North Korea Fires Artillery Rounds at South Korean Island…

On November 24 2010 11:51 jinorazi wrote:


dude are you serious?

you could have easily said, "what i meant was, the level of hardship and arduousness russians had to go through was more than what americans experienced, in my opinion"

but instead you say something like that? grow up.

might as well say, "tell that to the spartans who had to face 2 million persiasns with just 300 of them"

On November 24 2010 11:51 jinorazi wrote:


dude are you serious?

you could have easily said, "what i meant was, the level of hardship and arduousness russians had to go through was more than what americans experienced, in my opinion"

but instead you say something like that? grow up.

might as well say, "tell that to the spartans who had to face 2 million persiasns with just 300 of them"

On November 24 2010 11:56 Odyssey.561 wrote:
There are some very ignorant posts in this thread besides the point of how off topic some have gotten. The N/S korean conflict could carry some big repercussions depending on who gets involved with either side. I wonder what all the players there for GSL are thinking? I could only imagine there has to be some tension through out the entire country.

On November 24 2010 12:02 vica wrote:
The problem is South Korea can't really respond in fear of what North Korea may do. North Korea basically has free reign to do whatever they want short of starting a war. Other countries will not drag themselves into this very easily. The world is scared of starting another world war. South Korea knows that any retaliation on their end will likely result in the loss of their main cities.

On November 24 2010 11:56 Odyssey.561 wrote:
There are some very ignorant posts in this thread besides the point of how off topic some have gotten. The N/S korean conflict could carry some big repercussions depending on who gets involved with either side. I wonder what all the players there for GSL are thinking? I could only imagine there has to be some tension through out the entire country.

On November 24 2010 12:01 CrimsonLotus wrote:
If Great Britain had been knocked out in 1940 then Germany would have been able to focus solely on Rusia and probably defeated them early on.

If Russia falls in 1942 then there is no way in hell that the US and Great Britain are going to be able to gain a strong enough foothold in Europe to really threaten Germany.

If the US doesn't get into the war with it's massive economy and industrial power, then Russia wouldn't have been able to push back the Germans and Britain would have been completely isolated.

Sorry to continue the derail, but i love WWII history : D.

On November 24 2010 12:19 Patton1942 wrote:



...

Britian held the line, essentially alone against the full force of the Nazi war machine (excepting the massive influx of war material) as well as mantaining a large over seas empire. Without the royal navy, the war might have ended very quickly with a german invasion of the british isles.
....

On November 24 2010 11:56 Odyssey.561 wrote:
There are some very ignorant posts in this thread besides the point of how off topic some have gotten. The N/S korean conflict could carry some big repercussions depending on who gets involved with either side. I wonder what all the players there for GSL are thinking? I could only imagine there has to be some tension through out the entire country.

On November 24 2010 11:55 DannyJ wrote:


I would say "what i meant was, the level of hardship and arduousness russians had to go through was more than what americans experienced, in my opinion" but thats not what im saying... so i didn't.

D-day was "easy" for america in terms of lives and tactics. Easy in a miltiary sense, compared to the massive cluster fucks that the Germans and Russians entrenched themselves in.

On November 24 2010 12:19 Patton1942 wrote:



correct. However, stalingrade did not fall in large part, due to foreign aid. It takes both sides to win. both sides struggled mightily. The US fought terrible battles with attrocious casualties in the pacific. The US is the only country in WWII to fight two fronts successfully.

Russian pressure on the western front was a massive factor in the success of the D-Day landings. Many of the regiments stationed on the atlantic wall were heavily depleted and fatigued due to fighting in russia. Russian military might was unstoppable once the country got fully mobilized.

Britian held the line, essentially alone against the full force of the Nazi war machine (excepting the massive influx of war material) as well as mantaining a large over seas empire. Without the royal navy, the war might have ended very quickly with a german invasion of the british isles.


No one single power can claim to "have won" WWII. that is simple, historical fact.


[edit: Sorry. On topic. I fear the situation in N. Korea is the same bull headed posturing to try to get some advantage in propaganda and negotiations via strong arm tactics. Their economy is in shambles, winter is closing in, the pressure is being turned up a notch. These types of violent incidents are not without precedent in that regions turbulent history. N. Korean soldiers have fired into the demilitarized zone in the past. I am not aware of anything into civilian areas though. I am frightened by this escalation, which is probably what NK is going for. I hope things don't escalate.]

On November 24 2010 11:45 DannyJ wrote:


Tell that to the Russian troops in Stalingrad. They would BEG you to be on Omaha Beach.

D-day was EASY compared to most of the shit Russians had to do. Sorry.

On November 24 2010 12:40 Elegy wrote:
Hi, my name is Mr. DeRail (its French) and I like to make threads about a Korean crisis into WW2 debates. How are you today?

On November 24 2010 11:54 BiOAtK wrote:
Who cares about WW2?

Also, I don't think air superiority matters as much as in wars vs NK as it did against Iraq. NK is heavily tunneled; that negates some of the advantage of air superiority. A huge portion of NK is militarized; most people have gone through some form of basic training. Also, 1 guided rocket is cheaper than an aircraft, and can be fired robotically and automatically, while an airplane needs to be piloted and is extremely expensive.
Also, NK would be fine with a long haul through war; they're a really militaristic state and have a very strong tyranny over their people. No protests, no political pressure, and they don't care about civilian casualties. The US and SK are both very politically motivated states. SK, of course, will do by the civilian political pressure.

The North Korean air force is easily shot out of the sky; counter-battery fire and air strikes destroy the artillery firing at Seoul; most of the Scud clones miss their targets; and the North Korean divisions heading south across the DMZ are shredded by air power.

North Korea's air force is no match for the United States': 90 percent of North Korean combat aircraft are Soviet or Chinese designs dating to the 1950s and '60s, according to Bermudez's book.

. North Korea's economic problems have left it short of fuel and spare parts. Its pilots get five to 10 hours of flying time annually; U.S. pilots get 200 hours a year.

. Morale among North Korean troops could quickly plunge. An invasion would expose them to the realities of South Korea's prosperity - a shock for soldiers who have been taught that South Korea is an impoverished U.S. colony.

For all these reasons, most analysts believe a conventional war would in some ways look like the first Korean War: North Korea delivering a solid first blow before being pushed back.

On November 24 2010 12:51 Manifesto7 wrote:


Comparing gradients of war experience is about as useless an exercise as there is. I suggest you don't argue along those lines if you wish to be taken seriously.