North Korea: What should America do?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-01 06:34pm

Orion wrote:"What should America do"

Why does America have to do anything. Why can't the rest of the world take a hand in controlling these damn countries?

How about France? They wine enough. Why can't they solve this problem?

Because they're 'France'

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-01 07:19pm

Orion wrote:"What should America do"

Why does America have to do anything. Why can't the rest of the world take a hand in controlling these damn countries?

How about France? They wine enough. Why can't they solve this problem?

*applauds* wonderful pun.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-01-01 11:00pm

Seems like a typo to me, but that is funny.

Anyway, since the South Koreans are the ones who at the most risk from the North Koreans, let them deal with it. Otherwise the world will bitch about the US being the big bad bully.

EDIT: fixed typo.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-01 11:17pm

People pretty much have summed up the scenarios. America should do nothing in the case of North Korea other than what it is already doing. (which is pretty much lots of diplomacy amounting to more or less nothing)

The alternatives are:

1. Pre-emptive strike. Somewhere along the line, the Clinton people were thinking about that provided that the 1994 talks didn't work. Talk about stupid. That can lead to no good except starting up a war that America will be blamed for and would probably lead to the destruction of Korea and probably damage to Japan.

2. Diplomacy with economic sanctions. I don't know what America does for NK now in terms of economic sanctions, and I don't think it matters anyway, look at Cuba. Keep up diplomatic pressure, don't cave in, and just wait.

3. Take the Clinton tact and give the North Koreans whatever they want and hope they'll go away until you're out of office, or better yet, send in Jimmy Carter again. Generally a pretty stupid way to do things, it's like giving into the neighborhood bully which just encourages him further.

4. Withdraw the U.S. troops along the DMZ. They aren't really needed for the tripwire anyway. If North Korea really wants to kick things off, what's the point of having American troops die for no good reason. Keep doing the standard diplomacy stuff, and let the regional powers take care of it.

This is really a case where the regional powers need to figure it out for themselves. America getting involved just won't do anyone any good. A conflict on the Korean peninsula would have a devastating effect on the global economy, in the end, the people who gets hurt the most are North Korea's neighbors, namely Japan, and South Korea. Oddly enough, I think the Chinese might actually benefit depending on how long a war might go and how much damage is done in the process to the infrastructures and the economies of South Korea and possibly Japan.

The end result of America not doing anything beyond what it is doing now. North Korea, namely the people gets to starve some more. Then, the regional power either tries to provide humanitarian aid and shore up that regime, or North Korea gets so desparate that it launches a war that it'll eventually lose. That war will have an economic effect on America, but probably not as much as it'll have on Japan or South Korea. Of course, after North Korea kicks off, America then can do its usual cavalry to the rescue bit, (like the last two world wars) and basically pick up the pieces.

As for weapons of mass destruction argument by Keevan, well, it depends doesn't it. Would you be more afraid of say Al-Qeada in control of just a couple of suitcase nukes, or the U.S. in control of a few thousand nukes? Which is likely to provide a more stable and predictable result? But I do agree with the intervention bit, don't intervene in the world, let the starving masses die and butcher each other. It's not exactly America's problem, does anyone really care if a few hundred thousand Somalis die or if the people in the Balkans commit genocide, survival of the fittest right? Not America's problem if those people are so stupid as to want to kill each other. (hint, that last couple of sentences were sarcasm if you didn't get it)

Orion · Post by **Orion** » 2003-01-01 11:28pm

LOL

I wish I could take credit for being so masterfully savy, but alas, it's just a typo.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-02 09:49am

I actually find this quite funny. Everyone bitches about the US being too imperialistic, but what do they do when a world war breaks out? "America! America! Save us! Please kill the Germans for us!"

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-01-02 01:51pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:I love the title..."what should america do?"
Well....here's one....america has the worlds largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction....what should the rest of the world do?
The current leader literally stole the election...what should the UN and the rest of the 'free' and 'democratic' world do about that?
America routinely invades the sovreign land of other nations....what should the world do about that?
Might makes right? It seems to.....so i suppose if people can gain power....good for them.

Keevan - in a rather bitter mood after meeting with lots of relatives.

Definately food for thought. It's like there's no justice but that which the US enforces.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-02 02:31pm

kojikun wrote: I actually find this quite funny. Everyone bitches about the US being too imperialistic, but what do they do when a world war breaks out? "America! America! Save us! Please kill the Germans for us!"

In WW1, European countries asked for help from everyone. The got help from many countries, and the eventual help from the U.S.

In WW2, European countries asked for help from everyone. The got help from many countries, and the eventual help from the U.S.

I think if you ask any person who lived during those times about their opinion of foreign war veterans, it’s pretty damn high.

But.... how is asking for help defending your country from an invasion linked to supporting the U.S' involvement in the internal affairs of sovereign countries (who did not ask for this involvement)???

If I ask my neighbour to help me cut the grass, and the next day he cuts down my tree to give himself a better view... is he supposed to find it funny that I'm angry with him?

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-02 02:54pm

If your neighbor sets his lawn on fire every few years and it burns your house down then why should your neighbor be mad when you take over his lawn care for him? If America went back into isolation how many years would it take before we had to fight another world war, as opposed to these brushfire wars?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-02 03:09pm

In WW1, European countries asked for help from everyone. The got help from many countries, and the eventual help from the U.S.

In WW2, European countries asked for help from everyone. The got help from many countries, and the eventual help from the U.S.

All true, but the U.S. ended up as the deciding factor, not so much the military as it's economy managed to hold up the rest of the allies, without it, Europe might now be under German rule. But all things aside, it was in the best interest of the U.S. to do what it did. Given enough time, eventually the Nazis would've turned their eye across the Atlantic as well had they managed to kill the Russian bear. (And they almost succeeded too, thank God Hitler decided that he was a military genius and took control of the eastern front from people like Guderian and Manstein)

In Korea though, you can easily make a case for serious U.S. involvement as well as a case for not getting involved. Throughout history, the dominant power has always achieved its position through economic or military might, never through charity, or being nice to its neighbors without having their own advantage in mind. The real question is how much longer can America last in this role. Everybody loves to take potshots at the guy on top of the mountain, and most people think that Asia (particularly China) is up and coming and will probably supplant the U.S. in the next century, probably relegating America to the status of the Brits (no offense here).

So, it all comes down to simple strategy, there is no question that the U.S. would like to stay as the preeminent power on the planet. To think otherwise is basically insane, and power to this day still flows through the barrel of a gun in most parts of the world. Want to stop the genocides in the Balkans? Show up with bigger and better guns than the forces on the field and you can do that. Want to feed the starving masses in Samolia? Better send in the marines to secure the area first cause otherwise, the warlords there are just gonna seize the food shipments, and the UN peacekeepers just ain't up to the ask. And at this moment, America has the biggest and best guns all around. Take away the U.S. military, and does anyone think that America could be taken seriously? I doubt it, America would then be taken as seriously as say... Canada.

So in Korea, it's really a matter of testing the dominant power for weakness. The choices are stay involved and probably get blamed for instability, you don't see NK crying about the South, they want a non-aggression pact with the U.S. Or go, and let someone else (Russia, or more likely China) fill the power vacuum and take away U.S. influence. Ideally for the U.S., (for the sake of maintaining influence) North Korea would do something utterly stupid, like launching a second Korean war, that'll consolidate U.S. influence like nothing else. But the policy right now is probably a good one, may be withdraw some of the troops on the peninsula as a scare tactic for the South, but that's about it.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-02 03:13pm

I dunno, I think I'd have rather delt with a post-Hitler Nazi Germany than a post-Stalin communist USSR I can't really see 'global nazism' as opposed to the 'global communism' that we had...can you?

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-02 03:35pm

Nope, the problem with post-Hitler is how long are we talking? Hitler wasn't exactly an old geezer when he put a bullet in his brain. In the interim, he would've killed far more people to get to his thousand year Reich. And no, I really think it was easier dealing with the Russians and post Stalin Soviets than it would've been dealing with a victorious Germany.

If the U.S. stayed isolationist during WWII, Germany would've won and eventually taken over the world. You have to remember, when Barbarossa was launched, the Wehrmarct was numerically and technologically (tank wise) inferior compared to the Soviets. Yet they came to within a whisker of taking out the Soviets permanently. They ripped apart the western allies in the opening days of WWII like nothing.

The only saving grace for the allies was the fact that the Nazi leadership (not the actual German military command, there is a distinction there) was in fact totally incompetent in military matters. Hitler believed lackeys like Goering who promised to deliever Britian through an air war, and again when Goering promised to keep the 6th army under Paulus supplied during Stalingrad. Had Hitler been a Napolean or a Genghis Khan or any number of other historical military leaders, the entire world would be speaking German now. So, it was eminently foreseeable.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-02 05:19pm

Hitler didn't have enough men to take over the world, he might have taken over Europe and Russia, but even then he'd have left regimes after forced peace (kinda like Germany was left after WW1\2). Leastwise, thats what I think would have happened. Really no way to know, you could be right too.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-02 06:54pm

0.1 wrote: All true, but the U.S. ended up as the deciding factor, not so much the military as it's economy managed to hold up the rest of the allies, without it, Europe might now be under German rule.

IMHO, without american help Europe would be under communist rule. Hitler was already in full retreat on the Eastern front prior to the allied landings. This would probably have seriously affected the current U.S. position as dominant superpower (especially with all the rocket and abomb scientists under Russian control).

I don't mean to belittle the help the U.S. gave in each of these wars. America was of huge help, and only an idiot would attempt to neglect this. It just irks me when people do the same to other countries. There's a lot of perspective involved, especially when deciding things like "deciding factor".

But all things aside, it was in the best interest of the U.S. to do what it did. Given enough time, eventually the Nazis would've turned their eye across the Atlantic

Actually, that would probably be unlikely. If Britain had fallen the Normandy landings would be impossible. A cross Atlantic amphibious landing by either the U.S. or Germany against a well defended continent is foolhardy.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-02 07:33pm

If Britain had fallen America could still have defeated Germany by attacking Africa, then going up through Italy.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-02 08:28pm

Zoink,

I think I disagree on a couple of points. The allied landing is not a big factor in the war. It opened up a second front, but the war was decided in 1941 on the Russian front. There were four factors that decided the war, and ranked in terms of importance in my view:

1. Hitler taking over operational control on the eastern front
2. American lend and lease which aided the Brits and in turn the Russians (I should check the date on this, but I believe the U.S. started helping the Russians right after Barbarossa got started)
3. The Russian winter
4. Richard Sorge

Hitler lost when he failed to take out England. The point I mean to make is that the U.S. was a deciding factor in provide economic help... mostly through the lend and lease program. The major military action was always on the eastern front, places like the Ardennes paled in comparison to Kursk or Kharkov, or sites of many other battles on the Eastern front.

Overall though, take the U.S. out of the equation, Britian would have likely fallen or have been seriously hampered in the aid they gave to the Russians. The Russians would've had no American help at all in terms of the lend and lease program. Even with American help, the Russians came to within a whisker of losing.

To be fair, take out any one of the following: Russians, Americans, Brits, and the Germans would be the ones running the planet today. But the Germans already planned on taking on the Brits, and Hitler hated the Russians, the only ones he didn't plan on taking on immediately was probably the Americans, principally due to geography. That is why Americans became the deciding factor in the last war. But as everyone else contributed, the question to you would be: who else besides the three mentioned above could've made that much of a difference?

Now, if England fell, Russia would go. Do you think Hitler would've been satisfied with Europe alone? Sure, it'll take them a while to get to the U.S., but they would've done so eventually. It would have taken a few more decades, but a war with the U.S. would have been a certainty if Germany had won europe.

The only wild card then would've been who got the A-bomb first, and who finds the best way to deliver these weapons first. As for the A-bomb scientists, that's a bit of a farce, a majority of those people were in the U.S. by 1940. Remember, the U.S. had the A-bomb before the end of the war, and it took quite a long time to develop the first nuke.

Falcon,

The American landing on Africa came out of Britian. In the German viewpoint, England is nothing but a gigantic unsinkable aircraft carrier. They take it, and the only way America could intervene is through the Atlantic ocean. That would've been a big deal. And to be frank, the Germans always considered Africa a minor front, their involvement was mainly to shore up the Italians. As far as the so called soft underbelly of Europe, Kesselring held out on the Italian front until 1945, even though at that point he had little if anything to defend with. Italy is a lousy place for campaigning, it really favors defense.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-02 08:52pm

Regardless, we made progress in Italy despite most of the resources being diverted to the France landing. Had France not been an option, Italy would have done imo.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-03 12:09am

The conflict on the Korean penninsula is one of the many post-cold war hydras to rear its ugly head. Techincaly a state of war still exists between North Korea and South Korea and by extension the United States. After the withdrawl of UN forces in '53 the US took up the brunt of maintaining the peace along the DMZ. No peace treaty was ever signed , only a cease-fire and prisioner exchange were ever agreed to.

Wether modern day Americans like it or not , our forefather saddled us with this mess of a divided Korea, and unike Germany the two side have serious issues with eachother , after all East Germany never invaded and burned West Germany, sacked Bonn, or invited millions of foreign(and at times hostile) troops in to join the fighting when it all went to shit.

North korea has been pursuing a position in the nuclear club since the 70's in order to offset not only the South and the Americans but also the Chinese.....who worry them almost as much as anyone else. After all , after the death of Mao and the 'liberalizing' of Chinese Communisim in the early 70's, relations between NK(Kim Jong-Il was a serious Stalinist at heart) and Red China became quite frosty. The best counter to the Communist Chinese is the bomb and MRBM's. To do this North Korea has gutted their own economy to both fuel its military and to develope a nucleaar program(A-bombs are easy to make, but goddamed expensive to design, and produce). This has resulted in a nation little advanced over the tech level of the early 60's infrastructure wise , and a agriculture system totally inadequate to meet their needs leading to nearly a decade of famines in NK , many of which were denied or ignored by the NK gov't, resulting in tens of thousands of starvation deaths all across NK.
The answer to the NK question is a thorny one, and I for one don;t have answer, it more complicated than I can even fathom, on one hand I would like to see the Koreas united and independent for the first time in almost 300 years, but I really dont want another war there. With nukes on the table , the stakes are to high. One good low orbit burst over the Sea of Japan would EMP all Japan , and completely fuck the entire Western world for a decade. A Groundburst is not what I worry about, cities can be rebuilt people repopulated but an EMP strike would be FAR FAR worse...

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-03 01:27am

I don't think anyone has an equitable solution to Korea, there are lots of alternatives, and most of them are really bad. As far as the nuke is concerned, doesn't matter really if it's EMP or ground burst, either way, the damage to the economies in Asia will be so significant that it'll set the world back by quite a bit.

The main problem is that different nations will have different aims. Let's run through the list:

1. The U.S. is there for the influence, and that part of Asia is about as important to the U.S. economy as the most other regions, so it has a vital interest in not seeing things go to hell.

2. SK wants to get together with NK and become an economic rival against Japan. (it actually already is)

3. Historically the Japanese and the Koreans have not had decent relations, it goes back to WWII and before that. And NK is especially a threat to Japan with its armaments, and with its economy in trouble, Japan needs to revitalize, a war is not a good thing for Japan.

4. China is on the rise, and wouldn't mind seeing the reduction of U.S. influence in the region. In the long run, it'll overshadow both Japan and Korea, it just would prefer the U.S. to leave, but a war will guarantee that U.S. influence remains. NK is probably as an annoyance because it gives the Americans a reason to stay. (Sokar, just a thought, but NK pose little or no threat to China, it would get overrun if they even thought about doing anything stupid. Their MRBMs are probably not nuclear capable yet, and even if they were, they'd be nuts to go against China.)

5. As for North Korea, it's days are numbered. As backwards as it is, eventually it'll totally collapse without outside help. Kimmy Jr. knows that the day the Koreas unite, he is frigging history, his own economic situation is in such dire straits that he risks a revolt in his own military if he doesn't do something. (eventually, he'll run out of food even for his military) He doesn't want to end up like the guy who ran Romania, which is probably what'll happen if he doesn't help himself. Kimmy figures U.S. is the prime mover in the region, so he has to deal with the Americans to stay in power, and these days, with Iraq, it's his only shot, make his play and hope he can keep himself in power just a bit longer. At least for Kimmy Jr, his motivation is simple, self preservation, nobody has the same problem, so, he is gonna be the most dangerous since he has the most to lose.

I didn't mention the Russians, but they probably figure in there somewhere too.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-01-03 01:42am

[quote="0.1 (Sokar, just a thought, but NK pose little or no threat to China, it would get overrun if they even thought about doing anything stupid. Their MRBMs are probably not nuclear capable yet, and even if they were, they'd be nuts to go against China.).[/quote]

Oh no , the NK's pose no real threat to China, nor could they resist an invasion across the Yalu. However with nukes, they have a weapon that levels the playing field(you may win but it will cost you your three largest cities) and gives them the ultimate playing chip in negotiations. They can leverage their possesson or nonpossession of nuclear weapons for concessions from eiether the Chinese or the Americans and the Seoul gov't. heir current shenaggians are probably of that nature, make a little noise like they are moving forward wth a nuclear program, and hope that Washington or Bejing decide to bribe them again rather than go to war.

Pyongyang has been playing this game for the last decade with Clinton , and its worked well, the NK's rumble, and Clinton would cut them some cheap grain or trade consession ect ect.....only problem is that the Bush Whitehouse might rather play a diffrent tune.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-01-03 09:53am

0.1 wrote: 2. American lend and lease which aided the Brits and in turn the Russians (I should check the date on this, but I believe the U.S. started helping the Russians right after Barbarossa got started)

American aid to Russia was there. However, the most significant Russian weapons were masses of troops, Russian made tanks, and Russian made aircraft.

Hitler lost when he failed to take out England. The point I mean to make is that the U.S. was a deciding factor in provide economic help...

So is the deciding factor the American aid (and Canadian, Australian, etc), or the Brits successfully defending their homeland? Its a matter of perspective. Raw materials are important. So is designing and building weapons, and so is manpower and a willingness to fight and die.

The same is true of WW1, American aid and contributions at the *end* of WW1 helped crumble the German defences. However, I'd place the deciding factor on the Brits, Commonwealth, France, and Russia sacrificing millions of troops.

Russia (12 million), British Empire (10 million), and France (8 million) mobilized about 30 million troops and received about 4 million dead, and 18 million total casualties. The allied total (U.S. and everyone else) was about 42 million mobilized, with the U.S. mobilizing 4 million and receiving 126,000 dead.

This was against a total enemy mobilization of 65 million.... So my list of deciding factors would be different…

To be fair, take out any one of the following: Russians, Americans, Brits, and the Germans would be the ones running the planet today.... But as everyone else contributed, the question to you would be: who else besides the three mentioned above could've made that much of a difference?

That question gives the answer you want, but its not the original question.

You list a number of factors determining the outcome, which I agree with. IMHO however, for any situation, I'd place the deciding factor on that which contributed and sacrificed the most, upon who's shoulders the weight of success was placed on, upon who's decisions would determine the outcome.

IMHO, I'd place the greatest factor on the Russians, as they sacrificed most in terms of man and machine against Germany (the deciding factor against Japan was clearly the U.S.), upon whom Germany sacrificed the most troops in a vain attempt at conquest, and who prevented Germany from reaching the oil fields of the Middle East.

Now, if England fell, Russia would go.

So a big factor is Britain's successfull defense against Germany in the Battle of Britain. The deciding factor in this case were spitfires, huricanes, those that piloted them, and a willingness to fight to the death against any amphibious landing.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-01-03 02:06pm

Even if Hitler had taken out England, his attack on Russia would have failed. Germany did not have the men or resources to beat the Russians that way. Just because they came withing a few miles of the Kremlin doesn't mean they would have won by taking Moscow. The Russians were perfectly willing to let Napoleon burn Moscow to the ground; they would have been just as wiling to carry on the fight if Hitler had done it.

The only way the Germans could have won is by giving Rommel more resources, thus allowing him to secure North Africa, Egypt and the Suez canal. From there the Germans could drive into the Middle East toward Iraq and not only secure vital oil resources (their most serious lack), but also put themselves in a position to attack Russia from the Caucasus region in addition to eastward through Europe. They would also have been in a better position to link up with their Japanese allies in China, which would have given the Russians some new worries. From these two launching points, they could possibly have taken enough of The Soviet Union's vital natural resources and industrial areas to force the Russians to the negotiating table. This would be particularly true if they played to the widespread Russian and Ukrainian disaffection from Communism, which existed in the wake of Stalin's purges and forced collectivizations - in many areas the Germans were welcomed as liberators, and locals only turned against them later when the die hard Nazis started treating them like Untermenschen. The Germans could have capitalized on this discontent and led the locals in a revolt against Soviet authority, putting further pressure on the Soviet government to deal.

Conquering the whole of the U.S.S.R. was simply not a realistic possibility.

The Germans also needed to refrain from the lunacy of declaring war on the U.S. after December 7th, 1941. Roosevelt wanted to join with Britain in a Germany first strategy, but was desperately looking for a way to do it the face of American popular opinion that Germany was Europe's fight, and ours was with Japan. Then Hitler stepped in and neatly solved his problem for him. Hitler was not obligated to do this by the terms of the Tripartite Pact. Just as Japan was not obligated to aid Germany against Russia, and in fact, conspicuously did not do so - the Japanese probed the Soviets' defenses in a battle on the Mongolian border at Khalkin Gol, and got well and truly spanked. The Japanese decided to leave the Russians strictly alone, and this allowed Stalin to divert badly needed divisions from his eastern borders to resist the German advance.

In this scenario the Germans just might have been able to win. And it might not have been necessary to invade England, but that's difficult to be sure of. Germany was within days or weeks at most of crippling the RAF when they suddenly switched to bombing London; but that doesn't mean that Operation Sea Lion (the code name for the German invasion) could have succeeded in the face of opposition by the Royal Navy, and the absence of suitable German landing craft.

Anyway...

So much for the history lesson. As far as North Korea goes, there's not much we can do, realistically, at this point. North Korea has a larger and better trained army than Iraq's, and far, far better defensive terrain. Militarily, they're not going to be the walkover that Iraq's likely to be, and they already have long-range artillery in place that can target Seoul. It is no accident either that North Korea selected this moment, when we are preoccupied with Iraq, to start it's nuclear posturing. We used to have the capability to fight two wars at once. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we don't anymore, and the North Koreans know it.

We could crush them economically if we could get the South Koreans and Chinese to stop trading with them. China especially, since China supplies them with almost all their electrical power and 40% of their foodstuffs. Problem is the Chinese and South Koreans don't want to play ball. In fact China just shipped 20 tons of highly specialized chemicals used in extracting plutonium from spent reactor fuel.

The best idea I've heard so far is to assist Japan in developing a nuclear deterrent force of its own. North Korea has, in the past, lobbed missiles over Japanese airspace in tests. If they acquire nukes, they will certainly have the ability to lob them at Japan. As Japan is an ally, we will not appear unduly aggressive in helping them to deter a very credible threat. They have only a token military, so this will not arm them for aggression of their own. But the last thing on earth the Chinese want to see is a nuclear Japan, so giving Japan a nuclear capability, or threatening to do so, might just put pressure on China to cut off economic aid to North Korea. If we can get the Chinese to cut them off, it would bring North Korea to its knees; their economy could simply no longer function.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-03 02:08pm

The deciding factor is American aid, which helped the Brits resist and in fact stay alive. The battle for Britian (the air war) was Goering's pipe dream. The real battle that saved the Brits was the battle of Atlantic, which kept the Brits from becoming strangled economically. Because of that, they had the ability to send aid to Russia. Had the U.S. been unwilling to get involved, it would've sharply curtailed trade with the Brits for fear of getting the U.S. Navy involved in protecting the convoys, and that would've been a nightmare for the Brits. The lend/lease gave Brits something like 50 old destroyers for them to dedicate to anti-sub duties. The willingness to fight to the death is admirable, but you'd do that anyway if you knew that the alternative was getting dominated and having your people slaughtered. And that willingness means nothing if you don't have the logistics to back you up. The point really comes down to what's the deciding factor, if one factor has already been decided, (i.e. the willingness to fight and die) then it is moot when it comes down to deciding what the key factor in winning the war is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair, take out any one of the following: Russians, Americans, Brits, and the Germans would be the ones running the planet today.... But as everyone else contributed, the question to you would be: who else besides the three mentioned above could've made that much of a difference?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That question gives the answer you want, but its not the original question.

That is the whole point, the original question is flawed because it assumed everyone involved had a choice. But that is false, the Russians and the Brits didn't have a choice, they were the targets of aggression, (specifically the Russians). Would you have just rolled over and gave in if the neighborhood bully punched you in the nose and then told you that if you didn't give him money, he'd hit you again? (That's a loaded question, and assumes that you would actually be in a position to fight back) But the point is the same.

I think it comes down to a matter of opinion on where the deciding factor is. Is it the will to fight or the logistics? I would say that it had to have both in order for a nation to fight successfully. But for the Russians and the Brits, there wasn't a choice any more. Consider another example, Once the war had been initiated, the will to fight is irrelevant. Poland had the will to fight, but completely lost because its allies didn't support them, so there, the logistics mattered. That is the difference when I say the U.S. was the deciding factor. The U.S. had a choice of not getting involved and actively supporting the allies. If that had happened, the Germans might have won.

I won't argue WWI, because Americans were the Johnny come latelies in that war, and didn't contribute as much there. But WWII is a different matter. America's decision to become involved happened in 1940 when they weren't threatened by either Japan or Germany. It was a conscious choice. Take away that decision, and let the isolationists take charge, then the war belongs to the Axis.

I am pointing to a single factor that turned the war in the favor of the allies, the one where a decision point was still possible. The Russians didn't have a choice, they got attacked, the same with the Brits because they had declared war thanks to their treaty with Poland.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-03 02:46pm

Damn damn damn, stupid browser crash killed the entire last reply to the WWII part. Will do that later, Perinquus.

As for Korea, I don't know if arming Japan with nukes is a good idea. The Koreans (all of them) have not be Japan's best friends historically. Arming japan with nukes give NK a justification, and SK as well. And as you said, China would not be happy. And Japan has a natural aversion to nukes for obvious reasons. More than that, arming Japan with nukes are gonna alarm the Russians, and would mean a reduction in U.S. influence regionally. So, probably not likely to happen, and dispite the classic image of ineptness of the Japanese military against Godzilla, they actually have some very credible capabilities. AEGIS style destroyers, F-15s backed by AWACS, on paper at least, they are pretty potent.

In terms of China, they have economically backed NK, I think if they cut off what they currently offer to the NKs, well, that just might push the NKs over the edge. And the Chinese aren't likely to do that anyway, I mean what can America really do to pressure China? Put up MFN again? I doubt it, the U.S. is currently on good terms with China, and when they already have Korea in the bag, pissing off China isn't a good thing to do.

The scenario essentially comes down to the fact that NK's opposition holds all the cards in the game. Diplomatically, the NKs are in a bag, their only option otherwise is military (which is suicide). So, let things be, keep up the diplomatic pressure. And just wait. The worst case scenario is sales of nukes to foreign power or terrorists. And then there would be a problem of transporting those nukes. The Chinese probably won't allow it. And the only other option would be by sea, and that isn't the most viable option given that Korea is not a great naval power.

The current course is a good one. The main point is, you want to make sure that NK has a way out, classic art of war, don't corner your enemy, because then he becomes unpredictable. Of course, as you say, if it weren't for Clinton and the cuts in the U.S. military or the spineless foreign policy, the Korea situation might never have happened today.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-03 03:11pm

Perinquus wrote: We used to have the capability to fight two wars at once. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we don't anymore, and the North Koreans know it.

That capability would be useless if South Korea did not give you the permission to use its bases.I do not think that you could invade NK with amphibious landings alone,even with a Cold War size military.And since SK would not give you the permission Clinton cuts matter little.You would be limited to carrier strikes in anyway.Besides it is not like the current administration has taken steps to enlarge the navy.If ever the opposite is true.