The situation between Russia, PRC, and DPRK has changed dramatically over the last half century. The DPRK may have been born from Soviet ideology and paid for with Chinese blood, but that is way in the past. Russia wants nothing to do with it, and China is only giving it money, food and fuel to keep Korean refugees to a minimum. Far from "got their back" the PRC is loathe to acknowledge that it once spent a million Chinese lives defending the Kims' hold on power. What was once it's greatest enemy (the US) is now it's biggest buyer, AND it's biggest debtor. The last thing that the PRC will allow to happen is to have Kim drag the PRC into another war with the US. If the US would get rid of the little problem of a nuke DPRK, then the PRC would gladly sit by the sidelines and watch it happen. That is, there ain't gonna be no PVA coming to the rescue this time.
you are a freaking war monger. Are you heavily invested in the companies that makes tanks and weapons? Who would you prefer? Obama that tries very hard for diplomacy or Bush with his pre-emptive war? Obama who's trying to rally the world behind US or Bush that alienates the world and lets US go at it alone? Do you honestly think US economy can sustain another cowboy like war, without the help of other countries? Plus, who makes US the police of the world? If China could care less about NK when they are so near to NK, why would US worry so much about it? IF, and that's a BIG IF, NK's missiles are able to travel across the ocean to reach US, as you said, (advanced techs and stuffs) i'm pretty sure US are more than capable to shoot it down before it comes near to any of the 50 states.
do you know how silly you sound, you admit your ignorance of the matter yet you still say sons, daughters, mothers and fathers should risk their lives and be sent to crush NK because your to scared that they gona invade you and hurt you bad :( go over yourself lol, when you get yourself killed for your own cause you wont have to worry about NK anymore, i would much rather that than some other poor soul. But 'hey!!', if your lucky Ralph will tag team and go over there with you to crush the ebil empire before its to late!-pirate-pirate or maybe he will use a walkie-talkie and only give you remote assistance -bowroflarms ------- ------- seriously though, Some of you guys need to go overseas and take part in the war yourselves rather than be couch-generals, you prolly wont be so eager for war afterwards.
Now, now... don't drag me into a fight. I'm just exploring options. But seriously, the options left to Obama are few. It's come to a point now of either [a] letting Kim keep nukes or, not letting Kim keep nukes. The tricky part is, how to engineer the "NOT" as no one really wants to let him keep the nukes. Talking him out of it has been shown to be ineffective. [1] Sanctions? Don't work, haven't for the last 20 years. [2] Payoff or Money? Don't work, all the aid in the world hasn't for the last 20 years. [3] Threat? Don't know, haven't really tried that. [4] War? Don't know, haven't really tried that. So if the choice is , and both [b1] and [b2] has been shown not to work, what is left? Choice [b3] is probably the best choice right now. That is, extreme diplomacy. This is something that the DPRK practices regularly. Example, "if you shoot down our test missile, that will be a declaration of war..." The world had needed to reply, "if you fire a missile over Japan airspace, THAT will be a declaration of war, and we will have the right to defend ourselves." But the world didn't, so he fired his missile. By so doing, Kim realized, that as long as he keeps doing what he's doing, the world will back down. What most people here don't understand, is that Kim is already dealing with the world using threats, or extreme diplomacy. The world needs to respond in kind. Or, we can just say the hell with it, we can't afford another war and let him keep his nukes (and all that that entails - future political extortion, demands, concessions). Obama must now decide who is a better role model; Chamberlain or Churchill. Either way, we pay now or pay later. No offense, but just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean that you can't get robbed. Moreover, I don't think China has come to terms yet that their pet dog has grown into a rabid wolf. Their biggest concern had been refugees flooding across their border. Now they have to think along the lines of being smoked by that rabid canine in under ten minutes, and they haven't come up with any concrete solutions to that. The DPRK only needs China for food, money, and fuel. What is going to happen if the DPRK conquered the ROK (where there is plenty of food, money, and fuel)? Answer, it would no longer need China at all, and then it would have nuclear missiles too. So, should China fear a nuclear Korea? I understand perfectly what you're saying about the US, but it isn't as simple as "the missiles can't hit me yet so I should just ignore it." Peace only comes when there is a relative status quo that everyone is used to (ie US super power). No one has to like it, but within that status quo, there is a degree of certainty. The balance of power is the issue here; if the DPRK is allowed to own nuclear arms, then there is a dramatic shift in the balance of power, thus requiring adjustments by all those who are affected. So you have to ask yourself, just who is affected, how they are affected, and what would they most likely do once affected? The most likely answers would be, a nuclear armed highly militarized Japan, followed by a nuclear armed ROK, in response to the DPRK. With an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the DPRK would likely no longer fear a US retaliation, thus may feel emboldened to launch another attack on the south. This in and of itself may trigger a nuclear exchange, as the south does not have anywhere near the number of men and machines to withstand an onslaught from the north. So they would have to use a weapon of last resort fairly early. Thus, changing the status quo here has the greatest chance of rocking the boat. Going back to Master G's quip about couch generals (and after having spent time in the military), I ask him, what would be more palatable; a few years of Iraq, or a few years of Hiroshima? What we have here is, a diplomat trying to make the best of a bad situation. And we can all agree that the bad situation arises from literally one man, Kim. So what is the most obvious solution? Damn; but it's really amazing to me that some people insist on walking around the block just to go next door.
^well well sir, remember this snippet of truth.. In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. - Franklin D. Roosevelt. If anything you should worry about Russia, they have been acting very very shady lately.
Agreed with the quote. As for Russia, acting shady is a national pastime. They're probably enjoying this immensely, as out of the three big gamers of the board, they have the least to lose here. The highest stake belongs to the ROK, as a nuclear armed DPRK quite literally will threaten their survival.
hey .. i don't know about the military planning stuffs; don't mean i can't read and analyze the situation .. i totally support the crushing of NK .. not to worry if die for my cause .. not gonna happen cuz i still have family .. damn .. you sound like such as a w .. couch general .. at least we speak out what's logical based on the situation .. oops .. were you the one who would side with communist china if us invades it .. lol .. no wonder you don't care ...
Do you mean having family gives you god mode in battle or do you mean you would rather have some other family killed for your cause? anyway let us know when you get back from NK after crushing it, ralph ist going with you so your on your own -ohmy
Come on now, there's no need for that. We're all here discussing options and everyone has an opinion. There will always be those that don't agree with one another and that's the nature of these forums. There is nothing to be gained by belittling or insulting the opinions of others, no matter how much we disagree. On another note, did you folks get a chance to read the other thread that I'd put up about the President Lee's statement that, in effect, the previous two administrations was what gave the DPRK the opportunity to gain their nuclear arsenal? I think he has a point. From where I sit, it seems that the DPRK has been playing the ROK like a fiddle for the last two presidents. Lee finally put a stop to it, so the DPRK doesn't feel the need to keep up pretenses any more.
^ naa im just trying to understand what he is saying, he is entitled to his opinion but i can probe it a little:stickpoke:, the thing about his family threw me off a bit so i was wondering if he made an imortality discovery that nobody else is aware of. besides i dont think anyone takes the forums tooo seriously as this is not a very serious place but a relaxing place for laughs and flames unless its an all-out personal onslaught , the dude called me a commie!!!!!!!! -dead, ima send some assassins to crush him -fear
