The Student Room Group

North Korea detonates third nuclear device

Scroll to see replies

Original post by LeBuche
Do you know what happened during the last Korean war ? :rolleyes:


Chinas human waves.. Was a disgusting tactic, No regard for human life whatsoever.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 41
Whilst i deplore the use of these weapons and their development i have little fear regarding North Korea. When you look objectively North Korea is no different to the chav who takes his top off and bashes his chest in a weak display of strength.

North Korea quite simply has no strategic advantage, if it were to attack the USA or its allies then one of 2 things happen..

1) In order to protect its economic ties, China may simply wipe out North Korea and absorb it as a Chinese state

2) You would suddenly find that Japan isn't as weak and pacifist as people think, when you look at their budget, navy and army in combination with missiles you see that actually they a sleeping wolf.
Original post by Rakas21
Whilst i deplore the use of these weapons and their development i have little fear regarding North Korea. When you look objectively North Korea is no different to the chav who takes his top off and bashes his chest in a weak display of strength.

North Korea quite simply has no strategic advantage, if it were to attack the USA or its allies then one of 2 things happen..

1) In order to protect its economic ties, China may simply wipe out North Korea and absorb it as a Chinese state

2) You would suddenly find that Japan isn't as weak and pacifist as people think, when you look at their budget, navy and army in combination with missiles you see that actually they a sleeping wolf.


I'd agree with that to a certain extent. The country may not have a strategic advantage but I don't think the current regime has the country at the centre of it's policy. The regime will do what benefits the regime. i.e. what the leader wants.

There was no strategic advantage at the end of World War 2, but Hitler kept carrying on as it benefited him, not Germany. Same for Japan.

If Korea gets a viable Nuke and delivery system, there may not be anything China can do. It's a case of the mouse that roared.

Secondly, Japan isn't weak at the moment. The Japanese Defence Force, especially their Navy is the second largest in the area after the US 7th Fleet and their equipment is top notch. It's a constitutional issue with Japan taking action. China will never allow them to, especially as China and Japan are in a stand off over a terratorial dispute.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36


Secondly, Japan isn't weak at the moment. The Japanese Defence Force, especially their Navy is the second largest in the area after the US 7th Fleet and their equipment is top notch. It's a constitutional issue with Japan taking action. China will never allow them to, especially as China and Japan are in a stand off over a terratorial dispute.

Yep, Japan doesn't have many friends in that region, Disputes with Russia and China etc..


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 44
Original post by MatureStudent36
I'd agree with that to a certain extent. The country may not have a strategic advantage but I don't think the current regime has the country at the centre of it's policy. The regime will do what benefits the regime. i.e. what the leader wants.

There was no strategic advnatge at the end of World War 2, but Hitler kept carrying on as it benefited him, not Germany. Same for Japan.

If Korea gets a viable Nuke and delivery system, there may not be anything China can do. It's a case of the mouse that roared.

Secondly, Japan isn't weak at the moment. The Japanese Defence Force, especially their Navy is the second largest in the area after the US 7th Fleet and their equipment is top notch. It's a constitutional issue with Japan taking action. China will never allow them to, especially as China and Japan are in a stand off over a terratorial dispute.


I doubt this is the new leaders doing, its probably the generals. The regime is pretty corrupt and divided.

True but Hitler did have strategic advantage at the start of WW2, he thought he could win and was indeed winning for a while. North Korea as you say is a mouse and i doubt it will roar.

True but if you ask the person in the street they probably don't know what Japan and Germany are capable of nowadays.
Reply 45
Original post by IShouldBeRevising_
Also a country like north korea cannot be invaded like iraq... For one north korea has no oil also the north korean army is no joke.


The North Korean army is a shambles, no oil for it's own tanks and aircraft, not enough food, i'd bet not enough ammunition and not to mention even if it could run itself all of it's equipment is completely obsolete. The only reason they haven't been dealt with in the appropriate manner is China.
Reply 46
Original post by LeBuche
The North Korean army is a shambles, no oil for it's own tanks and aircraft, not enough food, i'd bet not enough ammunition and not to mention even if it could run itself all of it's equipment is completely obsolete. The only reason they haven't been dealt with in the appropriate manner is China.


The fact that the active strength is 1.4million with a further 8.2million in reserve might also have something to do with it...
Original post by Daniel_R
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21421841

They don't seem to care less about current rules, it's worrying..

I wish weapons of mass destruction were banned globally.

What do you think?


those rules were written by others with nuclear weapons so meh.

And nuclear weapons are in this day and age are a paper tiger - anyone launches a nuke gets themselves and thier entire country nuked right back. No one is going to do that.

Also seeing as the US remains the only country to use nuclear arsenals in a conflict against civilians to boot not to mention thier "we are America we are right" attitude means i wouldnt trust them.

Original post by Rakas21
Whilst i deplore the use of these weapons and their development i have little fear regarding North Korea. When you look objectively North Korea is no different to the chav who takes his top off and bashes his chest in a weak display of strength.

North Korea quite simply has no strategic advantage, if it were to attack the USA or its allies then one of 2 things happen..

1) In order to protect its economic ties, China may simply wipe out North Korea and absorb it as a Chinese state

2) You would suddenly find that Japan isn't as weak and pacifist as people think, when you look at their budget, navy and army in combination with missiles you see that actually they a sleeping wolf.


This is very true. Plus Japan want to build mechs :biggrin:
I am soon going to be flying in and out of Seoul, and also between Beijing and Tokyo. That part of the world is a total quagmire these days. I fear for my safety.
Original post by TheFrozenLake.
Yep, Japan doesn't have many friends in that region, Disputes with Russia and China etc..


Posted from TSR Mobile


It's got lots of friends. Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and the US.

Japans tensions aren't bil lateral with China. China up against most of the South East Asia Area.
Original post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel
I am soon going to be flying in and out of Seoul, and also between Beijing and Tokyo. That part of the world is a total quagmire these days. I fear for my safety.


Don't worry. Seoul won't last that long. You won't suffer...much
Reply 51
Original post by silverbolt
And nuclear weapons are in this day and age are a paper tiger - anyone launches a nuke gets themselves and thier entire country nuked right back. No one is going to do that.


I don't buy that. I don't think anyone, even the Americans, would actually use nuclear weapons, even if one had been launched against them. More likely is a surgical strike using conventional weapons taking out the leadership. History books won't tolerate needlessly killing civilians en mass anymore.
Reply 52
Original post by Drewski
The fact that the active strength is 1.4million with a further 8.2million in reserve might also have something to do with it...


Numbers are completely irrelevant if you can't equip and supply them properly and like I said they're equipment is completely outdated, they still use Migs from as far back as the 50s and even there most modern aircraft is from the early 80s. Their main battle tank and most numerous is a T-55 from 1945! They could cause horrific casualties with biological/chemical weapons with the element of surprise but their military would crumble. Their numbers are irrelevant, the only thin they've got going for them is their fanaticism.
Reply 53
Original post by LeBuche
Numbers are completely irrelevant if you can't equip and supply them properly and like I said they're equipment is completely outdated, they still use Migs from as far back as the 50s and even there most modern aircraft is from the early 80s. Their main battle tank and most numerous is a T-55 from 1945! They could cause horrific casualties with biological/chemical weapons with the element of surprise but their military would crumble. Their numbers are irrelevant, the only thin they've got going for them is their fanaticism.


Quantity is a quality all of it's own.

Yes, the high tech of 'the west' would beat anything they have in the first few days, but sooner or later you've got to put feet on the ground. The US, for one, only really feels comfortable in ground offensives when they build up a 3:1 advantage. That's simply impossible without conscription to WW2 levels.

By all means explore options with regard to Naughty Korea, but let's be realistic.
Original post by silverbolt
those rules were written by others with nuclear weapons so meh.

And nuclear weapons are in this day and age are a paper tiger - anyone launches a nuke gets themselves and thier entire country nuked right back. No one is going to do that.

Also seeing as the US remains the only country to use nuclear arsenals in a conflict against civilians to boot not to mention thier "we are America we are right" attitude means i wouldnt trust them.



This is very true. Plus Japan want to build mechs :biggrin:


So many flaws in your argument. Some country's are willing to destroy themselves in support of their dear leader. Nazi Germany did so in 1945. Rather than capitulate. Same with Japan.

Yes, the US used nuclear weapons. So what? Try watching this documentary at some time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/
The US were killing as many Japanes in Nagasaki and Hiroshima as they were in the big conventional bombings raid at the time anyway. They just got more bang for their buck. Why send 400 bombers over when 2 give the same effect.


And considering the projected casualty figures that the Allies were expecting to take in Invading Japan, anywhere from 400, 000 to 500,000, If I was Trueman I'd have quite happily said 'drop it'.

That's also not mentioining that the allies were fully aware of the Japanese Unit 731 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 was quite capable of marrying up the fruits of its labour to these ballon bombs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

Equally, there was also a great concern that the Japanese were attempting to create their own nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program

So yes. I trust the Yanks. After all, it's debatable if we'd be speaking German or Russian without their help at the moment. But hey ho, we'll ignore those facts and carry on blindly yank bashing.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
Quantity is a quality all of it's own.

Yes, the high tech of 'the west' would beat anything they have in the first few days, but sooner or later you've got to put feet on the ground. The US, for one, only really feels comfortable in ground offensives when they build up a 3:1 advantage. That's simply impossible without conscription to WW2 levels.

By all means explore options with regard to Naughty Korea, but let's be realistic.


Slight problem though. Nuclear weapons change that. Troops are only useful if you want to take and hold the ground. Nuclear Weapons Destroy the enemy.

The High tech of the west hasn't got anything that is nearly as reliable for taking out an ICBM. Why do you think the yanks are working on it now? They're planning for in the next 10 to 15 years when Iran and Korea do go fully nuclear capable. Then it doesn't have to rely on disussion as it did with NATO and the Warsaw pact. The yanks have the viable option calling peoples bluff.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 56
Original post by MatureStudent36
The High tech of the west hasn't got anything that is nearly as reliable for taking out an ICBM. Why do you think the yanks are working on it now? They're planning for in th enext 10 to 15 years when Iran do go fully nuclear capable


In flight, sure. But on the ground? The locations will be fixed and known, it will be obvious when activity ramps up and they will be susceptible to attack from the air with 'bunker-busting' munitions that can penetrate through extreme depths of concrete and hit with an accuracy measured in centimetres.
Original post by Drewski
In flight, sure. But on the ground? The locations will be fixed and known, it will be obvious when activity ramps up and they will be susceptible to attack from the air with 'bunker-busting' munitions that can penetrate through extreme depths of concrete and hit with an accuracy measured in centimetres.


With a Guarantee you get them all and know where they are? And then you need to keep hitting them to make sure they never come back.

How many Gaurdian readers will support that? Especially when the US are going to have to get involved
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 58
Original post by MatureStudent36
With a Guarantee you get them all and know where they are? And then you need to keep hitting them to make sure they never come back.

How many Gaurdian readers will support that?


For starters there won't be many. They won't have access to that much material to make that many warheads. Finding them won't be too tricky, the reconnaissance assets we have far outstrip any passive defensive measures they could use and finally, these devices are extremely fragile. You wouldn't even need a direct hit to render them useless.

Should such an event arise [which is, by the by, hypothetical at the moment] it would be relatively simple to take the weapons 'out of play'.
Original post by Nick100
Except North Korea isn't peaceful; it started the Korean war, has wanted to overrun South Korea for over half a century, and is one of the least free countries to have ever existed. It's the closest thing to airstrip one - except it's too poor to afford telescreens.



And Kim Jung Un has no right go around dictating how his citizens lives are run. If you were a North Korean (which isn't in South East Asia) you couldn't tell any foreigner anything without fear of being executed as a collaborator or a traitor to the revolution. And South Korea's Chamberlain-esque sunshine policy will only prolong the existence of North Korea's dictatorship.


Whats the alternative? "Disarm so we can kill you" clearly isn't going to work on north koreas leadership. Its all very well going on about human rights in countries you don't like (its always the human rights in places like iran as opposed to soudi arabia that get talked about isnt it) but the current way of dealing with north korea is potentially heading towards war and thats far far worse. If the americans were in south koreas position they could witter on about tearing it all down to their hearts content. But they arent and I don't think that was a particularly helpful backdrop for south korean peace initiatives. Its all very well talking about launching a propaganda war in one breath and then having a go at nk having such strict censorship laws but you can hardly wonder why they do.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending