U.S. to Send Carrier for Joint Exercises Off Korea

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I'm pretty sure the Norks' missile range doesn't go any further than LA. So, we've got that going for us.
Click to expand...

Whaddya mean "us"?!?!?!

-Eden (I think I see some new contrails on the horizon above Catalina)
 
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Will future generations refer to the "Korean missile crisis?" Let's hope it's only that or even better, much less.
Click to expand...
Seems more like saber-rattling than a genuine crisis at this point, but there is always the crazy people factor.
 
i think the whole thing has more to do with the power struggle between the military and un, the heir apparent, than anything else. the military gained a lot of power under il at the expense of the party. fairly standard progression in communist systems. with a new leader on the horizon the military is simply flexing some muscle to show that it will maintain that newly gained power while at the same time reminding the region and the world that they are a force to be dealt with.

but, then again, i don't really follow north korean crop reports very closely, maybe they just want some more grain...
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Will future generations refer to the "Korean missile crisis?" Let's hope it's only that or even better, much less.
Click to expand...
Seems more like saber-rattling than a genuine crisis at this point, but there is always the crazy people factor.
Click to expand...

Artillery fire into civilian areas is different by an order of magnitude or two from the kind of back-and-forth the two Koreas have engaged in since the end of the war. Perhaps a reminder that N. Korea essentially holds the population of Seoul hostage to the same kind of artillery fire.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Will future generations refer to the "Korean missile crisis?" Let's hope it's only that or even better, much less.
Click to expand...
Seems more like saber-rattling than a genuine crisis at this point, but there is always the crazy people factor.
Click to expand...

Artillery fire into civilian areas is different by an order of magnitude or two from the kind of back-and-forth the two Koreas have engaged in since the end of the war. Perhaps a reminder that N. Korea essentially holds the population of Seoul hostage to the same kind of artillery fire.
Click to expand...

Or worse.
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Will future generations refer to the "Korean missile crisis?" Let's hope it's only that or even better, much less.
Click to expand...
Seems more like saber-rattling than a genuine crisis at this point, but there is always the crazy people factor.
Click to expand...

Artillery fire into civilian areas is different by an order of magnitude or two from the kind of back-and-forth the two Koreas have engaged in since the end of the war. Perhaps a reminder that N. Korea essentially holds the population of Seoul hostage to the same kind of artillery fire.
Click to expand...

Or worse.
Click to expand...

Remember, even if North Korean gave up all its nukes it could level Seoul with conventional weapons. That's the problem with having the South Korean capital so close to the border.
There was an article in The New Yorker a few years ago about how the South Koreans were closely watching the pains of unifying Germany. They knew it would be much worse with North Korea and were having second thoughts about a reunification. I wonder how they feel about it now.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by David M. Bueker:
Will future generations refer to the "Korean missile crisis?" Let's hope it's only that or even better, much less.
Click to expand...
Seems more like saber-rattling than a genuine crisis at this point, but there is always the crazy people factor.
Click to expand...

Artillery fire into civilian areas is different by an order of magnitude or two from the kind of back-and-forth the two Koreas have engaged in since the end of the war. Perhaps a reminder that N. Korea essentially holds the population of Seoul hostage to the same kind of artillery fire.
Click to expand...

Or worse.
Click to expand...

Remember, even if North Korean gave up all its nukes it could level Seoul with conventional weapons. That's the problem with having the South Korean capital so close to the border.
There was an article in The New Yorker a few years ago about how the South Koreans were closely watching the pains of unifying Germany. They knew it would be much worse with North Korea and were having second thoughts about a reunification. I wonder how they feel about it now.
Click to expand...

the biggest problem with a possible reunification is the n korean population. e germany was very well educated and eminently employable. if there is an eventual reunification with the koreas, s korea will have to deal immediately and in the future with 50 - 60 million malnourished and uneducated -- and hence unemployabe -- people.
 
The conventional weapon capability vis-a-vis Seoul is the point; they don't need nuclear weapons for that job. I don't know what Christian means by worse: they aren't in a position to invade S. Korea, or anywhere else. They are all about deterring the US (through S. Korea) from thinking about attacking them. Nuclear power increases the potency of their deterrent, and gives them valuable bargaining leverage for strategic agreements and economic goods vis-a-vis the US.

Reunification would be hellish for cultural and social reasons as much as economic ones: I don't think anything near to a comparable level of hostility and antagonism existing in E. Germany towards W. Germany in the lead-up to reunification there.
 
I don't know what Christian means by worse: they aren't in a position to invade S. Korea, or anywhere else.
Click to expand...
I meant leveling Seoul and killing a staggering number of people, whether by conventional means or not, rather than just a few rounds over the border. What about Seoul is one of the questions our own saber-rattlers never seem to answer. As long as they don't care about their own population, it seems like the North Koreans always have the Seoul trump card to play in any scenario of threat escalation. It's grim.

Not living next to North Korea. There's something to be thankful for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top