• North Korea ends non-aggression pacts with South, cuts hotline
    254 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39838220]anyone who thinks that this is a good fallback is a moron. fallout and synergy would cause massive over-saturation and consequences worldwide.[/QUOTE] Who said i meant they'd nuke in retaliation? (though it might happen if they did)
[QUOTE=gman003-main;39838228]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] Yeah, but they do have us by the balls with Seoul, even a few hits could do SERIOUS damage. I'm not saying it will go 6-7 figures, that would be the worst case scenario, I'd rather not watch thousands, or tens of thousands die.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838229]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.[/QUOTE] Still, North Korea's equipment is all stuff from the cold war.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838230]Who said i meant they'd nuke in retaliation? (though it might happen if they did)[/QUOTE] nuclear usage usually closes the door on standard retaliation and opens up a little trapdoor called "M.A.D."
Of course.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;39838243]Still, North Korea's equipment is all stuff from the cold war.[/QUOTE] the red army didn't have working radios or communication lines set up. brigades were often unable to communicate with each other. my point is that great armies have lost against supposedly inferior armies in the past. the us would probably win in a war against nk; i don't think nk could even realistically expect to secure the peninsula in the best circumstances. however, the fight would probably be very bloody for both sides and could end in a prolonged conflict that no one wants to be in.
I have three brothers, a nephew, sister-in-law and her whole family in SK. Kindly fuck off, NK.
Well the war would be long overdue i think. Its strange this ass-backwards little piece of shit nation have been allowed to sit in their hole with a fucktonne of weapons, posing a threat to an important democratic nation for years and years. Without anyone rolling over them. Instead just sitting there watching them commit atrocities that would make hitler rotate sideways at the speed of a beverly hills shopping spree.
If North Korea throws first punch, China will in no way give them support. Hopefully we've targeted those artillery spots. We'd have a total of 5 minutes to hit them with as much force as possible. They're trained on Seoul, without a doubt, and just need to have their "go" button hit.
[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39838209]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] This. It would break the "Nuclear Taboo" that the whole world sort of has going on. A lot of countries have nukes, but nobody wants to be the first to pull the trigger after seeing their destructive power in World War 2, and potential to kill hundreds of millions in incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. The longer the taboo lasts, the more unlikely the use of nuclear weapons becomes, but when it is broken, it'll be a lot easier for countries to justify their use.
[QUOTE=The golden;39838263]People tend to forget about the wonderful little gem called "nuclear fallout" and how it tends to not stay in one spot. They also tend to forget that South Korea, our ally, is literally right beside NK.[/QUOTE] when two tribes go to war, one is all that you can score. [editline]8th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;39838287']This. It would break the "Nuclear Taboo" that the whole world sort of has going on. A lot of countries have nukes, but nobody wants to be the first to pull the trigger after seeing their destructive power in World War 2, and potential to kill hundreds of millions in incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. The longer the taboo lasts, the more unlikely the use of nuclear weapons becomes, but when it is broken, it'll be a lot easier for countries to justify their use.[/QUOTE] it's analagous to the firearms incidents in the US. up until then discussing gun control wasn't really common, but afterward it was like a firestorm.
[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] No, the Red Army was poorly-trained and poorly-led (they were actually well-equipped for this one) during the Winter War, and got soundly slaughtered. This led the Soviets to rebuild their army in a more effective manner, and led the rest of the world to think they were useless. They were poorly-supplied during parts of WW2, true, but not for as long as you'd think. Once the western factories got spinning up, and once they were getting heavy support from the US/UK, they were better supplied and were able to win the war.
Shit just got real! :tinfoil:
[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 technological gap between NATO/SK/US and North Korea is far, far steeper than the technological gap between WW2 era Russia and Germany, there's no comparison to draw.
[QUOTE=Castiel451;39838303]Shit just got real! :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] No, not really. They dont have the balls to do anything, it would be tantamount to suicide.
[QUOTE=Xieneus;39838155]North Korea has almost no trees. It is a barren wasteland.[/QUOTE] Actually, about 50% of North Korea is covered in forest.
What are these pacts that were severed? Are they referring to the cease-fire of the Korean War or am I missing something else?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;39838023]A starving army isn't of much use.[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure that the North Korean military is actually treated quite well since it is practically all that they have. The famine only really affects the citizens since basically the entire country is poured into their military(something like 25% of their GDP is Military Expenditures).
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pDGju21LPUs[/media] Hopefully NK doesn't team up with the Terrorist!
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;39838304]The technological gap between NATO/SK/US and North Korea is far, far steeper than the technological gap between WW2 era Russia and Germany, there's no comparison to draw.[/QUOTE] how so? can you cite examples? the red army was completely under-equipped in 1941.
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;39838321]I am pretty sure that the North Korean military is actually treated quite well since it is practically all that they have. The famine only really affects the citizens since basically the entire country is poured into their military(something like 25% of their GDP is Military Expenditures).[/QUOTE] No, no last i remember hearing is their army actually is pretty malnourished.
[QUOTE=Cheat_God;39837944]Well shoot. I'm almost 18, I hope I don't end up getting drafted in the next korean war or anything crazy like that. I wanna go to school, NK. Don't do anything silly, now. :([/QUOTE] No kidding, I just got my Selective Service registration yesterday.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39838329]how so? can you cite examples? the red army was completely under-equipped in 1941.[/QUOTE] He's talking about technological gaps, not under-equipment.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39838242]Yeah, but they do have us by the balls with Seoul, even a few hits could do SERIOUS damage. I'm not saying it will go 6-7 figures, that would be the worst case scenario, I'd rather not watch thousands, or tens of thousands die.[/QUOTE] And how many die because the Kim dynasty (and associates) remain in power? Around two million died of starvation in the mid-nineties alone. They still get food aid from other countries because their leadership values military "strength" and weapons programs over agriculture and the economy. Most of their soldiers are only enlisted because the army rations are the highest (save, of course, for Party officers).
We have to stop them from potentially harming others, and further harming their own people.
eh where is the president's response to this? i mean cmon this is as close to korea 2 as we've gotten before
[QUOTE=Sableye;39838402]eh where is the president's response to this? i mean cmon this is as close to korea 2 as we've gotten before[/QUOTE] There isnt much to say because all they did was stop talking to south korea nothing else. when things actually happen then leaders will talk.
South korea puts more into its military than NK basically has in its whole budget, and NK is stuck with 80s tanks etc. And a starving army. Yeah they're fucked
hopefully this will not result in all out war....
[QUOTE=JayFeather1337;39838427]South korea puts more into its military than NK basically has in its whole budget, and NK is stuck with 80s tanks etc. And a starving army. Yeah they're fucked[/QUOTE] Either way of who's fucked if NK starts something, it's going to be bloody for both the North Korean's and the rest of the world.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.