|
On November 24 2010 15:15 phosphorylation wrote:http://www.cbs.co.kr/nocut/show.asp?idx=1642854LOL, the korean secretary of defense, in retort to criticism about the 13 minutes it took for s korea to retaliate, responded "real situation is not like starcraft, where you can shoot back instantly."
Wow thats pretty funny referring to sc. Imagine if the US did that for Call of duty or something.
|
|
|
On November 24 2010 16:24 madcow305 wrote:
So, is there any actual way to get NK to stop doing stuff like this, without losing all of Korea in a nuclear fireball, and without taking decades to change the regime of NK into one more friendly to the West?
If we invade, the regime topples quickly, but then the nukes come out. Sure they don't have ICBMs to hit Los Angeles, but they do have enough range on their missiles to carry the nuclear warheads to Japan and Seoul. We invade, they nuke their neighbors, everyone loses.
If we don't invade, NK will keep pushing the envelope because they know nobody will do anything about it. Then, we'd have to gradually shift the regime through political pressure into one that stops shelling civilians and sinking ships. However, this will take decades to accomplish.
So basically, theres no easy way out of this one, is there?
You know of course that the US aren't very good at this kind of stuff?
Let us look at some numbers from their last action of this type, shall we?
Invasion of Iraq:
US forces: 4404 dead and 31827 wounded
Coalition forces: 318 dead
Contractors: 1315 dead
Iraqui police and military allied with US: 11520 dead
Civilians: 94902 — 103549 dead
Enemy: 23984 dead
And now there's a big chance of radical religious fanatics taking over the government there.
Would you call this a success?
|
On November 24 2010 16:39 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 16:24 madcow305 wrote:
So, is there any actual way to get NK to stop doing stuff like this, without losing all of Korea in a nuclear fireball, and without taking decades to change the regime of NK into one more friendly to the West?
If we invade, the regime topples quickly, but then the nukes come out. Sure they don't have ICBMs to hit Los Angeles, but they do have enough range on their missiles to carry the nuclear warheads to Japan and Seoul. We invade, they nuke their neighbors, everyone loses.
If we don't invade, NK will keep pushing the envelope because they know nobody will do anything about it. Then, we'd have to gradually shift the regime through political pressure into one that stops shelling civilians and sinking ships. However, this will take decades to accomplish.
So basically, theres no easy way out of this one, is there? You know of course that the US aren't very good at this kind of stuff? Let us look at some numbers from their last action of this type, shall we? Invasion of Iraq: US forces: 4404 dead and 31827 wounded Coalition forces: 318 dead Contractors: 1315 dead Iraqui police and military allied with US: 11520 dead Civilians: 94902 — 103549 dead Enemy: 23984 dead And now there's a big chance of radical religious fanatics taking over the government there. Would you call this a success?
Indeed.
The United States are actually notoriously terrible when it comes to warfare, especially when you consider how much money they pour into it.
Imagine how bad they would be if they had the secondhand equipment of their enemies.
|
|
|
|
|
That's quite a few hours old. Everything on that article has been posted already somewhere in this thread.
|
On November 24 2010 16:39 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 16:24 madcow305 wrote:
So, is there any actual way to get NK to stop doing stuff like this, without losing all of Korea in a nuclear fireball, and without taking decades to change the regime of NK into one more friendly to the West?
If we invade, the regime topples quickly, but then the nukes come out. Sure they don't have ICBMs to hit Los Angeles, but they do have enough range on their missiles to carry the nuclear warheads to Japan and Seoul. We invade, they nuke their neighbors, everyone loses.
If we don't invade, NK will keep pushing the envelope because they know nobody will do anything about it. Then, we'd have to gradually shift the regime through political pressure into one that stops shelling civilians and sinking ships. However, this will take decades to accomplish.
So basically, theres no easy way out of this one, is there? You know of course that the US aren't very good at this kind of stuff? Let us look at some numbers from their last action of this type, shall we? Invasion of Iraq: US forces: 4404 dead and 31827 wounded Coalition forces: 318 dead Contractors: 1315 dead Iraqui police and military allied with US: 11520 dead Civilians: 94902 — 103549 dead Enemy: 23984 dead And now there's a big chance of radical religious fanatics taking over the government there. Would you call this a success?
You are right but you have to remember that we were fighting on iraqi soil many miles away. We took it over almost instantly but we are now sitting there while al quida sits in Iran. They cross the border and blow themselves up. The problem was not the invasion it was the aftermath. We should not of been in there because most of Iraq did not even want help.
|
when i saw the first pictures and breaking news on our news pages in germany, i was so shocked ...
i mean this could be a start of a nuclear war and imagine seoul who is so near to the border ... so many people could die ... i rly hope there is no war coming ...
today i read that usa is sending aircraft carrier and making train with south korea this sunday as answer ... for me it sounds like north korea want help and shoot so they get help when they stop as always ... i hope someone stop them from killing someone before its to late  war is not the answer
|
Zurich15326 Posts
Can we once again return back to the original topic please and not discuss World War 2 or Iraq for the 100x time? Thanks.
|
listen to Zatic. he's been consistently level headed and on topic throughout the entire thread.
|
Interesting news, I hope it's resolved quickly.
Governments like that need to be taken down or changed quickly. Leaving them like that as weapons just get more powerful is dumb. Eventually even the smallest dictatorship will be impenetrable because of the threat of retaliatory nukes/worse.
|
On November 24 2010 17:01 zatic wrote:
Can we once again return back to the original topic please and not discuss World War 2 or Iraq for the 100x time? Thanks.
Sorry, when someone says something you think is obviously wrong it's hard not to get off topic.
|
On November 24 2010 16:56 Duban wrote:That's quite a few hours old. Everything on that article has been posted already somewhere in this thread.
well it was an update on BBC 10 minutes ago but yes a lot of it was already stated. Especially the graphic. But for people who don't watch ABC news 24/7 the video is probably new even if the article is not.
Edit: plus i was watching gsl and not checking news feeds for the past few hours.
|
|
|
|
|
NHK World reported it as well.
|
|
|
On November 24 2010 10:29 TyrantPotato wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 10:16 TwoPac wrote:On November 24 2010 10:01 johanngrunt wrote:On November 24 2010 09:42 Frits wrote:
This is ridiculous, western society is built on morals and rights. If what you say is true we'd still be keeping slaves. Also, America did not win WW2, Russia did. Russia never would've pushed the Germans back without American and British Aid. Also America won in the pacific theatre and merely allowed Russia to make it Berlin first. ignorance. 90% of all german casualties in WW2 were against russian forces. think about that for every 1 soldier that died from non russian soldiers. 9 more died from russians. had hitler not broken their treaty with russia the outcome of the war would have been very different. essentially had they kept their alliance with russia. all the soldiers that were fighting on the eastern front would have been able to fight on the western or at least the large majority. meaning france quite frankly could have been completely occupied by the germans. it was the british australian and american armys that were getting shat on by the germans. however since it was germany that lost. the schools today can spin whatever shit they want to the students and they will eat it all up. and US allowed russia to take berlin? berlin fell before japan fell. so how can american be letting russia take berlin first if they are still preoccupied in the pacific.?
This is such a clueless post.
First of all Hitler keeping the alliance with Soviet Union? Lol? Hitler and Stalin are total enemies. MORE some than the Germans/West or Soviet/West. They have completely different ideologies. In fact before WW2, Hitler was fully willing and prepared to side with the democratic Western Europe against Soviet Union. However, countries like Britain and France etc didnt trust Hitler and rather side with Stalin. Hitler was annexing/remilitarizing territories, the Soviets BEGGED the West to do something about it. Britain and France didnt do anything about it for a couple reasons. They were busy dealing with the Abbysinian Crisis against Mussolino in Africa. Depression and didn't want to do any spending for fear of making the economy worse. British/French leaders didn't have the balls to do anything against Hitler. In fact we even have a NAME for this policy of British and French sucking Hitler off - "Appeasement"
Guess what Stalin finally said? F that, let's have an agreement with the Hitler. NOT for an alliance, but to buy time and get some land for free as well (Poland). They did this for survival. Hitler always planned to invade Soviet Union eventually. Stalin knows. What did you think they were doing while Western Europe was being invaded? They were building up their military to defend against Hitler. The idea of Hitler and Stalin being allies is completely ludicrous. Problem is Stalin completely underestimated the time Hitler would take before invading Soviet Union, in fact Stalin was off by 2 whole years.
Again, stating that Hitler should've waited until they take over Britain also shows your lack of knowledge. What was Hitler doing the entire time before invading Soviet Union? They took over Western Europe. Now what? Britain's the ONLY one left. Britain's an island, how are you going to get there? By sea. You can't just simply put some troops on a boat and hope they get to Britain safely. You NEED air dominance. That was the whole point of Battle of Britain. German air force vs Britain air force. We all know what happened. German lost that battle, meaning they lost their air force. So explain, how exactly is German going to invade Britain when their air force is gone and Britain's RAF is doing their pew-pews against German's navy? They need oil. Guess who had a shit ton of oil? Soviet Union. Guess what Stalin was doing? Massive military spending. You think Hitler rather wait until Soviet Union is completely militarized or attack now when they're still not ready?
Second of all there is a HUGE difference between 90% of all German casualties caused by Russian forces and 90% of all German casualties in the Eastern Front. Hitler's long term invasion strategy for Soviet Union was absolutely atrocious. So atrocious in fact that he DIDN'T have one. He started the invasion during summer, he expected Soviet Union to fall before the winter of the same year. No seriously, Hitler, the entire Soviet Union to fall in less than half a year?
This meant that Hitler didn't even bothered equipping his troops with winter gear. Alright, what Germany military leaders did during the beginning of Operation Barbarossa was impressive, guess what happened next? Hitler told them all to stfu and do things his way. Hitler's timeline was wrong and winter approaches. What happens if you walk around in summer clothes while it was -20 degrees in Moscow? I'd say you have a pretty damn high chance of lots of people dying. Second of all, he expected the Soviet Union to fall quickly, Hitler didn't even bother planning for a supply line. He thought he could simply use captured Soviet resources. That's where the scorched earth policy comes in. Stalin's smart, he destroyed his own resources so German war machine couldn't get any supplies for themselves. By the time winter comes in, he hasn't prepared proper supply vehicles to reinforce his soldiers so tons of vehicles got frozen, again stopping Hitler from reinforcing his troops. Same with tanks, they all got frozen, they needed to spend hours to heat up vehicles just so they can be used. If you already have limited heat, and they're being used for vehicles, what happens to your troops? Die even faster. What happens if your soldiers arent being fed? Again more troops starving and dying. A huge part of this goes to Hitler's stupidity for not thinking long term and allowing tons of casualties among his army rather than they all being killed by Soviets.
These weren't even Hitler's worse mistakes. When Hitler was so close to invading Moscow, Hitler tells his generals, "Let's go take a tour around Ukraine LOLOLOL," when Moscow was a couple kilometres away. (Entire German army was heading west to where Moscow was, Hitler told military to head south to get some riches) Hitler gives Stalin a couple months to reinforce Moscow and turn it into a fortress as well as giving him the advantage of even colder temperatures when the Germans were all still walking around in shorts. Thus Germans lose the Battle of Moscow. Hitler could've ended all this drama if he simply just listened to his Generals and go for Moscow right away rather than taking a detour. If he takes Moscow now what? All of Stalin's industries were in Western Russia. Stalin destroyed all of them as part of his scorched earth policy to prevent Hitler from capturing them. This means they were still in the process of building all their industries in Eastern Russia.
And yes, the West let Stalin get to Berlin first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_Berlin
User was warned for this post
|
On November 24 2010 16:39 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 16:24 madcow305 wrote:
So, is there any actual way to get NK to stop doing stuff like this, without losing all of Korea in a nuclear fireball, and without taking decades to change the regime of NK into one more friendly to the West?
If we invade, the regime topples quickly, but then the nukes come out. Sure they don't have ICBMs to hit Los Angeles, but they do have enough range on their missiles to carry the nuclear warheads to Japan and Seoul. We invade, they nuke their neighbors, everyone loses.
If we don't invade, NK will keep pushing the envelope because they know nobody will do anything about it. Then, we'd have to gradually shift the regime through political pressure into one that stops shelling civilians and sinking ships. However, this will take decades to accomplish.
So basically, theres no easy way out of this one, is there? You know of course that the US aren't very good at this kind of stuff? Let us look at some numbers from their last action of this type, shall we? Invasion of Iraq: US forces: 4404 dead and 31827 wounded Coalition forces: 318 dead Contractors: 1315 dead Iraqui police and military allied with US: 11520 dead Civilians: 94902 — 103549 dead Enemy: 23984 dead And now there's a big chance of radical religious fanatics taking over the government there. Would you call this a success?
Actually the invasion went rather smoothly. Those figures are from the occupation of Iraq. There might not be the same problem in N Korea because I don't think they have religious sects that hate each other like in Iraq. In most regions of the world the U.S. is pretty good at toppling governments and setting up puppets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
