|
On March 08 2013 07:42 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 08 2013 07:36 jello_biafra wrote:On March 08 2013 06:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:
we should have cut off all aid a long time ago and let them collapse. propping up regimes is not the answer. It would be pointless because China would just keep them going, any solution to the North Korea problem is going to have to involve bringing China onboard in a serious way. I said a long time ago, back when it mattered. There wasn't really a point in time when they were totally dependent on western aid and could simply be cut off though, they were funded by the USSR and then China.
so we'd have killed two birds with one stone by cutting them off entirely, force the burden to lie more heavily on nations like the USSR and China and we'd have seen how long the friendship lasts.
|
On March 08 2013 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:01 white_horse wrote:On March 08 2013 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 08 2013 03:08 DavoS wrote:Mods working their butts off on this thread. Long story short, we can't really respond with military violence + Show Spoiler +The big issue with dealing with all of North Korea's threats is that if they do in fact have nuclear warheads, they could launch one and have it hit Seoul in about 5 minutes. That's 14 million people. And they don't need a rocket that can go to space, they just need one strong enough to shoot a hundred miles or so. You can't evacuate a city Seoul's size that quickly, and for all the hype we have for our anti-nuclear defenses, none of them have been field tested. I don't think anyone wants to find out how well they do or don't work by using the population of South Korea as the guinea pig. EDIT: On March 07 2013 23:59 arChieSC2 wrote:
good luck NK! The mods have a very bizarre definition of what is anti-American (or anti-western or whatever) enough to dole out a warning. Edit 2: the revenge: So Kim Jong-Il died not terribly long ago. And now North Korea is having another Nuclear launch. Proven evidence of... Ghosts. *ba-dum tish* No, they haven't yet been able to miniaturise the nuclear device to the point where it can be used as a warhead. They'd have to put it on a truck or a boat and get it to Seoul that way. At the moment the risk to Seoul is from conventional munitions which will still level the place with colossal loss of life. North korea's artillery tubes won't "level" seoul with "colossal" loss of life. The south korean military would hit back the moment they fire the first shell. It's hard to do a lot of damage when your own weapons have been blown by enemy artillery or airstrikes. This is completely false. Even fairly conservative estimates put the losses of life in the hundreds of thousands at minimum. There is no question that the North Korean army could completely overrun the South Korean and U.S. army on foot with their initial waves. Would we push back? Of course, but not until at least a few days later, minimum. In the meantime North Korea would blow South Korea to shit.
It's true, they have a whole load of artillery trained right on Seoul, just awaiting the command.
|
On March 08 2013 07:46 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 08 2013 07:01 white_horse wrote:On March 08 2013 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 08 2013 03:08 DavoS wrote:Mods working their butts off on this thread. Long story short, we can't really respond with military violence + Show Spoiler +The big issue with dealing with all of North Korea's threats is that if they do in fact have nuclear warheads, they could launch one and have it hit Seoul in about 5 minutes. That's 14 million people. And they don't need a rocket that can go to space, they just need one strong enough to shoot a hundred miles or so. You can't evacuate a city Seoul's size that quickly, and for all the hype we have for our anti-nuclear defenses, none of them have been field tested. I don't think anyone wants to find out how well they do or don't work by using the population of South Korea as the guinea pig. EDIT: On March 07 2013 23:59 arChieSC2 wrote:
good luck NK! The mods have a very bizarre definition of what is anti-American (or anti-western or whatever) enough to dole out a warning. Edit 2: the revenge: So Kim Jong-Il died not terribly long ago. And now North Korea is having another Nuclear launch. Proven evidence of... Ghosts. *ba-dum tish* No, they haven't yet been able to miniaturise the nuclear device to the point where it can be used as a warhead. They'd have to put it on a truck or a boat and get it to Seoul that way. At the moment the risk to Seoul is from conventional munitions which will still level the place with colossal loss of life. North korea's artillery tubes won't "level" seoul with "colossal" loss of life. The south korean military would hit back the moment they fire the first shell. It's hard to do a lot of damage when your own weapons have been blown by enemy artillery or airstrikes. This is completely false. Even fairly conservative estimates put the losses of life in the hundreds of thousands at minimum. There is no question that the North Korean army could completely overrun the South Korean and U.S. army on foot with their initial waves. Would we push back? Of course, but not until at least a few days later, minimum. In the meantime North Korea would blow South Korea to shit. It's true, they have a whole load of artillery trained right on Seoul, just awaiting the command.
To clarify, you're saying "it's true" as in you agree with me? Confused because I started my sentence with "completely false."
|
On March 08 2013 07:47 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:46 jello_biafra wrote:On March 08 2013 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 08 2013 07:01 white_horse wrote:On March 08 2013 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 08 2013 03:08 DavoS wrote:Mods working their butts off on this thread. Long story short, we can't really respond with military violence + Show Spoiler +The big issue with dealing with all of North Korea's threats is that if they do in fact have nuclear warheads, they could launch one and have it hit Seoul in about 5 minutes. That's 14 million people. And they don't need a rocket that can go to space, they just need one strong enough to shoot a hundred miles or so. You can't evacuate a city Seoul's size that quickly, and for all the hype we have for our anti-nuclear defenses, none of them have been field tested. I don't think anyone wants to find out how well they do or don't work by using the population of South Korea as the guinea pig. EDIT: On March 07 2013 23:59 arChieSC2 wrote:
good luck NK! The mods have a very bizarre definition of what is anti-American (or anti-western or whatever) enough to dole out a warning. Edit 2: the revenge: So Kim Jong-Il died not terribly long ago. And now North Korea is having another Nuclear launch. Proven evidence of... Ghosts. *ba-dum tish* No, they haven't yet been able to miniaturise the nuclear device to the point where it can be used as a warhead. They'd have to put it on a truck or a boat and get it to Seoul that way. At the moment the risk to Seoul is from conventional munitions which will still level the place with colossal loss of life. North korea's artillery tubes won't "level" seoul with "colossal" loss of life. The south korean military would hit back the moment they fire the first shell. It's hard to do a lot of damage when your own weapons have been blown by enemy artillery or airstrikes. This is completely false. Even fairly conservative estimates put the losses of life in the hundreds of thousands at minimum. There is no question that the North Korean army could completely overrun the South Korean and U.S. army on foot with their initial waves. Would we push back? Of course, but not until at least a few days later, minimum. In the meantime North Korea would blow South Korea to shit. It's true, they have a whole load of artillery trained right on Seoul, just awaiting the command. To clarify, you're saying "it's true" as in you agree with me? Confused because I started my sentence with "completely false."
Yeah, I realized that after I posted lol.
I was indeed agreeing with you.
|
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
|
On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
This is what I've been wondering for a while as well.
|
On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
Well I would guess that Seoul would get blown to smithereens, losing most of its inhabitants and then NATO would rain down nuclear hellfire upon North Korea and it may very well be the beginning of a Third World War...
|
On March 08 2013 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:01 white_horse wrote:On March 08 2013 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 08 2013 03:08 DavoS wrote:Mods working their butts off on this thread. Long story short, we can't really respond with military violence + Show Spoiler +The big issue with dealing with all of North Korea's threats is that if they do in fact have nuclear warheads, they could launch one and have it hit Seoul in about 5 minutes. That's 14 million people. And they don't need a rocket that can go to space, they just need one strong enough to shoot a hundred miles or so. You can't evacuate a city Seoul's size that quickly, and for all the hype we have for our anti-nuclear defenses, none of them have been field tested. I don't think anyone wants to find out how well they do or don't work by using the population of South Korea as the guinea pig. EDIT: On March 07 2013 23:59 arChieSC2 wrote:
good luck NK! The mods have a very bizarre definition of what is anti-American (or anti-western or whatever) enough to dole out a warning. Edit 2: the revenge: So Kim Jong-Il died not terribly long ago. And now North Korea is having another Nuclear launch. Proven evidence of... Ghosts. *ba-dum tish* No, they haven't yet been able to miniaturise the nuclear device to the point where it can be used as a warhead. They'd have to put it on a truck or a boat and get it to Seoul that way. At the moment the risk to Seoul is from conventional munitions which will still level the place with colossal loss of life. North korea's artillery tubes won't "level" seoul with "colossal" loss of life. The south korean military would hit back the moment they fire the first shell. It's hard to do a lot of damage when your own weapons have been blown by enemy artillery or airstrikes. This is completely false. Even fairly conservative estimates put the losses of life in the hundreds of thousands at minimum. There is no question that the North Korean army could completely overrun the South Korean and U.S. army on foot with their initial waves. Would we push back? Of course, but not until at least a few days later, minimum. In the meantime North Korea would blow South Korea to shit.
Hundreds of thousands is actually a fairly dated estimate. It would be closer to tens of thousands which would still be terrible, however it's very unlikely that NK would go through with it risking the lives of all the Chinese nationals who live in seoul.
http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/06/north-korea-cant-really-turn-seoul-into-a-sea-of-fire/
|
On March 08 2013 07:54 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks. Well I would guess that Seoul would get blown to smithereens, losing most of its inhabitants and then NATO would rain down nuclear hellfire upon North Korea and it may very well be the beginning of a Third World War...
Why would it be World War III? No one would fight NATO, they'd be insane. NK would get their military destroyed, NATO would try to preserve civilian life most likely, the areas would probably be mass evacuated due to radiation...
China would never, ever try to support North Korea in any military way whatsoever if NK fired a nuke. They would drop all allegiance immediately.
|
On March 08 2013 07:57 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:54 jello_biafra wrote:On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks. Well I would guess that Seoul would get blown to smithereens, losing most of its inhabitants and then NATO would rain down nuclear hellfire upon North Korea and it may very well be the beginning of a Third World War... Why would it be World War III? No one would fight NATO, they'd be insane. NK would get their military destroyed, NATO would try to preserve civilian life most likely, the areas would probably be mass evacuated due to radiation... China would never, ever try to support North Korea in any military way whatsoever if NK fired a nuke. They would drop all allegiance immediately.
Just felt that an unrealistic start to a scenario deserved an unrealistic ending.
It would take some kind of unholy alliance between China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, NK and others to take on NATO.
|
On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
From what I can gather if missiles are launched it's going to be a nuke and going to be launched at the US. What I see happening is NK launches Nuke, US shoots nuke out of the sky, US stealth bombs the majority of artillery aimed at SK to minimize damage then moves in and bombs the living shit out NK military bases.
Just my guess on what would happen if the worst happens.(I don't really see NK being stupid/crazy enough to launch any missiles though)
|
The US, and every other country with nukes, has no moral authority to tell others to give up pursuing them. While I don't condone using them and think its foolish for NK to think they can nuke anyone and survive, its laughable to tell them to put the nukes down while the west refuses.
|
On March 08 2013 08:02 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2013 07:57 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 08 2013 07:54 jello_biafra wrote:On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks. Well I would guess that Seoul would get blown to smithereens, losing most of its inhabitants and then NATO would rain down nuclear hellfire upon North Korea and it may very well be the beginning of a Third World War... Why would it be World War III? No one would fight NATO, they'd be insane. NK would get their military destroyed, NATO would try to preserve civilian life most likely, the areas would probably be mass evacuated due to radiation... China would never, ever try to support North Korea in any military way whatsoever if NK fired a nuke. They would drop all allegiance immediately. Just felt that an unrealistic start to a scenario deserved an unrealistic ending.
lmao
|
American's...
"Iran may have bio-weapons"
"ATTAAAAAACK!" "Oh, it was only oil".
"NK has nuclear-weapons for real and they are threathing to strike USA with them"
"Yawn!" "No oil".
:D Goddamn!
|
On March 08 2013 08:07 Wpgstevo wrote:
The US, and every other country with nukes, has no moral authority to tell others to give up pursuing them. While I don't condone using them and think its foolish for NK to think they can nuke anyone and survive, its laughable to tell them to put the nukes down while the west refuses.
The difference between the west having nukes and them is, the west has somewhat stable leaders guys that are voted in etc. NK has a potential nut job.
Kinda nuclear apples to nuclear oranges when comparing situations here. Nobody wants a wacked out guy to have his finger on the shiny red button of a nuclear missile...
Also what the guy above me said xD I find that absolutely fucking hilarious and really sad at the same time..
|
And who judges which countries can have nukes? Let me guess, the ones who already have them. Sorry, but I can't support your "might is right" mantra.
NK has very stable leadership - they change dictators infrequently. If by stable you mean "does what we tell them" then i guess not, but AFAIK they are a sovereign country. They don't have to do shit unless they want to.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 08 2013 08:10 stfouri wrote:
American's...
"Iran may have bio-weapons"
"ATTAAAAAACK!" "Oh, it was only oil".
"NK has nuclear-weapons for real and they are threathing to strike USA with them"
"Yawn!" "No oil".
:D Goddamn!
I think it has a whole lot more to due with the fact that as soon as a soldier steps one foot onto NK soil(actually, probably before they ever make it that close)then Soeul will be turned to a pile of ruble. There's something like 10,000 artillery cannons pointed at the city, and of course China also an important player in the whole thing, so to simply it into no oil equals no war is just plain stupid.
|
I'm sure you agree with me if I say the less nuclear powers the world has the better.
|
On March 08 2013 07:50 Added wrote:
May I ask a hypothetical question?
Assuming North Korean leadership is... less than sane (however unlikely that may be), and they do in fact launch missiles, what exactly would happen? This is taking into account that Seoul is basically a global hub and the population of Seoul makes up almost a quarter of the entire country.
I'd like to know what people think, I don't want to be told 'that will never happen'.
Thanks.
they would probably be shot down by either South Korean or Japanese anti-missile defenses. The UN will then reprimand NK and the NK government probably won't give a shit. The chinese government will probably say "fuck this, I'm out" to whatever ties they had with NK. The SK and US governments will then probably try to have more talks with the NK government with little progress in disarming NK but it'll at least postpone any more irrational actions. And we'll be back to where we are now. No one really has a real incentive to take the situation any further than that.
In all honesty, that will never happen though. If NK had the capacity to do an effective missile strike, they would do so unannounced and at a more opportune time.
|
On March 08 2013 08:07 Wpgstevo wrote:
The US, and every other country with nukes, has no moral authority to tell others to give up pursuing them. While I don't condone using them and think its foolish for NK to think they can nuke anyone and survive, its laughable to tell them to put the nukes down while the west refuses.
Moral authority is completely besides the point.
A police officer has no moral authority to tell you that you can't carry a concealed weapon, but they will use force to disarm you in a confrontation. Why? Because you carrying a concealed weapon around them is a threat to their power and their lives.
Same with US/NK relations. NK has the right to do as they wish, but the existing power may final have had enough.
North Korea has proven they have the rocket technology to hit distant targets, they've proven they have nuclear weapons and they have clearly and consistently said they will use them. They have made specific threats.
If a civilian has a gun and threatens to use it in an agitated manner, the cops will shoot first and take them out.
I'd not want to be in Korea right now.
You have a crazy guy running around with a nuke, threatening to shoot the cops. Gonna be trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
