EPTBring it.
North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
S.O.L.I.D.
United States792 Posts
Bring it. | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
On February 13 2013 09:51 white_horse wrote: The US has plenty of aircraft carriers for that, they don't have to lug howitzers all the way onto the korean peninsula. Also, because of its all-seeing satellites, the US would know north korean military movement and other indications of an artillery strike beforehand. In an ideal situation, south korean and US intelligence would identify north korean plans to attack south korean cities and then send fighter jets to bomb the north koreans before they are able to do significant damage. The US has one aircraft carrier in the region, not plenty. To attack a joke country like Iraq they shipped material over there for months, including three carrier groups. The fundamental question still remains how long are you going to ship firepower and risk NK attacking first? How soon would you strike first with inadequate firepower if you see the north preparing an attack? Also, it wouldn't be that easy to identify NK activity since much of their military is already concentrated at the border. Finally, you need to look at this from the perspective of the SK leadership, not the US. Would you want to be the one risking war and tens of thousands of your people's lives by requesting a preemptive strike or the capability for one from the US? On February 13 2013 10:02 DonKey_ wrote: As far as the NK artilery scenario goes I think people VASTLY over-estimate the damage NK could really do to Seoul This article does a good job explaining how there are many misconceptions about how much damage the NK artilery could effectively do. http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/06/north-korea-cant-really-turn-seoul-into-a-sea-of-fire/ Nukes though are another story. The article talks about 30k SK dead within the first hour, and casualties sharply dropping after that. No, that won't be another Hiroshima, but I would say that is catastrophic enough. Over 2 years the Syrian war "just" caused 70k casualties. And that is only counting conventional artillery fire, what if they fire chemical weapons. Point is South Korea has enough to lose to avoid open conflict at basically any cost. Nukes are not that much of a worry since NK has no conventional way to deliver a nuke. I guess they could explode on in NK or at the border, which would be terrible enough. But I really doubt there is any chance they can hit Seoul. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On February 13 2013 10:05 triforks wrote: If NK has publicly stated that the US is it's Arch Enemy and it also has nukes, we have to already be preparing something. Preparing something? Besides having the largest military in the world, 11 carrier groups, and a presence in the most heavily militarized demilitarized zone in the world? | ||
|
forestry
95 Posts
On February 13 2013 04:35 Vandrad wrote: Sounds like hollywood. Not sure if this a serious question ... Didn't this already happen in 1967 in the middle east...? | ||
|
DonKey_
Liechtenstein1356 Posts
On February 13 2013 15:57 zatic wrote: The US has one aircraft carrier in the region, not plenty. To attack a joke country like Iraq they shipped material over there for months, including three carrier groups. The fundamental question still remains how long are you going to ship firepower and risk NK attacking first? How soon would you strike first with inadequate firepower if you see the north preparing an attack? Also, it wouldn't be that easy to identify NK activity since much of their military is already concentrated at the border. Finally, you need to look at this from the perspective of the SK leadership, not the US. Would you want to be the one risking war and tens of thousands of your people's lives by requesting a preemptive strike or the capability for one from the US? The article talks about 30k SK dead within the first hour, and casualties sharply dropping after that. No, that won't be another Hiroshima, but I would say that is catastrophic enough. Over 2 years the Syrian war "just" caused 70k casualties. And that is only counting conventional artillery fire, what if they fire chemical weapons. Point is South Korea has enough to lose to avoid open conflict at basically any cost. Nukes are not that much of a worry since NK has no conventional way to deliver a nuke. I guess they could explode on in NK or at the border, which would be terrible enough. But I really doubt there is any chance they can hit Seoul. Right I think SK should avoid any conflict with NK as well, but I just posted that article cause alot people are under the assumption that millions would die to NK artillery(cause this was the assumption going all the way back into the 90's), but the causalities estimated before have been drastically reduced since late 2000's. If push comes to shove and NK does try to attack SK in some way, it's not the conventional artillery we should be worried about but the chemical or nuclear weapons which will cause far more damage. They may not have a way to deliver a nuke to SK currently, but I think it's safe to say they are working on one and getting closer exponentially. | ||
|
Cuce
Turkey1127 Posts
also, seoul being in rage, any case of a firestorm would be disastreous | ||
|
King.Tut
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
| ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On February 13 2013 15:57 zatic wrote: The US has one aircraft carrier in the region, not plenty. To attack a joke country like Iraq they shipped material over there for months, including three carrier groups. The fundamental question still remains how long are you going to ship firepower and risk NK attacking first? How soon would you strike first with inadequate firepower if you see the north preparing an attack? Also, it wouldn't be that easy to identify NK activity since much of their military is already concentrated at the border. Finally, you need to look at this from the perspective of the SK leadership, not the US. Would you want to be the one risking war and tens of thousands of your people's lives by requesting a preemptive strike or the capability for one from the US? The article talks about 30k SK dead within the first hour, and casualties sharply dropping after that. No, that won't be another Hiroshima, but I would say that is catastrophic enough. Over 2 years the Syrian war "just" caused 70k casualties. And that is only counting conventional artillery fire, what if they fire chemical weapons. Point is South Korea has enough to lose to avoid open conflict at basically any cost. Nukes are not that much of a worry since NK has no conventional way to deliver a nuke. I guess they could explode on in NK or at the border, which would be terrible enough. But I really doubt there is any chance they can hit Seoul. You are misunderestimating the military capabilities of the south korean military and the US forces in south korea and around the region. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On February 13 2013 03:03 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: you misunderstand dependencies.. without the USA, who would china get money from/sell to? without china, USA would still be able to acquire what we need, just for a little bit more money supply doesn't do much without demand... china can have all the factories they want, but if we don't want their services, they are next to useless You are kidding right? You do know China is worlds factory at the moment? USA without China cannot produce shit. China would sell their products to anyone else, USA would buy it from nobody and would need to build factories again and train people to work them during war. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
On February 14 2013 09:14 -Archangel- wrote: You are kidding right? You do know China is worlds factory at the moment? USA without China cannot produce shit. China would sell their products to anyone else, USA would buy it from nobody and would need to build factories again and train people to work them during war. when there is demand for a service, someone will supply - it may not be as cheap as china, but nobody is going to buy from china on the scale that the USA does (or they would already) | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On February 14 2013 09:57 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: when there is demand for a service, someone will supply - it may not be as cheap as china, but nobody is going to buy from china on the scale that the USA does (or they would already) I'm sure India would love to increase their exports of cheap crap to the US. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11340 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:35 King.Tut wrote: North Korea's so brain washed. They fall deeper and deeper into famine and yet they spend so much money on this failing nuclear program. Weird statement. Of course the NK populace is apparently pretty brainwashed, judging from what one gets to know about it here. However, that is also pretty much completely irrelevant because they got no say in the matter anyways. For the people who get have something to say in NK, this is a pretty rational decision. Apparently their main goal is to stay in their position of power without outside interference. And a good way to achieve that goal is to have nuclear weapons. Appearing slightly insane from time to time also helps. There have been quite a lot of examples of western/US influences in countries they consider unfriendly which did not have the necessary military deterrents in place, so there is some reasonable concern for the NK leaders that that might happen to them, too. In this light it is quite logical to use this moment in time where the american populace is war-weary and it would be quite hard to convince them to commit to another war in a far away country for dubious reasons to push their nuclear program through. And once they got nukes, they are pretty save from outside interference and can keep on running their oppressive psycho-country like they want. Basically, neither the US or SK will do anything to break the status quo if there is a possibility of NK nuking Seoul. Their people starving is also apparently not something that concerns the leading elite in NK that much unless it could start a revolution, which is probably why they need to keep at least the military reasonably well fed. Their nuclear program also does not to be failing, as apparently they are able to detonate something. Sure, it is not the largest bomb ever, but who cares, it can still kill a lot of people, so it works as a deterrent. I don't see how people think that this is a crazy move. It appears to be logical if you assume that the people who make the decisions are basing them on what is best for themselves personally and not on what is best for the people of North Korea. And the state of the country shows pretty clearly that that is indeed how things work there. They just want to keep their personal slavestate intact to provide them with all the luxuries and power over other people that they could desire. | ||
|
tadL
Croatia679 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:35 King.Tut wrote: North Korea's so brain washed. They fall deeper and deeper into famine and yet they spend so much money on this failing nuclear program. Well I remember your country being heavily brainwashed during Bush´s time, just as an example. Spending much money into...you remember right? I just say this to make a point, every popularity can get brainwashed. ps: and its still brainwashed (like many others) in specific points I think. I don't like that NK has nuclear weapons, but I don't like that other country's have this weapon too. But I also think that any technology is open. So if a country wants a specific technology, who am I or any other Person/Country to not allow them. Especially if my country has the same already. We all just have have to hope that NK is not striking any country with it like we hope that USA don't bombs another country. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
vividred
88 Posts
On February 14 2013 01:35 King.Tut wrote: North Korea's so brain washed. They fall deeper and deeper into famine and yet they spend so much money on this failing nuclear program. How do you know they're really brain washed? are you sure they're not really overzealous? because it's what you saw in the media? have you ever been to DPRK? | ||
|
Bengui
Canada775 Posts
This is so... I never... I don't have any words. Oh my fucking god. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
On February 14 2013 08:00 white_horse wrote: You are misunderestimating the military capabilities of the south korean military and the US forces in south korea and around the region. Oh, no, I am not. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On February 14 2013 15:13 Bengui wrote: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf&wit_id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf-2-1 This is so... I never... I don't have any words. Oh my fucking god. Makes you appreciate freedom all the more doesn't it. | ||
| ||
