View Poll Results: What is the near-term future of the DPRK

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • It will fall into chaos as a result of renewed famine and poverty, resulting in military crackdowns.

    3 15.79%
  • There will be a military coup that displaces the current leadership, hopefully soon.

    4 21.05%
  • It will continue to remain a closed society, technologically dormant and otherwise insignificant.

    12 63.16%
  • The leadership will eventually make a misstep, forcing military action from the United States.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 20 of 551

Thread: North Korea: 2012-2016

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    It happens all the time. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two recent examples.
    Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

    From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Two excellent examples of why invading countries and trying to replace governments we dislike is generally not a good idea. Invading North Korea or Iran would be a fairly complicated and extraordinarily expensive affair with substantial risks... and whom do you propose to do the invading (and the paying)? Not exactly something you're going to build an international coalition around... do you expect the US to do it unilaterally? If not the US, then who?

    From an American perspective... I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else. We can't afford the wars we've got, let alone another one. If you're willing to cover the costs, we'll reconsider as soon as your check clears. A trillion or so to start would do.
    You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent. So why not from now on just speak for yourself?

  3. #3
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent.
    Unless the president could convince the majority of Americans that Iran or NK poses an immediate direct threat to the US and that no other means to counter that threat exists then it isn't going to happen. Look at the fighting over a relatively small increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan. Recent US precedent concerns the invasion of a country that housed the terrorist organization that had just attacked us and the invasion of a country that we had already beaten once militarily and that many believed was aquiring WMD in order to attack us or to provide to someone else so that they could attack us. Both invasions also happened before the economic crash. Things have changed since those invasions and I don't see a shred of evidence anywhere to suggest that the American people, much less the politicians in DC have the stomache for another invasion or occupation. Nor do I believe that we could afford it in any case.
    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

    Terry Pratchett

  4. #4
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    You seem to want to speak on behalf of the US yet are at odds with recent US precedent. So why not from now on just speak for yourself?
    I said an American perspective, not the American perspective. Since I am American, my perspective is an American one... one of many.

    Iraq and Afghanistan provide excellent examples of the risks and enormous expense of occupying nations and trying to install governments. Hasn't work out well, and Iran or North Korea would likely have been far worse.

    The comment about the check was of course tongue in cheek, but there's a point as well. When people in other countries say "we shouldn't allow..." they generally mean "the American taxpayer shouldn't allow...". The American taxpayer has, I suspect, had just about enough of that.

  5. #5
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Reading music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBTIoL5vaOM

    Behold, the power of Open Source ... from

    http://www.informationdissemination....-underway.html
    So nine subs got under way over the weekend, 2 of those on official deployment. Actually the number is 10 over the period of the last week, because USS Jacksonville (SSN 699) just returned from deployment last week and USS Charlotte (SSN 766) deployed the next day. Worth remembering, ~60% of the submarines in US Navy inventory are in the Pacific.

    I'm sure this activity is completely unrelated to recent events on the Korean Peninsula. Or not.
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-08-2010 at 10:26 PM. Reason: Remove unnecessary bolding. Again
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  6. #6
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Japan has unveiled a sweeping update of its national defence polices, prescribing a more flexible posture and refocusing its capabilities as it confronts China's military buildup and North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
    The National Defence Programme Guideline approved by Prime Minister Naoto Kan's cabinet yesterday stopped short of easing a ban on arms exports - a move opposed by a small pacifist party whose help Kan wants to pass bills in a divided parliament - but left the door open to international joint development of weapons.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/China-a...rce.6664823.jp
    The traditionally uneasy relationship between Tokyo and Seoul turned chillier last week when Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said his country's military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, could be dispatched to South Korea to whisk Japanese nationals out of harm's way. The comments were meant to reassure Japanese citizens about potential threats from North Korea or China, but instead they raised concerns about the likelihood of Japan's rearmament.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec...itary-20101215
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default J. P. Bermudez...

    ...has an interesting piece on the recent North Korean artillery "attack"...:http://www.kpajournal.com/storage/KPAJ-1-12.pdf
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 12-29-2010 at 07:09 PM. Reason: New link added, old one failed.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    ICG, 23 Dec 10: North Korea: The Risks of War in the Yellow Sea
    ...It is clear that the Yellow Sea is becoming a zone of worsening danger. This analysis of the sea boundary is based on numerous interviews in the ROK and elsewhere on the origins and legal uncertainty surrounding the NLL, the rules of engagement in the South and the history of clashes in the area. This paper is intended as a background resource on a problem that is intertwined with complex historical, political, economic, legal, military and symbolic issues. Resolution will require analysis and compromise across all these dimensions. The NLL is very controversial politically in South Korea; political compromise and the establishment of a de jure inter-Korean maritime boundary in the Yellow Sea (which could well prove territorially less advantageous to the South) would be extremely difficult for any South Korean leader to pull off. An update briefing on South Korean politics within this context will follow this background paper....

Similar Threads

  1. North Korea 2017 onwards
    By AdamG in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 07-08-2019, 01:56 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •