| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LazyMacro
976 Posts
I guess it's more how they could deliver the warheads, right? What I mean is if N. Korea and S. Korea get into a shooting war, and each respective country's allies get in the mix, wouldn't the threat of a nuclear strike from NK against the US or another ally be of concern? Or is what I'm reading about NK not having anywhere near that capability correct? It sounds like their only real area of influence/threat would be S. Korea. | ||
|
MLG_Wiggin
United States767 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote: I agree that it wouldn't be trivial. It would be an unprecedented slaughter of NK forces and easily one of the most one-sided fights the world will ever have seen. On November 24 2010 02:25 vnlegend wrote: Doubt it... Manpower these days don't mean much unless we're talking about occupation or guerilla warfare in the mountains/jungles or something. In a straight battle, US tech advantage is way stronger than extra men firing AKs. The US will quickly gain air supremacy and bomb the hell out of the NK's just like they did in Iraq. It doesn't matter how many men you have when bombers, drones, and battleships are bombarding all your bases and armies. I'll explain where I got what I said from. My father was a navy fighter pilot in the Gulf War and was involved in updating the US plans for the defense of the Korean peninsula as late as... 2003 I think, when he retired. What I said is exactly how he explained how a full scale engagement would likely begin if the situation escalated. So take is how you will; I personally trust his opinion. He's certainly a lot closer to the situation then I am. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:28 sqrt wrote: How about just give SK several nukes and call it a day? No, not that simple? Damn... Anyway, I doubt China will support NK if those guys pull something funny, hell, if they use a nuke it may be the China that would glass them (let's face it, China doesn't want neighbors with nuclear arsenal). Anyway, has anyone who understand international law/diplomacy commented yet? China won't attack NK, that's an absurd suggestion, sorry. Go read the posts about NK being an economic asset to China. It's basically a buffer zone with a bunch of problems for the Chinese. There's big trouble for China if NK collapses as a whole. | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote: I agree that it wouldn't be trivial. It would be an unprecedented slaughter of NK forces and easily one of the most one-sided fights the world will ever have seen. Ender is right dude. I really don't know what you're basing your statements on. South Koreans aren't super soldiers and neither are the handful of US forces stationed at the DMZ. You don't kill millions of soldiers without taking casualties of an equal magnitude. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote: Ender is right dude. I really don't know what you're basing your statements on. South Koreans aren't super soldiers and neither are the handful of US forces stationed at the DMZ. You don't kill millions of soldiers without taking casualties of an equal magnitude. What was the last US military engagement where the casualties weren't comically one-sided? Even terribly planned, idiot-run wars like Iraq were one-sided. EDIT: Air power alone could make the DMZ uncrossable. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:39 Kleinmuuhg wrote: I really had hoped that the North Korean regime would slowly and steadily lose its power and it would end more or less peacefully. What a stupid illusion. It's also possible that the DPRK realizes their power will only decrease over time, and is trying to instigate a conflict to increase their global power and influence. That's a pretty bad plan considering the animosity of basically the entire world against them, but it's possible, I guess? Either way given their unpredictability and aggression it seems like it would be too much to hope for them to go quietly. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:31 LazyMacro wrote: I think the thing that worries me the most is that if N. Korea should make another aggressive act, won't a war be started? I'm not entirely sure of the military capabilities of N. Korea, but if they have nuclear weapons isn't that of major concern? I guess it's more how they could deliver the warheads, right? What I mean is if N. Korea and S. Korea get into a shooting war, and each respective country's allies get in the mix, wouldn't the threat of a nuclear strike from NK against the US or another ally be of concern? Or is what I'm reading about NK not having anywhere near that capability correct? It sounds like their only real area of influence/threat would be S. Korea. they probably could deliver them just fine. Here's an article from 2009... They were testing inter continental ballistic missiles a year and a half ago. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7732196&page=1 Most of those tests were miserable failures but maybe that's just what they want you to think  Here's to hoping their new leader is just playing along until his father dies. then he will hopefully put some sense in this regime. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:39 Kleinmuuhg wrote: I really had hoped that the North Korean regime would slowly and steadily lose its power and it would end more or less peacefully. What a stupid illusion. Maybe Kim Jong Un is more progressive and peaceful than his father, with his foreign studies and all... Who knows? | ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:31 LazyMacro wrote: I think the thing that worries me the most is that if N. Korea should make another aggressive act, won't a war be started? I'm not entirely sure of the military capabilities of N. Korea, but if they have nuclear weapons isn't that of major concern? I guess it's more how they could deliver the warheads, right? What I mean is if N. Korea and S. Korea get into a shooting war, and each respective country's allies get in the mix, wouldn't the threat of a nuclear strike from NK against the US or another ally be of concern? Or is what I'm reading about NK not having anywhere near that capability correct? It sounds like their only real area of influence/threat would be S. Korea. Are you saying that it is of no concern to you unless it leaves Korea? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. | ||
|
Navi
5286 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote: Ender is right dude. I really don't know what you're basing your statements on. South Koreans aren't super soldiers and neither are the handful of US forces stationed at the DMZ. You don't kill millions of soldiers without taking casualties of an equal magnitude. "equal" is overexaggerating. especially due to the fact that the DMZ is fairly large and coverered with land mines and mountains and natural terrain that is rather unwieldy to cross, any troops coming from the side without air dominance would have their numbers fairly whittled. the biggest danger that i think everybody recognizes is north korea's 'capacity' to bomb seoul and tokyo, which if it happens will be the single largest loss of human life within a day | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:42 Krigwin wrote: It's also possible that the DPRK realizes their power will only decrease over time, and is trying to instigate a conflict to increase their global power and influence. That's a pretty bad plan considering the animosity of basically the entire world against them, but it's possible, I guess? Either way given their unpredictability and aggression it seems like it would be too much to hope for them to go quietly. It's more likely the Dear Leader is realizing his own mortality and coming to the conclusion that his son likely won't possess the same level of crazy as him (after all, the two eldest sons were deemed unfit for the position, the third looks like a pushover). There's a rumor that Kim Jong-Il has pancreatic cancer (aka he's going to die soon) and action of this nature are probably the delusional thrashing of a dying political machine. | ||
|
Grettin
42394 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:44 Scorch wrote: Maybe Kim Jong Un is more progressive and peaceful than his father, with his foreign studies and all... Who knows? Then the other commanders and army leaders will assassinate him for treason.  | ||
|
Consolidate
United States829 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote: What was the last US military engagement where the casualties weren't comically one-sided? Sigh. Let me try this... Korean War. US and South Korean combined military casualties ~800,000 Chinese and North Korean combined military casualties ~ 1.2 million Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/korean-war/casualty-lists/ Does that seem 'comically one-sided' to you? | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
SK will not go to war unless NK invade them first. SK has to much more at the stake to lose than NK. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
On November 23 2010 16:25 infinitestory wrote: I'm inclined to believe that NK actually did mistake SK's naval exercises for an invasion attempt. No matter how whacko NK's leadership might be, they're not retarded. They know that if they try to start war with SK, they will lose horribly. I hope. You really think SK was retarded enough to not tell the NK's they were doing a training exercise? I hope you are right. | ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote:Do you have anything to say rather claims as to what I don't know? Allow me to state clearly one more time. So you actually have insight into the red house? Well, share some classified info please. On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote:Should North Korea collapse, millions of refugees would come pouring into over the border into China. Why? You know what happens right now if they catch you at the border, yes? Even if a north-korean manage to sneak inside of China, if the police finds him, will be send back to NK (which is basically a death sentence, something China is well aware of). Why would they accept millions of refugees? They don't really dig the whole humanitarian stuff. They might just as well shoot at any refugee that tries to cross the border (like they are doing now if necessary). Why would people even go to China, when SK is way richer and uhm, you know, is korean? Where refugees actually could expect help? Why would they go to the people that helped the very dictatorship (the north koreans are well aware of this) that they try to break free from? On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote: North Korea is desperate and often times unpredictable - these characteristics worry foreign investors. This is actually only partially true, as NK is recieving quite the foreign investment (not just the special economics project between nk and sk). Numerous things are done in NK (mobile software, jeans etc.) - you mostly don't hear of it because consumers don't really like the idea. But yeah, it happens and it happens more and more often, despite the fact that NK has been increasingly unpredictable. The insanely low labour wage is one of the reasons. On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote: China is a nation preoccupied with industrializing the whole of their economy This is a minor point but not really true as well. First China is mostly preoccupied with social stability, as civil unrest is at a critical point and industrializing is not a top priority (especially as they do not aim to industrialize everything). On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote: - they have no current ambitions or desires for the sort of regional conflict North Korea is instigating. While they have no ambition for a regional conflict they sure as hell don't want the USA to think that they don't care about NK (because NK still is important from a military point of view). On November 24 2010 02:08 Consolidate wrote: What is it I have said that is incorrect? Like I said before: The major point is your attitude. Some of your points are correct, others are just wild assumptions one cannot make as the chinese & nk leadership are very restrictive when it comes to informations. You can only guess how much influence China really has on NK. Based on this guesses and assumptions one can make statements, but you make it sound like you have facts. Which you don't (unless you really have an inside source in the red house, but I somehow doubt this). | ||
|
DoXa
Switzerland1448 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:44 Scorch wrote: Maybe Kim Jong Un is more progressive and peaceful than his father, with his foreign studies and all... Who knows? imo it is a illusion to think that the new leader really has power in this regime. i think he's just a new marionette. on the other hand i only read good about Kim Jong Un in the swiss newspapers, while he went to school in Switzerland. but back then he was a child, who knows what he's like today... | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:46 Grettin wrote: Then the other commanders and army leaders will assassinate him for treason. A power grab/coup is very likely under Kim Jong-Un. There's already been a regent appointed for his first few years of power for some matters such as the military. It's anybody's guess as to whether a massive change in power structure would do any good for NK/the world. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:49 Consolidate wrote: Sigh. Let me try this... Korean War. US and South Korean combined military casualties ~800,000 Chinese and North Korean combined military casualties ~ 1.2 million Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/korean-war/casualty-lists/ Does that seem 'comically one-sided' to you? No, it seems like it was 60 years ago. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
SC Evo League
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
IPSL
eOnzErG vs TBD
G5 vs Nesh
Patches Events
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
