User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » World War 3 - who will be on which side? Page 1 2 [3], Prev  
tulsigabbard
Suspended
2953 Posts
user info
edit post

They aren't going to all out war with us over Korea. If anything, it would be defensive positions within Korea (similar to syria). You act like if we attack Korea, Russia is suddenly going to roll into eastern europe and subsequently lead to the destruction of their entire country. They don't even care about North Korea, they just want to show strength on their border.

[Edited on September 25, 2017 at 12:29 PM. Reason : even if we fight them there, we aren't going to war in other places]

9/25/2017 12:28:36 PM

UJustWait84
All American
24876 Posts
user info
edit post

So does the fact that NK ***THINKS*** we declared war against them matter, or is already way too late to try and reason with them?

9/25/2017 2:54:32 PM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

Matter? Yes. Change anything? Hard to say but I lean towards no.

9/25/2017 2:58:15 PM

tulsigabbard
Suspended
2953 Posts
user info
edit post

you guys shpuld read more into nk relations with china and russia. they arent allies. its not even close.

9/25/2017 3:38:28 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49281 Posts
user info
edit post

Related but they also don’t want to deal with the flood of refugees if a power vacuum in NK appears. Less allies and more self-interest. I’m sure if it was up to China/Russia they’d rather see the whole peninsula disappear.

[Edited on September 25, 2017 at 4:15 PM. Reason : X]

9/25/2017 4:15:21 PM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

It really has little to do with alliances or non-alliances. Russia and China both do not want us in their neck of the woods and certainly don't want us expanding. They fear we could use a war in NK as a pretext to extend our reach to their borders. Simple as that and why, whether they like NK or not, they will support and ultimately defend them. They did it in the Cold War and they'll do it again.

9/25/2017 4:17:32 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17850 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"You are trying to equate the aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy of the US with "human nature" which is just wrong all around. Other nations have not been in continuous war and only a handful of nations have spread violence across the globe. "


By and large, nations are at war as often as they think they can win.* For some countries, that leads to warfare that is more continuous than it might be for others. The geographical spread of warfare ("violence across the globe") is a function of the same basic limits, though in this case they probably tend to be more narrowly technical restrictions. The USA has fought wars around the world because it has a hegemonically powerful navy that permits it to do so. The UK did the same thing before we did, on much the same basis. Spain did the same thing before that, subject to the limitations of their technology. And so it goes, the spread of each empire's violence narrowing the further we go into the pasts - not because of some fundamental change in culture, but because of the quality of boats.

Any superlatives that the United States might win for duration of geographic extent of warfare are due entirely to its capacity, rather than its intent or ideology. We are uniquely powerful, not uniquely bellicose.

* - This is "win" in a broad sense, not a strict interpretation of military victory. Most of the world could vanquish Togo in head-to-head combat, but they don't bother because best case scenario, you win...Togo.

Quote :
"In general, humans are only violent when their basic needs are in peril."


This is so completely opposed by the body of human history that I hardly know where to begin. Both World Wars were started by people who thought their power was ascendant, and only ended when their basic needs were in real and immediate peril. Working our way down through smaller wars, the trend is overwhelmingly the same: nations start wars when they think they are powerful, not when they are starving or on death's door.

Quote :
"So does the fact that NK ***THINKS*** we declared war against them matter"


No. The situation on the peninsula isn't great but this whole "declared war" thing is a tired old line that DPRK likes to trot out from time to time. It's all the less meaningful since, in the absence of a formal peace treaty, the Korean War never actually ended.

Quote :
"you guys shpuld read more into nk relations with china and russia. they arent allies. its not even close."


I'm confused by the tendency of some in this thread, going back to the OP, to try to paint Russia and North Korea as allies. As far as I know, there really isn't much to that.

As far as China...no, PRC and DPRK aren't what you'd normally call "allies." But that doesn't mean much. PRC doesn't want a unified, pro-US Korea on their border. That means that their interests can align with DPRK's. Do I think that China would throw in military with Pyongyang in the event of Korean War 2? No, not unless they had a set of more serious grievances against us. Honestly I think if it came to an imminent shooting war, China would tap their preferred NK generals for a coup d'etat.

9/26/2017 1:10:10 AM

moron
All American
31915 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Both World Wars were started by people who thought their power was ascendant, and only ended when their basic needs were in real and immediate peril. Working our way down through smaller wars, the trend is overwhelmingly the same: nations start wars when they think they are powerful, not when they are starving or on death's door."


This is a compelling argument.

If NK is having success in creating nukes and missiles, Russia is having success in taking down America— doesn’t this seem like the recipe for war?

Militaristic, authoritarian nations who are feeling a new sense of power?

9/26/2017 1:43:38 AM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

^A key point here is that those people were allowed to execute that power by populations undergoing nationalist fervor. that's a growing, worldwide trend right now. That includes in the United States where you now have a President telling people they should lose their jobs because they're exercising protest rights.

9/26/2017 9:15:55 AM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17850 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"If NK is having success in creating nukes and missiles, Russia is having success in taking down America— doesn’t this seem like the recipe for war?"


Well, it's all relative. North Korea has had some successes, but nothing to convince them that they would win any war that they started. Their technical coups mostly give them greater defensive confidence. The risk there isn't that they'll use that to start something, but that it will allow them to puff out their chests just enough that somebody else starts a preemptive war with them. The "somebody else" would certainly be "the US." Still, I don't see it happening.

Russia is more worrying, and I'd argue that their growing confidence and power already has led to war, in Ukraine and arguably in Syria. For me the more instructive question is why they haven't pressed even harder. Abundance of caution while they test their strength, maybe, or a realization that the engine driving their resurgence (oil) is unreliable and necessarily tied to the very places they'd be most likely to attack.

Quote :
"A key point here is that those people were allowed to execute that power by populations undergoing nationalist fervor."


Eh, I'm not buying this. "Nationalist fervor" isn't a plague that randomly breaks out, with symptoms that include aggressive wars. To the extent that it exists at all, it is a creation (rather than a creator) of the factors that lead countries to war. A rise in national strength buoys national pride. Meanwhile, a country that wants to start a war generally has to drum up some "nationalist fervor" to get people excited about it. Put another way, a country doesn't go to war because its people are jingoists; a country encourages jingoism so that it can go to war.

9/27/2017 12:16:59 AM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

^Doesn't the rising nationalistic emotion lead to the election of extreme candidates who then end up leading the nation into war due to increased conflict with other nations as a result of withdrawing from the world community?

Quote :
"Abundance of caution while they test their strength, maybe, or a realization that the engine driving their resurgence (oil) is unreliable and necessarily tied to the very places they'd be most likely to attack. "


I think part of this too is Russia is being pragmatic and not overextending themselves, particularly with their newly upgraded and as of yet, really untested, military and everything that goes with it. My guess is Putin learned from Russia's previous experience in Afghanistan as well as the US' experience in Afghanistan, particularly as it relates to economics given the fact that Russia is hurting (sanctions/oil/flight of wealth/etc)

[Edited on September 27, 2017 at 2:26 PM. Reason : a]

9/27/2017 2:24:52 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17850 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Doesn't the rising nationalistic emotion lead to the election of extreme candidates who then end up leading the nation into war due to increased conflict with other nations as a result of withdrawing from the world community?"


This reasoning falsely presupposes "elections" and "candidates," neither of which are the historical norm and neither of which really apply to North Korea (or really Russia, for that matter). And in cases where extremists are elected, it's usually not because the population wants a war. Off the top of my head I can't think of a major politician who was elected on a platform of "I will start a war." Voters may like the benefits of war, particularly victorious war - national prestige, gained territory, etc. - but they're not enamored of war itself. Even most Germans in 1939 were not excited about the prospect of another bout.

It also falsely assumes that only "extreme" politicians or governments start wars. I don't think anybody would call James K. Polk a frothing-at-the-mouth radical, but his administration made war with Mexico and took over half the country. The British Empire waged countless small (and a few large) wars, in spite of being politically moderate and deeply concerned with maintaining the status quo. World War I was not started or conducted by political extremists.

9/27/2017 3:15:09 PM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"This reasoning falsely presupposes "elections" and "candidates," neither of which are the historical norm and neither of which really apply to North Korea (or really Russia, for that matter)."


Absolutely valid. I was more referring to the United States and Europe in this respect. Growing nationalist tendencies in both drives a wedge between European nations and ourselves and by doing that, we end up 1) competing more with each other and 2) ceding unity that allows nations like Russia and China to make things worse.

And subsequently, as a result of that division and deterioration, conflict arises.

9/28/2017 1:08:01 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17850 Posts
user info
edit post

I agree that the waning unity of the West is detrimental to the global order in general, and in particular with regards to Russian ambitions.

However, I'm still not sold on nationalism on either side as a cause of that unity, and still less on radical politics. To the extent that either has cropped up recently, I maintain that they are comorbid with declining Western unity rather than a cause of it. I'd go further and say that they all have the same underlying causes, which boil down to a profound angst and distrust brought about by 15 years of war without victory, economic meltdown, and the perception that both of these were brought about by Western institutions lying to their people.

Take NATO. NATO was fraying before Donald Trump came along and started playing that up. It has always had issues, and the strain has been increasing since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact seemed to remove its raison d'etre. Then the alliance finally gets activated after 9/11, and everyone comes to our aid - only to be rewarded by a decade and a half of aimless occupation in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq that most of them opposed, and terrorism in their home countries. So some Europeans might, understandably, have doubts about their relationship with the United States. But on the flip side, it pains me to say that Donald Trump has a point - we foot more than our share of the bill for NATO and aren't exactly met with gratitude for it. So some Americans have their doubts about Europe. And for years there, nobody except its immediate neighbors felt particularly threatened by Russia. Put it all together and you've got an alliance which, while still extant, is not to be relied upon as the same bulwark it might once have been.

All of those things were true before Donald Trump got elected and pointed some of them out.

---

As a stray observation, I don't really feel as though America is currently undergoing a resurgence of nationalism. Mistrust, anxiety, and insularity, maybe, but not nationalism as I have always understood it. The election of Donald Trump was a repudiation of American greatness - the man's slogan baldly states that America is not great.

9/28/2017 2:28:32 PM

bdmazur
hOmaha
14722 Posts
user info
edit post

bump

4/10/2018 1:00:09 AM

tulsigabbard
Suspended
2953 Posts
user info
edit post

do you still think china is going to fight north korea and that russia is going to ally with north korea?

[Edited on April 10, 2018 at 4:29 AM. Reason : like you said in op]

4/10/2018 4:29:01 AM

bdmazur
hOmaha
14722 Posts
user info
edit post

Depends on how each of them are feeling about us when it happens.

4/10/2018 1:03:17 PM

0EPII1
All American
41326 Posts
user info
edit post

Starting today?

Major airlines have been warned (or have warned themselves) of possible strikes.

4/11/2018 8:43:02 AM

rjrumfel
All American
21503 Posts
user info
edit post

Kennedy on the verge of nuclear war: "Do we have any back-channels that we can contact to help settle this thing? We need to get them on the phone"

Trump on the verge of nuclear war: "Hmmm, let's see here, what can I say in 120 characters or less that sounds cool about missiles?"

4/11/2018 9:40:58 AM

dtownral
All American
25622 Posts
user info
edit post

member when trump said that it's bad to telegraph your war plans

4/11/2018 9:46:06 AM

tulsigabbard
Suspended
2953 Posts
user info
edit post

a war in syria is not a world war just because 2 powers are involved

4/11/2018 11:29:07 AM

moron
All American
31915 Posts
user info
edit post

Pakistan nukes India in response to Kashmir. Iran backs Pakistan, Russia and China back Iran, US backs India, NATO fractures?

8/31/2019 10:09:08 AM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
17850 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't see Pakistan starting a nuclear war with a country that has considerably more manpower, strategic depth, and nuclear weapons.

If they did, I don't know why Iran would feel compelled to get involved. They don't have a deep-seated historical enmity with India, nor all that close a friendship with Pakistan.

If China decided to get involved, it would be more because of its historically close ties with Pakistan (as well as its strategic competition with India) than because of any particular fondness for Iran.

The United States and India aren't very friendly, going back to the Cold War, when it was loosely affiliated with the USSR (sort of an informal Moscow-Delhi counter to the Beijing-Islamabad friendship). We wouldn't leap to India's defense. Even if China did get involved, which I doubt, it's not like there would be an existential threat to India. They'd lose Kashmir and some Chinese border territories and the world would keep turning.

So basically none of your scenario really works for me. Except maybe NATO fracturing, but that could happen for, like, no reason at this point.

8/31/2019 5:08:20 PM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

^I didn't know that about USSR/India. I'll have to find some shit to read on that.

8/31/2019 9:02:08 PM

moron
All American
31915 Posts
user info
edit post

China and SK sign defense agreement:

https://news.yahoo.com/china-signs-defense-agreement-south-005403276.html?format=embed®ion=us&lang=en-US&site=news&player_autoplay=1

11/19/2019 3:45:09 PM

horosho
Veteran
344 Posts
user info
edit post

Sounds peaceful to me. Not sure why you put it in a WW3 thread. China can sort out any differences between north and south korea and maybe even help unite the two. Probably just open up NK to the world economy without regime change while guaranteeing the security of the South. Problem solved.

11/19/2019 4:03:39 PM

NyM410
J-E-T-S
49281 Posts
user info
edit post

I’m genuinely curious as to what you think reunification would look like. Do you really think that the guy who used AA to kill his uncle and poisoned his half-brother would be like “yep, I’m consenting to putting myself up to a popular election and will totally accept the results?”

(I’m immediately regretting asking this as I’m sure you don’t believe any of the bad stuff about KJU)

11/19/2019 4:06:46 PM

Cherokee
All American
8029 Posts
user info
edit post

Reunification only happens on China's terms, which means the governing style of NK wins, which means at least half the population either engage in civil war of flee the country as refugees.

Who knows what earl's take on this is...

11/19/2019 6:03:02 PM

horosho
Veteran
344 Posts
user info
edit post

What? Who said anything about popular elections? China doesn't even have popular elections. Basically start off with a friendly border with normalized trade and interaction between all of the countries. No more war. NK isn't the only country with the death penalty. NK could be like a mini China.

11/19/2019 6:07:17 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » World War 3 - who will be on which side? Page 1 2 [3], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2019 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.