The Student Room Group

North Korea scrap all non-aggression pacts with South Korea

Scroll to see replies

Original post by RatherJollyCheers
I'd like to think the United Kingdom would stay out of such a pointless war.


Any war would be over so fast our troops wouldn't arrive in time to help. Best we could provide is air-support.


Original post by Mr Makaveli
So if North Korea did start a war,they would be alone against South Korea and potentially the US?


Oh yeah, USA would get dragged in automatically as a result.
Reply 41
Avatar for Peachz
Peachz
17
Surely this is like the kid who constantly says, 'i'm gonna commit suicide.' All words and no action. (I hope.)
Reply 42
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by MatureStudent36
Global economy. It impacts us on so many levels.

nuclear missiles mean you don't have to just attack neighbouring country's anymore.

it threatens some major markets that we trade with. So it impacts on us.


Stability benefits everybody, and you're right that Japan, China and South Korea are major economic partners of the UK and EU. I don't think that the north could cause enough damage to be a lasting detriment to us however. We have no major possessions in the region, we're not even that close to Malaysia and Singapore any more. There's no real military interests for us in the region.

I also don't think it's likely that the north would deploy nuclear weapons against it's neighbours in the near future, or that they would develop the technology to deploy them long-range. But anyone with nuclear technology who takes such a provocative course has to be considered to be a global threat, immanent or not. I do not wish to return to the days of the four minute warning, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody else either.
Original post by Mr Makaveli
So if North Korea did start a war,they would be alone against South Korea and potentially the US?


Almost indefinitely. The only thing China is concerned with is the abundance of refugees that will transpire onto the Korea-Chinese border in the event of a war in the Peninsular. I don't believe the Chinese will want to support a war in which the North Koreans will inevitably lose. It's much in China's interest for a stable Far East Asia as it is the US's.
Original post by Mr Makaveli
It does beg the question..Whats the point?

even with a hated rival like South Korea,you wouldn't try to fight that battle unless you had some serious firepower that could end the war ASAP

..That brings us around to whether they actually have Nukes or not


Its suspected they do have nukes, whether they can actually deploy them and whether they work is another question entirely. And if they do they're not that powerful but still pack a punch.

They also have an absolute ton of Artillery on the border pointed more or less at Seoul which can cause some catastrophic damage but that again depends entirely as its all old equipment.

The war would end soon, but the casualties for both sides would be devastating.
Original post by VeniViciVidi
Almost indefinitely. The only thing China is concerned with is the abundance of refugees that will transpire onto the Korea-Chinese border in the event of a war in the Peninsular. I don't believe the Chinese will want to support a war in which the North Koreans will inevitably lose. It's much in China's interest for a stable Far East Asia as it is the US's.


That would stand true fir a conventional war. But not fir a nuclear one.
Reply 46
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by Mr Makaveli
So if North Korea did start a war,they would be alone against South Korea and potentially the US?


Most likely, China would march the People's Army across the border and take over North Korea before anybody else decided to invade from the south. North Korea's only advantage in conventional warfare is weight of numbers, and China has them beaten there - South Korea has vastly superior technology and infrastructure, they can probably hold off any attempt at invasion long enough for others to mobilise.

China is North Korea's ally because it suits China for North Korea to be between them and South Korea (which is very US-facing). If the north carries on like this it may not suit China much longer, but I'll wager they'd still prefer to take over North Korea themselves than let the US do it.
Original post by Will Lucky
Its suspected they do have nukes, whether they can actually deploy them and whether they work is another question entirely. And if they do they're not that powerful but still pack a punch.

They also have an absolute ton of Artillery on the border pointed more or less at Seoul which can cause some catastrophic damage but that again depends entirely as its all old equipment.

The war would end soon, but the casualties for both sides would be devastating.



Theyve detonated three already so I think it's fare to say they have nukes.

they also have a space programme.

All they need to do is bolt a nuke on a space rocket and hey presto an ICBM.

targetting it is the problem but as the nazis managed to achieve that in 1944 with the V2 I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that North Korean scientists and engineers can do the same 70 years later.
Original post by mmmpie
Most likely, China would march the People's Army across the border and take over North Korea before anybody else decided to invade from the south. North Korea's only advantage in conventional warfare is weight of numbers, and China has them beaten there - South Korea has vastly superior technology and infrastructure, they can probably hold off any attempt at invasion long enough for others to mobilise.

China is North Korea's ally because it suits China for North Korea to be between them and South Korea (which is very US-facing). If the north carries on like this it may not suit China much longer, but I'll wager they'd still prefer to take over North Korea themselves than let the US do it.



Again. They have nukes which is a game changer. Not even china is going to want to risk the PLA suffering from extreme sun burn. Nukes by normal civilised countries are a necessary evil that are always a weapon of last resort.

Nukes held by crazy irrational and unstable regimes suddenly become first strike options.
Reply 49
Avatar for mmmpie
mmmpie
12
Original post by MatureStudent36
Theyve detonated three already so I think it's fare to say they have nukes.

they also have a space programme.

All they need to do is bolt a nuke on a space rocket and hey presto an ICBM.

targetting it is the problem but as the nazis managed to achieve that in 1944 with the V2 I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that North Korean scientists and engineers can do the same 70 years later.


What's stopping them is the difficulty of making warheads which are sufficiently small, light and reliable to be attached to their missiles. The USSR put all their resources behind the first nuclear ICBM project, and it took them five years to get it off the drawing board.


Original post by MatureStudent36
Again. They have nukes which is a game changer. Not even china is going to want to risk the PLA suffering from extreme sun burn. Nukes by normal civilised countries are a necessary evil that are always a weapon of last resort.

Nukes held by crazy irrational and unstable regimes suddenly become first strike options.


The danger with this line of reasoning is that the lunatics drag you down to their level. Should China or the US make a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, and risk catching the South in the crossfire? We could be taking a page from North Korea's book and claiming the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike if we're not careful.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by doggyfizzel

I doubt the UK would be involved in any potential conflict, what on earth would we contribute, the US and SK has all the armour, air power and man power it needs.


Trident is currently on the North Korean borders. I bet a nuclear attack on the Us would result in a nuclear attack from us.
Original post by Will Lucky
Any war would be over so fast our troops wouldn't arrive in time to help. Best we could provide is air-support.




Oh yeah, USA would get dragged in automatically as a result.



The yanks already have several thousand troops based in South Korea plus the seventh fleet in support.

this nice little distraction could help the Chinese get control over the spratley islands though.
Yay, it's almost like Vietnam all over again ^-^
Original post by Miracle Day
Trident is currently on the North Korean borders. I bet a nuclear attack on the Us would result in a nuclear attack from us.



One of Europes only two military's who can force project and the only one who can do it by themselves, and Europes most experienced military.

trident is a strategic deterrent so unless we're targeted directly we won't be firing any large yield city killers at NK.

Now as we've also put our tactical low yield nukes on trident. That bit I'm unsure about. But I'm sure the US seventh fleet has plenty of those to go round.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by JediArron
Yay, it's almost like Vietnam all over again ^-^


It's nothing like vietnam. Vietnam was a poorly fought insurgency. This would be classic war fighting. Something the west does very well
Original post by Miracle Day
Trident is currently on the North Korean borders. I bet a nuclear attack on the Us would result in a nuclear attack from us.
The US are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Why exactly would we step in when we are not being attacked?

I also highly doubt you know the location of a Vanguard submarine, seeing as that is kind of the point of an at sea nuclear deterrent.
Original post by Hadouken
LMAO! Funniest thing i've heard all day.


i know. Huge international conflict with one belligerent attacking one of our allies. And us sitting on the side lines after the UN sanctions action even though we're a permanent member of the security council.

hilarious stuff.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by mmmpie
What's stopping them is the difficulty of making warheads which are sufficiently small, light and reliable to be attached to their missiles. The USSR put all their resources behind the first nuclear ICBM project, and it took them five years to get it off the drawing board.




The danger with this line of reasoning is that the lunatics drag you down to their level. Should China or the US make a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, and risk catching the South in the crossfire? We could be taking a page from North Korea's book and claiming the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike if we're not careful.


THe Americans, and the French come to think of it have the right to pre emotive strike as its in their foreign policy. We however don't, unless it was tactical nuclear release under NATO authority. But that was Cold War turning hit scenario.

theres nothing stopping a conventional strike though.
Original post by doggyfizzel
The US are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Why exactly would we step in when we are not being attacked?

I also highly doubt you know the location of a Vanguard submarine, seeing as that is kind of the point of an at sea nuclear deterrent.


I would bet the Sub is there. Wouldn't you?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by mmmpie
What's stopping them is the difficulty of making warheads which are sufficiently small, light and reliable to be attached to their missiles. The USSR put all their resources behind the first nuclear ICBM project, and it took them five years to get it off the drawing board.
And how many years ago was that? Technology has moved on a bit since then. Not to mention, invention is significantly harder than replication.


The danger with this line of reasoning is that the lunatics drag you down to their level. Should China or the US make a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, and risk catching the South in the crossfire? We could be taking a page from North Korea's book and claiming the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike if we're not careful.
I don't see why a pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities in North Korea would mean a nuclear strike. Either you strike in the next 5-10 years, or you don't at all. Once the North acquires a nuclear weapon any direct military action is off the table. Any ability for force sanctions is off the table. I would imagine much like Israel and Iran, South Korea will have a "red line".

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you