I am confused.....

I was to understand that the war with North Korea has NEVER been finalised and is still going...what we have experienced is 50+ years of "cease fire"

So what is the problem??

Bit like calling "...the end of play with the Ashes series due to bad light"

(January 3, 2011 at 5:23 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I am confused.....

I was to understand that the war with North Korea has NEVER been finalised and is still going...what we have experienced is 50+ years of "cease fire"

So what is the problem??

Bit like calling "...the end of play with the Ashes series due to bad light"

True, however if you stop fighting for an entire generation then I think you can say that that particular war 'finished'.

(January 3, 2011 at 5:46 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 5:23 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I am confused.....

I was to understand that the war with North Korea has NEVER been finalised and is still going...what we have experienced is 50+ years of "cease fire"

So what is the problem??

Bit like calling "...the end of play with the Ashes series due to bad light"

True, however if you stop fighting for an entire generation then I think you can say that that particular war 'finished'.

It would appear that the North Koreans don't think so...

They were just saving their pennies so they could afford more bullets eh.

(January 3, 2011 at 5:58 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: They were just saving their pennies so they could afford more bullets eh.

Perhaps...or as has been stated ...China has gotten bored with them

(January 3, 2011 at 5:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 5:58 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: They were just saving their pennies so they could afford more bullets eh.

Perhaps...or as has been stated ...China has gotten bored with them

So when your biggest ally abandons you is the ideal time to get aggressive?

(January 3, 2011 at 6:02 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 5:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(January 3, 2011 at 5:58 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: They were just saving their pennies so they could afford more bullets eh.

Perhaps...or as has been stated ...China has gotten bored with them

So when your biggest ally abandons you is the ideal time to get aggressive?

This could be so...but then??? We ARE dealing with one elitist group of humans here. Along with the many others (Taliban, Religious extremeists, Tribal Africans)

One can only step back and wonder at humanity's mind set.

Quite frankly ...I feel very sorry for them...A woman here in Sydney Oz...was stabbed (critically) and her two year old child stabbed to death by an afgani refugee (the husband) because they wanted to go to the beach (a well known and practiced pastime here in Oz)

So yes ..perhaps when one is 'all alone' one lashes out...to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

Ubermesh Wrote:On the contrary, as far as I'm concerned honour and warfare do not go together at all. I'm merely stating certain problems that are inherent in properly removing the threat North Korea poses. If the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants is necessary for ultimate victory, then of course it should be pursued ruthlessly. It just doesn't seem like that's the kind of thing that would quickly be forgotten by either the Koreans, or the international community at large. One would hope however that there is an easier way to ensure victory.

One should greatly hope for that... but there should only be absolute certainty in death. If one leaves their enemy alive, they are taking a risk.

Ahendant Wrote:You're right, mass murder in the information age is not possible to not get more enemies and human right court would force anyone that gave that order to be imprisioned

Other nations are not interested in war with you simply because you go to war. It might frighten/worry people... but turn them into warring enemies? Hardly, at the least not if they are intelligent. It would, however, redefine your relationship with them. They know you are capable of slaughtering support/reserve/untrained troops (aka, civilians). Depending on how well your nation performed in the war, they may see you as a power to keep their eyes on... or they may decide you ripe for the plucking.

A likely event to occur should actual wars for territory start again, is that the major players will all attempt to keep ahead of the other major players. Many smaller nations would be annexed or otherwise assimilated. In the longterm, big nations might war between each other... but it is mutually assured destruction, and there are many powers in this world.... the aggressor become the kingmaker: ensuring that the nation they attack fails.

Ashendant Wrote:Your argument was that we should kill everyone in the country because of the possibility they might join a terrorist organization

Target unassociated people is despicable and one thing but targeting all unassociated people in a country just so you won't take any risks is another

Besides the EU already punishes other countries for shit like this, they just don't punish China and the US because they don't want long drawn out wars with very selfish people

Absolute certainty that the people of that country will not attack your new acquisition from within? Kill them all.

Very simple argument, entirely sound. There are alternatives to neutralize them without killing them, in example slavery. One can even use a feudal system like the mongols, forcing the nation to pay great tributes to you, in exchange for staying somewhat free, and not being crushed utterly.

War is despicable, and all fighting hurts. I think the (real) reason that the EU hasn't attacked china or the US yet is simply: they couldn't pull it off, even if they all miraculously did come to a decision on that. Not to mention that neither the china or the US have done enough to make such an alliance against them even considered in the vein of justice.

Minimalist Wrote:Somehow we managed to defeat Germany and Japan without exterminating the civilian populations of both countries.

We broke japan's civilians by nuking them... and defeated Germany's spirit by overrunning them with sheer numbers.... like this:



Japan surrendered, and its government remained intact. Germany's government (responsible for the warring) was defeated.

In the middle east, however... there is an interpretation of religion that declares for Jihad. And any civilian can blow themselves up. They don't even have to learn to hold a gun... just how to walk. There is still a war being fought there, and like it or not, this problem won't be fully solved until every jihadist is dead... wether by their own explosive suicide, or by bullet to the heart (or by becoming a non-jihadist again). They certainly don't seem to care that the 'civilians' they are killing weren't shooting at them (though they were supporting the economy of the ones that were shooting at them). Alternately, we could stop fighting for the whole country, and just hold the likes of the oil fields (leaving the rest to whatever comes to power next). Infact, since we don't seem to be assimilating the place, that seems to be precisely what we should do.

Syna Wrote:I miss Pippy...

Me too 0.o

Japan's civilians were irrelevant to the equation, Sae. On Saipan and Okinawa many killed themselves rather than surrender. They were just as nuts as the soldiers. What had to be broken was the will of the military leadership ( there was no civilian government) to resist and that was easier said than done. Do you know that after the atomic bombings and after the Emperor had decided to surrender there was an attempted military coup on the palace grounds by the Imperial Guards led by a few fanatical officers? They wanted to rescue the emperor from the "evil men" who advised him to surrender. The coup failed and the leaders killed themselves but the fact that it happened at all tells you all you need to know about the Japanese mind-set in 1945. The populace was already blasted by incendiary bombings and a submarine blockade. In July, 1945 American carrier groups danced around the home islands with impunity. The war was lost....but it was not over.

The Germans, in contrast, were far more pragmatic than the Japanese. But surrender in European warfare was accepted.

Germans Wrote:Japan's civilians were irrelevant to the equation, Sae. On Saipan and Okinawa many killed themselves rather than surrender. They were just as nuts as the soldiers. What had to be broken was the will of the military leadership ( there was no civilian government) to resist and that was easier said than done. Do you know that after the atomic bombings and after the Emperor had decided to surrender there was an attempted military coup on the palace grounds by the Imperial Guards led by a few fanatical officers? They wanted to rescue the emperor from the "evil men" who advised him to surrender. The coup failed and the leaders killed themselves but the fact that it happened at all tells you all you need to know about the Japanese mind-set in 1945. The populace was already blasted by incendiary bombings and a submarine blockade. In July, 1945 American carrier groups danced around the home islands with impunity. The war was lost....but it was not over.

I knew about the suicides, but not about the military coup :S Than you for setting me straight on this matter