|
On April 08 2013 00:45 Adel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 00:19 sephiria wrote:On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote:
I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ?
Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided.
Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China.
Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable? Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense. Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves. Iran will stay a middle-sized power in the middle east even if they destroy Israel (so, assuming they go to war and don't get raped). Besides, Russia and China probably won't let Iran be wiped out by Israel because they need their presence to prevent Israel from expanding and conquering a much much bigger territory. EU armies won't get involved unless necessary, and they are considerably weaker than before. While they used to be a force to be reckoned with -- and still are, to some extent - they lost a big part of their might after WW2. There is close to no support for armies within western Europe, because it costs a lot to have a strong army (and it's pointless to have a weak one), and in this economical climate, it's difficult to justify that big of an expense. If they get involved w/ China, USA, ..., they'd be playing with powers that are far bigger than them. I can't really imagine France, Germany, UK, ... standing still while the rest of the world is at war, though. UK will most certainly provide help to the USA, but they aren't as strong as they used to be. I doubt that a conflict involving Russia and China vs USA could be considered unwinnable. USA do have the tech advantage, but China and Russia have access to nuclear weapons, which basically render other tech powerless. If anyone puts their nuclear arsenal on the table, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it. Modern nuclear weaponry is much much much stronger than anything that's ever been fired, and could wipe out a small country in a single blow. Russia, China and USA (amongst others) have the power to destroy the country of their choice... I'm not sure how nuclear weapons play out in modern wars fought between countries that both have access to it. If I were KJU, I'd definitely nuke SK and the USA before shooting myself (because they ain't winning an all-out war againt the USA). And btw, while Israel does have nukes ready to be fired, I highly doubt they'd use them against an enemy that lies so close to them. The main characteristic of nukes is the huge radius of the explosion, and the massive irradiation that follows. Nuking Iran would hurt them too much. But they probably have other weapons that work just as well. Neutron bombs would be a much better idea than standard nuclear artillery. The USA could use some to destroy NK's nuclear warheads, I think, since they destroy electronical components in a very big area
there is a difference between risking a war with the most powerful military and making money from a conflict that also happens to serve one's interest. also: Iran is HUGE, how many people live in Israel? 5 million? they can not expand on this scale, so this is not a danger.
EU armies are currently weaker and smaller than before in terms of large scale offensives, that is correct. but especially the UK, French and German armies are still high tech and while not that strong in numbers in an all out war against Iran they'd win with ease (if it's about holding ground) assuming they are motivated enough to really push the issue.
>I doubt that a conflict involving Russia and China vs USA could be considered unwinnable.
unwinnable does not necessary mean the other party wins. If the US has their back against the wall, the president can always just press the button. Then, nobody would be left to claim the victory.
The other way around is questionable: I had to read a dozen publications on the Cuban missile crisis a few weeks ago, one of them also had a modern day section which stated that experts estimated at the time (2007) that the US would be able to first strike China and Russia (without retaliation) because of superior military Intelligence. Not sure if that was true at the time or still is. But it seems to be a possibility.
|
Next week (or rather, this week..) is going to be interesting times with this situation.
S. Korea says North's missile launch may be imminent
A top South Korean security official said Sunday that North Korea may test-launch a missile this week, as the United States delayed its own missile test due to soaring tensions on the peninsula.
Kim Jang-Soo, chief national security adviser to President Park Geun-Hye, said a test-launch or other provocation could come before or after Wednesday, the date by which the North has suggested that diplomats leave Pyongyang.
North Korea, incensed by UN sanctions following its nuclear and missile tests and by South Korean-US military drills, has issued a series of apocalyptic threats of nuclear war in recent weeks.
It has also reportedly loaded two medium-range missiles on mobile launchers and hidden them in underground facilities near its east coast, raising speculation it is preparing for a provocative launch.
Source
Also on another note:
Kim Jong-un orders increased production of artillery in N. Korea
SEOUL, April 6 (Yonhap) -- North Korean leader Kim Jong-un recently ordered the country's arms industry workers to increase their production of artillery, a television report out of Pyongyang showed Saturday.
Yonhap
|
The noble art of Losing Face
may one day save the Human Race
and turn into eternal merit
what weaker minds would call disgrace.
- Piet Hein
|
![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/f52a64ecf10fcbca9ebc23a8507f1dd7/tumblr_mkrlfjGFSY1qdg36lo1_400.gif)
User was warned for this post
|
As entertaining as it is to see a black basketball player throw a child's box of cereal to the ground, I can't understand the analogy. Why is south korea a shopping cart? And why OH I GET IT
So the cereal is the missile. And the black man comes in, and INTERCEPTION!
And then south korea is saved XD. Hilarious! Sigh, I'm such a dum dum.
|
On April 08 2013 02:45 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 00:45 Adel wrote:On April 08 2013 00:19 sephiria wrote:On April 07 2013 23:59 Adel wrote:
I read quite a bit of this thread, and there's an interesting issue that's been raised and I'd like to weigh in.
What if some countries are waiting for NK to go on an all-out war (don't forget that even if they are highly outmuscled by USA/SK, they'll still need some time to wrap things up, especially considering that they've got to make sure NK doesn't use their nuclear arsenal) ?
Iran could use a diversion to take on Israel. These countries both have extremely strong armies, and a war between the two definitely wouldn't be one-sided.
Besides, Iran has the support of Russia and China.
Now, Russia is the USA's true archenemy, and I doubt that they've forgotten their hate.
It's already been stated that China won't stay still if the USA invade NK, because they definitely don't want US military bases at their border. And if both USA and China invade NK, one of them would have to back off while the other one "conquers" NK. Not sure if China's very eager to adding NK to its territory, but they won't let the USA have it.
With Iran ready to go all out (and I think they are), this could trigger a third world war. Many countries will join Iran in their fight against Israel, whereas Israel has no allies in the region, and if the USA are threatened by China and Russia, I doubt they'd be able to answer the threats and protect Israel.
Am I just theorycrafting or do you guys think that this worst case scenario is believable? Interesting but: Russia will never support an Iranian attack on Israel. Russia and China want Iran as a middle-sized-power in the middle east, but especially russia would not risk war with Europe and the US. Though the Europeans militaries appear weak at the moment, They could probably field a strong force relatively fast. The technology is available at least. Currently, the military is seen as unneccesary by the general populace in Europe, but the chance of Israel getting swallowed by an arabic state would swing the mood radically. And this is just talking conventional forces, the chances of russia or china entering an unwinnable conflict against the nuclear arsenal of the US are probably zero. I also doubt that Iran will ever attack israel, Israel has nukes, and I doubt they'd think twice about using them in self defense. Russia is already supporting, though indirectly, an Iranian attack on Israel, by selling them weapons & other military equipment. I don't think that they'd actually go to war w/ Israel, but they could take advantage of the USA's overextension to be enough of a threat that the USA wouldn't be able to help Israel while being safe from attacks themselves. Iran will stay a middle-sized power in the middle east even if they destroy Israel (so, assuming they go to war and don't get raped). Besides, Russia and China probably won't let Iran be wiped out by Israel because they need their presence to prevent Israel from expanding and conquering a much much bigger territory. EU armies won't get involved unless necessary, and they are considerably weaker than before. While they used to be a force to be reckoned with -- and still are, to some extent - they lost a big part of their might after WW2. There is close to no support for armies within western Europe, because it costs a lot to have a strong army (and it's pointless to have a weak one), and in this economical climate, it's difficult to justify that big of an expense. If they get involved w/ China, USA, ..., they'd be playing with powers that are far bigger than them. I can't really imagine France, Germany, UK, ... standing still while the rest of the world is at war, though. UK will most certainly provide help to the USA, but they aren't as strong as they used to be. I doubt that a conflict involving Russia and China vs USA could be considered unwinnable. USA do have the tech advantage, but China and Russia have access to nuclear weapons, which basically render other tech powerless. If anyone puts their nuclear arsenal on the table, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it. Modern nuclear weaponry is much much much stronger than anything that's ever been fired, and could wipe out a small country in a single blow. Russia, China and USA (amongst others) have the power to destroy the country of their choice... I'm not sure how nuclear weapons play out in modern wars fought between countries that both have access to it. If I were KJU, I'd definitely nuke SK and the USA before shooting myself (because they ain't winning an all-out war againt the USA). And btw, while Israel does have nukes ready to be fired, I highly doubt they'd use them against an enemy that lies so close to them. The main characteristic of nukes is the huge radius of the explosion, and the massive irradiation that follows. Nuking Iran would hurt them too much. But they probably have other weapons that work just as well. Neutron bombs would be a much better idea than standard nuclear artillery. The USA could use some to destroy NK's nuclear warheads, I think, since they destroy electronical components in a very big area there is a difference between risking a war with the most powerful military and making money from a conflict that also happens to serve one's interest. also: Iran is HUGE, how many people live in Israel? 5 million? they can not expand on this scale, so this is not a danger. EU armies are currently weaker and smaller than before in terms of large scale offensives, that is correct. but especially the UK, French and German armies are still high tech and while not that strong in numbers in an all out war against Iran they'd win with ease (if it's about holding ground) assuming they are motivated enough to really push the issue. >I doubt that a conflict involving Russia and China vs USA could be considered unwinnable. unwinnable does not necessary mean the other party wins. If the US has their back against the wall, the president can always just press the button. Then, nobody would be left to claim the victory. The other way around is questionable: I had to read a dozen publications on the Cuban missile crisis a few weeks ago, one of them also had a modern day section which stated that experts estimated at the time (2007) that the US would be able to first strike China and Russia (without retaliation) because of superior military Intelligence. Not sure if that was true at the time or still is. But it seems to be a possibility.
lol the discussion you guys are having has no chance of happening
Russia and China have no interest AT ALL in going to a nuclear war against the US LOL
|
|
|
Good god
nuclear war involving Russia and China? Israel annexing Iran? Like what is going on here, these ideas are so far beyond the realm of logical thought it's mind boggling to think that people honestly believe world war three will start because of the actions of a backwards little useless county in the Korean peninsula who has as its only friend a country that would gain nothing and lose everything by supporting them directly in the event of any conflict.
Neutron bombs? EU armies? It's reading like a bad tom Clancy novel with far less realism.
Russia and China stepping in to protect Iran from Israel annexation? Like. What. No words.
Biggest threat to south Korea is an accident or miscommunication in North Korea that goes too far for things to be able to be stopped. Or a coup or KJU tripping on acid. Thinking Russia (LOL) or China would do anything directly to help north Korea is just batshit insane
|
On April 07 2013 21:59 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 20:50 RvB wrote:On April 07 2013 20:34 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote:
NK is at an opportune time to make a move. While the US is stretched out with their "peace missions" in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the constant attention on Iran, it would be strategically clever to launch an offensive. With about 30K US troops in SK and not to mention the entire able bodied SK male population, they should be able to hold out against NK unless a massive missile barrage is incoming.
If NK backs down, the world will call its bluff everytime they put them on sanctions. I expect at least a minor level of military aggression, perhaps like raiding one of the SK islands and/or shelling of the mainland. Whatever it is, I think people are underestimating Kin Jung Un. Imagine if you were a 30 year old with a nuclear arsenal at your disposal and your dad's legacy to complete? George Bush did it.. Why not Kim Jung Un? Bush lead a superpower into wars they would 100% win (not talking about the aftermath and what is happening now just the attacks on the countries) Kim Jong Un leads an incredibly poor country with an outdated military and if he strikes he will 100% lose. I don't know why you're even comparing them. My friend, I was not comparing the 2 military super powers. I was merely drawing the correlation to Bush finishing up his fathers dirty launder in Iraq. Similarly, NK wants to "reunite" the koreas once and for all. No doubt the US has a far superior army.. but do not forget the sleeping giants in Russia and China. Although, they may seem dormant and opposed to war.. they stand to gain alot from destabilizing the US. A protracted war thats at deadlock is all they need to push their agendas to cover more regional and international presence. We would be lying to ourselves if we were to say we are not tired of the wars the US have started.
Clueless, really. It would be great for china to destabilize the US....really great move for them... Also, if you're tired of the wars the US "started" (again, clueless), then mind your own business and you won't tire yourself out.
|
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this.
|
On April 09 2013 16:22 Arnstein wrote:
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this.
Haven't they been saying that for ~2 weeks now?
|
On April 09 2013 16:22 Arnstein wrote:
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this.
They also said that they would go to war today or tomorrow, and that was a week ago.
|
On April 09 2013 16:28 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 16:22 Arnstein wrote:
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this. Haven't they been saying that for ~2 weeks now?
They announced this today. For all I know they might have announced it earlier as well.
|
|
|
Indoctrination and brainwashing. It is sad how much of this there is in North Korea. People are suffering by the minute. North Korea is using all it's money on the military. The situation for them can't go on for long. It will collapse some time.
|
On April 09 2013 16:28 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 16:22 Arnstein wrote:
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this. Haven't they been saying that for ~2 weeks now?
Last week they said foreign diplomats should leave NORTH Korea. Now they're saying all foreigners should leave SOUTH Korea. That's quite a bit different.
|
On April 09 2013 16:22 Arnstein wrote:
North Korea has announced that all foreigners should leave South Korea, so they won't get hurt in case a war breaks out.
I wonder if any progamers actually listens to this.
A few are worried~ I'm not atm
|
Australia639 Posts
I wouldn't waste my time worrying.
|
On April 09 2013 16:59 Jarvs wrote:
I wouldn't waste my time worrying.
The whole world could engage in a nuclear war.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
