|
Zurich15359 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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.
When was the last major US engagement that wasn't preceded by months of planning and logistics though? When was the last time the US fought someone who actually can, and more importantly wants to, fight back?
Ender's suggestion should be pretty much how it would go down. This is isn't Tom Clancy, this is the real world.
Edit: Should have sticked to topic
|
On November 24 2010 02:49 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They have a history of firing on military exercises just to prove that they aren't scared. Any1 thinking NK wasn't aware it was only an exercise is fooling themselves.
|
On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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.
You are way off mark. Air power would make the DMZ uncrossable? How? Air-superiority has never meant 'area-denial'.
|
On November 24 2010 02:50 DoXa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:44 Scorch wrote: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? 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...
SK opinion is that he seems to be quite a rough-around-the-edges type, not quite someone who'll finally end the conflicts in favour of peace. I have no idea what their sources are, just passing along what I heard.
|
On November 24 2010 02:52 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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. When was the last major US engagement that wasn't preceded by months of planning and logistics though? When was the last time the US fought someone who actually can, and more importantly wants to, fight back? Ender's suggestion should be pretty much how it would go down. This is isn't Tom Clancy, this is the real world.
Please don't tell me you think Iraq was well planned and thought out.
|
Zurich15359 Posts
Actually let's take this to PMs and not derail this thread again.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:54 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:52 zatic wrote:On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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. When was the last major US engagement that wasn't preceded by months of planning and logistics though? When was the last time the US fought someone who actually can, and more importantly wants to, fight back? Ender's suggestion should be pretty much how it would go down. This is isn't Tom Clancy, this is the real world. Please don't tell me you think Iraq was well planned and thought out.
The offense of it was, the destruction of the Iraqi guard was swift and without to many casulties.
Once Iraq was defeated all hell broke loose because they did not plan for after the ''conquest''.
Militairy speaking it seemed well planned
|
On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago.
"nothing to gain"? The US s totally dependent on export/buisness to/with China and the rest of Asia, and SKR is a very important harbor, and strategical point for everything american, along with Tawain in this area. Both militarily, and economicaly. Remember, american goods are mostly bought by people outside america, and made outside america.
It is really important that americans learn how dependent they really are on the rest of the world, as are all countries, and especially leading ones. The whole american economy is based on lones from allies, and export. Political stability is cruical for growth, and investments. At the same time, the US has to be really careful, and not send cowboys to do the job.
The Iraq war is just based on misinformation, and is sad. Bush, and all the lobbyists, and republicans are really the shame of the western world. Arguing your way to war with no real arguments, by striking fear in people that have never even seen the ocean is really bad.
|
On November 24 2010 03:01 oRacLeGosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. "nothing to gain"? The US s totally dependent on export/buisness to/with China and the rest of Asia, and SKR is a very important harbor, and strategical point for everything american, along with Tawain in this area. Both militarily, and economicaly. Remember, american goods are mostly bought by people outside america, and made outside america. It is really important that americans learn how dependent they really are on the rest of the world, as are all countries, and especially leading ones. The whole american economy is based on lones from allies, and export. Political stability is cruical for growth, and investments.
Yep. Nothing to gain, but a lot to lose.
|
On November 24 2010 02:52 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:49 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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? No, it seems like it was 60 years ago.
Also more importantly to add. In that war from my understanding North Korea was actually the wealthier and more advanced country overall and also for many years to come. This proves that comparing that to now is totally out of the question. Also at that time there were no spy satellites or extreme advantages of technology as there now is, I would expect the outcome to be very one sided in terms of numbers but still heartbreaking with many casualties on the South Korean side.
|
North Korea doesn't have to worry about pissing off South Korea or United States because of its close ties with China. Because of these close ties they have to worry about pissing off China, as soon as it North Korea gets close enough to alienating China and loosing its protection they will stop and wait for things to cool down.
|
On November 24 2010 02:57 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:54 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:52 zatic wrote:On November 24 2010 02:36 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:34 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 02:26 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. 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. 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. When was the last major US engagement that wasn't preceded by months of planning and logistics though? When was the last time the US fought someone who actually can, and more importantly wants to, fight back? Ender's suggestion should be pretty much how it would go down. This is isn't Tom Clancy, this is the real world. Please don't tell me you think Iraq was well planned and thought out. The offense of it was, the destruction of the Iraqi guard was swift and without to many casulties. Once Iraq was defeated all hell broke loose because they did not plan for after the ''conquest''. Militairy speaking it seemed well planned
yes the sanctions imposed on iraq were very well planned indeed.. did you knew that after the first gulf war the iraqis had the change to take down the regime but the USA didnt help?
|
On November 24 2010 03:05 SCdinner wrote:
North Korea doesn't have to worry about pissing off South Korea or United States because of its close ties with China. Because of these close ties they have to worry about pissing off China, as soon as it North Korea gets close enough to alienating China and loosing its protection they will stop and wait for things to cool down.
yeah my thoughts exactly,USA really cant involve because no point pissing China off. Just hoping that China realizes how arrogant North Korea can be,and possible stop supporting em.
|
North Korea is just so bad. I hate this country... So sad the attackes south Korea. Cant believe it.
|
South Korea just need said "Turkey help us",so Turkey is coming and North Korea sucks balls
|
Has anyone figured out why the North fired?
|
![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50114000/gif/_50114613_military_balance_464.gif)
Not sure what to take from that. On one hand, the South spends five times as much on military as the North. Buuut when you consider how much further that amount of money would go in the North as far as training, it's a little scary. SKR would definitely have a major upperhand in terms of technology but NKR definitely has the potential to do tons of damage. Having a lot of WW2 era guns could still demolish Seoul in a few hours... Really scary situation but it's been going for so long, it needs to get worked out for good finally otherwise it'll be constant posturing from the North and then when they do get nukes, it'll be that much harder to deal with them.
|
On November 24 2010 03:11 Mazer wrote:Not sure what to take from that. On one hand, the South spends five times as much on military as the North. Buuut when you consider how much further that amount of money would go in the North as far as training, it's a little scary. SKR would definitely have a major upperhand in terms of technology but NKR definitely has the potential to do tons of damage. Having a lot of WW2 era guns could still demolish Seoul in a few hours... Really scary situation but it's been going for so long, it needs to get worked out for good finally otherwise it'll be constant posturing from the North and then when they do get nukes, it'll be that much harder to deal with them.
like i said if like old times,South Korea said "Turkey please help us" North Korea just sucks balls
|
South Korea's technology outpaces North Korea's.
|
On November 24 2010 03:10 nosliw wrote:
Has anyone figured out why the North fired?
"The New York Times reports that the South Korean Deputy Minister of Defence, Lee Yong-geul, has now acknowledged that artillery units were firing test shots on Tuesday afternoon close to the North Korean coast, from a battery on the South Korean island of Paeknyeongdo. But he denied that the shots crossed the disputed maritime border with North Korea.
"
Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
