Don't forget both World Wars.
Advertisement
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:11 pm
by Janszoonia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:11 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:11 pm
by New haven america » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:12 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:New haven america wrote:IB: "Ok, so do you think it will stay stable?"
Yo no se. Depending on how the next few years go the economy could stabilize/stay stable, or it could crash, all depends on how the next few years turn out.
But with your best prediction, you'd say we prolly won't see a crash?
by Shofercia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:12 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:12 pm
by Washington Resistance Army » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:14 pm
Shofercia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Well I assume we'd have them overthrown by the end of the day. Some casualties are to be expected but I'm sure we'd be home by Christmas.
Millions of casualties and potential war with Russia and China, not to mention Seoul, and perhaps Tokyo, in ruins.
Shofercia wrote:THAAD won't be able to defend all of Japan, and it's densely populated. You know that.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:15 pm
ArUmdAUM wrote:Despite the eccentricity of totalitarian dictators (not unique to NK), the regime is certainly rational when it comes to their security. You're assuming that North Korea will always be the way it is and will never change, when this isn't the case.
The most ideal resolution to the conflict is Korean reunification and integration of North Korea into the world economy. The regime isn't going to last forever, and we have yet to see the results of Kim Jong-un increasingly liberalizing North Korea's economy. A larger middle class may demand greater openness and change a la South Korea and Taiwan, and integration into the world economy will demand greater openness as in China.
by Janszoonia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:15 pm
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:17 pm
by New haven america » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:17 pm
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Shofercia wrote:Responding to: viewtopic.php?p=33209650#p33209650
I think that almost everyone who is sane and informed, wants the Korean Unification, since that is the only sensible way for Korea to abandon nuclear weapons.
I doubt South Korea wants to be unified with a dirt poor nation of uneducated indoctrinated radicals.
by Dooom35796821595 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:17 pm
Shofercia wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I doubt South Korea wants to be unified with a dirt poor nation of uneducated indoctrinated radicals. Not to mention that near every other country in the world have a sensible way to abandon nuclear weapons, just do it.
Like Israel? Like India? Like Pakistan? Perhaps like Iran? It's one thing for Australia, a nation whose biggest threat is the Emu, to abandoned nuclear weapons. It's another thing for a Middle Eastern country to do that. Or North Korea. What if Saddam actually got nukes? Or Khadaffi? You think they'd still be invaded?
Nukes serve as a deterrent to invasion. Once Korea is unified - there's nothing to invade. Short of that, North Korea will continue to have nukes, and we'll continue to speak of potential war. Also, South Korea wasn't flowing in wealth in the 1950s. Would your country work hard for 70 years to double its size and prestige? I think it's a project worth pursuing.
by Petrasylvania » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:21 pm
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Like Israel? Like India? Like Pakistan? Perhaps like Iran? It's one thing for Australia, a nation whose biggest threat is the Emu, to abandoned nuclear weapons. It's another thing for a Middle Eastern country to do that. Or North Korea. What if Saddam actually got nukes? Or Khadaffi? You think they'd still be invaded?
Nukes serve as a deterrent to invasion. Once Korea is unified - there's nothing to invade. Short of that, North Korea will continue to have nukes, and we'll continue to speak of potential war. Also, South Korea wasn't flowing in wealth in the 1950s. Would your country work hard for 70 years to double its size and prestige? I think it's a project worth pursuing.
I'd post a list of countries that don't have nukes, but I think that'd count as spam. But it's near 200.
Nukes are expensive, the only ones who can afford it are the UNSC 5 and nations with a severe need, like one surrounded by enemies (Israel) or to avoid constant border engadgements, (India & Pakistan)
No, most countries can't see 10 years into the future, yet alone 100. And you think the democratic nation of South Korea wants to double its voter base with a illiterate population of starving farmers who worship a political dynasty? Too many unknowns by half.
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:22 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:ArUmdAUM wrote:Despite the eccentricity of totalitarian dictators (not unique to NK), the regime is certainly rational when it comes to their security. You're assuming that North Korea will always be the way it is and will never change, when this isn't the case.
The most ideal resolution to the conflict is Korean reunification and integration of North Korea into the world economy. The regime isn't going to last forever, and we have yet to see the results of Kim Jong-un increasingly liberalizing North Korea's economy. A larger middle class may demand greater openness and change a la South Korea and Taiwan, and integration into the world economy will demand greater openness as in China.
Or it could backslide again, as it did from the 70s onward, and get even worse. We're looking at a pretty fucking unique situation in NK. Few dictators have managed to create the totalitarian societies they desire, or, in Un's case, run them. States with much weaker controls on the population have managed to rule by force for hundreds of years - why is NK exempt from this possibility?
by Janszoonia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:22 pm
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:24 pm
by The East Marches II » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:24 pm
Shofercia wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Well I assume we'd have them overthrown by the end of the day. Some casualties are to be expected but I'm sure we'd be home by Christmas.
Millions of casualties and potential war with Russia and China, not to mention Seoul, and perhaps Tokyo, in ruins.Petrasylvania wrote:Yongsan is embedded inside Seoul like a chocolate filling as well.
Yep.Washington Resistance Army wrote:
It wouldn't be hard for us to station some there. Japan is a good little puppet after all
THAAD won't be able to defend all of Japan, and it's densely populated. You know that.
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:24 pm
by Dooom35796821595 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:25 pm
ArUmdAUM wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Yeah, and I'm sure page one starts with avoid "at all costs".
Yeah, no. Are you even trying to make an argument?
Former President Park Geun-hye extolled reunification as "daebak" (great/bonanza).
The capital city Seoul has a war memorial in which an ROK soldier embraces his brother in a DPRK uniform.
In middle school (public school) we had a speaker from North Korea and talk to us about how great reunification was, and had to make pro-reunification posters during class. That wouldn't happen if the country didn't want reunification.
Petrasylvania wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I'd post a list of countries that don't have nukes, but I think that'd count as spam. But it's near 200.
Nukes are expensive, the only ones who can afford it are the UNSC 5 and nations with a severe need, like one surrounded by enemies (Israel) or to avoid constant border engadgements, (India & Pakistan)
No, most countries can't see 10 years into the future, yet alone 100. And you think the democratic nation of South Korea wants to double its voter base with a illiterate population of starving farmers who worship a political dynasty? Too many unknowns by half.
To be fair, we don't actually know if the average North Koreans actually worship the Kims like Trump wants his base to worship him, or if they're paying lip service so they don't get sent off to "vanish".
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:26 pm
Dooom35796821595 wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Like Israel? Like India? Like Pakistan? Perhaps like Iran? It's one thing for Australia, a nation whose biggest threat is the Emu, to abandoned nuclear weapons. It's another thing for a Middle Eastern country to do that. Or North Korea. What if Saddam actually got nukes? Or Khadaffi? You think they'd still be invaded?
Nukes serve as a deterrent to invasion. Once Korea is unified - there's nothing to invade. Short of that, North Korea will continue to have nukes, and we'll continue to speak of potential war. Also, South Korea wasn't flowing in wealth in the 1950s. Would your country work hard for 70 years to double its size and prestige? I think it's a project worth pursuing.
I'd post a list of countries that don't have nukes, but I think that'd count as spam. But it's near 200.
Nukes are expensive, the only ones who can afford it are the UNSC 5 and nations with a severe need, like one surrounded by enemies (Israel) or to avoid constant border engadgements, (India & Pakistan)
No, most countries can't see 10 years into the future, yet alone 100. And you think the democratic nation of South Korea wants to double its voter base with a illiterate population of starving farmers who worship a political dynasty? Too many unknowns by half.
by Salandriagado » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:27 pm
Shofercia wrote:Salandriagado wrote:
They don't need to have anything in common. North Korea has something China wants: mining rights. China has the military might to take it. If NK ever does something stupid, or is a smidgen too awkward about giving those rights to China, they'll be under Chinese rule pretty much immediately. If a war does start between the Koreas and NK starts it, I wouldn't put it past China to just invade NK from the north to shift the border south of as many mines as it can.
You can't just invade countries randomly, at least not countries that are as militarized as North Korea. This isn't going to be like the War in Iraq.
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:27 pm
Dooom35796821595 wrote:ArUmdAUM wrote:Yeah, no. Are you even trying to make an argument?
Former President Park Geun-hye extolled reunification as "daebak" (great/bonanza).
The capital city Seoul has a war memorial in which an ROK soldier embraces his brother in a DPRK uniform.
In middle school (public school) we had a speaker from North Korea and talk to us about how great reunification was, and had to make pro-reunification posters during class. That wouldn't happen if the country didn't want reunification.
It sounds like the people who genuinely belive that global nuclear disarmament would result in lasting peace, nice idealistic, propaganda completely devoid of facts or realism.
by Arumdaum » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:30 pm
by Janszoonia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:33 pm
ArUmdAUM wrote:Janszoonia wrote:Yes and no.
Are missile defense programs in Japan?
Yes
Are they owned by Japan?
No
We need to work with Japan to repeal and replace article 9, which pretty much prevents them from having a military.
"We need to work with Japan to get rid of something their people want"
The US has been pushing Japan to get rid of Article 9 since the beginning of the Cold War, and countless Japanese PMs have been trying to get rid of it. However, it is very popular in Japan.
by Dooom35796821595 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:34 pm
ArUmdAUM wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
It sounds like the people who genuinely belive that global nuclear disarmament would result in lasting peace, nice idealistic, propaganda completely devoid of facts or realism.
yeah lmao random westerner on the internet clearly knows more than experts, both korean and western, who've literally been living and studying this their whole lives B)
Based on what you're saying, you know literally nothing about Korea. Perhaps you're the one devoid of facts and realism?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ayushvandra, Battadia, Castelia, Daphomir, El Lazaro, Gorutimania, Maximum Imperium Rex, Merriwhether, New Temecula, Norse Inuit Union, Picairn, Ravemath, Rusozak, San Lumen, Soviet Unionstates, Spirit of Hope, Statesburg, The Jamesian Republic, The Vooperian Union, Verkhoyanska, Xind
Advertisement