up against a military that was trained in the hills of Afghanistan in the 1980's...and responded by combining its perfected 1950's style warfare with a 2010's style drone warfare, and fairly quickly learned its lesson with the 1980's style warfare.
I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a military that has skipped 2 generations ahead of yours. North Korea either truly has no clue what they are up against, or they are just trying to get more aid money again.
Isn't the case that the US obliterated the Taliban's military forces (not their ability to wage a guerrilla war) using a rather clever special forces + bombing + northern alliance approach?
I don't think we got caught with our pants down at all. Guerrilla war in Afghanistan always has to be assumed. I personally don't know anybody that thought a prolonged occupation of Afghanistan was going to go well, and I'm talking about laypersons. The powers that be might have thought they could handle it, but that's not the same as getting caught with your pants down.
I'd argue the US got caught with its pants down radically more so in Iraq than Afghanistan (specifically post the initial invasion).
It's funny how North Korea's open threats against South Korea and the US are met with basically rolling of eyes, while veiled threats from Iran against Israel and the US are met with massive fear and warmongering.
It's a concern about Iran's (their leadership's) willingness to commit suicide to destroy Israel. And particularly about the belief in self-fulfilling prophecies in religious doctrine (whether Christianity, Islam, or Judaism). Communists don't generally believe in an afterlife, and I would argue also aren't viewed as being as likely to be suicide bombers. It is thus Iran presents a different kind of fear: namely that the world is afraid they're willing to die to kill their enemy; that Iran is actually crazier than North Korea, despite the bluffing on North Korea's part.
The main reason is that the US essentially fought the Korean War for South Korea against the North, and still maintains many active military bases and thousands of troops in South Korea, especially one right in the middle of Seoul. Any attempt to invade the South would mean war with the US, thus one of the longstanding demands of the DPRK has been that the US remove all its troops from the country.
Also, the US helps the South Korea military (and previously, its economy). I believe there is a clause in the constitution where in the case of a full scale war, a US general will assume command of all the military forces of the South
The US military had a big involvement in the Korean War (88% of the South Korean force [1]), and to this day are posted at the demilitarised zone in the Korean Peninsula.
It's mainly because of their support for South Korea during the Korean war of 50s. NK hates SK and the US loves SK. The friend of an enemy is an enemy. There are many reasons, but this forms the base.
I wonder how much of the 'hate' being expressed is really just a tool to maintain the iron grip of the NK leadership on it's own people. Best way to unify a people is give them someone to hate.
I used to live next door to a rather cool and beautiful Japanese woman, and the only time I ever saw her rattled was when N Korea first tested in 2006. She was genuinely scared her country would be attacked the next day.
North Korea should scare everyone. NK's only ally, China, has clearly stood alongside everyone else in the fricking world and proposed sanctions. That is like USA cutting off Isreal's aid - its huge.
(Although they may have given them the damn bombs in the first place)
No one is going to lob nuclear bombs back, but right now, any freighter leaving Pyongyang is going to be searched very very throughly. And I would move out of Seoul for a few days.
If they had those resources, they would just have stronger ties with China. They have long had the ability to rain destruction down on Seoul, South Korea (a heavily populated city with strong ties in the West, and increasingly ties with China, AFAIK) in the event of aggression against them. None of the Middle East countries have such a situation (that I know of).
There's this counter-intuitive trend that when the heritage of a dictatorial seat goes to a young one, everyone awaits for reforms, whereas the regime tends to rapidly increase its aggressive behavior. The same happened in Syria when Bachar got his seat. I'd be interested in listing other examples, typically in less recent history.
Well, I guess it still counts as recent history, but Gorbachev and the August 1991 coup in the Soviet Union - for an example of what happens when you try to be a reformer.
I really don't think it's counter-intuitive? Even a dictator doesn't rule alone, so when there's a change of power, the new ruler needs to assure his immediate subordinates that their loyalty will not go unrewarded and that he's not going to be a reformer and throw them and their fiefdoms under the bus.
If you're a regime big-wig in North Korea you're not dumb enough that you don't know that you're in the wrong - or, at least, that there is absolutely no way you and your family is going to survive having to explain yourself to the public.
So if your boss decides to put the country on the path to more freedom, you have the option of seeking asylum for your and your family in one of the few countries in the world that will take you, and live the rest of your life (a) in fear of angry underlings out for your life (b) in a lot less comfort than you're used to - or to stage a coup, kill your boss and assume power to "protect the revolution against corrupting, imperialist US influences".
The only comfort in their maniacal prison system state is that they make funny propaganda videos (the one with "we are the world" should totally get an SNL cover). Other than that it's a complete human tragedy. Let's hope for a Korean spring soon..
Don't ignore the real artillery that NK can actually use to destroy the lives of many, many koreans. If it all was about one weapon that didn't really fly, the situation would be a lot more fun.
I've been wondering all day how this will end, and especially if anything will happen on/before the 11th of March when North Korea will apparently cancel cease-fire if the South don't stop doing drills.
It's just another layer of threat. Nothing substantial will happen in NK, they know the can only lose. My best guess is that it's all propaganda aimed at the people in NK to secure the future of the elite.
I like these sanctions, the one aimed at Iraq starting from 1990's. Really helped for everyone living there. Who would not love a dying child from hunger on his arms, it is like a Easter present.
There's a pretty easy way for the government to avoid situations like that. If your people are at the mercy of foreign governments in order to survive, it really is in your best interest to not continuously piss them off.
If you look at what these sanctions are aiming to do, they are very specifically targeted at the senior leadership of North Korea. The sanctions go after the "illicit activities of North Korean diplomatic personnel, North Korean banking relationships, illicit transfers of bulk cash and new travel restrictions", most of which will not directly affect the vast majority of children in the country.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tatsuke95|13 years ago|reply
That sucks for the people in the short run, but might change the game for their future.
[+] [-] ihuman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iterationx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|13 years ago|reply
Our military got caught with its pants down when going up against a military that was trained in the hills of Afghanistan in the 1980's...and responded by combining its perfected 1950's style warfare with a 2010's style drone warfare, and fairly quickly learned its lesson with the 1980's style warfare.
I can't imagine what it would be like to go up against a military that has skipped 2 generations ahead of yours. North Korea either truly has no clue what they are up against, or they are just trying to get more aid money again.
[+] [-] adventured|13 years ago|reply
I don't think we got caught with our pants down at all. Guerrilla war in Afghanistan always has to be assumed. I personally don't know anybody that thought a prolonged occupation of Afghanistan was going to go well, and I'm talking about laypersons. The powers that be might have thought they could handle it, but that's not the same as getting caught with your pants down.
I'd argue the US got caught with its pants down radically more so in Iraq than Afghanistan (specifically post the initial invasion).
[+] [-] rthomas6|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zubentok|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enginous|13 years ago|reply
The New York Times: "North Korea Warns of Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack"
BBC News: "North Korea ramps up nuclear rhetoric as UN vote looms" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21695887)
[+] [-] adventured|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duiker101|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pm90|13 years ago|reply
Also, the US helps the South Korea military (and previously, its economy). I believe there is a clause in the constitution where in the case of a full scale war, a US general will assume command of all the military forces of the South
[+] [-] mseebach|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irmbrady|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War [1]
Here is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea
[+] [-] sidcool|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbattle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackerboos|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
should give you some background.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
North Korea should scare everyone. NK's only ally, China, has clearly stood alongside everyone else in the fricking world and proposed sanctions. That is like USA cutting off Isreal's aid - its huge.
(Although they may have given them the damn bombs in the first place)
No one is going to lob nuclear bombs back, but right now, any freighter leaving Pyongyang is going to be searched very very throughly. And I would move out of Seoul for a few days.
[+] [-] zubentok|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rplnt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arbuge|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilooch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseebach|13 years ago|reply
I really don't think it's counter-intuitive? Even a dictator doesn't rule alone, so when there's a change of power, the new ruler needs to assure his immediate subordinates that their loyalty will not go unrewarded and that he's not going to be a reformer and throw them and their fiefdoms under the bus.
If you're a regime big-wig in North Korea you're not dumb enough that you don't know that you're in the wrong - or, at least, that there is absolutely no way you and your family is going to survive having to explain yourself to the public.
So if your boss decides to put the country on the path to more freedom, you have the option of seeking asylum for your and your family in one of the few countries in the world that will take you, and live the rest of your life (a) in fear of angry underlings out for your life (b) in a lot less comfort than you're used to - or to stage a coup, kill your boss and assume power to "protect the revolution against corrupting, imperialist US influences".
[+] [-] tawgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|13 years ago|reply
Doing a Nuclear test is one thing, mounting it on a rocket and sending it far away is another.
I think they decided to stop this before it gets ugly.
[+] [-] swatkat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|13 years ago|reply
The problem is more one of having a small enough nuclear device and of keeping it intact during launch than of range.
[+] [-] kzrdude|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dutchbrit|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netrus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidcool|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseebach|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregPC|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] LatvjuAvs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lclarkmichalek|13 years ago|reply
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/us-proposes-toug...