[New York Times, 8 minutes ago] WAR!

[Mutoes]

Hard to say what were the intensions behind this shelling for sure off course. But if i was to make i guess id say this was to help the coming "powershift" to Kims son and remind citizens of NK how much they need strong leaders. Alltho they could have made the whole confrontation up and made just bunch of announcements if that was the case.

 

[KarmaPolice]

A failing regime attepting to externalise discontent by courting war is nothing new. Argentina went to war with the UK in 1982 because the military regime was on the brink of collapse. It needed the military sucess to quieten the discontent. Iraq went to war with Kuwait in 1990 for similar reasons - Saddam needed to distract both the civilian and military discontent which was rising after the end of the Iran-Iraq war which proved be a costly, bloody draw.

N. Korea knows that in a war with the south, it can not win without outside aid. It's political elite may seem insane, but it's military won't be. 2+2 must equal 4 when it comes to war. Most of it's kit is of 60's/70's Soviet vintage and most of their army comprises of conscripts. S. Korea is hardly a superpower, but it's army is modern and apparently well trained. If N. Korea breaks the cease-fire, it will almost definatly face US forces, with the possibility of Japanese intervention. In that situation, the best she could hope for was a 'rolling retreat', inflicting enough casulties to make the US/UN/S. Korea's will to fight to flag enough for an cease-fire, so the regime survives.

It will only win if China gets involved. It won't. She is not ready to directly challenge the US militarily...yet. Give it a decade or two.

China was never communist. Nor was any of the old Soviet bloc. It was Stalinist - a hybrid of Fascism and Socialism. It failed because the classic problems of closed societies. A closed society can't adapt with the times. It can't innovate. Anything new is seen as a threat first, and a possibility a distant second. The leadership will become more and more elderly and out of touch as the decades pass. Large military/secret police budgets sap the economy. It will constantly need to externalise threats of spies/rebels/enemy nations to justify it's existance. The beaucracy will leech more and more from the economy, as it enjoys the trappings of power.

What China has done is open up economically, but still retain all power. It has loosened freedom of speech just enough to encorage innovation in science and technology, but not giving an inch on poltical, religious or social affairs. By reducing the direct involvemnt of the state in the economy, it has made it much more efficiant, so it can compete with the rest of the world. By co-opting the CEO's of chinese firms (or failing that, threaten) the state has the benefits of capitalism with the control of communism. The teeth of the military, party and secret police are still there, sharper than ever due to all the cash capitalism has given to the Chinese.

You have to remember, they are Chinese. The oldest continious civilization on the planet. She has been powerful, rich and advanced for most of the last 3000 years. To the Chinese, it is not 'the rise of China', more of the restoration of China to her rightful place in the world - at the top.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

It will only win if China gets involved. It won't. She is not ready to directly challenge the US militarily...yet. Give it a decade or two.

Everybody says this, fact is China has warned the US not to bring in the USS Washington. The area is considered China's "exclusive economic zone".

Hard to say what were the intensions behind this shelling for sure off course. But if i was to make i guess id say this was to help the coming "powershift" to Kims son and remind citizens of NK how much they need strong leaders. Alltho they could have made the whole confrontation up and made just bunch of announcements if that was the case.

Read the article I posted, it has nothing to do with that.

 

[Threepwood]

Everybody says this, fact is China has warned the US not to bring in the USS Washington. The area is considered China's "exclusive economic zone".

When did warning become direct military action?

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Who said anything about direct military action? This is the 21st century's new superpower challenging the sole superpower out of the 20th century.

 

[Threepwood]

Who said anything about direct military action? This is the 21st century's new superpower challenging the sole superpower out of the 20th century.

KarmaPolice wrote:
It will only win if China gets involved. It won't. She is not ready to directly challenge the US militarily...yet. Give it a decade or two.

Everybody says this, fact is China has warned the US not to bring in the USS Washington. The area is considered China's "exclusive economic zone".

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am just curious but is china still allied with North Korea, for the case of a real war ?

Now question, if North Korea starts to attack with more artillery you can bet there will be some kind of answer at some point. Now how possible is it that China will get in to this as well ?

I think it depends much on how responsible the south or west is regarding the situation.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

It will only win if China gets involved. It won't. She is not ready to directly challenge the US militarily...yet. Give it a decade or two.

China's support of N. Korea is hardly unconditional. In fact, they are pretty pissed internally at N. Korea right now, as they have basically provoked the US into parking their carriers off their coast.

Everybody says this, fact is China has warned the US not to bring in the USS Washington. The area is considered China's "exclusive economic zone".

It bears out how weak China's position is as Kim's sole ally. It's a face saving move, because they're actually backpedaling.

Beijing Bears Rising Cost for Support of Pyongyang; New Take on Naval Exercises

China's stance appeared firmer in July, when officials said they opposed any military exercises in the entire Yellow Sea. Beijing protested so vociferously that the U.S. and South Korea shifted planned maneuvers to the Sea of Japan, east of South Korea.

...

China's apparently softened stance on Yellow Sea exercises appears to demonstrate a concern that the North Korean crisis will overshadow a planned trip to Washington in January by President Hu Jintao. It may also reflect an acknowledgment that China would be unlikely to prevent the U.S. and South Korea from staging their drills following the week's attack, requiring a compromise to avoid appearing weak before an increasingly nationalist and demanding Chinese public.

They don't want to go to war over Kim anyway, they like the buffer he affords them and they have enough trouble keeping fleeing N. Korean defectors out now, wait until the defectors become millions of starving, ragged N. Korean refugees. China doesn't want to clean up that mess.

I am just curious but is china still allied with North Korea, for the case of a real war ?

Now question, if North Korea starts to attack with more artillery you can bet there will be some kind of answer at some point. Now how possible is it that China will get in to this as well ?

If Kim ever used his nukes, I wouldn't expect China to back him one bit. That doesn't support their interests at all.

 

[DarkCorp]

I agree a lot of things about what Karmapoilce has said. I do dis-agree about China wanting to be a world super power however. It is incredibly expensive to maintain military bases around the world for first strike capability across the globe. If anything the cash China generates is another step towards quelling internal dissent with the much more efficent rule like the romans dealy.

One must keep in mind although the chinese do have nuclear weapons, she is still surrounded by the United States in the south, east and the west/ME/buffer zone. She also has a very strong and equally/more powerful nation in the north that is making no qualms about its desire (if not already) super power status. China doesn't even have a blue water navy.

With threats all around you, who could blame China for beefing up her defenses. Keep in mind that Taiwan is still a lingering problem and the old communist/nationalist beef may not vanish even with the original instigators dead. It is important to look at things objectively instead of through a paranoid blue team lens.

Many people say the US is in-debt to China and that is true. But who is to say the US has to pay if it means giving up global hedgemony to the PRC as a result. The US is easily strong enough to renege on the deal if it so chooses too. China, with so many threats around her, cannot compete militarily. Instead, it benefits by playing superpowers off of eachother. Look at how often it just stays neutral in security council issues. China has far more to gain by being a "middle man" with upstarts like N. Korea, dick swinging contests between the US and Russia, the US and the ME, etc. Why ruin so much cash flow wanting the be the world police man? Even if China figured it could make even more money by being a hedgemon, would it have the economy and experience to sustain such an adventure? Keep in mind the old power players like Soviet Union/Russia, the US, Great Britian, etc, all have extensive military doctrine and experience from fighting a great many modern wars including WW1 and WW2. The chinese at this stage were still steeped in superstion and backwards to all hell.

If you want to take a look at cultures look at the chinese immigrants and the chinese in general. Especially being American/Chinese myself, we prefer to do our own thing and let others do their own thing. Even when faced with overwhelming superior firepower, the Quing Dynasty still preferred its own way of life to an inudstrialized more efficient way of life. It considered its first Opium War loss to pure chance than admitting its own failure to adapt and change. It may have considered itself the "middle kingdom" but it in no way considered itself a superpower/colonial power like the west. It simply didn't have the desire to expand beyond its close minded borders, the chinese were too xenophobic.

I believe the 20th century China has realised its mistakes by not industrializing/embracing new technology, science, and in general cultures and ways. Hence it has a ravenous appetite for all things new akin to Japan in the ealy part of the 20th century. The difference however is that China realises the utter futility in attempting to be a global hedgemon. In order to do so the PRC would have to be stronger than all the western nations combined which is quite ludicrous. There is a difference between raising a modern military sufficient to defend itself like a blue water navy and short range-anti ship cruise missiles, to attempting to fund a military that would be able to win multiple wars world wide.

PS: N.Korea will NEVER use nukes unless someone goes apeshit. I mean guess where the fallout from a return nuclear salvo is headed straight towards??

 

[Crni Vuk]

so South Korea and the USA are joining soon (Today or Tomorrow ?) in a manouver on sea.

So what do you think will the North take that as provocation and cause some response ?

 

[DarkCorp]

I doubt it. Saber rattling is what Kim is good at. In all honesty I am surprised he decided to shell the S. Koreans.

The conspiracist side of me might agree the PRC wants to get more benefits by acting as a mediator again.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Did anyone catch the part about the provocative naval exercises by South Korea near the disputed sea border?

 

[Sander]

Yes. Did anyone catch the part where that's no excuse to start lobbing grenades at civilians?

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Lobbing grenades? What are you on about.

South Korea provoked North Korea. It matters not how many died. Shit happens in war.

6 South Koreans died so far in the naval exercises. That means for far 10 people, civilian and not have died because of South Korea's stupidity.

 

[Sander]

Lobbing grenades? What are you on about.

South Korea provoked North Korea. It matters not how many died. Shit happens in war.

Yes 'war'. A 'war' in which all hostilities are initiated by North Korea. How, exactly, is North Korea hurt by these 'provocative' naval exercises anyway? It's not like those exercises are blocking North Korean trade or threatening their shores.

Except of course, those naval exercises are there in part to prevent North Korea from establishing their own border, annexing parts of the ocean that are not theirs. As established in the treaty they signed at the end of the Korean War.

So basically, North Korea was shelling South Korea in an attempt to annex new territory.

6 South Koreans died so far in the naval exercises. That means for far 10 people, civilian and not have died because of South Korea's stupidity.

It's South Korea's fault that North Korea's lobbing grenades at them?

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

Yes, South Korea acted belligerently. Imagine if the US and say West German held a naval exercise off the coast of Pomerania in 1976? The Warsaw Pact countries would not have taken that kind of flagrant provocation, and typically they didn't.

 

[Sander]

Yes, South Korea acted belligerently. Imagine if the US and say West German held a naval exercise off the coast of Pomerania in 1976? The Warsaw Pact countries would not have taken that kind of flagrant provocation, and typically they didn't.

They held naval exercises in their own waters. Naval exercises don't actual threaten a country, they're exercises. Even if it's a provocation, provocation does not give you the right to start killing people. Moreover, incidents like that were solved largely diplomatically during the Cold War as a war was not in the interests of either party. And even if they weren't, how Warsaw Pact countries behaved is hardly relevant.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

When we start talking about "rights" when it comes to bilateral relationships between countries, the discussion is effectively over.

The South Koreans provoked North Korea, North Korea shelled them. End of story, message received.

And judging from the incompetence of the South Korean navy, reprisals might not be in their best interest, lest they want to start taking their orders from Pyongyang.

 

[Sander]

When we start talking about "rights" when it comes to bilateral relationships between countries, the discussion is effectively over.

The South Koreans provoked North Korea, North Korea shelled them. End of story, message received.

So your argument is now "it's international politics so it's all good".
That's a neat little cop-out but that's not how it works. You're pretending somehow that South Korea is the bad guy in this incident, when South Korea was not the one to initiate the actual hostilities. At the very most the South Koreans ran a 'provocative' military exercise. A provocation that does not hurt, threaten or hinder North Korea in any way. So the North Koreans feel they were hurt in their pride because of an arbitrary demand they made of the South Koreans, and they decide to shell a bunch of civilians.

So let's recap: South Koreans run military exercise that doesn't affect North Korea in any way. North Korea responds by killing civilians. You excuse North Korea. Do I have that about right?

And judging from the incompetence of the South Korean navy, reprisals might not be in their best interest, lest they want to start taking their orders from Pyongyang.

Your strange insistence that South Korea would lose a war with North Korea when North Korea has effectively one ally who is not willing to fight a war on its behalf is weird.

 

[Thomas de Aynesworth]

So your argument is now "it's international politics so it's all good".

That word is right up there with "right" when it comes to politics.

That's a neat little cop-out but that's not how it works.

Seems to have worked out okay from this angle.

You're pretending somehow that South Korea is the bad guy in this incident, when South Korea was not the one to initiate the actual hostilities.

Hilarity ensues, since when did I say either side was the bad guy? Both nations are pretty messed up. One is mostly isolated, extremely authoritarian and spends a rather large sum of their GDP on military assets. The other has men who dress like chicks and wear Hello Kitty backpacks. Both deserve a kick in the teeth.

But I'll give the DPRK this: at least it doesn't bend to weasel words like "good", "rights" and "bad-guy". Juche philosophy aside, it's admirable.

At the very most the South Koreans ran a 'provocative' military exercise.

At the very least that's exactly what happened.

A provocation that does not hurt, threaten or hinder North Korea in any way.

You aren't an authority on what the DPRK considers hurting, threatening or hindering. Obviously by the way in which the DPRK retaliated, you are wrong.

So the North Koreans feel they were hurt in their pride because of an arbitrary demand they made of the South Koreans, and they decide to shell a bunch of civilians.

Yeah, because the DPRK has no right in defining their own maritime borders.

Your strange insistence that South Korea would lose a war with North Korea when North Korea has effectively one ally who is not willing to fight a war on its behalf is weird.

Who's getting this "not willing to fight a war" crap? Are you one of those, "give China a decade or two, then they'll be ready to take on the US" people?

Ridiculous.