Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Pictures Of The Day

North Korea launched four ballistic missile during exercises on Mar. 6. This photo was released by KCNA the following day. © Kyodo

A Japanese soldier with an antimissile battery in Tokyo on Monday. Missile launches by North Korea on Monday “clearly represent a new threat,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said. Credit Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters


Anonymous said...

Can we analyse who benefits from a war between North Korea and South Korea, please?

For fun: Lets assume this war will take place in about 5 years and lets further assume North Korea can acquire sufficient nuclear capabilities until then.


1. Is it fair to assume that if North Korea makes further strides to serious nuclear capabilities that the US will not substantially get involved in defending South Korea, IF this war will go over quickly? (< 1 month)

2. Who are the biggest winners of such a scenario? Is it fair to say North Korea and China?

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify: I am not saying North Korea would use nuclear weapons in such a scenario, but just have them as a means to keep the US from defending its ally in a credible manner

Jay Farquharson said...

Short of an attack on the NORK's, there won't be a war.

The NORK's started pursuing a "nuclear option" when the Soviet's collapsed, they lost their subsidies and their Conventional Forces started to lag far behind Western "smart weapons".

There was a "pause" under the Agreed Framework", when Clinton got the NORKs to agree to mothball nukes, in exchane for oil subsidies, food subsidies and a US funded "non-proliferation" Nuclear Power Plant.

The deal never passed Congressand the US bailed on the Agreement.

So the NORK's restarted their Nuclear Program.

For the NORK's, having a credible nuclear deterrent means they can slash their Army, their Military budget, and spend the money of stuff like food.

Anonymous said...

Wait.. why would expenditure for their army be so great? The salaries they get are extremely low.. think like US$100/year pP (if you are lucky as a soldier).. take that times 4 million (or half, if you say they would reduce their army by 50% which they won't), that's like 200mn US$... surely their nukes will be more expensive from a) development, b) loss through sanctions, c) loss of reinvestment due to sanction losses over the years (accrued), and then d) maintenance and further sanctions (incl. from China - 50% of their GDP gone because of coal sanction)... economically I smell a big pile of cute BS regarding your argument.. but then again.. it's you, Jay :)

Anonymous said...

And then, not to belittle you, really just your argument of reducing the army.. this is NOT what a totalitarian state does.. you don't retire large amounts of your army.. that's just asking for trouble.. something similar happened where? that's right.. Iraq.. think of what would happen if all those soldiers were unemployed suddenly.. to save money... not gonna happen.. you keep them in the army for having control over them. Unless you say you mean they would be re-purposed in some other job, like food production.. sure.. that would make sense (and actually I would be all for that).. but do you really believe that this guy, who kills people with anti-aircraft guns, is concerned about the well-being of his people? No.. that's not the plan... just think of how stupid that is.. he risks armed conflict with Japan, US and even China for the sake of having more money for food for his dear people? Man.. you must be brainwashed :) But then again.. only your comment.. not you, the person, Jay.. you are fine