Not to mention that the current Kim may be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on his own people to ensure a lose-lose situation of fighting him or not.
That reminds me of a strategy employed by a friend of mine in the Rise of Nations RTS game. He would let his opponent swarm in with their army and then drop a nuke on his own territory. Nukes in RoN kill all units in the radius but only heavily damage buildings, and one of the late-game technologies prevents enemy nukes from being dropped your territory at all. But having a missile shield doesn't stop your opponent from dropping a nuke on themselves while your army is invading. He would garrison units in his buildings or withdraw from the area to protect them, and then release his workers to start rebuilding after the invading army was dead.
Of course, each nuke that's launched in RoN ticks down the Armageddon counter, and if it hits zero everybody loses.
Uh. I said remove it. Then YOU said no. Then I said add a corridor for now then clear up the rest later. And now you want to remove it? You're doing some weird gymnastics here, which was exactly the reason I bowed out the last time when you were debating.
You suggested that after a hypothetical fall of the North Korean regime, most people leaving the country would go to South Korea, rather than China; your statement suggests this would occur shortly after the hypothetical fall, rather than many years after the fact. When Kahedron pointed out the mine-infested DMZ, you claimed that the DMZ would be removed, implying that it would be an easy and quick thing to do.
While removing the label and permitting entry could certainly be quick and easy, removing the dangers of the area would not be quick nor easy in any sense. Even with concentrated demining efforts, the ex-DMZ would remain a dangerous place to travel for decades, at the very least.
Urgh. Obviously it's not an easy thing to do. But it would need to be done at some point now wouldn't it?
Obviously, the DMZ would need to be demined. But your earlier post suggested that North Koreans would flee to South Korea immediately following the fall of the North Korean regime. That would be an extremely dangerous course of action for anyone who tried for many years following the fall, so anyone fleeing the country during that time period would be more likely to consider China as a safer alternative.
Uh. I said remove it. Then YOU said no. Then I said add a corridor for now then clear up the rest later. And now you want to remove it? You're doing some weird gymnastics here, which was exactly the reason I bowed out the last time when you were debating.
You suggested that after a hypothetical fall of the North Korean regime, most people leaving the country would go to South Korea, rather than China; your statement suggests this would occur shortly after the hypothetical fall, rather than many years after the fact. When Kahedron pointed out the mine-infested DMZ, you claimed that the DMZ would be removed, implying that it would be an easy and quick thing to do.
While removing the label and permitting entry could certainly be quick and easy, removing the dangers of the area would not be quick nor easy in any sense. Even with concentrated demining efforts, the ex-DMZ would remain a dangerous place to travel for decades, at the very least.
Come on. I've seen you post, certainly you don't think that I think getting rid of the DMZ does not include the clear of mines and sundry ordnance? Come on...
You don't seem to understand how difficult demining is. Egypt has successfully removed 10 million mines... but they still have more than 20 million more, some dating back to WW2. At the current demining rate of Combodia, experts estimate it'll take them 100 years to be mine-free.
I feel that it's not China who needs to worry about refugees. If the rich South is calling, do you think they will go to yet another communist state?
Well your 'feelings' are going against the historical record. Which is kinda logical as the Northern border isn't a 4KM wide Demilitarized Zone. Which is reputed to be lousey with landmines and other such nasties designed to keep the Americans and South Koreans out the North and the people from the North in.
The DMZ would be removed once North Korea falls. If there is no North Korea, there is no need for the DMZ.
Declaring the DMZ gone doesn't get rid of anything that's actually there. Like landmines, which Kahedron mentioned.
That reminds me of a strategy employed by a friend of mine in the Rise of Nations RTS game. He would let his opponent swarm in with their army and then drop a nuke on his own territory. Nukes in RoN kill all units in the radius but only heavily damage buildings, and one of the late-game technologies prevents enemy nukes from being dropped your territory at all. But having a missile shield doesn't stop your opponent from dropping a nuke on themselves while your army is invading. He would garrison units in his buildings or withdraw from the area to protect them, and then release his workers to start rebuilding after the invading army was dead.
Of course, each nuke that's launched in RoN ticks down the Armageddon counter, and if it hits zero everybody loses.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
While removing the label and permitting entry could certainly be quick and easy, removing the dangers of the area would not be quick nor easy in any sense. Even with concentrated demining efforts, the ex-DMZ would remain a dangerous place to travel for decades, at the very least.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)