|
On November 29 2010 00:32 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. The number of soldiers never meant everything in warfare, especially in today's. Most of North Korean soldiers probably don't even have more than 3 magazines of their own AK-47 though that's just my guess. Regardless, SK and USA would much rather have a million men charge towards Seoul than a ten thousand missiles and artillery shells.
I agree. I even think they don't have even 3 magazines. Somehow i have a feeling they would be using the same technique as soviet union did in ww2. (magazine+gun, one guy behind with extra magazine and you know the rest)
|
On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK.
I do not remember the percentage of soldiers actually fireing to kill, but it is very few. A fraction in actual fact. Soldiers miss with intent. The ones who shoot to kill does almost all the killing alone in the infantry especially. Most of them have anti-social personalities(fact), and are called heroes in war, and get medals..so we actually need dangerous people. The less people are involved in direct killing(artillery, tank etc), the more likely they are to pull the trigger.
We have a strong reluctance to kill as normal people..contrairy to popular believes. Political issues does not change anything. The reluctance is very hard founded in us.
This is no opinion of mine. This is science, and research from all wars ever fought.Everyone sais that they could at least kill if their lives was at stake, or was fired upon, but very few can even then.
So if you think your brothers friend was a hero in the Afghan war, he was probably just a another guy wasting bullets on a mass scale. This is also why special forces do all the serious stuff, aside from skill. These people are trained to have control of these emotions, and even they have problems with killing, and some have anti-social personality disorder.
|
|
|
do keep in mind that the North Korean special forces is the largest such contigent in the world. A big part of any projected invasion plans will involve asymmetric tactics including the mass insertion of NK special forces via small craft and submarine all along the SK coastline, and the use of fake ROK uniforms in rearguard actions.
We also have no idea how extensive the tunnel network is underneath the DMZ, which the NK have been working on for years. Any kind of preemptive strike on their artillery installations is impossible. They've been working on their bunkers and redoubts in the mountains north of Seoul for a loooong time now.
Also, I think the use of chemical weapons is virtually guaranteed if NK actually does go to war. You will definitely see their deployment on top of US bases in a suppressive role to buy time for their columns to reach Seoul and other high value targets.
|
NK is gonna send an army of genetically engineered super rabbits.
|
Most artillery only has a range of approximatly 10-15 miles, which means soeul would be out of range unless the North pushed into the de-militarized zone, or attacked from the sea. On top of that, while the North has detonated a nuclear weapon, detonating and weaponizing are two vastly different things. I could be wrong, but if I had to guess NK would have no way of delivering a warhead without a bomber, which would be shot down long before it got close to soeul.
While alot of people are saying NK has nothing to lose, that is somewhat untrue. The people have nothing to lose, but leading party has the chance to lose everything (their power, wealth, security). That is a big consideration for most dictators. I honestly dont see this escalating past what it already is. Neither side is stupid enough to trigger a full scale war. The North wants respect, and the South wants the Northern threat to be contained. At least thats my 2 cents.
Also, if you look at army comparisons, CBC news has military spending for SK at 24.4 Billion per annum, where as North Koreas at 5.5 Billion per annum. While they might have more soldiers, spending will pretty much determine the superiority of the fighting force.
|
As for Chinese motivations...
1) If they wanted North Korea to have nukes, North Korea would already have nukes.
2) An option that's been on the table for a long time in the event of escalation is for the US to "lend" nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, in order to set up a deterrence scenario. That is something that China absolutely does not want.
I think this is why they're aiming for disarmament.
|
On November 29 2010 01:09 hideo wrote:
As for Chinese motivations...
1) If they wanted North Korea to have nukes, North Korea would already have nukes.
2) An option that's been on the table for a long time in the event of escalation is for the US to "lend" nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, in order to set up a deterrence scenario. That is something that China absolutely does not want.
I think this is why they're aiming for disarmament.
China doesn't want NK to have nukes, but NK made them anyway.
|
On November 29 2010 01:09 hideo wrote:
As for Chinese motivations...
1) If they wanted North Korea to have nukes, North Korea would already have nukes.
2) An option that's been on the table for a long time in the event of escalation is for the US to "lend" nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, in order to set up a deterrence scenario. That is something that China absolutely does not want.
I think this is why they're aiming for disarmament.
The US feed anything from an extremist group to a country with weapons all the time if they can play a pawn role in helping the US reach goals. This is basic US policy since forever. Bin laden used to be a personal friend of George Bush so to speak.
The whole nuke thing is difficult. I do not think the US would risk something stupid like that. But China is definatly scared of a possibility of war in tha area, regardless of nukes. China is maby the most important country for the US economy right now, and especially in the future. China is already pissed with the US economy fuck up, because it hurts Chinese export(and the whole currency thing). I can't see how the US can set out nukes around that area without destroying everything for them selves...but you never know. With Obama in the seat, I really don't think this can happen. He is smarter than that.
|
On November 29 2010 00:45 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. I do not remember the percentage of soldiers actually fireing to kill, but it is very few. A fraction in actual fact. Soldiers miss with intent. The ones who shoot to kill does almost all the killing alone in the infantry especially. Most of them have anti-social personalities(fact), and are called heroes in war, and get medals..so we actually need dangerous people. The less people are involved in direct killing(artillery, tank etc), the more likely they are to pull the trigger. We have a strong reluctance to kill as normal people..contrairy to popular believes. Political issues does not change anything. The reluctance is very hard founded in us. This is no opinion of mine. This is science, and research from all wars ever fought.Everyone sais that they could at least kill if their lives was at stake, or was fired upon, but very few can even then. So if you think your brothers friend was a hero in the Afghan war, he was probably just a another guy wasting bullets on a mass scale. This is also why special forces do all the serious stuff, aside from skill. These people are trained to have control of these emotions, and even they have problems with killing unless they have anti-social personality disorder.
if you don't know the percentage, how about doing some research before posting?
read www.killology.com and find out that you are posting bullshit. Military did not live under a rock since the american civil war at which your "very low" percentage was true.
|
On November 29 2010 01:32 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 01:09 hideo wrote:
As for Chinese motivations...
1) If they wanted North Korea to have nukes, North Korea would already have nukes.
2) An option that's been on the table for a long time in the event of escalation is for the US to "lend" nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, in order to set up a deterrence scenario. That is something that China absolutely does not want.
I think this is why they're aiming for disarmament. China doesn't want NK to have nukes, but NK made them anyway.
uhh yeah... that what i'm saying is a possibility here.
|
It's really funny how a small country like North Korea can pretty much do anything against the will of China with impunity. They know China wants them to exists, so it really looks like they are taking full advantage of that fact.
|
On November 29 2010 01:33 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 01:09 hideo wrote:
As for Chinese motivations...
1) If they wanted North Korea to have nukes, North Korea would already have nukes.
2) An option that's been on the table for a long time in the event of escalation is for the US to "lend" nuclear weapons to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, in order to set up a deterrence scenario. That is something that China absolutely does not want.
I think this is why they're aiming for disarmament. The US feed anything from an extremist group to a country with weapons all the time if they can play a pawn role in helping the US reach goals. This is basic US policy since forever. Bin laden used to be a personal friend of George Bush so to speak. The whole nuke thing is difficult. I do not think the US would risk something stupid like that. But China is definatly scared of a possibility of war in tha area, regardless of nukes. China is maby the most important country for the US economy right now, and especially in the future. China is already pissed with the US economy fuck up, because it hurts Chinese export(and the whole currency thing). I can't see how the US can set out nukes around that area without destroying everything for them selves...but you never know. With Obama in the seat, I really don't think this can happen. He is smarter than that.
The US will never nuke anyone unless they are actually getting nuked them selves. They have stuff over there already to disable nuke war heads the instant they go airborn. 2ndly besides China, UN, Russia and India there isnt really anyone that US can't take out with just regular Tomahawks and bunker busters. The only thing that saves the country's US goes to war with is they can't just destroy the whole country they gotta try to watch out for civilians and try to go after specific people or targets. There is literally no counry that US China russia couldnt completly level if that was there goal.
|
Hello I don't want to participate in this debate because it's a very hot topic but I just want to say that people don't seem to realize how extreme the situation is. When I talk about that , people around me seem so oblivious to the issue that it's scary. Here are some reactions I gathered "Oh just nuke them". or "Oh I don't care about what happens in these asian countries".
But you can't blame them, in my country medias prefer to talk about bad weather and snow, instead of talking about the NK/SK issue.
All in all what I wanted to say is that, sure at TL we are concerned about world politics, but from my experience in real life people don't really care or don't have time to bother. And to me the fact that people seem to ignore that issue is the biggest and most dangerous problem.
|
well it's a basic fact that french prefer to swing the white flag instead of fighting, so that doesnt really suprise me
on a more serious note tho I think it's safe to assume that nothing will happen between NK and SK
|
On November 29 2010 00:45 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. I do not remember the percentage of soldiers actually fireing to kill, but it is very few. A fraction in actual fact. Soldiers miss with intent. The ones who shoot to kill does almost all the killing alone in the infantry especially. Most of them have anti-social personalities(fact), and are called heroes in war, and get medals..so we actually need dangerous people. The less people are involved in direct killing(artillery, tank etc), the more likely they are to pull the trigger. We have a strong reluctance to kill as normal people..contrairy to popular believes. Political issues does not change anything. The reluctance is very hard founded in us. This is no opinion of mine. This is science, and research from all wars ever fought.Everyone sais that they could at least kill if their lives was at stake, or was fired upon, but very few can even then. So if you think your brothers friend was a hero in the Afghan war, he was probably just a another guy wasting bullets on a mass scale. This is also why special forces do all the serious stuff, aside from skill. These people are trained to have control of these emotions, and even they have problems with killing unless they have anti-social personality disorder.
Do you have a good source for reading up on that subject?
This would really be interesting to me, thanks 
|
On November 29 2010 01:58 Blobskillz wrote:
well it's a basic fact that french prefer to swing the white flag instead of fighting, so that doesnt really suprise me
on a more serious note tho I think it's safe to assume that nothing will happen between NK and SK
Hopefully, but I doubt it. We have a desperate North Korea and an Anti-North president in South Korea. Besides, with Kim Jong Il having health issues, we never know when he will die. If he dies, then well, you can assume there will be chaos like no other.
|
On November 29 2010 01:36 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 00:45 oRacLeGosu wrote:On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. I do not remember the percentage of soldiers actually fireing to kill, but it is very few. A fraction in actual fact. Soldiers miss with intent. The ones who shoot to kill does almost all the killing alone in the infantry especially. Most of them have anti-social personalities(fact), and are called heroes in war, and get medals..so we actually need dangerous people. The less people are involved in direct killing(artillery, tank etc), the more likely they are to pull the trigger. We have a strong reluctance to kill as normal people..contrairy to popular believes. Political issues does not change anything. The reluctance is very hard founded in us. This is no opinion of mine. This is science, and research from all wars ever fought.Everyone sais that they could at least kill if their lives was at stake, or was fired upon, but very few can even then. So if you think your brothers friend was a hero in the Afghan war, he was probably just a another guy wasting bullets on a mass scale. This is also why special forces do all the serious stuff, aside from skill. These people are trained to have control of these emotions, and even they have problems with killing unless they have anti-social personality disorder. if you don't know the percentage, how about doing some research before posting? read www.killology.com and find out that you are posting bullshit. Military did not live under a rock since the american civil war at which your "very low" percentage was true.
Haha..omg. What kind of a science source is that? I have never read more war romance in five sentences before. There is even a gun on the front page, and links to warrior poetry!
The percentage is low, that is the point. I am not going to do serious research from good sources to get exact numbers to convince pople on a forum. This requires more than war poetry.
These facts have been true in every war, and is a part of human nature. We like to think that everybody can kill easily if needed, but it is wrong. During my psychology studies I have never come across anything against it, and a lot of sources have been from research from NATO it self to become more effective. Leave the romantisizing herotics please.
But at the same time you have psychological effects that enforces sharing of responability, that can make people kill in extreme situations during war. Moral norms, and altruistic misconseptions can also make someone kill in war, but never without a huge inner conflict in a normal person, that would make the person almost always unfit for war.
I can see these facts can be difficult to comprehend, maby more so for an american, where ppl get shot for nothing constantly som places...but all this crime in the US(south america, phillipines etc)comes from enviromental psychological damadge, and poverty on a pretty big scale, even though some americans like to call people "evil"..which really doesn't have a meaning as a word if you want to know something about humans.
|
101TFP: If you are really interested, I know NATO have released some new research. They have a branch for this lead by a british officer, who does research on this specifically. I know..it is really interesting I tried to find something good, and serious on google, but real, neutral, specific, updated research beyond a compilation of psychological facts, can take som time to find. The british army also did an experiment recently, where they invited regular people, and privates to prove this, by recreating a real combat enviroment.
|
When talking about it in class, one of my teachers put forward an interesting addition to the theory that this is all just being done for the transfer of power to Kim Jong-Un. He said Kim Jong Il could have died a few days before it happened. It is kinda plausible, becuase the North Korean government would really have no reliable way of proving that he is still alive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
