Good point, was thinking the same thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KenWats
I'm no expert, but 2 fatalities seems awfully light casualties for an artillery duel lasting an hour and 200 rounds (according to Stratfor anyway). It seems to me that either there wasn't much where they were shooting at or they didn't hit what they were aiming for.
Guess if theres any comfort in this whole deal it knowing that somewhere in NK some arty bubbas having to face the music about suckage, considering that whichever they were aiming at (water or land) quite a few didn't hit what they were aiming for.
Not that I'm disagreeing but
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
The North has less to lose. The South has everything to lose.
lets just say they (NK) started it and it gets finished the Chinese would do exactly , ?what?
:confused:
Especially considering as you so notably pointed out-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
The US stands to lose thousands of troops
as to
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
This is probably another cry for attention from the Hermit Kingdom
Although its not new does it necessarily change the underlying approaches necessary to deal with it?
These are honest questions, just trying to understand your overarching, things suck so just accept it premise
(or am I misrepresenting your position?)
Well then perhaps the question
is not so much about red lines and escalation so much as about retribution or lack there of.
Have any ideas on exactly where the Chinese whom you give such great importance in the what if's see the "too far" bar in relation to their reckless child to the souths hissy fits?
Seems like important information when determining how best to avoid "accidental" escalations which seems like everyone agrees wouldn't be good for all involved.