North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jplus » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:35 pm UTC

What I wonder about is why SK and the US put so much relative effort in denuclearizing NK. Wouldn't it be much easier to negotiate with NK if you just let them keep those few nukes?
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 pm UTC

The same reason we don't let autistic toddlers handle heavy machinery. It isn't safe for them or us.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Robstickle
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:07 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Robstickle » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:45 pm UTC

PhatPhungus wrote:According to the BBC, China actually suggested that North Korea be absorbed into South Korea.

It seems the North really has very few allies.


China probably just wants to make sure that if Korea is unified it won't be antagonistic towards China. They don't want North Korea to be antagonistic either so they'll keep friendly relations with them. Essentially they're playing it safe so that at no point they have to worry about their Korean neighbour. They also want friendly relations with South Korea for obvious economic reasons.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jplus » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:55 pm UTC

Jplus wrote:What I wonder about is why SK and the US put so much relative effort in denuclearizing NK. Wouldn't it be much easier to negotiate with NK if you just let them keep those few nukes?
Oregonaut wrote:The same reason we don't let autistic toddlers handle heavy machinery. It isn't safe for them or us.
That's true, but does that compensate for the fact that NK is much less willing to negotiate as long as you try to denuclearize them? I got the impression that their keeping Seoul at gun point might be a much more severe problem, both because they're probably more likely to actually pull the trigger over there and because they might in fact be able to inflict more damage in that way (considering the current status of development of their nuclear weapons, as well as the population density of Seoul and the reach of some heavy artillery).
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:59 pm UTC

Well, look at it this way, if they have a nuke, we've just taken an invasion off the table permanently.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:11 pm UTC

Jplus wrote:
Jplus wrote:What I wonder about is why SK and the US put so much relative effort in denuclearizing NK. Wouldn't it be much easier to negotiate with NK if you just let them keep those few nukes?
Oregonaut wrote:The same reason we don't let autistic toddlers handle heavy machinery. It isn't safe for them or us.
That's true, but does that compensate for the fact that NK is much less willing to negotiate as long as you try to denuclearize them? I got the impression that their keeping Seoul at gun point might be a much more severe problem, both because they're probably more likely to actually pull the trigger over there and because they might in fact be able to inflict more damage in that way (considering the current status of development of their nuclear weapons, as well as the population density of Seoul and the reach of some heavy artillery).

The artillery-on-seoul stuff might or might not be overblown propaganda. A lot of it are old bunkers from the 1960s or so, filled with artillery that has never been fired because it can only fire at Seoul. A lot of it might not work anymore. In the mean time, radar-tracking of artillery has become so good that you start returning fire on artillery before the first shells have hit the ground. And of course a lot of the North Korean artillery is already mapped and targetted anyway. So the number of shots the North might credibly fire is limited and probably growing smaller over time.

So in total, it's too much of a gamble for the South to play with, but also too dodgy for the North to keep relying on as their part of MAD. A few working nukes would give them the capability of all that artillery, but without maintenance headaches.

The other side is simply that giving the North what it wants just encourages them to want more. If there is going to be compromise, it's much better is that is on giving aid to their people, or allowing trade contracts, then on them having nukes.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1721
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jplus » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:50 pm UTC

Thanks, I hadn't looked at it that way yet.
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:55 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Jplus wrote:
Jplus wrote:What I wonder about is why SK and the US put so much relative effort in denuclearizing NK. Wouldn't it be much easier to negotiate with NK if you just let them keep those few nukes?
Oregonaut wrote:The same reason we don't let autistic toddlers handle heavy machinery. It isn't safe for them or us.
That's true, but does that compensate for the fact that NK is much less willing to negotiate as long as you try to denuclearize them? I got the impression that their keeping Seoul at gun point might be a much more severe problem, both because they're probably more likely to actually pull the trigger over there and because they might in fact be able to inflict more damage in that way (considering the current status of development of their nuclear weapons, as well as the population density of Seoul and the reach of some heavy artillery).

The artillery-on-seoul stuff might or might not be overblown propaganda. A lot of it are old bunkers from the 1960s or so, filled with artillery that has never been fired because it can only fire at Seoul. A lot of it might not work anymore. In the mean time, radar-tracking of artillery has become so good that you start returning fire on artillery before the first shells have hit the ground. And of course a lot of the North Korean artillery is already mapped and targetted anyway. So the number of shots the North might credibly fire is limited and probably growing smaller over time.

So in total, it's too much of a gamble for the South to play with, but also too dodgy for the North to keep relying on as their part of MAD. A few working nukes would give them the capability of all that artillery, but without maintenance headaches.

The other side is simply that giving the North what it wants just encourages them to want more. If there is going to be compromise, it's much better is that is on giving aid to their people, or allowing trade contracts, then on them having nukes.


IIRC the artillery can only hit the outskirts of Seoul anyway. It's not like the city is going to be wiped off the map.

Sure, it would suck for the people living in those suburbs, but it would hardly cripple SK, even if all the artillery was functioning.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:IIRC the artillery can only hit the outskirts of Seoul anyway.
Such has been cited previously in this thread.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:05 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:IIRC the artillery can only hit the outskirts of Seoul anyway.
Such has been cited previously in this thread.


Hence, the IIRC. I just didn't feel like backtracking to find it. ;)
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Sharlos » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:47 am UTC

Also, I'd assume that Japan would want their own nuclear weapons in the event of North Korea getting their own.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:55 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:Also, I'd assume that Japan would want their own nuclear weapons in the event of North Korea getting their own.

Why? Japan has lived with the much more serious threat of a nuclear China for over 4 decades now, even though they could have matched China's arsenal bomb by bomb from the start. Presumably, what is holding them back is a mixture of memories of Hiroshima and US pressure not to build bombs together with a convincing promise of US retaliation if someone attacks Japan.

Whatever it is that holds them back, why should it not work for the tiny threat of North Korea?

Sero
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:31 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Sero » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:07 pm UTC

Article 9 of the Japanese constitution specifically forbids Japan from having a military and bans them from engaging in warfare. They have since interpreted this in such a way as to create a loophole permitting a purely defensive military and possessing military weaponry for defensive purposes (Their military is the Japanese Self-Defense Forces), but the injunction against using them outside of Japan continues to hold firm. The JSDF still gets flak just for existing, much less operating outside of Japan, even to participate in humanitarian missions.

What's holding them back from having nukes is, aside from the reasons you listed, that those weapons would have to be intended for use on Japanese soil. Aside from doing nothing (nothing significant, anyways. Japan's defensive planning has always hinged on US intervention in the event of an invasion too large for them to handle. If a situation calls for the defensive use of nuclear weaponry of Japanese soil, presumably they'll request a nuclear strike by the United States) much to improve their security situation, especially vis. a nuclear armed China or North Korea, I would be willing bet rather strongly that suggesting employing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil is, even six and a half decades later, political suicide.
Princess Marzipan wrote:Dear God, we seriously just went and dug up CITATIONS for TORTURE being a WAR CRIME.

We have been fucking TROLLED, dear readers.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:44 pm UTC

Sharlos wrote:Also, I'd assume that Japan would want their own nuclear weapons in the event of North Korea getting their own.

Bad assumption. The other posters explain why.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PhatPhungus » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:21 pm UTC

Yeah, I suppose China would be the type to try to play all sides diplomatically... didn't think of that.
__________
_____
__
_

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby nowfocus » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

Sorry, already posted.
Last edited by nowfocus on Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:15 pm UTC

Yes, thank you. That has been the topic of discussion for the last page and a half, since this post.

User avatar
Dr.Robert
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:42 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Dr.Robert » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:01 am UTC

"North Korea 'ready for holy war' with the South"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12067735

'North Korea's armed forces minister says his country is ready for a "holy war" using the country's nuclear weapons, as South Korea stages live-fire exercises. '


shit. fuck.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:04 am UTC

I dunno. IIRC, South Korea did some live-fire exercises just recently, before which the DPRK said they'd respond to with force, and after which the DPRK said it wasn't worth responding to. If you hadn't noticed, they like to make grand threatening statements.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:11 am UTC

Thinking about this from the other side, couldn't SK do its military exercises somewhere else? Somewhere not so close to NK territory? At least in the event of NK throwing its toys out of the pram, they'd have less of an excuse.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:16 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Thinking about this from the other side, couldn't SK do its military exercises somewhere else? Somewhere not so close to NK territory? At least in the event of NK throwing its toys out of the pram, they'd have less of an excuse.

The point of the exercises is to show North Korea who's boss, not practicing. They do that elsewhere, where the North-Koreans can't observe the tactics used.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby broken_escalator » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:47 pm UTC

You mean this is something along the lines of:

South Korea used Muscle Flex.

North Korea readies Threaten, but it hurt itself in its confusion.

More things should be explained through mock pokemon fights.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby mmmcannibalism » Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:03 am UTC

Dr.Robert wrote:"North Korea 'ready for holy war' with the South"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12067735

'North Korea's armed forces minister says his country is ready for a "holy war" using the country's nuclear weapons, as South Korea stages live-fire exercises. '


shit. fuck.


Wait, isn't North Korea officially an atheist* country...

*whatever the appropriate term is for countries that ban religion.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Carlington » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:41 am UTC

I think Juche may be considered the religion in this case, possibly.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
Internetmeme
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:16 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Internetmeme » Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:56 am UTC

They consider their Emporer "Great Leader" as a god, or something.
Spoiler:

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:40 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:Wait, isn't North Korea officially an atheist* country...

*whatever the appropriate term is for countries that ban religion.

Or you're just looking at translation error. If Dr.Robert quoted the article accurately then the article has since changed to render the quote as "sacred war of justice", which would be a better approximation of what was said but still, I imagine, an imperfect one. It's not an appeal to religion but an invocation of ideologies that go beyond law (like how politicians sometimes appeal to vague concepts like decency, order or human rights to establish the validity of their position).

Zamfir wrote:The point of the exercises is to show North Korea who's boss, not practicing. They do that elsewhere, where the North-Koreans can't observe the tactics used.

Yeah, this. The South Koreans feel their government didn't react quickly enough, or aggressively enough, to the boat situation so this is retaliation for that.

Internetmeme wrote:They consider their Emporer "Great Leader" as a god, or something.

It's nice that you've read a little Japanese history, but a little worrying you can't separate it from your understanding of Korean politics. Neither the Great Leader or Dear Leader are regarded as an emperor or god. But Asians are all basically the same, right?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

Sharlos
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:26 am UTC
Location: Straya

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Sharlos » Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:30 am UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:
Internetmeme wrote:They consider their Emporer "Great Leader" as a god, or something.

It's nice that you've read a little Japanese history, but a little worrying you can't separate it from your understanding of Korean politics. Neither the Great Leader or Dear Leader are regarded as an emperor or god. But Asians are all basically the same, right?


The Great Leader that is still the Head of State even now that he's been dead for a while? Or that whole personality cult surrounding him? Sounds like a religion to me. But hey, that's not as interesting as hyperbole or jumping over our conclusions mat, right?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:39 am UTC

Sharlos wrote:The Great Leader that is still the Head of State even now that he's been dead for a while? Or that whole personality cult surrounding him? Sounds like a religion to me.

You live in Australia, right? You are sure there are no weird aspects, personality cults or religious undertones associated with your symbolic head of state?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:44 am UTC

Our PM's an atheist, so...no?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:58 am UTC

Glad to hear. Perhaps Kim il Sung is not really the head of state of North Korea either, and instead just a symbolic mention in the constitution. That can't be such a strange concept.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Carlington » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:19 pm UTC

Hawk, I think Zamfir may have been making a confusingly worded allusion to the Queen, based on his use of the word "symbolic". However, if that's the case, Zamfir evidently doesn't understand the political system in Australia, or the regard (lack thereof) that the Queen is generally given.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Hawknc » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:22 pm UTC

The Queen of what? :P

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:29 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:The Queen of what? :P


The desert. Her name's Priscilla.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Carlington » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Hawknc wrote:The Queen of what? :P


The desert. Her name's Priscilla.

I...I think I love you...

Hawk, you're funny in that frustrating way that doesn't actually inspire laughter. :P
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests