I’m so sick and tired of people saying that North Korea is just “sabre rattling” and such. THEY USED ARTILLERY TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. THEY SINK SHIPS WITH THEIR SUBS.
If that’s sabre rattling, then sabre rattling deserves to be stopped at all costs.
Even if “all costs” includes millions of Korean lives North and South? Which it almost certainly would?
Saber rattling includes military incidents, border raids, sniper fire, etc. That’s what the term encompasses. Saber rattling can go beyond mere words. You are misusing the term, in implying that it excludes lethal actions.
I did not know that. I thought rattling the sabre in the sheath was just noise, not hurting anyone.
The more common term for bellicose verbiage is “posturing”.
If you want to see eternal saber-rattling, look into the Kashmir border. From time to time, some idiot on one side will kill one or two on the other. It is now expected that the aggrieved party will kill exactly that number of the other side.
Normally, there is an actual ritual at one spot where, at end of day, a soldier from each side will come up to each others face. One will scream murderous threats, then stand quietly while the other guy responds in kind. I once saw this suggested as a tourist spot - like the changing of the guard at Buckingham
There was a major quake in the area a few years ago. Soldiers on both sides dropped their weapons and helped dig out. Once the emergency has passed, the intruding soldiers went back across the border, and resumed their warfare.
The Koreans have been doing much the same for 60 years.
Nope. The North Koreans have:
[ul][li]bombed a passenger airplane[/li][li]murderd a president’s wife[/li][li]dug tunnels under the DMZ[/li][li]sank a naval vessel[/li][li]bombed a populated island[/ul][/li]
Heck, the list goes on. The Koreans have not been doing “much the same for 60 years.”
What! Tunnels?! Shock and horrors?
I was referring to the DMZ and the petty sniping.
Oh my - they used an artillery shell? Was it bigger than the Hellfire missiles we’re raining down on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, who knows where else?
(those are actually common on militarized borders)
The rest - you forgot the “seized an US Navy ship!” (USS Pueblo)
Sorry, you’re going to have to come up with much much better before you have reason to kill a couple of hundred thousand people.
And you might want to run the idea past the folks in Seoul - who will be toast it the North feels seriously threatened.
Learn the term “Casus Belli”.
Then move up to “rules of engagement”
usedtobe:
What are you going on about? What North Korea has been doing is nowhere near the level of petty sniping.
Who even knows if there are any.
I HONESTLY can’t believe that people here are saying “yes it’s much better to let North Korea keep on doing what they are doing, which includes shelling and killing people via artillery fire and sinking ships and whatnot than to stop them”
Fuck that opinion to hell. Their government is murderous. They murder their own people en masse via starvation and forced labor, and they DIRECTLY attack innocent south koreans.
If all they had been doing is just making idle threats and testing nukes and not hurting anyone, it would be a completely different situation. But that’s not what they’ve done. They’ve MURDERED people with their army and navy, people outside of their undisputed borders.
Well that’s where it came from, and is generally understood to mean symbolic (nonviolent but ominous or threatening) actions.
I think that’s a very unusual definition of the term. I have always heard it used to describe aggressive talk, threats, near-border military exercises and shows of force. You can describe the offing of a single individual as mere saber rattling if you’d like to, but clearly Austria didn’t hold that view in 1914.
The moment government-sanctioned military forces start shedding the blood of their claimed enemies, that is in my opinion an act of war.
China would go to war for itself. They are apparently still paranoid about having US troops at their border and probably would not put up with a US controlled NK. Or maybe not. But that’s a scarier scenario
I think the uncertainty of that outcome is better than the certainty of war
I don’t see how some decision made 60 years ago concerning what is essentially a cold war has anything to do with defense or offense. If you don’t believe it was defensive, explain why they haven’t went on the offensive yet.
So give them foodstuffs
In a war, they would probably:
Shoot down more than one plane
Murder more than one person
Dunno about the tunnels
Sink more than one naval vessel
Bomb more than one island
So the current situation is a better option.
What has SK done in response to these provocations? I think they should have taken a tougher stance, maybe sink one of their ships, or lob a missile near one of their cities. No, I don’t think that would start a war, maybe escalate the conflict a bit, but ultimately, I think it would take NK a lot to actually start a real war because they would be guaranteed to lose.
Well, drew, nobody’s said it’s okay. What is your plan, your workable plan to stop them that doesn’t (a) get the majority of the South Korean population killed and (b) doesn’t drag China into the conflict? Since China’s already in the conflict, your plan for (b) should really be interesting.
What happened 60 years ago has everything to do with North Korea. North Korea’s government continues to use it as their excuse to their people why they’re living in such a crudhole.
:eek: You’re joking, right? Nobody outside of North Korea with even an iota of education on the issue believes the Korean War was any kind of defensive action at all.
International politics is different than domestic politics, most likely. And that’s especially true when domestic politics is fairly simple given the totalitarian situation in North Korea.
Yeah, right. South Korea tried that. Heck, South Korea even tried helping to build up their economy. The Sunshine Policy was a miserable failure and it failed because of North Korea’s government.
Are you aware that I referred to an intentional, planned, terroristic bombing of a civilian passenger aircraft, not a military strike against a military aircraft?
Well, generally when two countries are in combat, one doesn’t use the term murder for the killing of the other side’s combatants. What I referred to was the death of South Korea’s First Lady when the North Korean death squad failed in its assassination attempt against South Korea’s president.
Evidently. Those tunnels are pretty sophisticated. They’re not somthing your average gopher digs in the yard. They’re big enough for an infantry division to pass through in an hour.
Both acts are generally considered to be acts of war. And North Korea pulled these stunts when they supposedly have agreed not to launch any attacks.
I have the same question for you that I just posed to drew:
What is your plan, your workable plan to stop them that doesn’t (a) get the majority of the South Korean population killed and (b) doesn’t drag China into the conflict? Since China’s already in the conflict, your plan for (b) should really be interesting.
Soon we will have airborne lasers that can take out artillery shells in flight. As soon as we do we go to China. Tell them that we will take out the top military command and control. Neutralize any guns that fire with counter-battery fire and laser defenses. And South Korea steps in with a bureaucracy to set up an interim government and we supply temporary humanitarian aid. In return for China staying out of it we agree to withdraw our Land Forces from Korea. And our existing Naval and Air Force bases remain in what is now South Korea but no U.S. Forces in Northern territory.
Good idea! Well. maybe that ‘and lasers will destroy 10,000 shells in less time than it takes for a shell to go from the DMZ to Seoul’ part - you might want to deploy a giant catcher’s mitt as a defense - it is just as likely to work :rolleyes:
Or maybe people who want to worry about what a 2-bit player does could just shut the hell up and leave things military to people who appreciate the enormity of such a war - there are 24 MILLION people in DPRK - how many are you bozos ready to kill because their leader is playing the hand he was dealt and is no more a threat to you than were the Vietnamese in 1956 (you didn’t know that part, did you?).
Good grief. We now have our second North Korean apologist since the board started.
That’s just it, its an excuse. 60 years ago they may have had some grand delusions about winning, but now they are the butt of the world’s jokes and employ dwarves as soldiers. Now they know that the lie started so long ago wouldn’t hold up, that in a war they’d be pasted in a week, so in order to prevent that, they built something that makes it almost not worthwhile for SK or the US to invade them.
By defense, I believe that they will not initiate a nuclear attack. They keep it around, brandish it as a weapon, and threaten to use it to wring more concessions out of negotiators. But they know that the first explosion of a North Korean nuke outside their borders will mean the entire country destroyed. They will not use a nuke for offense
By that logic, it should be much EASIER to use a nuke. All Kim has to do is give the word and his generals will fall in line. The stereotype has always been that in a democracy, things can’t get done.
I think basic humanity requires we give them some small concessions when they brandish their weapon. Its not like I’m saying to give them all the food in SK. Granted, I don’t think that will change NK’s mind, but so what? Even if a tiny percentage trickles down to the innocent citizens of NK, and its not a burden to us, I think we should give them the foodstuffs they ask for
Does it matter? In a war, surely more civilians, perhaps not on a plane, would die. If we’re measuring it by the amount of deaths so far in 60 years, and I’m sure you posted your list in a way to make it seem like a lot instead of having simply one number of how many deaths NK’s caused outside their borders in 60 years, then that’s the number most relevant to the discussion.
The only formula I’m concerned about is how much suffering NK has caused outside its borders to us, and how much more suffering we would have to endure to put an end to NK through war. If the ratio is too skewed in favor of NK, then the rational option is to do nothing. If it is believed that war would tilt that favor to us, or that NK is getting dangerously close to evening up the odds, then by all means, attack them.
I’m not saying we should never attack NK or take it seriously. Only that right now, its a toothless paper tiger and has done relatively little harm to us compared to what it can do in a war. Its not worth it
Thank you, I’m glad you asked. How about we keep the stalemate and wait for them to crumble? Their model is unsustainable. When even the leadership feels the pinch of sanctions, they will work out a deal to save themselves and leave the rest of the country to international monitors. Most likely, they will try to retire to China as dignitaries and live out the rest of their life in comfort. Refugees will stream from NK and international monitors will stream in to try to keep the peace and set up a workable government. It won’t be pretty, but it is a much better choice than attacking a nuclear armed nation that may or may not be supported by China
What I don’t believe will happen is NK, out of desperation or some imagined slight, launch nukes at Seoul and open up their artillery on SK. In such a case of unprovoked attack, and I know China would be working furiously behind the scenes to get them to not initiate the strike, even China will not support them, and SK and the US will strike back with such fury that NK leadership will be scattered within a week or two.
Those are the two most realistic scenarios I see happening. That is why I do not favor any attack on NK and continued tolerance of their impetuous douchebaggery (and occasional murder)
Seems strange to me that everyone is screaming about not allowing Iran to get nukes, but frankly I would fear No. Korea more and they already have nukes and now apparently the means to deliver the nukes. The people may be starving but the government continues to spend money on war weapons.
North Korea has long range missiles. North Korea has nuclear devices. But North Korea does not have long range missiles than can deliver their nuclear devices.