Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

I don't full understand this whole North/South Korea thing - can someone explain it to me?

209 replies

KenAdams · 03/04/2013 19:30

And why have America got involved. And what is the big deal about Chinas position?

I feel very thick Blush

OP posts:
KatyTheCleaningLady · 04/04/2013 19:00

I don't think the US is keen to go to war with North Korea. We're not afraid of them, of course, but we wouldn't relish it. Americans are not personally aggrieved against the North Koreans or anything like that.

Also, there wouldn't be anything to gain by conquering them. They don't have oil or anything like that. They just have a bunch of physically and intellectually stunted poor people who would cost everybody a whole bunch of money to deal with.

orangeandlemons · 04/04/2013 21:04

It is like the Bay of Pigs! Only there it was probably worse, with 2 superpowers facing missiles at each other. My mum said it was terrifying. So whilst Kruschev probably wasn't mad and Lardboy is, it is a similar thing ratcheting up of threats.

orangeandlemons · 04/04/2013 21:06

God, yes imagine Bush at the helm. thank God for Obama.

CheerfulYank · 04/04/2013 21:55

Honestly, with the way he was raised and the people he has surrounding him now, I don't know how KJU could be anything but a better.

niceguy2 · 04/04/2013 22:00

I can't see the US attacking. They would however be duty bound to defend SK if the North attacked.

If there were a lot of oil/gas at stake then it may be different but given the place barely has soil, let alone oil, I can't see it.

I also can't see China supporting NK. They have much more to lose economically by upsetting the US (and by extension the rest of the west) than the economically insignificant NK. In short, there's nothing in it for China to support NK. The only reason they do is that they don't want hundreds of thousands, if not millions of refugee's pouring into China.

flatpackhamster · 04/04/2013 22:43

MarmaladeTwatkins

Cameron is just trying to justify his ploughing of money into Trident on the week that he has cut loads of benefits.

Gosh, that Cameron's clever. Organising it so that a programme that was agreed before he came to power continues operating to contain a country which was being crazy before he was born? It's like he planned it all from the beginning. The fiend.

NicholasTeakozy · 05/04/2013 08:41

That's you schooled Twatters :o Hmm

Flatpack is right. Camewrong has to push for Trident because North Korea has the ability to chuck a missile as far as Japan to the east, and Afghanistan to the west, so they're only 5000 or so miles shy of hitting us. So, yeah, Trident's a necessary defence against a despot with precisely zero chance of doing any harm to the UK.

MarmaladeTwatkins · 05/04/2013 10:22

Not sure that I was debating the need for Trident, flatpack. We need it. Just don't try and kid any of us that Korea has a fart' s chance of hitting us. Nice that him presenting us with such a twattily inaccurate observation comes on this week of all weeks.

If I want to think that he's spouting off such bollocks for no other reason than those, I can, it is my opinion. Thanks all the same Hmm

niceguy2 · 05/04/2013 10:35

The key thing is that North Korea cannot hit us.......YET. They certainly are trying to build up their capability and maybe one day sooner than we think they may be able to. Then what? If we've scrapped Trident to save a few quid? We'd have a rogue nuclear power at the other side of the world who are mad enough to launch a nuke at us. What do we defend ourselves with? A few choice words?

flatpackhamster · 05/04/2013 11:01

NicholasTeakozy

Flatpack is right. Camewrong has to push for Trident because North Korea has the ability to chuck a missile as far as Japan to the east, and Afghanistan to the west, so they're only 5000 or so miles shy of hitting us. So, yeah, Trident's a necessary defence against a despot with precisely zero chance of doing any harm to the UK.

It's a crying shame that Trident can only be fired at North Korea, isn't it, teakozy? If they'd thought it through they could have designed the missiles and submarine so that they could target other places. Oh, wait....

MarmaladeTwatkins

Not sure that I was debating the need for Trident, flatpack. We need it. Just don't try and kid any of us that Korea has a fart' s chance of hitting us. Nice that him presenting us with such a twattily inaccurate observation comes on this week of all weeks.

I haven't claimed anywhere that Korea can hit the UK, I just thought your linking of benefits changes (welfare costs will rise so 'cuts' is the wrong word) to Trident was lazy and inaccurate.

If I want to think that he's spouting off such bollocks for no other reason than those, I can, it is my opinion. Thanks all the same hmm

Of course you can. My opinion is that your opinion as bollocks as Cameron's opinion. So, basically, yah boo.

Absy · 05/04/2013 11:15

Some examples of the level of control exercised in N Korea (which is funny, and tragic at the same time) - they never show sports games (particularly football) live, but only screen them a few days later so that they can adjust the outcome.

For the SA World Cup in 2010, they didn't want the stands to be empty of North Korean fans, but they don't like people leaving the country. Instead, they hired 1,000 Chinese actors and dressed them up in North Korean outfits so that they had "fans" at the games. Two of North Korea's players disappeared and didn't return home with the rest of the squad.

MarmaladeTwatkins · 05/04/2013 11:17

Flatpack, you seem to think that we don't know what Trident is for, who it can be aimed at etc. Bit patronising...

I only brought it up because a previous poster was concerned that we are a direct target for N.Korea, because if what Cameron said when questioned on money for Trident. Personally, I feel he can plough whatever cash he sees fit into it. Sadly it is necessary. I think it's a bit irresponsible to say what he said wrt the UK being a target but I do think it was an easy way of justifying the expense to those questioning it.

So up yours buddy. :)

lottieandmia · 05/04/2013 11:18

So, NK is making these threats because it wants the UN to ease the most recent sanctions imposed because of the test missiles is that correct? If so they are not going to gain much by starting a war imo. But since they've been blustering in this vein for so many years perhaps they are ramping things up so as to be taken seriously.

MarmaladeTwatkins · 05/04/2013 11:26

Could be that. that In the past, the U.S has offered them more aid after threats have been issued, issued to shut them up.

flatpackhamster · 05/04/2013 11:45

MarmaladeTwatkins

Flatpack, you seem to think that we don't know what Trident is for, who it can be aimed at etc. Bit patronising...

No, I was just correcting the misinformation of the communist.

I only brought it up because a previous poster was concerned that we are a direct target for N.Korea, because if what Cameron said when questioned on money for Trident. Personally, I feel he can plough whatever cash he sees fit into it. Sadly it is necessary. I think it's a bit irresponsible to say what he said wrt the UK being a target but I do think it was an easy way of justifying the expense to those questioning it.

Don't imagine for a moment that I don't recognise the prickitude of Cameron. But it isn't his decision to go ahead with the programme, is the point I'm making, and trying to pin it on him is a bit crappy. It would be like me criticising Gordon Brown for signing the UK up to the Maastricht treaty.

I don't see that the expense of Trident needs justifying. It's already been justified. I think that the fact that we can't fire Trident without the go ahead from the Septics needs justifying.

MissRee · 05/04/2013 14:03

I see NK are now advising that they can't guarantee the safety of the embassies in Pyongyang after 10 April (in the event of war) and that they should evacuate.

More empty threats or does this mean they're actually going to go ahead with this?

coffeeinbed · 05/04/2013 14:09

I'm getting really worried at the latest.
This is bonkers.

niceguy2 · 05/04/2013 14:16

The one thing which is unknown by anyone other than the ruling elite in NK is whether or not they truly believe the bullshit they are peddling.

I wonder sometimes if those generals and the young leader truly think they stand a snowball in hell's chance of winning any military confrontation? Sure if they send their troops over the border then South Korea would suffer greatly in the short term. Seoul might not be in great shape and the world economy would suffer whilst we lose availability of our beloved Samsung Galaxy's, ipad's and tech.

But then the US are dutibound to defend South Korea. UK will join in since we join any war nowadays the US is involved in. The rest of the EU will probably send a few 'training monkeys' to show they're involved. North Korea would be toast and crucially their regime with it.

And should they be idiotic enough to lob a nuke anywhere outside of their own borders, that would give the US the very reason they need to reduce the place to a rather large car park.

The S. Korean army is modern, well equipped and well trained. They are supported by the US via a defence pact. The North Korean army just have a lot of hungry soldiers who wouldn't last a second after the US started bombing the crap out of them. It would be a total massacre!

But that all hinges on the NK leadership knowing that it would be suicide. I remember reading that in the communist days in China, the inner circle used to get peasants to replant crops near the roads the leader travelled along so to him it seemed like the communist revolution was working. The same could be happening here.

Maybe the generals have told Kim that they can hit NY & Washington. Just in the same way that Saddam's general's told him they had chemical weapons whereas in fact they had none.

flatpackhamster · 05/04/2013 14:18

On that very subject, Tech website The Register has an interesting article.

coffeeinbed · 05/04/2013 14:29

I would think Kim does what the generals tell him.
But then again, does anyone know?

lottieandmia · 05/04/2013 14:33

I agree with most if what niceguy says - they have a huge army but they are starving and not well trained.

CheerfulYank · 05/04/2013 17:11

I don't want them to attack us. Obviously for my country, but also for them. There are innocent people there living under the rule of a madman and we'd bomb the shit out of them.

It's just sad. And terrifying. And "look what a big man I am" posturing.

orangeandlemons · 05/04/2013 17:15

What worries me is this. If they are just posturings and bluff, how can he step back from it? Pretend his rockets didn't launch? Pretend a last minute diplomatic answer.? This is what scares me, he doesn't seem to have left himself a get out

niceguy2 · 05/04/2013 17:34

he doesn't seem to have left himself a get out

And that's what is worrying the powers that be. They object every year about the military exercises but this year the rhetoric seems much worse. That's the only reason it's made the papers.

I agree cheerfulyank. I can't imagine American's wanting to start another war at the other side of the country given the US's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't have a buffoon in charge anymore so the chances of starting something is low. But if the NK are stupid enough to draw first blood then yes....I think the US will flatten the regime. And to be honest most of the world would secretly be glad.

CheerfulYank · 05/04/2013 18:44

Maybe people would be glad. But then it'd be "oh those ham fisted war mongering Americans" again.

And those oppressed innocent people bombed to smithereens.

Swipe left for the next trending thread