• Obama to DoD: Prepare for N Korea
    212 replies, posted
[release]WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has directed the U.S. military to coordinate with South Korea to "ensure readiness" and deter future aggression from North Korea, the White House said on Monday. The United States gave strong backing to plans by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to punish North Korea for sinking one of its naval ships, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. The White House urged North Korea to apologize and change its behavior, he said. "We endorse President Lee's demand that North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior," Gibbs said. "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the president has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," he said. Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, he said. Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War. Lee said on Monday South Korea would bring the issue before the U.N., whose past sanctions have damaged the already ruined North Korean economy. The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border. "We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," Gibbs said. Gibbs said the United States supported Lee's plans to bring the issue to the United Nations Security Council and would work with allies to "reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability." Obama had also directed U.S. agencies to evaluate existing policies toward North Korea. "This review is aimed at ensuring that we have adequate measures in place and to identify areas where adjustments would be appropriate," he said.[/release] [URL="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Prepare-NKorea-Aggression/2010/05/24/id/359912?s=al&promo_code=9F01-1"]Link[/URL] Get ready for Korean War 2.0
Korea is about to become about half the size.
NATO + SK Vs North bring it on the fuck on, I hope war journalists go into full gear
[QUOTE=Best4bond;22159316]Get ready for Korean War 2.0[/QUOTE] You know... the korean war have technically never ended and is still ongoing, but have ceased fire in 1953.
oh fuck oh fuck were gonna be poor
How the fuck do they even expect to win a war?
Shit is gonna hit the fan hard
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;22159376]How the fuck do they even expect to win a war?[/QUOTE] Don't underestimate their numbers. 1.21 million, which makes up the fifth largest army in the world. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Military[/url] Of course we'd still have NATO and so on.
I guess the only difference between this incident and the ones before is that obama is in charge niw Bush didn't do anything before
Historians, get out your ledgers. Shits going down for real now.
Can't we just keep waiting for Kim to die and overthrow the Government during the political turmoil in the wake of his death? That seems like the best option.
This isn't good, at all. But I can't stop myself from getting all excited at the thought of war between them.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22159454]Can't we just keep waiting for Kim to die and overthrow the Government during the political turmoil in the wake of his death? That seems like the best option.[/QUOTE] Really think it's Kim's fault alone? What about whole the other part of the government? Taking out one person won't solve this problem.
Here would be my general plan for the opening barrage of artillery between North and South Korea. The North has artillery batteries already zeroed in on Seoul, meaning they are using a Neutralization or Destruction barrage. A Neutralization Barrage is about 30% destruction, causing the units in Seoul to be temporarily disabled. A Destruction Barrage (The one I think NK is using) is 50-60% destruction, rendering the units in Seoul to be almost completely ineffective. Now with that being said, South Korea can always take out those batteries with Counterbattery fire. Then, if everything goes well for the South, and troops push up, they can deliver Preplanned artillery to other locations already zeroed in by the South. Edit: Why the dumb ratings? This is actual information.
[QUOTE=Best4bond;22159316] Get ready for Korean War 2.0[/QUOTE] Ironically North Korea is waiting for South Korea to start the war first.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22159454]Can't we just keep waiting for Kim to die and overthrow the Government during the political turmoil in the wake of his death? That seems like the best option.[/QUOTE] What political turmoil? His son is next in line. More of the same with a younger face.
[QUOTE=Miktor.;22159466]Really think it's Kim's fault alone? What about whole the other part of the government? Taking out one person won't solve this problem.[/QUOTE] That's not what I meant. There's bound to be a Successor crisis once Kim dies, and even possibly a Full-Scale Civil War. That seems like the best time to invade. [QUOTE=Zeddy;22159477]What political turmoil? His son is next in line. More of the same with a younger face.[/QUOTE] That's not confirmed, only what NATO suspects. And chances are, his Military generals are going to see him dying as an opportunity to gain power. Edit: Wiki-Quote - [B]"Kim's three sons and his son-in-law, along with O Kuk-ryol, an army general, have been noted as possible successors, but the North Korean government has been wholly silent on this matter.[77] South Korean media have suggested Kim is grooming his son Kim Jong-chul, while defectors and Western media have suggested the possibility of his youngest known son Kim Jong-un who is described to be "just like his father", has the exact same political views and his explosive tempers,[citation needed] but Kim Yong Hyun, a political expert at the Institute for North Korean Studies at Seoul's Dongguk University, has said, "Even the North Korean establishment would not advocate a continuation of the family dynasty at this point."[78] Kim's eldest son Kim Jong-nam was earlier believed to be the designated heir but he appears to have fallen out of favor after being arrested at Narita International Airport near Tokyo in 2001 while traveling on a forged passport.[79] On 2 June 2009, it was reported that Kim Jong Il's youngest son, Jong Un, was to be North Korea's next leader.[80] Like his father and grandfather, he has also been given an official sobriquet, The Brilliant Comrade.[81] It has been reported that Kim Jong Il is expected to officially designate the son as his successor in 2012.[82] However, there are reports that if leadership passes to one of the sons, Kim Jong Il's brother-in-law, Chang Sung-taek, could attempt to take power from him.[82]"[/B]
Sadly though, when you think about it, war is practically the only option for freedom in North Korea. The people are so brainwashed, direct intervention to it is required.
[QUOTE=ThePutty;22159482]Sadly though, when you think about it, war is practically the only option for freedom in North Korea. The people are so brainwashed, direct intervention to it is required.[/QUOTE] Is it time to assume direct control?
I don't see a war out of this, Korea will act like a child, US will scold them and Korea will go hide in he corner.
[quote=fables;22159491]is it time to assume direct control?[/quote] assuming direct control i know you feel this
[QUOTE=Miktor.;22159431]Don't underestimate their numbers. 1.21 million, which makes up the fifth largest army in the world. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Military[/url] Of course we'd still have NATO and so on.[/QUOTE] I really don't see NATO having a part in a Korean conflict. This isn't Afghanistan, Yugoslavia or an invasion of West Germany here.
Can't really say I want a war, but to save the country shit needs to go down
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22159526]I really don't see NATO having a part in a Korean conflict. This isn't Afghanistan, Yugoslavia or an invasion of West Germany here.[/QUOTE] They fought in the first segment of the Korean War, I don't see why they wouldn't now. Besides, NATO has a political obligation to assist each other in times of war. That's the entire point of NATO.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22159526]I really don't see NATO having a part in a Korean conflict. This isn't Afghanistan, Yugoslavia or an invasion of West Germany here.[/QUOTE] Doesn't NATO already have some troops there?
[QUOTE=ThePutty;22159482]Sadly though, when you think about it, war is practically the only option for freedom in North Korea. The people are so brainwashed, direct intervention to it is required.[/QUOTE] I'm having a hard time seeing another Korean war will give the North Koreans freedom. I seriously think the civilians in North Korea will be worse off if a war starts. I wouldn't be surprised if millions die because of it.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22159526]I really don't see NATO having a part in a Korean conflict. This isn't Afghanistan, Yugoslavia or an invasion of West Germany here.[/QUOTE] Well, if they attack America, or any other country that's in NATO then they're supposed to help right? That's the purpose it was created for anyway.
[QUOTE=Howlthrug;22159549]I'm having a hard time seeing another Korean war will give the North Koreans freedom. I seriously think the civilians in North Korea will be worse off if a war starts. I wouldn't be surprised if millions die because of it.[/QUOTE] Who knows. Let's hope war doesn't break out, but I think at this stage it's inevitable. Kim Jong-il obviously wants to go out with a bang.
If there's going to be a war, it's gonna to be be a messy one. Also, I find ThePutty's avatar rather disturbing.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;22159542]They fought in the first segment of the Korean War, I don't see why they wouldn't now. Besides, NATO has a political obligation to assist each other in times of war. That's the entire point of NATO.[/QUOTE] It was the UN that fought back then, not NATO. [QUOTE=wewt!;22159545]Doesn't NATO already have some troops there?[/QUOTE] If you don't count US troops then no. [QUOTE=Miktor.;22159554]Well, if they attack America, or any other country that's in NATO then they're supposed to help right? That's the purpose it was created for anyway.[/QUOTE] Except in the future Korean conflict South Korea would be the nation of concern here. South Korea is not a member of NATO (because it isn't in Europe or North America). The US president might call for intentional assistance from NATO members, but I really don't except to see the Dutch, Germans, French, Danish and other countries to mobilize task forces and rush them to Korea.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.