SEOUL, March 30 (Reuters) - North Korea said on Saturday it was entering a "state of war" with South Korea in a continuing escalation of tough rhetoric against Seoul and Washington after coming under international sanctions for its nuclear test.
"From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly," a statement carried by the North's official KCNA news agency said. (source)
Experts on CNN were saying that what's happening is really spurred by the North Korean military not the young Kim Jong Un. They also say it's mostly for internal consumption, trying to make the new leader look strong and forceful to a society that still reveres age. Internally, he has been demoting and firing top military officers. It may be that, through him, the most hard of the hard liners in the military are consolidating their power.
The military experts on CNN said that they doubted North Korea would follow up on any of its threats against the U.S. or South Korea. In fact, they'd be crazy. Why? Because they'd lose, despite having the fourth largest army in the world. And they could hardly expect much help from China. North Korea is pretty much a drag on the Chinese economy, with North Korea needing to suck at their teat due to the fact that its economy is a total shambles.
And why would China want to see the U.S. defeated, what with the steady flow of cash from here to there due to all the American debt China owns. The U.S. is their golden goose right now.
China is so pissed off and North Korea that for the first time ever they have joined in with international sanctions against North Korea.
All that said, North Korea is making strides in terms of ballistic missile development, so they will be more of a worry in the future.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Try as you may, you will never drive me to that --
Nate, I'm not saying anything about a wimpy SK. I don't think that who can "win" a war is an issue as much as its potential (or probable, in my opinion) level of destruction... on both sides. Millions of quick casualties, no?
(Another point, btw... if we can consider NK a cult, they, too will also be innocent victims of their bully-leader.)
No war has winners, only survivors.
A war with North Korea would make Afghanistan look like a water fight. NK has a huge professional army of soldiers who believe their leader is a god.
On the other hand, Pyongyang could be eliminated as a factor in a few hours of stealth bomber attacks. NK's fabled army might find it has no government to go back to.
I also wonder what the reaction would be of the NK's troops seeing how much more prosperous SK is. I think that idea must scare the shyte out of Kim Jong Un and his generals.
And once again, the fabled 'hours' long war is tossed into the mix. Un would continue his inspirational broadcasts for years - even if he was killed on the first day. Propaganda is their business and they plan long term. Hell, the cult of Jesus didn't even start picking up momentum until after he was dead -> I'm getting paid extra today in celebration!
As for as SK affluence, it would likely be seen as the fruits of treason and all that much more reason to press forth killing the scoundrels.
RE: "Pyongyang could be eliminated as a factor in a few hours of stealth bomber attacks." - yeah, Nixon did such a bang-up job on Hanoi, that should certainly set a precedent, and our "smart bombs" dropped on Baghdad really brought the Iraqis to their knees, for a minute or two --
Living in a country and developing a romantic view of it doesn't give you much of an insight - let alone any ground for claiming that someone else knows 'nothing' about it.
The wiki pages on the North and South forces do suggest that the South has twice as many people 'available' for service, but only 57% as many active soldiers. So which one of us is right? The north has twice the army in boots right now, claiming it could increase that by 600%. The South has half the army in boots right now, claiming it could increase that by 1900%.
Next time you should try citing some sources rather than just playing the 'my dad is bigger than your dad' game. It would save us all a lot of time.
So you have no sources to back up your claim? Typical.
A asked you for some sources - that is not a personal attack.
We never had any 'relationship' for you to end. Do you have me confused with someone else?
Let's just keep it clear, for the public record, that we never had a relationship.
Just ran out of popcorn. Be right back.