North Korea to launch rocket April 12-16 - Page 3
Forum Index > General Forum |
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
-Exalt-
United States972 Posts
LOLOL yeah right, nice try though Kim Jung noskill (fine that guy's dead but i don't know the new guy's name) but on a srs note, this looks like a great way to launch multiple, very powerful if not nuclear bombs.. or at least test their abilities to do so in the futureO.o i'm scared for south korea and even myself as i live near LA. probably won't be anything serious though. the US etc says they will shoot down the missiles if they do launch, but all it takes is 1 missile to get through for a loooot of death. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 30 2012 16:30 Euronyme wrote: They're still a dictatorship with nuclear weapons. Someone mentioned earlier that NK could fire off nukes everywhere if their leader got constipated. Well guess what. China is a subject to the same phenomenon. If the next dictator of China turns out to be an asshole, we'll be in a hell of a lot worse shape than if NK tries something. Edit. What I reacted to was the suggestion that China should take control of NK, while that IMO is not a good thing. I guess it gives us one less batshit guy who might blow up the world if he woke up in a bad mood, but still... China is more subject to reason than North-Korea which is almost entirely removed from reality. Even its own leadership seems to be convinced by their propaganda. China could one day get an insane leader (aka, the day the communists in the party get the upper-hand) but it isn't as likely. Their leaders are selected by a commission and the commission is the real powerhouse in the party. If you pass power from father to son, you are prone to getting the occasional insane freak. Especially if you do it in a nation where everyone tells you you are the descendant of a god. China, at the current state, is better because they are far less likely to get an insane leader. Their commission is more centrist then anything. They are realistic in their aspirations. Sure, China is a totalitarian dictatorship, but tell me, where do the North-Koreans fit better? In a free democratic society, or a totalitarian dictatorship? I like to believe that all humans deserve a democracy, but the North-Korean population will need several generations before they can recover from the damage done to their psyche by decades of isolation and propaganda brainwashing. Dumping them in China seems more reasonable than throwing them into South-Korea. Imagine if someone started a Kim-Jong political party. They would earn a landslide victory by winning votes from the brainwashed North-Koreans. They belong more to China than they do South-Korea. | ||
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
| ||
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On March 30 2012 16:42 Euronyme wrote: Hu Jintao is the current dictator isn't he? Hes the nations president but that doesn't come with as much power as you'd think. The country is run by the Politburo Standing Committee. Jintao is the leader of this committee. The communist party of china elects these guys into the committee and they make the choices that effect the nation. Screw up and its just as easy to be removed as it is to be implanted. | ||
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Best possible outcome would be Japan knocking out the missile, and then having NK be stupid enough to re-aim the artillery to Japan. To agree with Zalz, China is far more likely to be able to handle the economic hit when torrents of nigh skill-less underfed people are flooded into their country than South Korea. Plus they are far more likely to atleast respond to diplomacy rather than the seemingly random dice that the DPRK regime seems to lob with every step they make. | ||
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On March 30 2012 16:46 zalz wrote: China is more subject to reason than North-Korea which is almost entirely removed from reality. Even its own leadership seems to be convinced by their propaganda. China could one day get an insane leader (aka, the day the communists in the party get the upper-hand) but it isn't as likely. Their leaders are selected by a commission and the commission is the real powerhouse in the party. If you pass power from father to son, you are prone to getting the occasional insane freak. Especially if you do it in a nation where everyone tells you you are the descendant of a god. China, at the current state, is better because they are far less likely to get an insane leader. Their commission is more centrist then anything. They are realistic in their aspirations. Sure, China is a totalitarian dictatorship, but tell me, where do the North-Koreans fit better? In a free democratic society, or a totalitarian dictatorship? I like to believe that all humans deserve a democracy, but the North-Korean population will need several generations before they can recover from the damage done to their psyche by decades of isolation and propaganda brainwashing. Dumping them in China seems more reasonable than throwing them into South-Korea. Imagine if someone started a Kim-Jong political party. They would earn a landslide victory by winning votes from the brainwashed North-Koreans. They belong more to China than they do South-Korea. Yeah that's a fair point. They'd probably still be treated as shit by the Chinese (see Tibet), but it's probably still better than whatever life they have in NK. On March 30 2012 16:43 TOloseGT wrote: Dictator is too harsh. Hu Jintao has to step down this year as General Secretary. Everyone already knows who the next one will be anyway. OK so it's kind of like Russia I guess. | ||
mememolly
4765 Posts
| ||
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
On March 30 2012 17:06 mememolly wrote: NK is disgusting, most of the population live in poverty, I'd be in support of a US/western invasion or whatever, even shitty our democracy is better than what they have now Who will take care of the millions of North Korean refugees? China certainly doesn't want that responsibility. | ||
Gianttt
Netherlands194 Posts
| ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 30 2012 17:08 TOloseGT wrote: Who will take care of the millions of North Korean refugees? China certainly doesn't want that responsibility. Which is why you should offer China the authority to monitor the North-Korean region after invasion. That would give them the peace of mind that their southern regions wouldn't be invaded by millions of economic refugees that are willing to work in even worse conditions than the average Chinese citizen. China doesn't like North-Korea, but they feel that they can't diffuse the situation without suffering economic damage. And the economy is everything to China. | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On March 30 2012 14:28 Probulous wrote: "Why is China silent on this?" Cause they like having NK on their border. They don't want US soldiers any closer than they are and so support NK despite the crazy. The worst part about this is that NK is using its starving population for extortion. Give us aid or they die, oh and never mind the rocket, it's an illusion cause by moonlight refracting through swamp gas >_> My opinion is that China secretly encourages and backs any North Korean efforts. Is anyone surprised that this happens just in time when Western media is starting to focus on China. Even in the event of a war, the impact on China will be minimal at best, don't tell me that China with its huge GDP can't support refugees, they give African dictators more money than they will ever spend on building refugee camps. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 30 2012 17:30 haduken wrote: My opinion is that China secretly encourages and backs any North Korean efforts. Is everyone surprised that this happens just in time when Western media is starting to focus on China. The wikileak documents show a very different story. China does not like North-Korea, not even as a buffer state between them and South-Korea. | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
China spend thousands of lives in the last war and countless millions in funds and resources to support the regime, I doubt that can happen without some sort of exchange in return. North Korean is broke, so the only thing they have to offer is political in nature. They can get away a lot of stuff that China can't because China is immersed in global commerce. Of course, China will never come out and support North Korea, that will piss off the Western world which China relies on to grow their GDP. | ||
mistermetal
Canada76 Posts
On March 30 2012 15:29 Phony wrote: Nukes for NK are like boobs for sluty girls. If they got em they want to show it to every one, just to inform ppl. Or its just China's provokation to start a global conflict. O_O China only puts up with NK because they act as a buffer, China actually likes sitting back and getting rich. China does not want a major war, they know they can not beat the US in a war outside of China, what they dont want most of all is millions of north korean refugees running into China. China has been position themselves further away from NK recently but doesnt want to lose them as a buffer / have to worry about them being a target. There is no gain for China to start a war, North Korea on the other hand doesnt need to have a reason. They usually pull something like this and demand food, which is then given, but they already met with that demand and this is just more bi-polar behavior from the countries leadership. As for china in africa, that has major political gains. They are trading infrastructure for mineral and oil rights which China needs to grow and get away from a Western driven economy. China and the US are dependent on each other for a lot of things, war helps neither of them. | ||
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
They could just drop a few thermobaric bombs all over NK, target¡ng the new "god" of NK who could control rain and possibly some of the m¡ss¡les... | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On March 30 2012 17:39 haduken wrote: It's not about who likes who on this scale. Nations don't have to like each other, they are more interested in who is more useful to one another. I have no doubt that a lot of Chinese hates Kim's guts but that doesn't stop North Korean being a very effective political pawn when they need them to be one. China spend thousands of lives and countless millions in funds and resources to support the regime, I doubt that can happen without some sort of exchange in return. North Korean is broke, so the only thing they have to offer is political in nature. The exchange is that they don't fall apart. The exchange is that North-Korean remains strong enough to keep its own population caged. If all those millions spill into the southern regions of China, it is a disaster. These people will either take Chinese jobs, become criminals, or be drains on society. The Chinese government wants to keep its growth numbers above 8%, widely considered the baseline growth numbers that China needs to avoid social unrest. If you get a sudden influx of millions of people into the economic heart of your nation, that isn't going to do a lot of good in terms of growth numbers. Yes, China has a billion people living in it, and it is a very big country, but the part of China where the economy happens, isn't that big. All those North-Koreans would throw a serious wrench in the works. Any invasion of North-Korea should happen with the promise that China gets to administer the region. They just want to protect their economic interests. If they can keep the North-Koreans in North-Korea, they will be perfectly happy. China doesn't want a buffer state. Even if they did, North-Korea is a horrible buffer state, they never listen, they just do whatever they feel like. They would love a giant Korea that was like South-Korea, ready to buy a ton of stuff from them. Hell, with a land route their business relations would grow even more. One Korea, build like South-Korea, would be an incredible economic boon. North-Korea is the retarded neighbour that can't relied upon. And yes, even China has to fear North-Korean nukes. They just aren't reliable. | ||
HaXxorIzed
Australia8434 Posts
On March 30 2012 16:20 Euronyme wrote: How's China any better than North Korea? Zalz outlined a lot of the reasons, but to explain more is to highlight that primary considerations between China and North Korea is that China's a much more bankable "Rational Actor" (Ie, concerned primarily with their survival and secondly with securing their own personal power), than North Korea could ever hope to be. Many Chinese Government actions (including privatization of the 1990s, and foreign policy, but also smaller-scale beuracratic reform, If you are curious try looking through news media like Time Magazine, Economist -Alternatively try reading through some Journals on this topic, maybe The International Review of Administrative Sciences) are very commonsense reforms which have entirely understandable meanings. The Chinese Government is aware of internal structural problems such as the use of Stimulus funds, the growing Migrant Labour Population, the need for allowing bureaucratic differentiation in administration of localities economically, etc etc. It is using a lower-key approach to the acquisition of resources through both investment in 'client' nations and diplomatic/military pressure and the same goes with Government-Backed/Owned Chinese companies to purchase significant technological and corporate assets in the economic boom + downturn over the last 15 years. Observers from both in and outside the Chinese government have written reams about these policies, their implementations and for the most part, we understand the means and motives behind them. These are logical, sound decisions based on their internal logic. Nobody can claim to have that kind of clarity into the rationale behind what North Korea does. We understand that China for now desires stability in this region, as well as the value of NK by proxy. Because of the very real possibility that the destabilization caused by North Korea's fall will pose huge challenges for the Chinese Government, NK existing is a far better deal. However, even the Chinese government doesn't have limitless patience. Now I'm not saying that the Chinese Government are the good guys, or that there isn't legitimate and significant moral, ethical and global/financial security questions (alongside a ton of other things) to ask about the decisions of the Chinese Government, depending your perspective. However, nobody can deny they are a rationally acting government, and a fairly solid hegemony about following them through (for evidence look no further than the removal of Bo Xilai - he was too exciting, his rise too rapid, challenging the the status quo). This means that China is far more reliable than NK in the conflict in the region - We understand why China does things, and we understand the politics and forces within the Chinese Government well enough to know that we can deal with them. edit. I just have to highlight how great the Un Fab Five title below is. Furthermore, Hadoken is right to talk more about the value of NK as a proxy. | ||
mensrea
Canada5062 Posts
The (low) level of discourse in this thread is Alzheimer's-inducing. The ignorance meter has just been cranked to 11. For the record, any time any nation state announces plans to develop and test ballistics technology in the professed name of space exploration, scientitifc research, near-Earth orbit satellite deployment and the like, that's code for "we'd like to develop and test intercontinental missile delivery systems, but can't say that publicly so we'll call it science instead and laugh while 99% of the obviously braindead people of the world believe what we say, haha". I'm talking about Japan, Korea (South), India, etc., all part of the club of nations that have made in recent years seemingly innocuous announcements about the launching of satellites, the research and development of related "rocket technology", etc. Space race? Rockets? Missiles? Get a clue people, the technology and engineering are for practical purposes identical. Of course, the US, China, Russia, UK, France (ie The Fab Five of the UN Security Council) don't need to play that game because, well, they got there first and then made up rules to stop anyone else from achieving essentially the same capability. If you want to talk about the destabilizing proliferation of long-range armament delivery systems, look no further than the governments operating in your back yard. Unless you live in Sweden, in which case all you care about is video games and ABBA. North Korea? Please. They are hanging on by their finger nails. They pose no more credible threat to the US than does Cuba. | ||
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On March 30 2012 18:02 mensrea wrote: The (low) level of discourse in this thread is Alzheimer's-inducing. The ignorance meter has just been cranked to 11. For the record, any time any nation state announces plans to develop and test ballistics technology in the professed name of space exploration, scientitifc research, near-Earth orbit satellite deployment and the like, that's code for "we'd like to develop and test intercontinental missile delivery systems, but can't say that publicly so we'll call it science instead and laugh while 99% of the obviously braindead people of the world believe what we say, haha". I'm talking about Japan, Korea (South), India, etc., all part of the club of nations that have made in recent years seemingly innocuous announcements about the launching of satellites, the research and development of related "rocket technology", etc. Space race? Rockets? Missiles? Get a clue people, the technology and engineering are for practical purposes identical. Of course, the US, China, Russia, UK, France (ie The Fab Five of the UN Security Council) don't need to play that game because, well, they got there first and then made up rules to stop anyone else from achieving essentially the same capability. If you want to talk about the destabilizing proliferation of long-range armament delivery systems, look no further than the governments operating in your back yard. Unless you live in Sweden, in which case all you care about is video games and ABBA. North Korea? Please. They are hanging on by their finger nails. They pose no more credible threat to the US than does Cuba. Sounds 'bout right. | ||
| ||