The North Korea Juche Songun Anti-Imperialist Megathread

[The Tiger Kingdom]

The United States alone has enough nukes to theoretically destroy any life on Earth.
Several times over.

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

I mean, even discounting nuclear winter.
The sheer immediate explosive and radioactive forces at work would do a lot of damage.
Speaking strictly of attacking nations that don't like us? Yeah, we have hundreds more than we need for that.

[Fruition (Ancient)]

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

I mean, even discounting nuclear winter.
The sheer immediate explosive and radioactive forces at work would do a lot of damage.
Speaking strictly of attacking nations that don't like us? Yeah, we have hundreds more than we need for that.

Talk about seeping radioactive material. It would take years to clean even an iota of the amount used for explosions.

[The Corparation]

The United States alone has enough nukes to theoretically destroy any life on Earth.
Several times over.

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

Wiping out all life on earth may be unrealistic, but Nuclear Winter is a very real thing. Its been calculated that even a modest conflict i.e. India vs Pakistan with less than a hundred warheads detonated could spark some devastating climate changes significant enough to cause famine in many areas. Although even a full exchange between major powers wouldn't spark as big a change as is often depicted by pop culture and the media, in fact several studies state its better referred to as a Nuclear Autumn, it doesn't take that big a temperature shift to wreck agricultural production. Its also unlikely that it would last more than a few years. Still its a very real possibility from any large scale exchange.

[Wisconsin9]

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

I mean, even discounting nuclear winter.
The sheer immediate explosive and radioactive forces at work would do a lot of damage.
Speaking strictly of attacking nations that don't like us? Yeah, we have hundreds more than we need for that.

Not to mention a massive collapse of global trade, scientific research, and everything that goes with them.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

No, I think it really would help.

For example, there'd be little problems with holidays, as they'd be celebrating the same ones, and schedules could be kept roughly similar. Both eat the same cuisine, so we wouldn't see any problems there. Both share a passionate hatred for the Japanese (excluding anime fans obsessed with Japan), and put their differences aside against a common enemy. Both speak the same language, and there would only be little to no problems in vocabulary from the differences developed over the past sixty years. Both have the same traditional clothing, and the same Confucian influences.

If their cultures were different... what would even be the point of reunification?

Not to mention, the allegiance towards Kim Il-sung and such will at most last only a few generations, with each generation having a great decrease in the number of die-hard fans of the Kim dynasty, especially as the extent of North Korean brutality becomes known to them.

How do you know their cultures are different? Prior to the split, their cultures have been the same. That's what matters for both sides as of now. None will succumb to their current ideologies, for sure.

A country heavily exposed to western influence and another increasingly isolated militaristic society only really aware of propaganda and the occasional smuggled-in piece of influence have identical cultures?
What are you smoking?

Do I sound like I am sympathising Sadam or Bin Laden to you?

We started the news with proof and evidences and must also conclude it with facts. If we start broadcasting for example, in CNN, then we might as well conclude in CNN right? Not other links or stuff.

Claiming that there were 60 scuds left, but where is the account for that? Did they broadcast live and showing the public, "Here are the scuds were talking about? It's all about proof. Without proof, people tend to have their own personal conclusion.

It all started with the news media and we stick to the news media discussion. It's ridiculous to think that this discussion winded down to siding who, sympathising for, or proving something about the issue. It's the NEWS MEDIA and how they handle it. Simple, isn't it?

Why complicate things?

It was more the fact that they started firing them into Israel that alerted the US to the fact that yes, Iraq did still have Scuds in their inventory.

so we now have to nuke every country that threatens us (as an American)? We don't have enough nukes to do that.

Actually, we do, I think. >.> <.<

In terms or warheads and megatonnage, you did, I'm not sure what START, SALT and the 2008 agreements took out of your arsenal but you've got to remember that many of your warheads are carried several to a missile and are thus only really suitable versus single complexed, or multiple close, targets. ie, cities.

I mean, even discounting nuclear winter.
The sheer immediate explosive and radioactive forces at work would do a lot of damage.
Speaking strictly of attacking nations that don't like us? Yeah, we have hundreds more than we need for that.

Talk about seeping radioactive material. It would take years to clean even an iota of the amount used for explosions.

In a war between the US and USSR in the 1980s, if you lived north of the equator, you were pretty much fucked.
About 4-8% of the land area of the continental US, Europe and the entire USSR would have been covered by a minimum 350 rad dose over a 48-hour period.
350 rads is an LD₅₀ lethal dose, assuming you survived the initial five to twenty gigatons of strike.

If you lived near an air force base or international airport, or within two states of a silo field, you were pretty much gone, since they would have received massed group strikes and the silo fields especially (such as the Minuteman fields in the northern states) would have led to over a 3500 rad 48 hour dose. Remember, 350 rads is the lethal dose.

[Divair]

Kim Jong Un has not been seen in two weeks
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

[Khadgar]

Kim Jong Un has not been seen in two weeks
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

China had him assassinated.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

"Such disappearances are not unusual."

[Divair]

Kim Jong Un has not been seen in two weeks
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/20 ... 00315.HTML

China had him assassinated.

Or maybe someone tried.

[Divair]

NK's reply to SK's offer for peace talks: Fuck off
http://koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130414000243

[Gauthier]

China had him assassinated.

Or maybe someone tried.

I knew it. Dennis Rodman was really a CIA assassin.

[Alien Space Bats]

Why only limited technological advancement for the north? What justification would there be for a puppet state?

Because without such a puppet state, the Republic of Korea would have to pass laws forbidding Northerners from going South, and historically such internal passport laws have been incompatible with even moderately free societies.

Maintaining the DPRK as a separate State, under something like a U.N.Trust arrangement, with the understanding that the government of the ROK will run the North is such as way as to prepare it for reunification as expeditiously as possible would give the South the proper legal framework to keep Northerners in the North and maintain social across the peninsula until such time as the two societies could be fully integrated.

[Vietnam]

Why only limited technological advancement for the north? What justification would there be for a puppet state?

Because without such a puppet state, the Republic of Korea would have to pass laws forbidding Northerners from going South, and historically such internal passport laws have been incompatible with even moderately free societies.

Maintaining the DPRK as a separate State, under something like a U.N.Trust arrangement, with the understanding that the government of the ROK will run the North is such as way as to prepare it for reunification as expeditiously as possible would give the South the proper legal framework to keep Northerners in the North and maintain social across the peninsula until such time as the two societies could be fully integrated.

Such a thing would be impossible. If you didn't know, the Republic of Korea claims to be the sole legitimate government of the entire Korean peninsula. The North Korean government is legally seen as some sort of upstart rebels in the northern half of their country. To create a puppet state, the RoK would have to give up its claim to the northern half of the peninsula. By doing so, the Republic of Korea would be acknowledging the existence of the division of Korea, and cut the territory they claim to control by more than half, which would inflame the nationalistic populace.

Not to mention, doing such a thing would wreck any chance of any party obtaining the left wing vote (especially the left-wing nationalists) in Korea, as it'd doom former northerners to poorer living standards for a temporary period through the use of a puppet state. A large plurality, if not majority, of South Koreans see their northern brethren as fellow Koreans rather than as a separate people.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

The United States alone has enough nukes to theoretically destroy any life on Earth.
Several times over.

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

only because the amount of nukes needed would basically destroy our atmosphere first.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

No. We don't. "Nuclear winter" is pseudo-scientific bunkum.

only because the amount of nukes needed would basically destroy our atmosphere first.

They actually really wouldn't. Especially not considering the trend of delivering multiple low-yield warheads via MIRV.

[Alien Space Bats]

Such a thing would be impossible. If you didn't know, the Republic of Korea claims to be the sole legitimate government of the entire Korean peninsula. The North Korean government is legally seen as some sort of upstart rebels in the northern half of their country. To create a puppet state, the RoK would have to give up its claim to the northern half of the peninsula. By doing so, the Republic of Korea would be acknowledging the existence of the division of Korea, and cut the territory they claim to control by more than half, which would inflame the nationalistic populace.

Not to mention, doing such a thing would wreck any chance of any party obtaining the left wing vote (especially the left-wing nationalists) in Korea, as it'd doom former northerners to poorer living standards for a temporary period through the use of a puppet state. A large plurality, if not majority, of South Koreans see their northern brethren as fellow Koreans rather than as a separate people.

There is nothing implicit in such an arrangement that implies that North Koreans are a separate people, or that South Korea has no legal claim to North Korean soil; on the contrary, the entire logic of the arrangement implies the exact opposite: That there really is only one Korea, and that the only legitimate long-term goal in the governance of the peninsula is unification.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that any delay in unification once the DPRK falls is a tacit admission of the legitimacy of DPRK independence; in fact, it could just as easily be a realistic recognition of de facto division without legal justification. If the puppet state was established with the explicit understanding that it was going to be purely transitional in nature and that its existence served two necessary ends (namely, an orderly economic transition to a unified state without disruptive internal mass migration and the widespread chaos such internal movements would engender, and an orderly political transition to a unified state through the gradual acclimation of Northerners to both the idea and practice of democratic self-government), then such an arrangement would not at all undermine present ROK claims to the entire peninsula.

Your yourself have admitted that simply unifying the two Koreas without check would cause massive upheaval in in South; you use this fact to assert that the two Koreas should not be unified. In essence, you're saying that because it can't be done in one fell swoop, it can't be done at all. I'm suggesting that it can be done if it's done by degrees, that a legal mechanism exists for it to be done by degrees, and that such an approach is not at all at odds with current Korean claims (and, BTW, doing it through a U.N. mandate would be consistent with the fact that right now, the U.N. recognizes two distinct Koreas; having the U.N. essentially designate the DPRK as a "Trust Territory" of the ROK with the explicit goal of unification over a brief [10-15 year] period serves to reconcile international law with Korean national aspirations quite nicely).

EDIT: As far as lesser income standards go, which is better: To create an environment in which living standards in the North can rise rapidly over time until they approach South Korean standards, or to create massive economic disruption and race-to-the-bottom labor competition through the whole of the Korean peninsula? Again, the "do-it-all-now" approach succeeds in nothing but creating ruin, all for the purpose of asserting that the problem is insurmountable and that the desired goal should therefore not be attempted. A phased approach, OTOH, creates an immediate and steady improvement in North Korean living standards without disruption, and eventually achieves the goal without destroying anyone's economy.

[Rio Cana]

Seems some need to read about the history of Korea. So here a short historical video on Korea which is taken from clips from a Korean Soap Opera. Shows Japanese Ninjas getting rid of the Queen of Korea. This was in 1895. Korea later became an Empire so she was called Empress even though she was no longer around. So she was the last Empress of Korea. The King, later Emperor, was easy to manipulate but the Queen (Empress) was not. So the Japanese got rid of her. The King (later Emperor) after this incident took refuge in the Russian consulate until things stabilized. You could say 1895 is when the problem ball started rolling for Korea and its still rolling.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1_wLNI4epo

And all that problematic history has led to this in NK. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FihDY-GC7VQ

And in SK. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae4uliF5N7k

You got to admit that that S. Korean tank is impressive. I do not think most nations in Asia, including Japan have a tank like that. Some parts are imported but its all put together by Korean Conglomerate Hyundai. Plenty of Hyundai autos on our roads.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Apart from maybe the left/right leaning, almost all modern battle tanks can do all of those things. Even the bit where it goes underwater. The T-90MS can, with preparation (which that K2 has clearly had) ford a five metre water obstacle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hzC4jSnRis&t=05m15s

It's not an especially impressive tank except in its armament, and that's still a boggo NATO-type 120mm gun with an L/55 barrel, the same as the Leopard 2. The K2 is the most expensive tank ever built, because of all the systems within that allow it to engage targets at extreme ranges.
Which are ranges that would struggle to engage at even with these impressive systems, and would rarely find itself looking over.

Not to mention, I found that video just boring. Almost any other country (in fact, I can't think of a single one where they wouldn't) there'd be an excited-sounding narrator telling you why this tank was awesome.

[Rio Cana]

Apart from maybe the left/right leaning, almost all modern battle tanks can do all of those things. Even the bit where it goes underwater. The T-90MS can, with preparation (which that K2 has clearly had) ford a five metre water obstacle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hzC4jSnRis&t=05m15s

It's not an especially impressive tank except in its armament, and that's still a boggo NATO-type 120mm gun with an L/55 barrel, the same as the Leopard 2. The K2 is the most expensive tank ever built, because of all the systems within that allow it to engage targets at extreme ranges.
Which are ranges that would struggle to engage at even with these impressive systems, and would rarely find itself looking over.

Not to mention, I found that video just boring. Almost any other country (in fact, I can't think of a single one where they wouldn't) there'd be an excited-sounding narrator telling you why this tank was awesome.

So when did tanks be able to turn into submarines. Very impressive. They could have used a tank that could turn submarine during WW II during the Rhein river crossings unless this feature is only feasible on short rivers or lakes.

[Mkuki]

Apart from maybe the left/right leaning, almost all modern battle tanks can do all of those things. Even the bit where it goes underwater. The T-90MS can, with preparation (which that K2 has clearly had) ford a five metre water obstacle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hzC4jSnRis&t=05m15s

It's not an especially impressive tank except in its armament, and that's still a boggo NATO-type 120mm gun with an L/55 barrel, the same as the Leopard 2. The K2 is the most expensive tank ever built, because of all the systems within that allow it to engage targets at extreme ranges.
Which are ranges that would struggle to engage at even with these impressive systems, and would rarely find itself looking over.

Not to mention, I found that video just boring. Almost any other country (in fact, I can't think of a single one where they wouldn't) there'd be an excited-sounding narrator telling you why this tank was awesome.

So when did tanks be able to turn into submarines. Very impressive. They could have used a tank that could turn submarine during WW II during the Rhein river crossings unless this feature is only feasible on short rivers or lakes.

Maybe not tank-submarines, but amphibious tanks were utilized by the Allies during Operation Normandy. Not that they were much help....

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well, you've a snorkel and NBC-sealed hatches so you can in theory stay underwater as long as you damn well like.

The only downside is of course that to ford a five metre obstacle, you need a snorkel that can be raised above five metres, making you more visible and reducing your go-anywhere capability to somewhere without overhangs. As the term in the wiki stat block implies, it also requires a deal of preparation.

As I recall, Mkuki, most of them sank in the Channel as soon as they were released from the larger transports.

[Casinoria]

Apart from maybe the left/right leaning, almost all modern battle tanks can do all of those things. Even the bit where it goes underwater. The T-90MS can, with preparation (which that K2 has clearly had) ford a five metre water obstacle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hzC4jSnRis&t=05m15s

It's not an especially impressive tank except in its armament, and that's still a boggo NATO-type 120mm gun with an L/55 barrel, the same as the Leopard 2. The K2 is the most expensive tank ever built, because of all the systems within that allow it to engage targets at extreme ranges.
Which are ranges that would struggle to engage at even with these impressive systems, and would rarely find itself looking over.

Not to mention, I found that video just boring. Almost any other country (in fact, I can't think of a single one where they wouldn't) there'd be an excited-sounding narrator telling you why this tank was awesome.

So when did tanks be able to turn into submarines. Very impressive. They could have used a tank that could turn submarine during WW II during the Rhein river crossings unless this feature is only feasible on short rivers or lakes.

Five metre obstacles. And I'm assuming it isn't completely submersible.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

So when did tanks be able to turn into submarines. Very impressive. They could have used a tank that could turn submarine during WW II during the Rhein river crossings unless this feature is only feasible on short rivers or lakes.

Five metre obstacles. And I'm assuming it isn't completely submersible.

The T-90 is 2.2m tall. I'd say that makes it pretty much submersible.
Aside from the fact that to be a 'submersible' it has to be able to swim, not just travel across the bottom.

[Casinoria]

Five metre obstacles. And I'm assuming it isn't completely submersible.

The T-90 is 2.2m tall. I'd say that makes it pretty much submersible.
Aside from the fact that to be a 'submersible' it has to be able to swim, not just travel across the bottom.

I mean it would have to have something to stick above the water with its exhaust. As for picking holes in grammar I wasn't sure if I was supposed to use submersible or submerge-able. Chrome picked submersible.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I wasn't being picky. I was saying 'it is submersible' then realised I didn't actually know what 'submersible' actually defined.
Something I've been finding a lot the last few weeks, words I don't actually know the definition of.

And yes, that's what the 'preparation' is. Mostly, it's the addition of a snorkel. I really don't get the K2's bizarre 'conning tower' arrangement for the commander.