|
On November 29 2010 02:09 RaptorZ wrote:
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.
This is definatly a part of the timing. I am sure.
|
if china and the us went to war against each other, sucks to be china for all the money they lent to the states. they aint getting it back.
|
On November 29 2010 01:03 Darpa wrote:
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.
I dont understand how one could find out NK's spending? How do u know what they have, cause Ii swear most people in world no little to none about NK..
|
Another question, How will SK or NK even cross into each others territory without the use of tunnels or drops(lol). ? Tell me if I am wrong, but inst the border the most heavily land mined area in the world.? Personally if this turns into a war I dont see much of man actucally doing the fighting, I see artillery and maybe the use of some nukes. Hopefully my vision is wrong
|
On November 29 2010 03:01 DisBabylonSystem wrote:
Another question, How will SK or NK even cross into each others territory without the use of tunnels or drops(lol). ? Tell me if I am wrong, but inst the border the most heavily land mined area in the world.? Personally if this turns into a war I dont see much of man actucally doing the fighting, I see artillery and maybe the use of some nukes. Hopefully my vision is wrong
well there are a good variety of minesweepers
|
could you go into farther detail, personally I dont know much about tactics of war.
|
On November 29 2010 03:20 DisBabylonSystem wrote:
could you go into farther detail, personally I dont know much about tactics of war.
I think what he meant was there will be unamanned robot going to the minefield detonating the mines from each Koreas therefore opening up the "battlefield" for more direct combat.
|
Minefields are used to slow down enemy advances, not stop them all together.
There are many different ways to clear minefields... from simple creeping artillery barrages to specialized tanks that have giant flails attached to the front to specially designed explosives such as line charges, etc.
|
WikiLeak info related to this situation:
"Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States. "
|
On November 29 2010 02:51 DisBabylonSystem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 01:03 Darpa wrote:
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. I dont understand how one could find out NK's spending? How do u know what they have, cause Ii swear most people in world no little to none about NK..
North Koreas GDP is estimated based on the amount of trade they do. The source for this spending, CBC news, has this estimate by 2003 standards. But given that there level of economic activity has not changed much, and that there standard of living is roughly the same, they devised an approximate North Korea military spending budget based on what has been previously revealed before and the lack of growth in the NK economy. I am note sure if those numbers are 100% correct, but CBC is generally very reliable and I would expect it would be somewhere close to that number. Although I bet that current spending is a little higher.
|
Today the drills will be held with live fire. Dunno how NK will react.
Monday's drills include a live-fire exercise by multiple aircraft from the George Washington, which will shoot mock targets in waters," a JCS official said on condition of anonymity.
Aegis destroyers from the allies will also hone their capabilities to detect and destroy "hundreds of targets" over the sky, the JCS official said.
For the drills, the U.S. has also brought in the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, called Joint STARS, to closely monitor the North's military activities.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2010/11/28/19/0200000000AEN20101128006300315F.HTML
|
On November 29 2010 02:09 RaptorZ wrote:
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.
I was thinking about this too, in which case there is even more uncertainty regarding North Korea's intentions. Hopefully, whatever they are, they are satisfied with the casualties they've already inflicted for the time being..
|
I'm still banned from drinking alcohol... oh yeah and also things are a lot more strict around here in Korea. >,<
I just want a decent holiday season with no World War 3 or anything crazy like that.
(US Air Force)
|
oops double post. (Mod delete please if possible)
|
On November 29 2010 02:44 oRacLeGosu wrote:
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.
From what I can gather from talking to my friends and relations in Korea, I'd say that's the most popular as well as plausible theory right now.
Whether it means NK is gearing up for something serious, I can't say. I think they're doing this to make a dangerous situation for themselves, which will in turn bring the country tighter together, and they can have Kim Jong Un play the part of the heroic defender and transfer power more effectively.
Hell, they could even say Kim Jong Il was hurt by the vicious South Korean aggression (which never happened) and he called on Kim Jong Un to step up and defend the nation. I don't know how deep the mythology goes; I know according to the mythology Kim Jong Il apparently doesn't need to urinate or defecate, but whether it's believed he can be physically injured is not something I've heard much on.
The thing is, even if this is just a showy power transfer, the fact that they're doing it using the military to create a potential war situation could mean an escalation in DRNK aggression against the dangers they've created for themselves, which could in fact lead to an entirely stupid and pointless war.
Ugh.
On November 29 2010 06:10 Silentness wrote:
I'm still banned from drinking alcohol... oh yeah and also things are a lot more strict around here in Korea. >,<
I just want a decent holiday season with no World War 3 or anything crazy like that.
(US Air Force)
Haha, I've been in the process of enlisting for the past few months, but I dropped it a few weeks ago after some thought. Now, with this situation.. I don't know, maybe I should have gone through with it. They need cryptos bad, right? And I'm already pretty much fluent in spoken Korean, so language training would be a breeze..
|
On November 29 2010 04:33 Odoakar wrote:
WikiLeak info related to this situation:
"Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States. "
That's brilliant. While, China has supported North Korea since it's foundation. It's clear they are tired of having to defend the country. Giving China an economic incentive not to help North Korea if things broke out is good thinking.
|
Frankly, i'm sick of hearing about North Korea. I feel like its about time to get rid of them. Its been half a century and they've gone from bad to worse and the people who suffer most are its own civilians. I say just bomb the shit out of their military installations/government and state run media outlets and let their infrastructure collapse. I know this would mean total war and that would be bad for the south koreans as well, but i dont see this ending diplomatically. I mean NK seems pretty deadset on just starving its people and spending its money on more and more military. In other words, it seems as if this situation is just gonna be the same and getting progressively worse until eventually they see the west isnt willing to budge and they launch more provocation attacks in desperation for attention or because they feel cornered with no way out, and the more we wait the harder it is for US/SK to win militarily.
Furthermore whose to say a later provocation wont be worse? I know a war would mean civilians dead but doesnt waiting this worsening situation also equate to civilians dead and maybe even more so?
Im also concerned with the fact that a NK state means China has a long lasting influence in the region both militarily and diplomatically. If these wikileaks documents have shown us anything is that countries seem to go to great lengths to protect their national interests and to gain the upper hand. Therefore, i would like to see the United States have a unified Korea as a much needed Asian ally in the region, its obviously in the interest of the United States, which is why it worries China so much....
Theres obviously alot of flaws in my thought process on this whole situation, i dont claim to be a military expert and if anyone wants to chime in please feel free to do so. However with the knowledge that Iran has acquired longer range missiles from NK and the growing threat of a future conflict between Iran and the US....thats a problem. And one i wouldnt like to see grow, i much rather nip it in the butt now so to speak.
Whose to say that (in a totally hypothetical scenario), if the US/Israel war with Iran in the future and it goes on for a long time (as the iraq/afghanistan wars have shown) and suddenly NK decides, hey its a good time to provoke SK because it sees the US as too weak or occupied to spread itself any thinner, wouldnt that put SK in a much tougher situation than it would now?
Obviously these are all huuuuge speculations and im not denying that, but i guess my main point is that, IMO it seems beneficial to deal with NK sooner rather than risking dealing with it later.
=/
Edit: Upon more speculation, with so many arab states pressing the US for military action against Iran....maybe it would be very bad timing for us if SK/NK situation gets any worse. The Iran problems looks alot more serious...
sigh....all this speculation t.t
|
There was some rumors that there wouldn't be any live firing in the naval drill, but Pentagon seems to have confirmed that there will be live firing.
Just a little update. :-)
@W7VOA
Steve Herman
Pentagon now confirms there will be "live fire" exercises as part of the US-ROK naval drill in Yellow Sea
http://twitter.com/#!/W7VOA
|
Hehe..the Wikileaks are out. Hillary Clintons signed a letter to the american embassies to collect biometrics on Ban Ki-Moon, the head of the UN. jeez...what paranoid schizophrenic from the bowels of Langley had that stupid idea
|
On November 29 2010 02:07 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2010 01:36 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: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.
Haha..omg. That source is from a officer training recruits how to kill. But im sure you didnt look into that at all because common man that homepage has a gun on it, how credible can they be. Or was it because you dont do any research at all and keep on talking out of your ass?
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/moerderische-medien-die-killer-konditionierung-1.632436
this is in german, the numbers they present are VERY different from those out of your ass.
they talk about 15-20% shot to kill on a visible enemy in WW2, 55% in Korea War (how related) and about 90% in Vietnam War. All this because they specifically trained the recruits to KILL. If you compare the drill for WW2 to the drill nowadays you see an extreme difference, not that much in fitness training but much more psychological. I don't know whether you did any military service or you're grandfather did any, but my grandfather tells me complete different stuff than what we do now.
Btw why do you discuss in a forum when you discredit its readers with phrases that they're not worth your time to do some research and rather let them take the words comming straight from your ass, ooh, sry hands i meant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
