Fox Fire

Kim Jong Un and stuff

106 posts in this topic

Exactly, and considering China isn't bankrupt like we are, they have less, economically, to fear.

Both the US and China are economically dependant on eachother.

The treaty between NK and China would have never been signed unless China intended to support NK in this exact situation. That was the entire purpose of the treaty. As of current, China has nothing to gain from NK except for it being their personal meat sheild against US allies.

 

Wrong. They are more reliable on us than we are of them. More than half of all of their exports belong to the United States and the European Union; both trades would have to be cut off in a war to prevent providing aid to their enemies.. Meanwhile, China isn't even the United States' largest trading partner: that title belongs to Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets go over this again.

 

I'm quite sure that if war broke out, NK would have the support of a super power.

Says who? You? Russia isn't interested and China has literally nothing to gain and everything to lose by supporting NK. China is slowly and discreetly backing away from the North, they supported new sanctions on them for god sake.

 

There is no way China would allow that unification to be Southern. Out of national security interests China would support NK, also because they are bound by treaty to do so. China certainly doesn't want thousand of US troops on its border along with SK who is a considerable US ally.
To assume China wouldn't back NK is wrong IMO. I think they in fact would. Not militarily but economically yes.

They would find a way to work around having a unified Korea. It wouldn't be an instant annexation anyways, probably be something like Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if by some one-in-a-million chance and China does send economic aid to NK, so what? What the hell is that going to do? It will be too little and far too late.

 

 

Also, I think I should add that as far as military personnel goes, NK outnumbers ours by quite a bit. Its interesting to take the actual stats and compare them side by side. I'm not saying NK would win such a war, but they would do much more damage than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Basic strategy class 101: Numbers by themselves don't mean ********. This is not Hearts of Iron, armies don't work like that. The US and SK have infinitely better... well everything. Supplies, rations, equipment, fuel, morale, naval/air support, money, I could go on I'd probably be wasting my breath. Afghanistan is a different beast to North Korea.

 

Yes they will. They have every reason to. China would never let the south take the peninsula. That would be in conflict with their own treaty and their national security. They have no reason not to, and every reason to.

You know what else would conflict with their national security? Having to take on most of Asia, Europe, the Pacific and North America. That's not even beginning to go into the risk of nuclear war.

 

China will always look out for what's best for China (Just like everyone else). Not supporting a pariah state is a much better option by all accounts then killing your own economy and/or nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. But my point about the treaty between NK and China still stands.

China has NOTHING to gain from NK except a meat shield.

The entire purpose of their friendship treaty was exactly for such a war.

For China to not back NK in the even of war would be an absolutly retarded, and by that I mean absolutely retarded move for China. I can't imagine them letting all their investment into this meat shield be a 100% loss. Anyone who think s about it comes to the conclusion I just pointed out.

I mean really. If China DID abbandon NK in this even, it would probably be the most retarded military move in modern history.

Yes, China doesn't want to see this war happen, but like us, they have their own interests and neccecities....

Beaur,

1. I already went over that

2. *facepalm* What?

3. Soviet Union vs 2/3 of Germany in WW2. That is all.

4. Refer to last comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone could have predicted how loopy the North has become. I think China expected NK to just sit there and, as you said, be a meat shield. Problem is that with NK mucking about it messes with China's plans. The time is coming it seems when the costs of keeping NK around outweigh the benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine them letting all their investment into this meat shield be a 100% loss.

 

What's the point of this "meat shield" if they're going to protect if it were their own territory?

If China DID abbandon NK in this even, it would probably be the most retarded military move in modern history.

 

It would be in China's best interests to abandon North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone could have predicted how loopy the North has become. I think China expected NK to just sit there and, as you said, be a meat shield. Problem is that with NK mucking about it messes with China's plans. The time is coming it seems when the costs of keeping NK around outweigh the benefits.

This is the first thing in this thread, that you've said, that I might agree with.

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe they would allow such an investment to go to waste.

The reason they sometimes support us against NK is because like us, they don't want to see this war happen. But with all this investment, it would be quite stupid to let it all get taken away without raising a finger.

If this war does happen, even if China refuses to support NK, I'm almost positive they would attempt to secretely funnel hoards of cash into NK.

Chrisford,

1. I didn't understand what you're trying to say there....

2. That's a total toss up. I'm not saying China would declare on anyone, just throw money into a black hole of a meat shield like they've been doing since they signed that treaty. Its a question of what's more important. Securing their border, or keeping their cash flow (which they could live without for quite a while)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Soviet Union vs 2/3 of Germany in WW2. That is all.

 

Wow. If the size of armies is all that matters, then NATO wins against China. I can also think of a...more unconventional type of warfare that would put all those soldiers to shame.

 

Also, your Soviet example is bad. The CCCP only managed to hold off the Germans because of a few crazy war stories based on the sheer luck of a few soldiers holed up in front line battle zones.

Securing their border, or keeping their cash flow (which they could live without for quite a while)

 

They could keep their border secure for quite a while as well.

 

EDIT: For clarification of what I said, I meant that they knew that they would lose their meat shield eventually.

ANOTHER EDIT: If they wanted to keep their cash flow, they would need to stay out of a NK-US war. Trade would have to be cut off from the US and the EU: Their largest trading partners.

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrisford,

1. The USSR victory over Germany was in fact a matter of numbers and relentless brutal military tactics by Soviet generals like Zhukov. The Soviets lost more than anyone else in that war. In fact, I find the cassualties to be almost unbelievable. Also the peak forces of USSR was rediculous. The Germans had tech and training on their side. Not to mention methed out soldiers. The Germans turned Soviet soldiers into ground man beef but in the end, their numbers simply overtook the German soldiers.

Still to this day, Russia has the largest ground force on the planet. More tanks than US and UK combigned and a combination of land based weapons that may be outdated, but never outnumbered. My point is that numbers aren't everything, but if you have enough of them, it eventually overcomes anything else.

2. Not with American and SK soldiers sitting on it. We would never allow Chinese soldiers to sit on our borders. Nor would they allow US soldiers to sit on thiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrisford,

1. The USSR victory over Germany was in fact a matter of numbers and relentless brutal military tactics by Soviet generals like Zhukov. The Soviets lost more than anyone else in that war. In fact, I find the cassualties to be almost unbelievable. Also the peak forces of USSR was rediculous. The Germans had tech and training on their side. Not to mention methed out soldiers. The Germans turned Soviet soldiers into ground man beef but in the end, their numbers simply overtook the German soldiers.

Still to this day, Russia has the largest ground force on the planet. More tanks than US and UK combigned and a combination of land based weapons that may be outdated, but never outnumbered. My point is that numbers aren't everything, but if you have enough of them, it eventually overcomes anything else.

2. Not with American and SK soldiers sitting on it. We would never allow Chinese soldiers to sit on our borders. Nor would they allow US soldiers to sit on thiers.

 

Russia does not have the largest standing army...even combined with the reserves...

 

Yes, number do count to a small extent. However, technology is a safer bet. While you're talking about Russia, let's talk about Russia in WWI! Let's see...Russia deployed some twelve million soldiers, and lost nearly nine million of them, then lost the war! Would you look at that?

 

The Chinese people love us, fyi. My school superintendent went to China one time for education purposes, and found out the locals' opinions of the US. Mobilizing against the US would be political suicide for the Communist Party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia does not have the largest standing army...even combined with the reserves...

 

Yes, number do count to a small extent. However, technology is a safer bet. While you're talking about Russia, let's talk about Russia in WWI! Let's see...Russia deployed some twelve million soldiers, and lost nearly nine million of them, then lost the war! Would you look at that?

 

The Chinese people love us, fyi. My school superintendent went to China one time for education purposes, and found out the locals' opinions of the US. Mobilizing against the US would be political suicide for the Communist Party. 

*facepalm*

Since I am trying to have social time with family right now, I'm going to leave. But since I LOVE debating the Soviet role in WW2 I promise I will return tomarow and tear that statement apart..... Its so tempting to do it now, but Its going to take a wall of text. Ill be back tomarow. o/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I promise I will return tomarow and tear that statement apart..... Its so tempting to do it now, but Its going to take a wall of text. Ill be back tomarow. o/

 

To tear my statement apart just like everyone else has done to your statements? I can't wait.

 

Russia in WWI proves that numbers aren't the most important thing in a war.

Edited by chrisford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of a meat shield is to have them protect you should someone declare on you, not the other way around. China is slowly backing away from NK and is starting to go into a backpedal. If they don't support NK know what they have to lose? NK. If they do support them they could lose everything. As for the numbers that you used, we even have the paper advantage. First off we spend about 680 billion more dollars than them, secondly yes our numbers are about the same as in soldiers; what you forget is right now it's completely voluntary, should war break out with NK I have no doubt congressman would seriously consider reenacting the draft which potentially gives us the extra 120M people fit for military service.

 

This is like a chihuahua snapping at a rottweiler, the chihuahua can bark all it wants but if it tries to fight the rottweiler it will die.

 

And if China does secretly funnel them money, so what? You can't buy yourself out of a war, sure you can buy resources and weapons but we can buy those as well. When it comes down too it manpower does matter and NK simply doesn't have that, you can have all the tanks in the world but if you don't have the people properly trained to operate them then they don't mean jack ********. If China does anything I suspect it will be something like in the Korean war where they have some of their soldiers disguised as Korean soldiers and with how many people will be beating the ******** out of NK I doubt that would even matter.

Edited by Shellhound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

But since I LOVE debating the Soviet role in WW2 I promise I will return tomarow and tear that statement apart..... Its so tempting to do it now, but Its going to take a wall of text.

That would be a nice change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can safely say that numbers mean nothing. They have 1 million soldiers, we have... 1 nuke. We are in the age of technology gentlemen. They have planes? We have unmanned aerial drones capable of wiping those planes out of the sky along with the humans that pilot them. They have tanks? We have guided missiles that can travel hundreds of miles and hit the target acquired by satelittes within a meter.

 

Watch the military channel guys, its pretty fu!@#$% awesome.

-Zukran



This is the first thing in this thread, that you've said, that I might agree with.
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe they would allow such an investment to go to waste.
The reason they sometimes support us against NK is because like us, they don't want to see this war happen. But with all this investment, it would be quite stupid to let it all get taken away without raising a finger.
If this war does happen, even if China refuses to support NK, I'm almost positive they would attempt to secretely funnel hoards of cash into NK.

Really? They have nothing to gain from supporting NK. If they are against us, they'll lose billions if not trillions in exports to the USA. In return they'll lose the war anyways. NATO is pretty concerned with this matter and would probably get involved if a war was started. Money and income is a strong deterrent in this case. Were in a day of age that through technology all the countries wealth are intertwined if one country takes a dip others will follow so no one would/should want to start a war unless they want to harm their own countries prosperity. The world is in a fragile economic state as is, losing their exports because NK and the kid running it wanted to talk to Obama but he didn't come is ridiclous.

 

north-koreas-space-program-meme.jpg

 

 

Cheers,

-Zukran

Edited by Zukran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers aren't entirely useless because you still have to fight the ground war and I doubt we'd escalate to nukes in the first few stages of a war. However if the argument's being made that the numbers are about even I can safely say that that's wrong on all accounts, NK simply has no were near the potential amount of ground soldiers we have, and in the end that's what's going to win you the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrisford,

As for WWII: Russia does not have the largest standing army, no. That title goes to China. But that's not what I said. I said the largest ground force. Russia has the largest ammount of land based weapons. MUCH more than anyone. Don't believe me?

globalfirepower.com

As for tech being a safer bet, that is extremely debatable. We in America have the most advanced military on the planet. But is that the best bet to win wars? Maybe not. Let me explain:

For starters, in WW2, the Germans were the single most advanced nation on the planet. Yet they lost.... Why?

One reason. Numbers. The USSR took on the entire eastern front (2/3 of Germany) with average tech and an army of conscripts who didn't even know how to use a gun. To add to this, they didn't even have enough weapons to supply their army. They litterally handed a single rifle to groups of 2-4 soldiers and expected the soldiers to share a single rifle while being shot at by superior firepower. USSR won. NOT Germany.

And to add to all that, let's take into consideration expenses. Here in the US, we have top of theline tech for our military. Its also ungodly expensive. On the other hand, you have nations like Russia who maintain their dominant presense with far inferior weapons. How is this so? Simple. Its MUCH cheaper for China and Russia to build these weapons than it is for us. Right down to th esimple AK. If another world war broke out, you'd find that nations like Russia could actually afford to replace all their weapons.... Us on the other hand would find it near impossible. If we lost half our airforce, I promise we couldn't replace it on a dime. Its not possible. Simply because we rely on this expensive solution that only grants so much of an atvantage.

Russia on the other hand has many outdated tanks and weapons they could very easilly replace on a moments notice. That's always been their tactic since WW2. The fact they still use the AK is proof of that. They prefer weapons which are simple and easy to replace. Despite all our grand tech, its been proven that even our most high tech military equipment isn't as effective as we think it is. The fact that Iran shot down one of our most high tech drones is proof enough.

So what China or Russia lacks in tech, they easilly make up for in easilly replacable numbers.Same way the Soviets won WW2

Also, your stats are quite off....

In WW2, USSR deployed aprox 17mil soldiers/ forces peak: 20mil/Cassualties:approx 13.6mil/Wounded: 5mil with nearly 8 mil civilians killed. (I've virtually memorized those numbers by now)

Compare those numbers to anyone else involved in WW2, you will find that USSRs are extremely high in terms of sheer size and losses. But to add to that, do some research on Georgy Zhokov (my favorite WW2 general) and you'll find two noticable things about him and USSR:

1. There was a saying in USSR: Where there is Zhukov, there is victory. This is a man who spent little time thinking of his tactics. Despite that, he almost never lost.

2. Hist tactics were brutal. He knew what he had to sacrifice and didn't hesitate at all. He may have killed many of his own men, but in the end, he realized that was a neccisarry loss. He knew he had numbers on his side and focused solely on winning the war. Nothing else. A brutal, but succeful man.

I think that tears apart your statements about Russia and what not....

As for China, yeah. And I love the Chinese. What's your point? Any conflict would be, I again say, for the third time I believe, economic suicide for both nations. China on the other hand isn't bankrupt....

Shell, 680 bil? Same number of military? 120 million more?

Please check your numbers here: (All stats are from library of congress and CIA)

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=United-States-of-America&country2=North-Korea&Submit=Compare+Countries

And again, China isn't bankrupt.... We are....

Zukran, I love that meme.

And let's not forget that numbers DO mean something, refer to above. Also, nukes are a deterent weapon. Not something that will ever actually be used. People may be stupid, but not that stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, we spend 689 Billion on our military, NK spends 7B. Our active military personnel is roughly the same however we have 120M fit for military service (meaning they are able to be drafted) whereas NK has 10M. What did I say that was wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, your stats are quite off....

In WW2, USSR deployed aprox 17mil soldiers/ forces peak: 20mil/Cassualties:approx 13.6mil/Wounded: 5mil with nearly 8 mil civilians killed. (I've virtually memorized those numbers by now)

 

Hello, my dear Pandora, I said WWI, as in World War I, where Russia lost more than half of all soldiers deployed. Also, the Soviet Union was in quite a different position. That was a world war, where several nations were against several other nations. This is war, where one single nation has plans to declare war on practically half of the world.

 

Check this picture out:

 

2013-03-29T091857Z_01_PYO02_RTRIDSP_3_KO

 

What does that map in the background say? Oh yeah: Plans to strike the mainland United States. Say that their "numbers" do get somewhere and they are invading the mainland United States, driving the Army back. So, what happens then? What if they advance on D.C., what now? Simple. The President enters the codes into his football, and ends it all. Unconventional warfare skews conventional warfare in unimaginable proportions. Numbers are minute compared to the simultaneous blasts of 7,000 nukes flying in any and every direction there could be a possible enemy. Send a nuke towards Pyongyang and they'd have to retreat and call it quits.

 

Two important lessons here:

1.) Never invade a country that arms its own citizens.

2.) Never invade a country that can nuke your home country if they start to lose conventional warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shell, Well I only see a draft happening as a last resort. When combigning all current military personell, they outnumber us. Of coure, their army IS half starved to death. So I admit, the point you're trying to make is quite valid.

Chrissford, like I said, NK wouldn't win a war against us. But they would do serious damage.

As for nukes, deturent weapon. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shell, Well I only see a draft happening as a last resort. When combigning all current military personell, they outnumber us. Of coure, their army IS half starved to death. So I admit, the point you're trying to make is quite valid.

Chrissford, like I said, NK wouldn't win a war against us. But they would do serious damage.

As for nukes, deturent weapon. That is all.

 

"Deterrent weapon" 

 

That hasn't stopped us from actually using them.

 

 

Also, I never said that they wouldn't do serious damage. It goes without saying that we would do the most damage, which proves technology outweighs numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced they could even do a lot of damage at this point of time; maybe somewhere further down the road if we start conceding more and letting them get away with stuff but I just don't see that happening. Their technology is outdated, their soldiers aren't nearly as well trained as ours and imo you'd see KJU try to lead the military and get more involved than he should and make a lot of mistakes in the process. KJU isn't his father, his father I think might have been able to put up a good fight. KJU on the other hand is inexperienced and arrogant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Deterrent weapon" 

 

That hasn't stopped us from actually using them.

 

 

Also, I never said that they wouldn't do serious damage. It goes without saying that we would do the most damage, which proves technology outweighs numbers. 

To a point. And with NATO we easilly outnumber them. And I doubt wed ever use a nume in modern times. Its hard to imagine we would even use one in retaliation. It wouldn't take many nukes to forever change the atmosphere.

Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced they could even do a lot of damage at this point of time; maybe somewhere further down the road if we start conceding more and letting them get away with stuff but I just don't see that happening. Their technology is outdated, their soldiers aren't nearly as well trained as ours and imo you'd see KJU try to lead the military and get more involved than he should and make a lot of mistakes in the process. KJU isn't his father, his father I think might have been able to put up a good fight. KJU on the other hand is inexperienced and arrogant.

That's quite true. But I still think it would much harder than Iraq or Afghanistan combigned. On the other hand, our air power is nearly invincible. Wed probably do something like Iraq and just bomb them to hell before our ground forces had a chance to engage any of their land weapons. :/

I'm just saying, NK may have outdated weapons, but their only focus since they signed a cease fire has been war and building up just for that purpose. We may have plans already mapped out for them, but I bet they have the same for us. If it took us 12 years to finish what we are now, I couldn't imagine the money wed throw into Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the problem we had in Iraq and Afghanistan is the same problem we had in Vietnam, we're fighting people using guerrilla tactics and we're not sure who's an enemy and who isn't. Honestly for the US going to war against an entire country is easier than fighting insurgent groups simply because it's usually more straight forward. If you notice the 3 longest wars we've been in have been Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam and it's because for the most part we're fighting against groups of people not just an army, it just complicates things for us.

Edited by Shellhound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This war will be different, US is tired and will just pound them to hell. There will be no setting up new governments, just take KJU army then let the Chinese deal with the rest since I doubt they want another American influence country on their border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to read something straight from the DPRK?

http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm

Have fun. I like to play a fun game I call "Cross-check the KCNA". Do Google searches for the people mentioned in KCNA articles and see where else they appear. (Hint: You can find a lot of North Korean websites this way, because the people don't actually exist.)

Edited by Longbowe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now