North Korea

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Mysthalin]

Yeah, as if a war will actually break out from a single artillery exchange. The USSR and China did that nearly monthly after their relations fell apart lol - don't hear of any USSR vs China great wars .

[Spartan_Marine88]

Yeah, as if a war will actually break out from a single artillery exchange. The USSR and China did that nearly monthly after their relations fell apart lol - don't hear of any USSR vs China great wars .

pakistan and india too i believe, or was it china and pakistan?

[Mysthalin]

India and Pakistan, pretty sure.

[Spartan_Marine88]

India and Pakistan, pretty sure.

The biggest difference with those, is the fact that even though they have been two seperate countries for a while now, its a civil war as well as an ideological one

[TheWindCriesMary]

And Vietnam was lost solely due to politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy.

 lol

-Wind

[AmPM]

Spartan, Total War is not the concept of going to war.

It is the concept of the complete and utter destruction of your enemy regardless of collateral damage.

[Mysthalin]

Spartan, Total War is not the concept of going to war.

It is the concept of the complete and utter destruction of your enemy regardless of collateral damage.

Sounds like what was being done in Vietnam by the US forces...

[Spartan_Marine88]

Spartan, Total War is not the concept of going to war.

It is the concept of the complete and utter destruction of your enemy regardless of collateral damage.

Fine, but the fact is that the US never admitting that it really was a war is well known to the rest of the world as the biggest attempt to save face.

And Vietnam was lost solely due to politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy.

This is just an outright lie, one to cover the fact that American forces were never able to find the enemy. Hence the creation of Agent Orange and the other agents. And a 12% of your fatalities and 18% of wounded due to traps is another embarassment (and a major accomplishment to the VC)

Veitnam was an embarrasment, you can argue it till your blue in the face. But if dropping more bombs then all of World War 2 does not make it a war then what does a Nuke?

[TheWindCriesMary]

 AMPM is right that Vietnam was not total war. Total war is when a country's entire industry, government, and populace are fully committed to the war effort (not in terms of public support, but in terms of economy etc.).

 It is not correct, however, to say that the war was only lost because of "politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy". That is a gross oversimplification, and it isn't particularily accurate either.

 But he is right about it not being a total war - it wasn't from America's perspective.

 -Wind

[Spartan_Marine88]

AMPM is right that Vietnam was not total war. Total war is when a country's entire industry, government, and populace are fully committed to the war effort (not in terms of public support, but in terms of economy etc.).

 It is not correct, however, to say that the war was only lost because of "politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy". That is a gross oversimplification, and it isn't particularily accurate either.

 But he is right about it not being a total war - it wasn't from America's perspective.

 -Wind

I never meant to imply 'total war' but i did mean that it was still a war.

By deffinition, there has never been a real 'total war'

[Killer344]

I never meant to imply 'total war' but i did mean that it was still a war.

By deffinition, there has never been a real 'total war'

oh rly.

[AmPM]

You mean like the Eastern Front of WW2? That kind?

[Spartan_Marine88]

oh rly.

yes

You mean like the Eastern Front of WW2? That kind?

as long as there was even 1 civilian industry operating, 1 person directly involved by deffinition its not a Total War.

It is impossible for us to have an actual Total War, even if you can agree to only one side waging a 'Total War'

(like glass for civilian homes, food for civilians)

And we can never know for WW2 Russia, as alot of numbers pertaining to Russian Economy before during and after are known to have been adjusted for propaganda reasons or just not well known to begin with

[3rdCondor]

Maybe if they go to war we can make an East Korea.

[brn4meplz]

The Mongols under Genghis Khan Practices Total war. All he did was topple Empires and Cities. then he left them to rule themselves as a hassle of his Empire.

[Spartan_Marine88]

The Mongols under Genghis Khan Practices Total war. All he did was topple Empires and Cities. then he left them to rule themselves as a hassle of his Empire.

Not really, the mongols had a code that allowed Religious figures to be exempt from tax, which meant that a certain amount of the economy had to go towards supporting them.

also his 13th law "Every man who does not go to war must work for the empire, without reward, for a certain time." which means after this period of servitude, he is working for himself again.

[brn4meplz]

His Roving onslaught of genocide is about as close as you'll get to total war. You will never ever have 100% of the economy devoted to Martial production or feats. Because you always need to feed the workers. But toal war takes into account Military Production, and nondiscrimination of the difference between enemy civilian and enemy combatant.

[Spartan_Marine88]

His Roving onslaught of genocide is about as close as you'll get to total war. You will never ever have 100% of the economy devoted to Martial production or feats. Because you always need to feed the workers. But toal war takes into account Military Production, and nondiscrimination of the difference between enemy civilian and enemy combatant.

True, but as it is Religion is not a part of war, and the fact that if its even less then 0.00000001 percent goes towards supporting it its not Total War.

My comment was that its is impossible to have an actual Total War with 100% exactly of the population devoted to the war effort (including supplying all necessities to the civilians), as soon as 1 non necessity is produced, 1 non war related item is funded its no longer a total war.

[SX23]

Sigh...
Away for a few hours and you guys are once again gone into religion.
No offence intended, but this is meant to be a political/military discussion.

NOT a discussion about Mongol tax policies and the redefinition of what a "total war" is.
Now, as nobody bothered to read my first post nor my second, I will rewrite them here in the hope that someone actually READS and understands it.

The question is: "In the event of a military breakthrough between North Korea and International power, would Chinese side or engage military actions to sustain their Allie, the North Koreans?"

---
Now, what is it supposed to mean is that in the event of a military breakthrough, what would be the alternatives/motives to the North Koreans, the International Community, and the Chinese.
---

I will now post *AGAIN* my point of view on the question:

Having use of the nuclear weapon hereby declare you as the most efficient army in the world. If South Korea were to be destroyed by nuclear means (Due to North Korea), you would see a lot of hesitation from the international community; the first option would be to involve their armies against a country that can wipe most of their military might in a few salvos. The second option, being bombing South Korea to rubble either with conventional means or nuclear means, would either meant:
1. Major radiation fallouts on China and thus assuring an entry into this war;
2. Major public disapproval.

In both cases, the major nations have way too much to lose to either engage in one of those way efficiently, and it pretty much seems like a no-win situation if North Korea start using nuclear means.

[brn4meplz]

N. Korea is the poster child for failing states. Especially if they escalate to nuclear options China's going to ass rape them.

It's a pretty safe bet that both China and the US 7th Fleet have very detailed knowledge of N. Korea Launch sites, and will when the situation demands it drop a retarded amount of Cruise missiles or air strikes against them.

No one in the region wants them going nuclear, but Kim's got dementia and could do it. His named successor is in experienced and considered weak by the die hard militarists. Either way the situation only gets more unstable. If they declare war and stay conventional China may sell them Arms and ammunition. If it even looks like they are going nuclear China would be all over them in a heartbeat