Korea Thread: Liberal Moon Jae In Elected

[Admiral Yi]

I'd up that a little. Four were killed in the 2010 shelling and I could easily see that much happening.

Is cash located in same position as mouth?

[derspiess]

I don't think it's about squeezing an extra shipment of rice out of SK. It's probably more about Fat Kim establishing himself as a tough cookie to the NK elite. Also, to signal to the Chinese not to enforce the new sanctions on NK.

I kinda thought he had already done that.  And he had purged several generals that seemed opposed to him (execution by mortar round was a nice touch).  But who knows. 

[Sheilbh]

Is cash located in same position as mouth?

Never.

[DGuller]

What are the condition by which to evaluate the bet?

At least one person killed or wounded due to enemy action.

Would the shelling of islands, or sinking of warships, have qualified as enemy action?  Also, what's the timeframe?  Obviously sooner or later one of the Koreans would be killed due to enemy action.

[Admiral Yi]

Would the shelling of islands, or sinking of warships, have qualified as enemy action?

Also, what's the timeframe?  Obviously sooner or later one of the Koreans would be killed due to enemy action.

Two weeks sounds fair to me.  Anything after that and it's no longer this particular incident.

[DGuller]

Would the shelling of islands, or sinking of warships, have qualified as enemy action?

Is that a yes or a no?  "Enemy action" is tricky to define when you have an undeclared war.

[Admiral Yi]

How in the world is shelling an island or sinking a warship ambiguous in terms of enemy action?

[derspiess]

How in the world is shelling an island or sinking a warship ambiguous in terms of enemy action?

He's probably using some obscure accounting measure

[PDH]

Doesn't count if blueberries are harmed in the assault.

[DGuller]

How in the world is shelling an island or sinking a warship ambiguous in terms of enemy action?

I guess that's a yes then.

I would put the odds of someone dying due to enemy action in the next to weeks at 6:1.  My $1x to your $6x, in other words.

[Admiral Yi]

I guess that's a yes then.

I would put the odds of someone dying due to enemy action in the next to weeks at 6:1.  My $1x to your $6x, in other words.

No good.

[DGuller]

I guess that's a yes then.

I would put the odds of someone dying due to enemy action in the next to weeks at 6:1.  My $1x to your $6x, in other words.

No good.

What do you think the odds are?

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think the odds are?

There are participants in this thread who are talking as if war is the odds-on probability.  I personally would be OK with even odds.

[Admiral Yi]

And conceptually you had it backwards with your ambiguity question.  Yes, there is ambiguity whether the discharge of a weapon is a hostile act or not (i.e. missile test flight), but no ambiguity whether a casualty was caused by enemy action or not.

[DGuller]

What do you think the odds are?

There are participants in this thread who are talking as if war is the odds-on probability.  I personally would be OK with even odds.

We are too far apart on price.

The odds are significant, especially for the stakes involved, but they're not close to even, IMO.