No.
Starting a war is astonishing unwise.
Also, what will happen with South Korea's strongest military ally (the US) in less than a month?
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
-22 points (26.1% liked)
No Stupid Questions
37025 readers
1130 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No. NK has a bunch of artillery hidden in the forested mountains just north of the border. And and SK has a lot of population centers within within firing distance. And this includes rockets/missiles with some rather spicy warheads.
And rough terrain ensures that a quick blitz to topple the government and their nuclear arsenal won't work.
Sure, NK will not be able to hold off SK in the long run, especially if SK invites friends. But Seoul will be leveled.
Plus, China really does not want a US ally on its border, and are likely to intervene.
I guess the counter argument would be that the situation will only get worse the longer you wait. That argument has been used many times in history.
Why do you think the situation can only get worse given more time?
I don't think so. Probably not. It's a classical argument when starting a war (Germany/WW1 and Japan/WW2), that's why I brought it up.
I.e. if you believe there is a very high risk for war at SOME point, then you probably want to take control of the situation and start the war at a time and place of your choice. If you can destroy 90% of NKs ICMBs (or other kinds of carriers) today, it's better to start the war now, if the new technology will bring that number down to say 50% by tomorrow.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that it's not impossible that the recent coup attempt in SK was somehow related to this kind of thinking. This is how the military tend to reason after all.
Interesting related video: https://youtu.be/xSnZLWjOkHU
War is very seldom inevitable. We tend not to focus much attention on wars that never started, because that does not make for very engaging history content. It happens far more frequently than a war actually starting though.
True!
It kinda can't, though. 'South Korea will be leveled' is basically the worst imaginable outcome, unless you're saying they'll nuke the friends SK invites. Realistically, 'no nukes/missile strikes at other countries' is probably going to be China's only requirement for assistance. Which would make it a horrible grueling land war. Which is going to suck with or without Russian ICBMs in NK.
that will really bother china; so, no. this would be another step in the direction of ww3
Isn't it possible that China will find this situation intolerable as well? I find it quite likely that North Korea will change its attitude towards China if balls grow too big. Make demands etc.
they havent seemed to want to control the issue yet. lots of words, but no action.
north korea is chinas little bitchy sister.. its heavily reliant on china for resources and such. it doesnt have much of a choice if china decided to actually act.
the only thing that would prompt china to act is if it looked like some nato nations wanted to take out NK, cuz china does not want the west on their border
Korea is the pathway to invade China, like what happened in WW2. China does not want the US in Korea. Right now North Korea acts as a buffer.
They are one and the same country, divided by two governments. You should rather hope that they can reunite, instead of pursuing evil phantasies of war.
I agree. But hopefully I'll learn some educated arguments by asking this.
No. As belligerent as North Korea sounds, it has generally abided by the armistice with South Korea.
Doesn't North Korea likely have nuclear weapons now already? If it does, then you can imagine the result.
One would think that out of all countries, South Korea should be the least worried about North Korean nuclear attack. They're next door neighbors a handful of miles apart from each other geographically, and wind exists to carry fallout right back to Kim Jong Un's house.
Same reasons it always seems so odd whenever Russia threatens to nuke Ukraine.
North Korea nukes Japan. Japan: wtf again? We didn't even do anything.
But in all seriousness, Seoul would be nuked. You nuke the invading country and if the North Korean regime is going down they don't care about winds.
That's an argument I don't agree with. I believe the perceived risks of nuclear fallout is negligible in most cases. Especially when talking tactical nukes. For sure a risk North Korea (or Russia) would be willing to take.
Depends on bomb type, but Ukraines and russias region is gigantic compared to the region affected by bomb fallout.
If it wouldn't be so bad for the wildlife, it would be a decent strategy for Ukraine to dirty bomb along the whole border to russia, so crossing it by land would mean cetain death within a week. It could even be on Ukraines side to demonstrate it's a defensive measure. Dirty bombs are less difficult to make and Ukraine has a lot of experience dealing with radioactive contamination, too.
You would also shit 50 big piles along your own garden fence just to keep the neighbor's cat out?
If the neighbours cat is killing my children every day, I absolutely would.
No.
South could just provide tools to Ukraine...