Jump to content

Meanwhile In Afghanistan


Panzermann

Recommended Posts

You mean a reckoning between Korea and Japan?  Nobu, you are adorable.  Your enthusiasm for any feasible (or completely infeasible) collision is admirable and should be nominated for inclusion in the Hall of Jingoism. :^)

My take is that the Japanese have not forgotten the  bitter lessons of 1945 and will never, ever place themselves in a situation of starvation blockade ever again.  The Japanese will stand up for themselves, will not be pushed around.  But they will never, ever risk another 1945.   Shipping is so bad these days that this is happening,

Record backlog of cargo ships at California ports - BBC News

Picture what happens if the port in that picture was no longer capable of unloading ships!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 hours ago, JasonJ said:

Shameless Americans need a Euro poster to keep jumping to take bullets about US's hasty decision to divide Korea and give the north half to the Soviets, and other geopolitical aspects about the consequneces and fake justice of US pursuit of unconditional surrender.

1980s Japan wouldn't keep commies out of Taiwan even if still part of Japan? What a troll comment. It is what it is. A troll comment, just calling it out as it is.

Stream Pálido by Banzai! | Listen online for free on SoundCloud

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Angrybk said:

But the problem with US-style COIN is that there just aren't many cases in which the local government is incompetent/unpopular enough for an insurgency to develop (at least an insurgency that's big enough to require help from other countries), but competent/popular enough to effectively make use of that help. Usually the fact that a sizable insurgency has developed means that the government is useless.

Up to a point, but things can change:

Greece 1946-1948: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

Philippines 1942-1954: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukbalahap_Rebellion

El Sal: 1979-1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War

South Korea 1966-1969: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Scenes-Froman-Unfinished-War.pdf

South Vietnam had a piss poor government that only got worse, until Tet, when the South Vietnamese got a taste of North Vietnamese government and in 1972 held their own, to the point that the 1975 fall o South Vietnam was caused by a conventional invasion, not an insurgency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Stream Pálido by Banzai! | Listen online for free on SoundCloud

I stand by everything I said although sometimes I don't like saying some of the things the way I said them. The Americans are not as bad as what they may seem to be made out to be by my posts. Well for the other readers since I'm just assuming you're out to pull my leg for whatever reason. But it is you making everything for the division of Korea and nothing for the 2 to 3 million dead Koreans that came from that result. I got other things to do besides producing lots of text on a forums board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Your enthusiasm for any feasible (or completely infeasible) collision is admirable and should be nominated for inclusion in the Hall of Jingoism. :^)

Of all the possible names, the Koreans christened the heaviest, most powerful ship in their navy the Dokdo, and named the entire damn class of amphibious assault ships after it.

If that isn't a signpost pointing to a reckoning, consider Seoul's obsession with building a navy, despite the entire North Korean army sitting on its border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JasonJ said:

I stand by everything I said although sometimes I don't like saying some of the things the way I said them. The Americans are not as bad as what they may seem to be made out to be by my posts. Well for the other readers since I'm just assuming you're out to pull my leg for whatever reason. But it is you making everything for the division of Korea and nothing for the 2 to 3 million dead Koreans that came from that result. I got other things to do besides producing lots of text on a forums board. 

I like that. I think I might have that put on my tombstone. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nobu said:

Of all the possible names, the Koreans christened the heaviest, most powerful ship in their navy the Dokdo, and named the entire damn class of amphibious assault ships after it.

If that isn't a signpost pointing to a reckoning, consider Seoul's obsession with building a navy, despite the entire North Korean army sitting on its border.

South Korea and Japan are not having a war Nobu.  Not for the Sea of Japan, not for anything.  You have to appreciate just how delicate the security dilemma is going forward for a country like Japan.  They are a maritime nation with a long memory of the horrific events of 1945 living in a world where navies are near to completely useless at sea control and an enemy power could make a country that relies on food imports starve quite quickly.  Their economy is far more delicate now than it was when it was obliterated in 1945.   There is nothing to gain for Japan in a war with anybody, and everything to lose.  It's not a football game.  

On the flip side, South Korea can name its amphibious assault ships after Greek Gods or Superheroes if it wants.  They're still dead meat against any pier rival's missile and submarine forces.  It's the same problem as China has with Taiwan; amphibious warfare was already getting questionable at Okinawa in 1945, and things have gotten much worse for the invasion forces ever since.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is of course this. If one accepts surface ship and carriers are dead meat against hypersonic missiles, then why are people getting so worked up against the Chinese surface fleet, as the Americans have precisely the same thing? Indeed, if hypersonic weapons are such a threat, why are the Chinese building warships at all and not just building concrete bunkers?

https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/us-navys-zumwalt-destroyers-to-carry-12-hypersonic-weapons-in-2025/#!#:~:text=The U.S. Navy’s hypersonic weapon, called the Conventional,speeds exceeding five times the speed of sound.

These are exactly the same arguments people were using in 1973 based on the first tentative use of ATGM's in combat. The difference of course being nobody has yet demonstrated hypersonic weapons have the sensor capability or manoeuvrablity to be exceptionally useful as an antiship weapon at all. Yet people still keep sucking up the hype.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navies - and militaries in general - these days are just some of the pieces on the chess board, not the whole game.  It's about achieving coercion short of total war.   Leverage here, jostling there.  Posture, negotiate, resolve.   WW2 was the exception, not the rule.  Wars in the future might look more like Falkland Islands - short, quick, limited, handshake, move on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

South Korea and Japan are not having a war Nobu.  Not for the Sea of Japan, not for anything.  You have to appreciate just how delicate the security dilemma is going forward for a country like Japan.  They are a maritime nation with a long memory of the horrific events of 1945 living in a world where navies are near to completely useless at sea control and an enemy power could make a country that relies on food imports starve quite quickly.  Their economy is far more delicate now than it was when it was obliterated in 1945.   There is nothing to gain for Japan in a war with anybody, and everything to lose.  It's not a football game.  

On the flip side, South Korea can name its amphibious assault ships after Greek Gods or Superheroes if it wants.  They're still dead meat against any pier rival's missile and submarine forces.  It's the same problem as China has with Taiwan; amphibious warfare was already getting questionable at Okinawa in 1945, and things have gotten much worse for the invasion forces ever since.

 

Sometimes the war you get is not the war you want. Korea's historical and cultural axe to grind against Japan and Japanese predates 1945 by centuries, and the Koreans who will be swinging it at some point are unlikely to care about how delicate Japanese security dilemmas are when they do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nobu said:

Sometimes the war you get is not the war you want. Korea's historical and cultural axe to grind against Japan and Japanese predates 1945 by centuries, and the Koreans who will be swinging it at some point are unlikely to care about how delicate Japanese security dilemmas are when they do.

 

Yes, but fight over what? an islet? it's not even the Falklands

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redress of historical wrongs and longstanding cultural antipathy exacerbated by the history of Korea-Japan relations in the 20th Century, but clearly not confined to the 20th Century. It takes two parties to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

I am not going to put all of the blame on Korea and Koreans here. Japan's handling of the comfort women issue has been a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comfort women issue morphed into a purely politicized tool issue by the early 2000s. There's a big and long history down to the present day with international prostitution in South Korea. But the evul Jap narrative made prostitution in those years a lucrative tool for politics and MSM. The large scale sex appeal on the face of popular Kpop, etc., is quite the contradiction to activists for comfort women issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/afghanistan/2021-09-23/newly-published-documents-cast-doubt-claims-taliban-will-give

Washington, D.C., September 23, 2021 - The Taliban will not – and perhaps cannot – contain al Qaeda, despite hopeful United States government assurances that the Taliban will be an effective counterterrorism partner. This sobering analysis is made by National Security Archive fellow and Bowdoin professor Barbara Elias in a recent Foreign Policy article, and is backed up by two-never-before-seen documents obtained by the Archive through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The documents, which underscore the critical bureaucratic, military, and financial support al Qaeda offers the Taliban, will be included in the upcoming Digital National Security Archive set, The Afghanistan War and the United States, 1998-2018, which will be published next year.

A previously classified December 18, 2008, RC East OSINT summary intelligence analysis, which is featured in Foreign Policy and was initially published in the Archive’s “Haqqani History” posting, succinctly addresses the heart of the ongoing issue. It states, "The strategy of separating the Taliban from Al Qaeda is a pretty farfetched concept since the majority of low-level fighters for these organizations are known to be used by both … Al Qaida plays a coordinating and strategic role between several syndicate organizations, enabling global support while simultaneously ensuring the harmonization of these groups. These actions assist with … the Taliban's main objective of forcing western forces out of Afghanistan and regaining control of the national government."

This assessment is bolstered by the newly-published documents. In a Secret May 29, 1999, cable, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright directs the ambassadors in Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, and Islamabad to meet with host government officials to argue that there is “clear and compelling information that Usama bin Laden is currently planning a terrorist attack against US targets or interests in the Arabian peninsula, Africa, South Asia, and/or Southeast Asia.” The ambassadors are directed to reiterate that despite assurances to the contrary from the Taliban, al Qaeda operates with impunity in Afghanistan, and that if the US is attacked, the Taliban will be held directly responsible. The ambassadors are further directed to request that the host governments urge the Taliban to extradite UBL to a third country for extradition to the United States.

 

Thats right, we were asking the Taliban both before and after 911 to extradite Bin Laden, and they wouldnt. Because they are probably aware there would have been a civil war at the grass roots if they tried. Kept that quiet didnt they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nobu said:

Redress of historical wrongs and longstanding cultural antipathy exacerbated by the history of Korea-Japan relations in the 20th Century, but clearly not confined to the 20th Century. It takes two parties to make peace. It only takes one to make war.

I am not going to put all of the blame on Korea and Koreans here. Japan's handling of the comfort women issue has been a mess.

Let's have a separate thread on a potential conflict between Japan and South Korea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

If such a thread is created we may have hundreds of new members soon. PakIndian internet shitstorms are legendary.

Such a forums alreay exists. Lots of Pro-CCP posters there too. No need for a dry version of it here. Not even one Pro-CCP poster here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...