• North Korea ends non-aggression pacts with South, cuts hotline
    254 replies, posted
Buy some of those mechwarrior-things from Japan, make Battlefield 2142 IRL. Another thing that worries me is the possibility of China backing NK...
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838051]Doubt it. Unless they're seriously bat-shit enough to fire off a nuke.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say they would fire a nuke, but with all the military on the DMZ... yeah...
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39837989]I wonder if they realize just how suicidal a war would be? Seriously, you want a preview of what happens when the war resumes? NK starts shelling Seoul, maybe firing off a short-range nuke or two, which are promptly shot down by the AEGIS cruisers America conveniently has in the region at all times just in case the shit hits the fan. Then SK and the US 2nd Infantry mow down the incoming NK armies, probably move in and invade with about as much resistance as we saw in Iraq. The bulk of the NK forces will be defeated within a day or so - I expect they will move slowly once they take any part of NK within artillery range of SK, as the last time this happened, China got spooked when we got too close and turned the war around.[/QUOTE] NK bombs Seoul. Let's say to improve your fantasy they have one nuclear device. They nuke Seoul. Let's say that the blast alone kills half the population of Seoul. That's 5 million people. The artillery, estimated by the Pentagon could kill 1 million in a day. Let's say those estimates are perfect. 6 million dead in Seoul, excluding military casualties. 6 million dead. Let that sink in for a second. 6 million men, women, and children. Oh, and that's just civilians in Seoul. Imagine what's going on north of Seoul? The same shit being repeated all along the DMZ, thousands of South Korean, North Korean, and American troops piling up dying before North Korea. You know what else? P'yongyang gets bombed too. So does Hamhung. So does every other settlement in North Korea with over 30,000 people. Do you realize how many people are dying?
So does this mean the cease fire is no longer in place? I can't quite work it out between the RT source and the BBC article I just read.
[QUOTE=Soup Nazi;39838057] Another thing that worries me is the possibility of China backing NK...[/QUOTE] Seriously fucking doubt it. Theres nothing positive in it for them.
The longer NK stays around, the less likely their nukes and delivery systems are to fail or be deflected, and the less stable and more desperate their government will be. I do not like the idea of a mental case having this much power in the world. There may be a war eventually, the sooner, the better.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39838025]And one of the shittiest. They're poorly-trained, poorly-equipped, and have the kind of morale you'd expect from soldiers who have never fought anyone except their own citizens, spend more time harvesting crops than drilling, and whose families are literally starving. Meanwhile SK and the US (who has 20,000 troops or so stationed in SK) will be fielding modern, mechanized infantry and armored cavalry, with heavily integrated support services and all-but-guaranteed air supremacy. And not a small portion of the US soldiers will be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan - not exactly the best opponents to train against, but far better than nothing. To say nothing of the heavily-mined, heavily-fortified border complete with goddamn automatic sentry guns.[/QUOTE] Not to mention, how does NK expect to field a military with ammo and supplies whenever most of the UN has blocked all trading with them? Really the only last source of trade they have is with Iran which is only because they thrive for a nuclear buddy in the world. On top of that, NK has a modded version of the Russian T-62 as their main battle tank, which also doesn't have night vision. I can see a repeat of what happened with the Russians in Afghanistan. about 90:1 kill ratio in armored vehicles? If I remember correctly.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39838068]NK bombs Seoul. Let's say to improve your fantasy they have one nuclear device. They nuke Seoul. Let's say that the blast alone kills half the population of Seoul. That's 5 million people. The artillery, estimated by the Pentagon could kill 1 million in a day. Let's say those estimates are perfect. 6 million dead in Seoul, excluding military casualties. 6 million dead. Let that sink in for a second. 6 million men, women, and children. Oh, and that's just civilians in Seoul. Imagine what's going on north of Seoul? The same shit being repeated all along the DMZ, thousands of South Korean, North Korean, and American troops piling up dying before North Korea. You know what else? P'yongyang gets bombed too. So does Hamhung. So does every other settlement in North Korea with over 30,000 people. Do you realize how many people are dying?[/QUOTE] Theres no fucking way they would consider nuking Seoul unless they have a deathwish. Nuking another country will basically be them painting a big old sign saying "TURN US INTO FUCKING DUST"
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838085]Theres no fucking way they would consider nuking Seoul unless they have a deathwish. Nuking another country will basically be them painting a big old sign saying "TURN US INTO FUCKING DUST"[/QUOTE] I said I was resolving his fantasy of North Korea using nukes and how excited he would be for the AMERICA FUCK YEAH train
Nothing is going to happen. North Korea is not stupid enough to start open war, the South is worried about causalities in it's own territory, and US/NATO is too tied up with Afghanistan to divert large quantities of equipment and troops for a serious invasion.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39838025]And one of the shittiest. They're poorly-trained, poorly-equipped, and have the kind of morale you'd expect from soldiers who have never fought anyone except their own citizens, spend more time harvesting crops than drilling, and whose families are literally starving. Meanwhile SK and the US (who has 20,000 troops or so stationed in SK) will be fielding modern, mechanized infantry and armored cavalry, with heavily integrated support services and all-but-guaranteed air supremacy. And not a small portion of the US soldiers will be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan - not exactly the best opponents to train against, but far better than nothing. To say nothing of the heavily-mined, heavily-fortified border complete with goddamn automatic sentry guns.[/QUOTE] No one's arguing that the west would likely win any conflict with North Korea. Everyone's together on that. What we're worried about is it being a drawn out bloody war. Don't forget that they [b]do[/b] have nuclear weapons, and they can be detonated anywhere in South Korea with only a couple minutes of warning. And if the west was to push into the heartland of North Korea, they will be extremely entrenched. The entire country is built for war. An a semi-related note, the Viet Cong used outdated weapons and equipment, and made Vietnam hell for the west. You'd be surprised what can be scraped together with very little resources.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39838108]I said I was resolving his fantasy of North Korea using nukes and how excited he would be for the AMERICA FUCK YEAH train[/QUOTE] Speaking of Seoul, i thought i saw a post where a soldier stationed near the DMZ where he said that north korea isnt holding anything hostage, they're just being punk bitches. Thought, being the keyword, dont quote me. [editline]7th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=tyanet;39838116]No one's arguing that the west would likely win any conflict with North Korea. Everyone's together on that. What we're worried about is it being a drawn out bloody war. Don't forget that they [b]do[/b] have nuclear weapons, and they can be detonated anywhere in South Korea with only a couple minutes of warning. And if the west was to push into the heartland of North Korea, they will be extremely entrenched. The entire country is built for war. An a semi-related note, the Viet Cong used outdated weapons and equipment, and made Vietnam hell for the west. You'd be surprised what can be scraped together with very little resources.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind, if they use nuclear weapons, they're going to be fucking obliterated by everybody ever.
[QUOTE=Soup Nazi;39838057]Buy some of those mechwarrior-things from Japan, make Battlefield 2142 IRL. Another thing that worries me is the possibility of China backing NK...[/QUOTE] Nobody, not even China, is going to back North Korea if North Korea fires off a nuclear bomb at someone. China isn't even backing NK anymore because they threatened to use one. They sure as shit won't if they use one. NK threatning the USA with doing it, everyone laughs. If NK wanted to scare everyone, they would've threatened South Korea with it because it's atleast feasible, and it's basically like taking a hostage. The police don't storm a house right away if a gunman has a hostage
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39838127]Nobody, not even China, is going to back North Korea if North Korea fires off a nuclear bomb at someone. China isn't even backing NK anymore because they threatened to use one. They sure as shit won't if they use one[/QUOTE] Yeah, I posted before I read the rest and I was thinking too much of the first Korean War after reading this. Now let the boxes flow...
[QUOTE=tyanet;39838116]No one's arguing that the west would likely win any conflict with North Korea. Everyone's together on that. What we're worried about is it being a drawn out bloody war. Don't forget that they [b]do[/b] have nuclear weapons, and they can be detonated anywhere in South Korea with only a couple minutes of warning. And if the west was to push into the heartland of North Korea, they will be extremely entrenched. The entire country is built for war. An a semi-related note, the Viet Cong used outdated weapons and equipment, and made Vietnam hell for the west. You'd be surprised what can be scraped together with very little resources.[/QUOTE] The main reason the Vietcong did so well in the Vietnam war was because of it's jungle and tunnel systems. The geography in North Korea isn't very jungle like I dont think? While, yes they will be dug in and much more. Today in modern times we have better weapons/technology which will ease the job to break through those defenses.
[QUOTE=bloser;39838142]The main reason the Vietcong did so well in the Vietnam war was because of it's jungle and tunnel systems. The geography in North Korea isn't very jungle like I dont think? While, yes they will be dug in and much more. Today in modern times we have better weapons/technology which will ease the job to break through those defenses.[/QUOTE] - nvm I need to read more about the DPRK -
There are forested regions IIRC, but it's got a far more sparse and grassland-y terrain on the whole.
I can imagine, at most, they can stand their own for maybe a few days or weeks, but after that it would pretty much be a slaughter house.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39838025]And one of the shittiest. They're poorly-trained, poorly-equipped, and have the kind of morale you'd expect from soldiers who have never fought anyone except their own citizens, spend more time harvesting crops than drilling, and whose families are literally starving. Meanwhile SK and the US (who has 20,000 troops or so stationed in SK) will be fielding modern, mechanized infantry and armored cavalry, with heavily integrated support services and all-but-guaranteed air supremacy. And not a small portion of the US soldiers will be veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan - not exactly the best opponents to train against, but far better than nothing. To say nothing of the heavily-mined, heavily-fortified border complete with goddamn automatic sentry guns.[/QUOTE] the red army was poorly trained and poorly equipped when they were invaded. the germans were way more experienced, trained, and equipped for the war. it is dangerous to underestimate the enemy.
This is all Dennis Rodman's fault.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838180]the red army was poorly trained and poorly equipped when they were invaded. the germans were way more experienced, trained, and equipped for the war. it is dangerous to underestimate the enemy.[/QUOTE] the red army happened to be in one of the, if not the most uninvadable terrains on earth
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838180]the red army was poorly trained and poorly equipped when they were invaded. the germans were way more experienced, trained, and equipped for the war. it is dangerous to underestimate the enemy.[/QUOTE] The germans were also fighting on two fronts against multiple armies.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838180]the red army was poorly trained and poorly equipped when they were invaded. the germans were way more experienced, trained, and equipped for the war. it is dangerous to underestimate the enemy.[/QUOTE] Germany was also fighting a multiple front war. They didn't have all possible troops on the front lines, however we will.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838180]the red army was poorly trained and poorly equipped when they were invaded. the germans were way more experienced, trained, and equipped for the war. it is dangerous to underestimate the enemy.[/QUOTE] to be fair the climate played a large role in the eastern front
[QUOTE=Judas;39838187]the red army happened to be in one of the, if not the most uninvadable terrains on earth[/QUOTE] not when the germans invaded. [QUOTE=AaronM202;39838189]The germans were also fighting on two fronts against multiple armies.[/QUOTE] not when they invaded the ussr. the western front was reopened in 1944, well after the germans had begun to retreat throughout the ussr. in 1941 there was mostly air warfare in the west.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39838068]NK bombs Seoul. Let's say to improve your fantasy they have one nuclear device. They nuke Seoul. Let's say that the blast alone kills half the population of Seoul. That's 5 million people. The artillery, estimated by the Pentagon could kill 1 million in a day. Let's say those estimates are perfect. 6 million dead in Seoul, excluding military casualties. 6 million dead. Let that sink in for a second. 6 million men, women, and children. Oh, and that's just civilians in Seoul. Imagine what's going on north of Seoul? The same shit being repeated all along the DMZ, thousands of South Korean, North Korean, and American troops piling up dying before North Korea. You know what else? P'yongyang gets bombed too. So does Hamhung. So does every other settlement in North Korea with over 30,000 people. Do you realize how many people are dying?[/QUOTE] a single nuclear blast anywhere in the world save a test site would cause such a massive diplomatic breakdown between everyone that it would probably cause the slow breakdown of world politics as we know it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838207]not when the germans invaded. [/QUOTE] Wait, what?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838120] Keep in mind, if they use nuclear weapons, they're going to be fucking obliterated by everybody ever.[/QUOTE] anyone who thinks that this is a good fallback is a moron. fallout and synergy would cause massive over-saturation and consequences worldwide.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39838068]NK bombs Seoul. Let's say to improve your fantasy they have one nuclear device. They nuke Seoul. Let's say that the blast alone kills half the population of Seoul. That's 5 million people. The artillery, estimated by the Pentagon could kill 1 million in a day. Let's say those estimates are perfect. 6 million dead in Seoul, excluding military casualties. 6 million dead. Let that sink in for a second. 6 million men, women, and children. Oh, and that's just civilians in Seoul. Imagine what's going on north of Seoul? The same shit being repeated all along the DMZ, thousands of South Korean, North Korean, and American troops piling up dying before North Korea. You know what else? P'yongyang gets bombed too. So does Hamhung. So does every other settlement in North Korea with over 30,000 people. Do you realize how many people are dying?[/QUOTE] You're assuming that the one nuke works (they've a 33% fizzle rate), and hits its target (they have a terrible record for missile launches), *and* isn't shot down by either a Patriot battery or an AEGIS cruiser. As for the 1M dead from the shelling? That's if they can *last* a day. We'd start counter-battery fire within half an hour. Remember, if their guns can hit us, our guns can hit them. And you're a fool if you think we don't have our own guns in position, not to mention what we could do with airstrikes and missiles. Yes, Seoul would get fucked up pretty badly. But I doubt the death toll south of the 38th will reach the six-digit range, much less the seven. Sure, North Korea would get slaughtered. We likely wouldn't go nuclear ourselves*, since the radiation would spread to SK and even Japan, but modern armies have demonstrated a terrifying proficiency at eliminating hostiles. * If NK uses a nuke and it actually works, *maybe*. But really, using a nuke against North Korea is like using a howitzer against a paper target - overkill, and as dangerous to yourself as to your target. There might be some token tactical nukes used, just for the political "we nuked 'em back!" points, but nothing above 20kt, and probably only against military targets. Despite the events of the past twelve years, America really doesn't like killing civilians.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838219]Wait, what?[/QUOTE] they invaded after most of the mud had dried in the ukraine and russia. the terrain and climate was [I]fairly[/I] favorable to an invasion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.