4 ms·

I think that jokes and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. I made a small joke at the end of my comment not because I thought sending someone to the gulag

by pothibo 13y ago

I think that jokes and seriousness are not mutually exclusive. I made a small joke at the end of my comment not because I thought sending someone to the gulag is funny, but because speaking of serious stuff doesn't need to be all dark and serious, if you know what I mean. Never been to NK but from what I read, it seems like we would have made the world a favor if we'd invaded NK instead of Iraq (I know it's not practical and NK's invasion would be much, much harder than Iraq).

mhoad 13y ago
It's fine, it's just the nature of reading words on a screen with no other context. I don't disagree with your sentiment at all I guess the thought of this turning into a complete "look how stupid they are haha" thread made me slightly uneasy is all.
- pothibo 13y ago
  I can't say for other people but I can assure you my comment wasn't meant to say that they were stupid. They are like 15 years behind us in term of computer science. 15 years ago, I bet many services had javascript security like this one. The outcome is the only thing that might be different. Anyhow, I enjoyed this discussion ;)
shubb 13y ago
Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea would be overrun, following artillary bombardment around the border / later Seol. Then the remaining south must hold until marines from the mainland US and Japan can arrive, and then there would be a long and costly war to push back into NK (which the US would win, providing public oppinion held). There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. This could help the US, or create wider conflict, depending on how it played out. Iraq and Afganistan were not wars on the same scale as Vietnam or WW2. NK probably would be. We can all hope it doesn't happen.
- leoc 13y ago
  > There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.
- pothibo 13y ago
  Very interesting, thanks!
- avn2109 13y ago
  Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.
  - shubb 13y ago
    I'm just repeating what wikipedia says was in the OPLAN, which would reflect what the pentagon thinks. I think it did plan to respond to movement south with a first strike, as you say. But NK know that too, presuming they read wikipedia. I think in practice fighting a war is different from how we might think. Some people say that the problem the NK army would have would be keeping its troops supplied, given the lack of petrol, trucks, and food in NK, and presumably destruction of the roads there. Along with the end of incoming food aid, leading to widespread starvation there. I agree with you that the US would win eventually. To me, it looks like the cost would be an aweful lot of dead Koreans on both sides though.

by pothibo 13y ago

mhoad 13y ago

It's fine, it's just the nature of reading words on a screen with no other context. I don't disagree with your sentiment at all I guess the thought of this turning into a complete "look how stupid they are haha" thread made me slightly uneasy is all.

pothibo 13y ago
I can't say for other people but I can assure you my comment wasn't meant to say that they were stupid. They are like 15 years behind us in term of computer science. 15 years ago, I bet many services had javascript security like this one. The outcome is the only thing that might be different. Anyhow, I enjoyed this discussion ;)

shubb 13y ago

Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea would be overrun, following artillary bombardment around the border / later Seol. Then the remaining south must hold until marines from the mainland US and Japan can arrive, and then there would be a long and costly war to push back into NK (which the US would win, providing public oppinion held). There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. This could help the US, or create wider conflict, depending on how it played out. Iraq and Afganistan were not wars on the same scale as Vietnam or WW2. NK probably would be. We can all hope it doesn't happen.

leoc 13y ago
> There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.
pothibo 13y ago
Very interesting, thanks!
avn2109 13y ago
Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.
- shubb 13y ago
  I'm just repeating what wikipedia says was in the OPLAN, which would reflect what the pentagon thinks. I think it did plan to respond to movement south with a first strike, as you say. But NK know that too, presuming they read wikipedia. I think in practice fighting a war is different from how we might think. Some people say that the problem the NK army would have would be keeping its troops supplied, given the lack of petrol, trucks, and food in NK, and presumably destruction of the roads there. Along with the end of incoming food aid, leading to widespread starvation there. I agree with you that the US would win eventually. To me, it looks like the cost would be an aweful lot of dead Koreans on both sides though.