So what do people think is going to happen there? South Korea has a military firing drill, not in the direction of North Korea, and then North Korea fires some artillery shells at them. Two South Korean marines died and something like 15 other soldiers and civilians were injured. There was also some fire damage. So what is going to happen?

Since things have cooled down and they aren't in all out war yet I expect that there will be talks, condemnation of North Korean policies, and then the next time North Korea sinks a South Korean ship or fires mortar shells at them, things will turn into war right away.

The same that always happens. A lot of yelling, and no action. This is far from the first time in recent years something like has happe Ed. He'll, not too long ago the north sunk a southern war ship! Nothing happened over that either

edit: that was back in march. 46 died then

I project that it will be hard to get OEM replacement parts for your KIA.
Oh..and talks too.

They will probably get their FA's to has out a deal about reps then a possible suicider from the south will ruin all of that and their will be much fluffing and moaning on the forums about it...

The merit of this thread has just risen

there are ppls and companies who wouldn't mind if koreans would continue their war.

Like who? This is terrible for the economy... stock markets are already feeling it...

the markets are volitile in general, but a full scale war would boost global production.

North Korea ABed South Korea. South Korea performed a retaled North Korea. Now everyone is all angry like. South Korea, treehuggers that they are, really don't want general warfare to reignite, but have the allies to gangbang North Korea. North Korea has the escalation advantage, but knows that if they do too much they will simply be gangbanged and lose.

I like Angel's interpretation :)

The safest way would be to have SK's allies all do a very quick and massive CM rush on NK, before they have any chance to CS.

Ah yes! The US economy would not be in terrible shape if only we had made twice the weaponry over the past 7 years!

That could potentially help China's economy, however we already know China is trying to hurt the US dollar.

Global scale casualties could be good to help consolidate wealth though.

we should just finish what never ended imo, will it happen? no, unfortunatly crap like this will go on

W00 H00!! M*A*S*H reruns comin' up!!

The US has classically been a conflict driven economy by my understanding. Just look at a graph of economic growth over the last 150 years. Almost every major peak coincides with a major international conflict.

I'm no economic or history major, but my guess would be that it has something to do with the fact that arms production is one of our last internal industrial sectors.

In 2002 I would have agreed with you.

North Korea is going to surrender and give back the land they stole from the Israeli's.

Those coinciding peaks didn't suddenly change after 2002. It's just that we had a monkey making decisions on which direction the economy should go. Reagan or Clinton woulda kicked some ass and made us all a couple bucks in the process :-D

yes bc clinto was obviously a very aggressive person, at least we did something after being bombed by terrorist under his command...o wait we didnt

IMO, the only way there will be noticeable increases in exports or sales in the arms markets is going to be if there is symmetrical warfare.

That is to say, if the US attacks countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, and all the other targets they fought since the end of Vietnam -- namely using airpower -- then they won't see the kind of "total war" production that is what set America ahead of the pack during previous conflicts.

America was the "arsenal for democracy" during world war II largely because of its isolation from the conflict zones. If there's a new total war, the US won't be able to use the oceans as barriers. Even a war between regional rivals like China vs India or China vs Russia or China+NK vs Japan+SK won't help the US economically -- if they help one side, the other will strike back against the US to stop it from helping. This was never able to be done in conflicts up to and including WWII.

I don't see any situation where a war that is big enough to increase weapons production to the point it "saves the US economy" can happen for the US without putting them in a position where their factories and cities become the target of attacks from one of the belligerents.

South Korea needs to get more SDI tech or sabotage missles. What will probably happen is that U.S. will send a FA package to North Korea. NK will promise to stop hitting SK until they need more money. Then they will do it again. Then the U.S. will send more FA because the appeasement strategy is such a good strategy.

Palin said that North Korea is Yankeeland's ally.

i think we should let them duke it out themselves if thats what i comes to. the US doesnt need to be involved in another war, the one were in costs enough as it is.

Pang i highly doubt NK has the power/tech to get aircraft over mainland USA before we take it out. this isnt CoD:MW2. obviously they also wouldnt be dumb enough to try a land invasion on mainland USA either.

Pain, would you mind addressing what was actually said... instead of expressing disagreement with an individual, then countering a point that they never made.

Pang did not state that North Korea could attack the United States. He certainly did not state that the United States could be invaded by North Korea. His statement revolved entirely around economics.

Essentially, he said that no war will help the US economy. Most wars will be too small to provide a major economic boon. Any war that is large enough will likely involve parties capable of attacking the United States directly (ie. China) if the US intervenes.

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but that was the opinion he expressed. To then go and make a statement that he's wrong because you "doubt NK has the power/tech to get aircraft over mainland USA" is insulting, because it implies a level of ignorance which is unfair based upon the comments made.

***

On another note, "power/tech" are such vague terms that they're virtually meaningless in the real world. They're often used in games to simplify very complicated real world variables... but it's not far off saying "their planes aren't strong enough". In reality, North Korea possesses a large air force with a substantial number of very capable aircraft. "Tech" is hardly a problem, as they import the vast majority of their equipment.

Although there's other obstacles, the primary hindrance to a North Korean attack on the United States is a lack of forward areas to operate aircraft out of. The aircraft most capable of penetrating US airspace simply do not have the range to do so.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

"America was the "arsenal for democracy" during world war II largely because of its isolation from the conflict zones. If there's a new total war, the US won't be able to use the oceans as barriers"

to me that sounds like him saying the US wasnt attacked due to the distance between us and the conflict. not sure what that statement has to do with economics. but thats what i was referring to.

Serious? Did you really go straight to the middle of the post, ignoring the beginning and the end?

Here's the first sentence in the post:

And here's the last:

It's all about economics. The section you quoted is part of the explanation for why we can't expect the same economic results from war today as we could in the past.

Even if I accept your ill-conceived explanation though, it still doesn't explain why you're talking about North Korea attacking the US directly. Pang specifically spoke about "symmetrical war" and "total war". Neither of which are really terms that can be applied to a war with North Korea.

Okay, I get it. You legitimately didn't understand his point, this led you to make an asinine comment which was informed by your ignorance of the situation as a whole. I'm willing to let it rest there.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

we need MacArthur, he'll drive those pesky communists back past the 38 (or he'll get fired.. likely for being a dumb son of a fluff)

foog your right i do tend to pick parts of a post to reply to especially at 5am when im not thinking straight. i see the point of the post now.

incite a civil war in North Korea, hopefully Kim Jong Ill will pass away during this.

tell them their out of control electricity use is damanging the ozone for all of us. it'll rattle them enough to stop using all that power at night!

The ball is in China's court. I don't see them allowing a full scale US military intervention in NK, so I would expect them to rein NK in, or to tell us, if we decide to back our ally, that our intervention will bring about theirs. I do not think they want a US backed South Korea sharing a land border with China, nor do I expect them to allow a war between parties with nuclear weapons right off of their coast, so a continuation of the status quo is the most likely result.

this thread got weird :p

but I don't think China is as concerned about the security issues as much as it is about the humanitarian and economic ones. If NK collapses, who is going to see an influx of refugees? China.

Who is going to need to bail NK out after they get completely obliterated? China.

What if in a last ditch effort to screw the enemy, NK decides to launch a nuke at Seoul, and fire one at Japan? That's going to really mess up China's standing in the world of they continue to back NK.

I think China is very concerned about security issues, and is very wary of foreign powers having a presence in their sphere of influence. IMHO, that has a lot more to do with their backing of North Korea and Myanmar than humanitarianism and economics.

There is also a very strong anti-American sentiment in China's armed forces.

As far as standing in the world, China has been concentrating more on their standing with resource rich developing nations than their standing with the US and Europe. Staring down the US, EU and Japan can only help their standing.

Anyone seen any decent articles explaining why China seems married to supporting North Korea?

The only explanations I've ever heard are the ones in this thread... but they don't make any sense to me. Can anyone explain it for a more historical perspective?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

http://www.cfr.org/...h_korea_relationship.html

apparently north korea is apogolizing their attacks.

Neither China nor South Korea truly wants North Korea to collapse, because neither of them want to pay for the mother of all rebuilding bills. Yet at the same time both of them know the north's day are numbered.

Obviously South Korea doesn't have a 1AB = Kill policy.