Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not. Even. Slightly.

    To both questions.
    Whilst the world shouldn't be worried, sure - we should be increasingly alert.

    For example, a possible turn of events could come when North Korea conducts a "missile test" in the next few days. When the trajectory of the missile is calculated and it is seen that it will pass over a target, say, for hypothesis' sake, Japan, then Japan or the United States will shoot it down, just to be on the safe side - especially as Japan has said on previous occasions that it will not hesitate to shoot down an NK rocket that nears it territory.

    In the event of that happening, NK can then make a lot of noise about being "attacked" and that it was only a test and if any external powers decide to retaliate militarily, NK will then think confidently that China will back it, as it will indeed look like NK is being attacked (as indeed, it was only a "missile test").

    The above is of course an entirely possible and probably scenario - not unrealistic at all. A missile test during this period of escalated tensions will surely reek havoc. The only question is whether there will be military retaliation on the part of the US and its allies and also whether China would intervene.

    So, whilst we shouldn't be worried, we should pay attention. Having said that, we are safe here in the UK and Europe in fact. The target of NK's ire is the US and its Pacific allies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charcharchar)
    Isn't it slightly risky to say it wont affect us at all? I know very little about it, but then again we know very little about n Korea


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Sure, if things escalate dangerously, economic effects will be felt around the world. Of course, if it really takes a turn for the worse, we'll have worse things to be worried about than little ol' UK.

    If it turns out to be NK's cyclical rhetoric and threats, then we don't have anything to be worried about (just like the last times).

    Even in the event of a conflict, we wouldn't be attacked (unless crazy unforeseen occurrences happen) - but economic implications will abound.

    P.S

    What's more is that at least NK have an embassy in the UK - they don't in the US; so whilst we aren't exactly best mates with NK, we're not their worst enemies either. Even so, they can't fire nukes at us - although opinions differ and are largely uncertain about NK's capabilities; but they really couldn't reach us anyone, let alone the US!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not. Even. Slightly.

    To both questions.
    In the presumably unlikely situation that North Korea's 'bellicose rhetoric' isn't all bluster and they do attack, would that not be a cause for concern? Does not past history imply that we will be dragged into any conflict that the U.S. becomes involved in?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    In the presumably unlikely situation that North Korea's 'bellicose rhetoric' isn't all bluster and they do attack, would that not be a cause for concern? Does not past history imply that we will be dragged into any conflict that the U.S. becomes involved in?
    Yes and no.

    We in the UK are still not in any direct threat, they don't possess the ability to hit us and even if they did, they wouldn't waste their time hitting us, going instead for the US.

    And it's precisely because recent history points that way that we probably wouldn't get involved beyond a token RAF component anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    An interesting comment from a news site:



    If you were a british pilot stationed at the dover cliffs during WW2, would you continue to sip tea, read the dailies when War HQ Intelligence tells you that a german V2 had just lifted off and on its way across the French Coast, or would you scramble and take flight, search the skies with the intention of locating that V2 to shoot it down before it bombs more of London, more so when Germany had declared war on England?

    The brit pilots did the latter, as ANYTHING that flies out of german controlled land is considered an ACT OF WAR.

    Not only did they try to shoot down those missiles, they and the american bomber units even flew into german occupied terrorities and even into Germany itself to bomb the crap out the aggressors.


    America had never been interested in conquest. S.Kore desires reunification, but knows it cannot do so alone, nor is there a need to. Our world's peace and evolution is dependent on mutual economic cooperation for progress. China knows that too, and they share the world's concern over nuclear proliferation.

    S.Korea is not desirous of nukes, nor is Japan, for they know that if they live by the nuke, they may one day die by the nuke. They are fine with the status quo, as economic progress is what they rather want, unless pushed into nukes such as what Fatboy is doing to them right now. And thus China's anger at NK, for China have no wish to have mass produced nukes from asia pointing at them.

    So long as Asian states do not seek for nukes, but focus on economic progress as it had done for decades, China will stand aside, and may even weld its hand against any that seeks to want nukes, inclulding even its own allies - NK and Cambodia. China too needs economic progress to stay in power, or its hungry masses will rise up. The past 3 decades had successfully shown what China can and will be if it pursues economic strengths sharing our world in peace instead of following the failed Maoist of domination and stupid military might.

    In any case, the moment red lines had been crossed, Fatboy kim will be in deep sh*t, and no law or victim card can save him, for 7 billion of humans are not fools, and do know the mitigating factors for nations to defend themselves against agreessors that Fatboy Kim's regime of decades had proven themself to be.

    Mankind will not be bullied, no matter how many ganster friends Fatboy Kim has, because the day we cower in fear of them, is the day that proves our cowardice to protect our own fellow citizens against bullies, and have no right to even be a sovereign state.

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Yes and no.

    We in the UK are still not in any direct threat, they don't possess the ability to hit us and even if they did, they wouldn't waste their time hitting us, going instead for the US.

    And it's precisely because recent history points that way that we probably wouldn't get involved beyond a token RAF component anyway.
    Oh, I never believed that we were under any direct threat. I more thought that if North Korea attacked the U.S., they would call upon us - as their allies - to join the retributive attack on North Korea. However, if you believe that wouldn't extend beyond minimal, 'token' help, then that's very reassuring.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Oh, I never believed that we were under any direct threat. I more thought that if North Korea attacked the U.S., they would call upon us - as their allies - to join the retributive attack on North Korea. However, if you believe that wouldn't extend beyond minimal, 'token' help, then that's very reassuring.
    Simply because we physically don't have the ability to do much else... They might well call upon us, but it would be more of a "we have enlisted NATO support" for the sake of it 'looking right' to the world, rather than them actually needing help. And besides, they've got SK and Japanese forces (as well as potentially Australian...) far closer who would be just as effective.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Simply because we physically don't have the ability to do much else... They might well call upon us, but it would be more of a "we have enlisted NATO support" for the sake of it 'looking right' to the world, rather than them actually needing help. And besides, they've got SK and Japanese forces (as well as potentially Australian...) far closer who would be just as effective.
    I see. I agree with the bolded section - from what I can glean America could essentially destroy North Korea without any assistance - though I suppose one would have said the same before Vietnam and Afghanistan. Anyway, I'd be quite content with us remaining only superficially 'involved'. (Aware, of course, this is all a hypothetical situation).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    I see. I agree with the bolded section - from what I can glean America could essentially destroy North Korea without any assistance - though I suppose one would have said the same before Vietnam and Afghanistan. Anyway, I'd be quite content with us remaining only superficially 'involved'. (Aware, of course, this is all a hypothetical situation).
    Well they did destroy both Vietnam and Afghanistan - the conventional 'destroy infrastructure and military targets' bits went perfectly well in both campaigns. Where they went awry was on the ground afterwards fighting a guerilla war. In 'conventional' warfare using recognised armies, air forces and navies agaist one another they're unmatched and unequalled in strength, technology and abilities.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    I see. I agree with the bolded section - from what I can glean America could essentially destroy North Korea without any assistance - though I suppose one would have said the same before Vietnam and Afghanistan. Anyway, I'd be quite content with us remaining only superficially 'involved'. (Aware, of course, this is all a hypothetical situation).
    Even if we weren't involved, if there were to be a conflict in that region, the economic effects would trickle down to us - and the bigger and more dangerous the conflict, the worse the economic effects would be, not to mention how much panic there would be in every market.

    Of course, moving further, if it ratcheted up a notch to nuclear conflict, well, I needn't say anymore shall I....
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Although not exactly relevant to the current situation, I definitely think that everyone should check this out: http://www.nkeconwatch.com/north-kor...-google-earth/

    It's a file for Google earth (.kmz) that maps North Korean infrastructure and it basically shows the locations of all sorts of infrastructure in the country, from the sinister such as military sites, prison camps, and nuclear facilities, to the more mundane like monuments, hotels, restaurants, palaces and other places of interest.

    Just a little thing I found. Check it out if you find this kind of stuff interesting. Bear in mind: It was last updated in 2009.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well they did destroy both Vietnam and Afghanistan - the conventional 'destroy infrastructure and military targets' bits went perfectly well in both campaigns. Where they went awry was on the ground afterwards fighting a guerilla war. In 'conventional' warfare using recognised armies, air forces and navies agaist one another they're unmatched and unequalled in strength, technology and abilities.
    Afghanistan is also said to be the "graveyard of Empires" anyway. So far, it's actually be a fairly failed mission, one could say. Iraq also wasn't exactly the most successful of missions either, especially when the reason for actually invading was found to be unfounded.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    Even if we weren't involved, if there were to be a conflict in that region, the economic effects would trickle down to us - and the bigger and more dangerous the conflict, the worse the economic effects would be, not to mention how much panic there would be in every market.

    Of course, moving further, if it ratcheted up a notch to nuclear conflict, well, I needn't say anymore shall I....
    Please excuse my ignorance, but would the economic effects be as a result of trade issues? Or would it be the costs of other countries fighting expensive wars that use up a lot of government capital? Or both? Or something else?

    Well, naturally the thought of nuclear conflict doesn't bear thinking about.

    (Original post by Drewski)
    Well they did destroy both Vietnam and Afghanistan - the conventional 'destroy infrastructure and military targets' bits went perfectly well in both campaigns. Where they went awry was on the ground afterwards fighting a guerilla war. In 'conventional' warfare using recognised armies, air forces and navies agaist one another they're unmatched and unequalled in strength, technology and abilities.
    Oh, I know. I meant the guerilla aspects when I implied that things hadn't gone quite according to plan in either conflict. In any case, how relevant do you think that those conflicts are to this potential one with North Korea?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone actually think the leader would be mad enough to attempt to start a nuclear war?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charcharchar)
    Does anyone actually think the leader would be mad enough to attempt to start a nuclear war?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's hard to tell. One would hope not, but North Korea are so obscurantist in their activities, and Mr. Un seems so oblivious to reality, that I can't let my mind rest in complete comfort.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingMessi)
    Oh, I know. I meant the guerilla aspects when I implied that things hadn't gone quite according to plan in either conflict. In any case, how relevant do you think that those conflicts are to this potential one with North Korea?
    Not very, really. It's a different mission here because rather than having to set up a new country, they've got one ready to take over.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by charcharchar)
    Does anyone actually think the leader would be mad enough to attempt to start a nuclear war?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This current young leader, Kim Jong Un, is unpredictable.

    However, having said that, NK are not stupid. If this is indeed all rhetoric and posturing, it is simply to cement Kim Jong Un's authority and image at home.

    Beginning a war, nuclear or otherwise, would ensure the downfall of North Korea as we know it and the complete end of the Kim dynasty (unless of course crazy unforeseen consequences occur).

    So, for those reasons and because I believe NK are not stupid, I do not think that they will start a nuclear war.

    Having said that, they could feign being "attacked" - e.g. conduct a missile test during this period of heightened alert (meaning it'll be shot down by the nervous Japanese/South Koreans etc) and then NK will shout to the hills that it was attacked, so that in the event of military retaliation by a US-led coalition, it would be backed by China (because NK will claim to China that it never attacked), or so NK believes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    On a side note: wasn't today (the tenth) the day North Korea said all British and U.S. ambassadors should have left by?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    This current young leader, Kim Jong Un, is unpredictable.

    However, having said that, NK are not stupid. If this is indeed all rhetoric and posturing, it is simply to cement Kim Jong Un's authority and image at home.

    Beginning a war, nuclear or otherwise, would ensure the downfall of North Korea as we know it and the complete end of the Kim dynasty (unless of course crazy unforeseen consequences occur).

    So, for those reasons and because I believe NK are not stupid, I do not think that they will start a nuclear war.

    Having said that, they could feign being "attacked" - e.g. conduct a missile test during this period of heightened alert (meaning it'll be shot down by the nervous Japanese/South Koreans etc) and then NK will shout to the hills that it was attacked, so that in the event of military retaliation by a US-led coalition, it would be backed by China (because NK will claim to China that it never attacked), or so NK believes.
    I really don't think China would be stupid enough to get involved with helping NK in any circumstances.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    I really don't think China would be stupid enough to get involved with helping NK in any circumstances.
    I wholeheartedly agree.

    North Korea, on the other hand, wouldn't agree.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.