5 ms·

Yes, what’s your point exactly? It’s still a bargaining chip.

oblio 6y ago
My point is that everyone treats South Korea as being a 8 year old in a bad neighborhood. As crazy as North Korea is, if they fire first, South Korea isn't just a sitting duck. North Korea would probably be obliterated just from South Korea hitting back, let alone if anyone else allied to South Korea jumps in. Micro scale MAD. North Korea is just grandstanding for food, it doesn't really mean that they will follow through. I mean, they're a dictatorship, so who knows.
- baybal2 6y ago
  When people speak North Korea, they speak China. If China will say "jump" to Kim, he will, for as long as the physical security of Kim's family is provided (which is pretty much the one, and only carrot China been using with them)
- mulmen 6y ago
  If the Korean peninsula goes hot again tens of millions of South Koreans will die within days. Probably within hours. There's no doubt the US and allies will be victorious, barring massive strategic blunders, but there's also no way to prevent horrific levels of destruction. To say nothing of China stepping in and kicking off WWIII.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best.
    - jacobush 6y ago
      There has been an awful lot of "academic" skirmishes involving real live fire in that conflict over the years. Each one of these is playing a little with fire. Sometimes, things escalate for no rational reason.
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Not at all. Everyone knows what they are doing and those skirmishes are to make specific points. No-one is going to start an actual war.
        mdiesel 6y ago
        Yes, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo to make a specific point, the point had nothing to do with the war we ended up with. It's naïve to say "we were just trying to make the point X, we didn't think it would escalate" when the actors involved have the resources and incentive to react with interest.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Full-scale wars are not started by accident, certainly not when 3 or 4 countries involved have nuclear weapons, not least North Korea itself. If anything North Korea developing its own nuclear arsenal took war off the table. That was the point, although full-scale war was probably already off the table, but a more limited action to topple the regime probably wasn't. It's borderline madness to suggest otherwise.
        free_rms 6y ago
        mdiesel just gave you an example of one of the most destructive wars in history, a dozen-nation pileup, being started by accident. so far, MAD has kept that from happening again. But it's not borderline madness to observe something that definitely actually happened.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        It was an irrelevant example, and an incorrect one. A war on the Korean peninsula already happened in the past and it went quite badly for all involved. Now it is 2020, with very interconnected economies between all involved and with the US, China, Russia, and North Korea having nuclear arsenals. Therefore it is indeed borderline madness to suggest that anyone might decide to start a full out war on the Korean peninsula, it is even more ridiculous to suggest that this might happen "by accident" (like it is ridiculous to suggest that WWI started by accident). In the real world of today one might look at Chinese-Indian relations. Probably 10s of soldiers on both sides died recently. Are the nukes flying yet? Of course not, no-one is suicidal and both sides won't attempt anything beyond their skirmishes in one or 2 remote valleys. It's only sensationalist news channels that peddle the risk of war with North Korea.
    - CapricornNoble 6y ago
      >>>Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best Hardly. NK nukes don't really change SK's MAD vulnerability calculus; it's more of a factor for the US. I worked with a guy who was present in 2010 during that year's Key Resolve....when the "exercise" suddenly became very real due to the sinking of the Cheonan.[1] He was dialed into the video teleconferences that were held by the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said the ROK military leadership was absolutely furious and was legitimately ready to basically re-start the war, and that it was the USFK Commander (the US military 4-star who would command the fight) who had to talk the ROK generals down from the ledge. It came up in conversation I think during 2016's Ulchi Freedom Guardian because the NKs were launching ballistic missiles during the exercise and we all experienced a "pucker factor" for a moment because we weren't sure if they were escalating the conflict or not. Then the missile trajectories indicated they'd land in the ocean and we could breathe again. Fun times. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking
      - mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Exactly my point: nothing of significance happened after that skirmish, and no-one was seriously going to restart the war...
        CapricornNoble 6y ago
        No. The Korean military leadership was absolutely ready and willing to restart the war. I have no idea how you could read what I wrote and conclude "see nobody was serious". Seems like the worst case of normalcy bias I've ever witnessed on HN.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        It's their job to be ready and it's understandable that they were emotional. I did not say that they were not serious. I said, and maintain, that non-one was going to seriously suggest restarting the war or act on such suggestion. No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). This is not normalcy bias. This is keeping lucid and realising, as said and repeated, that war in Korea is not a realistic prospect, instead of going all Dr Strangelove after watching to many movies. Again, the Korean War was painful for all involved at the time. Today war is simply not possible anymore by any assessment of the situation. The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. This could trigger a limited civil war but everyone would have an interest in limiting the fallout, and this is why people tend to be very cautious about any suggestion of effecting "regime change" in the North.
  - vinceguidry 6y ago
    The limiting factor in a North Korean artillery bombardment campaign will be the quality and training of troops and materiel. It’s not clear the regime is prioritizing this aspect of their military beyond paper tiger levels. People actually have to keep loading and firing those guns. And not run out of ammo. And the guns have to not break down. Then, maybe North Korea can get to millions of casualties.
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      > The limiting factor in a North Korean artillery bombardment campaign will be the quality and training of troops and materiel. That, combined with how quickly and effectively the US and South Korea can start firing counterbattery missions and establish air superiority to attack the Northern batteries from the air.
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        Modern counter battery fire is no joke - and the reason most modern artilery is on unarmored all terrain trucks. The idea is to deploy, fire a few shots and the GTFO as quickly as possible, as the other side has detected your projectiles via counter battery radar and likely sent their own, all possibly within seconds of your first round being fired & often in an automatic manner. Its reportedly even crazier for mortars - mortars shells move much more slowly than artillery shells, yet you can platform the origin of their trajectory just as well. This can theoretically result in the mortar being destroyed by a counter battery artilery shell before the first mortars shell it fired even impacts. So no wonder fixed artilery emplacements might be considered less viable when cutting edge artillery tech is considered.

My point is that everyone treats South Korea as being a 8 year old in a bad neighborhood. As crazy as North Korea is, if they fire first, South Korea isn't just a sitting duck. North Korea would probably be obliterated just from South Korea hitting back, let alone if anyone else allied to South Korea jumps in. Micro scale MAD. North Korea is just grandstanding for food, it doesn't really mean that they will follow through. I mean, they're a dictatorship, so who knows.

baybal2 6y ago
When people speak North Korea, they speak China. If China will say "jump" to Kim, he will, for as long as the physical security of Kim's family is provided (which is pretty much the one, and only carrot China been using with them)
mulmen 6y ago
If the Korean peninsula goes hot again tens of millions of South Koreans will die within days. Probably within hours. There's no doubt the US and allies will be victorious, barring massive strategic blunders, but there's also no way to prevent horrific levels of destruction. To say nothing of China stepping in and kicking off WWIII.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    There has been an awful lot of "academic" skirmishes involving real live fire in that conflict over the years. Each one of these is playing a little with fire. Sometimes, things escalate for no rational reason.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Not at all. Everyone knows what they are doing and those skirmishes are to make specific points. No-one is going to start an actual war.
      - mdiesel 6y ago
        Yes, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo to make a specific point, the point had nothing to do with the war we ended up with. It's naïve to say "we were just trying to make the point X, we didn't think it would escalate" when the actors involved have the resources and incentive to react with interest.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        Full-scale wars are not started by accident, certainly not when 3 or 4 countries involved have nuclear weapons, not least North Korea itself. If anything North Korea developing its own nuclear arsenal took war off the table. That was the point, although full-scale war was probably already off the table, but a more limited action to topple the regime probably wasn't. It's borderline madness to suggest otherwise.
        free_rms 6y ago
        mdiesel just gave you an example of one of the most destructive wars in history, a dozen-nation pileup, being started by accident. so far, MAD has kept that from happening again. But it's not borderline madness to observe something that definitely actually happened.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        It was an irrelevant example, and an incorrect one. A war on the Korean peninsula already happened in the past and it went quite badly for all involved. Now it is 2020, with very interconnected economies between all involved and with the US, China, Russia, and North Korea having nuclear arsenals. Therefore it is indeed borderline madness to suggest that anyone might decide to start a full out war on the Korean peninsula, it is even more ridiculous to suggest that this might happen "by accident" (like it is ridiculous to suggest that WWI started by accident). In the real world of today one might look at Chinese-Indian relations. Probably 10s of soldiers on both sides died recently. Are the nukes flying yet? Of course not, no-one is suicidal and both sides won't attempt anything beyond their skirmishes in one or 2 remote valleys. It's only sensationalist news channels that peddle the risk of war with North Korea.
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    >>>Considering the nuclear arsenals in place and the fact that no-one has anything to gain, any discussion about a conflict with North Korea is academic at best Hardly. NK nukes don't really change SK's MAD vulnerability calculus; it's more of a factor for the US. I worked with a guy who was present in 2010 during that year's Key Resolve....when the "exercise" suddenly became very real due to the sinking of the Cheonan.[1] He was dialed into the video teleconferences that were held by the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said the ROK military leadership was absolutely furious and was legitimately ready to basically re-start the war, and that it was the USFK Commander (the US military 4-star who would command the fight) who had to talk the ROK generals down from the ledge. It came up in conversation I think during 2016's Ulchi Freedom Guardian because the NKs were launching ballistic missiles during the exercise and we all experienced a "pucker factor" for a moment because we weren't sure if they were escalating the conflict or not. Then the missile trajectories indicated they'd land in the ocean and we could breathe again. Fun times. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Exactly my point: nothing of significance happened after that skirmish, and no-one was seriously going to restart the war...
      - CapricornNoble 6y ago
        No. The Korean military leadership was absolutely ready and willing to restart the war. I have no idea how you could read what I wrote and conclude "see nobody was serious". Seems like the worst case of normalcy bias I've ever witnessed on HN.
        mytailorisrich 6y ago
        It's their job to be ready and it's understandable that they were emotional. I did not say that they were not serious. I said, and maintain, that non-one was going to seriously suggest restarting the war or act on such suggestion. No if you tell me that the SK's military command was seriously advising to restart the war then I would tell you that either this is BS or that some generals should have been sacked (and perhaps they were). This is not normalcy bias. This is keeping lucid and realising, as said and repeated, that war in Korea is not a realistic prospect, instead of going all Dr Strangelove after watching to many movies. Again, the Korean War was painful for all involved at the time. Today war is simply not possible anymore by any assessment of the situation. The worst thing that could realistically happen in Korea is a collapse of North Korean regime. This could trigger a limited civil war but everyone would have an interest in limiting the fallout, and this is why people tend to be very cautious about any suggestion of effecting "regime change" in the North.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  The limiting factor in a North Korean artillery bombardment campaign will be the quality and training of troops and materiel. It’s not clear the regime is prioritizing this aspect of their military beyond paper tiger levels. People actually have to keep loading and firing those guns. And not run out of ammo. And the guns have to not break down. Then, maybe North Korea can get to millions of casualties.
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    > The limiting factor in a North Korean artillery bombardment campaign will be the quality and training of troops and materiel. That, combined with how quickly and effectively the US and South Korea can start firing counterbattery missions and establish air superiority to attack the Northern batteries from the air.
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      Modern counter battery fire is no joke - and the reason most modern artilery is on unarmored all terrain trucks. The idea is to deploy, fire a few shots and the GTFO as quickly as possible, as the other side has detected your projectiles via counter battery radar and likely sent their own, all possibly within seconds of your first round being fired & often in an automatic manner. Its reportedly even crazier for mortars - mortars shells move much more slowly than artillery shells, yet you can platform the origin of their trajectory just as well. This can theoretically result in the mortar being destroyed by a counter battery artilery shell before the first mortars shell it fired even impacts. So no wonder fixed artilery emplacements might be considered less viable when cutting edge artillery tech is considered.