• Obama reminds North Korea of U.S. 'military might'
    74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44662209]Knocking out military installations =/= Attacking North Korean civilians Propagandizing reeducation and labor camps =/= Attacking North Korean civilians Most North Korean citizens outside of the elite or the die-hard insurgents are going to most likely welcome the invasion force.[/QUOTE] You don't perform invasions with surgical precision. This isn't a video game, especially when we are talking about one of the most military-oriented nations on earth. A dictatorship that successfully brainwashed millions for the last half a century. Entire generations of people have lived and died while being fed nothing but propaganda. Invading NK will result in the violent, unprecedented death of hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps even millions. It doesn't matter which uniform they were wearing, or whose side they are on. People will die, you don't seem to fully understand this concept if you propagate such short-sighted jingoistic nonsense. [quote]Most North Korean citizens outside of the elite or the die-hard insurgents are going to most likely welcome the invasion force.[/quote] This is entirely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no reason for them to welcome the invasion force, when - once again - we are talking about a nation of people that believe America is literally the devil incarnate. All these popular rumors and speculations about NK's extensive propaganda system are well documented facts. They are not exaggerations in any sense of the word, and are further backed by testimonials from defectors, many of whom have even been inside NK's labor camps.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44662254]Lemme explain, seoul is covered in radar installations, all of which are designed to detect and triangulate artillery locations. WITHIN SECONDS of firing, allied artillery would have automatically targeted, and, if set to, returned fire. Sure some rounds would hit, but Seoul wouldn't be flattened. Why does everyone overestimate nork artillery, and underestimate our own? Seoul is covered in bunkers, millions wouldn't die, they practice almost weekly evacuation drills. [editline]27th April 2014[/editline] Actually China has been publicly and privately moving away from NK ever since the early 2000's with their first nuclear tests. Apparently they don't want to live next to a crazy nation with nuclear weaponry..[/QUOTE] NK artillery isn't just sitting in the middle of a field. They're heavily entrenched in mountains. Taking them out isn't as easy as you'd think.
[QUOTE=Melnek;44662290]This is entirely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no reason for them to welcome the invasion force, when - once again - we are talking about a nation of people that believe America is literally the devil incarnate. All these popular rumors and speculations about NK's extensive propaganda system are well documented facts. They are not exaggerations in any sense of the word, and are further backed by testimonials from defectors, many of whom have even been inside NK's labor camps.[/QUOTE] This may be true, but nobody in North Korea will mourn the passing of the regime. The past decade has seen the growth of black markets and internal market economies, increasing corruption, decline of interest in the army by the populace, the weakening ability of propaganda to affect the populace, more displays of civil unrest, increased access to foreign media, and divisions within the leadership. If North Korea were invaded, the people would not fight for it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44662399]This may be true, but nobody in North Korea will mourn the passing of the regime. The past decade has seen the growth of black markets and internal market economies, increasing corruption, decline of interest in the army by the populace, the weakening ability of propaganda to affect the populace, more displays of civil unrest, increased access to foreign media, and divisions within the leadership. If North Korea were invaded, the people would not fight for it.[/QUOTE] This is, again, assuming that the various factors contributing to the decline of the regime somehow implies total, unanimous lack of support for the government. And the dismissal of those few who are 'die-hard' supporters as expandable. And also, assuming that those 'few' are actually few and not a significant portion. Furthermore, even if support towards the regime is low, why would the population welcome foreign intervention with open arms? Where is that assumption drawn from and is there any evidence to support it? The fact of the matter is, we don't know what is happening inside NK fully. We can guess from satellite imagery, from inside sources and from analytic experts drawing conclusions and assumptions. And while such factors are indeed helpful, they are not giving us the whole picture. Saying "If North Korea were invaded, the people would not fight for it." with such unsubstantiated certainty is reckless. What we can however say, with certainty, is that a full-out war with NK will lead to nothing but a tremendous loss of life that does not justify itself short-term or long-term. There is no reason to jump to conclusions by saying that after NK's regime falls, the people will instantly welcome democracy with open arms. And what of corruption in the war-torn nation after the regime has been toppled? A thousand things could go wrong that will ultimately leave NK another victim of foreign intervention with analysts predicting an 'improvement' in the media every 5 years that never really takes place. Some will say that re-building NK as a democracy will be hard but 'worth it' eventually, however the same was said about the collapse of the Soviet Union and that was without a physical foreign intervention. So no matter which way you spin it, letting the country sort out its own problems is the least-bloody and the least-damaging way of bringing the concepts of democracy and liberty to a people.
[QUOTE=Melnek;44662527]This is, again, assuming that the various factors contributing to the decline of the regime somehow implies total, unanimous lack of support for the government. And the dismissal of those few who are 'die-hard' supporters as expandable. And also, assuming that those 'few' are actually few and not a significant portion. Furthermore, even if support towards the regime is low, why would the population welcome foreign intervention with open arms? Where is that assumption drawn from and is there any evidence to support it?[/quote] Read carefully, I didn't say that the population would welcome foreign intervention, just that they would not really fight for the regime. [quote]The fact of the matter is, we don't know what is happening inside NK fully. We can guess from satellite imagery, from inside sources and from analytic experts drawing conclusions and assumptions. And while such factors are indeed helpful, they are not giving us the whole picture. Saying "If North Korea were invaded, the people would not fight for it." with such unsubstantiated certainty is reckless.[/quote] Certainty? Analysts, the views of foreign refugees, economic measures, etc aren't entirely certain. However they all do generally point to a gradual weakening of the regimes ability to wage warfare and sustain the loyalty of the populace. [quote]What we can however say, with certainty, is that a full-out war with NK will lead to nothing but a tremendous loss of life that does not justify itself short-term or long-term. There is no reason to jump to conclusions by saying that after NK's regime falls, the people will instantly welcome democracy with open arms. And what of corruption in the war-torn nation after the regime has been toppled? A thousand things could go wrong that will ultimately leave NK another victim of foreign intervention with analysts predicting an 'improvement' in the media every 5 years that never really takes place. Some will say that re-building NK as a democracy will be hard but 'worth it' eventually, however the same was said about the collapse of the Soviet Union and that was without a physical foreign intervention. So no matter which way you spin it, letting the country sort out its own problems is the least-bloody and the least-damaging way of bringing the concepts of democracy and liberty to a people.[/QUOTE] Well the best way would be probably to either blackmail them into reform, or to isolate them further and force the country to either give in or collapse from internal problems.
If North Korea falls into disarray and warlords take up arms against each other... People will die. If we invade North Korea and slowly being reunification... People will die. If North Korea develops it's nuclear weapon program further, and use a nuclear weapons against Seoul in an invasion... People will die. No matter the way you take it. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people will die in a war with North Korea, or war against North Korean warlords. Simply waiting is not going to work, and as of the moment, we need to pick a method which will have the least amount of casualties, and get this bullshit over with. If we don't, we only risk a much worse war in the future, which will involve the usage of nuclear weapons.
An invasion either way is going to be a logistical nightmare in my opinion. You got a massive strip of kill-field between two countries. Mountainous terrain for most of the country. If NK decides to step over the DMZ then they're entering a war with the worst food supply. If ROK/USA steps over the DMZ then they're entering one of the most hostile war environments that could mimic occupied France during WW2.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;44653828]Technically speaking, we do have a very advanced army.[/QUOTE] Well no shit, wouldn't it be possibly considered the world's most advanced..? Still it's funny though how people [i]seem[/i] to think that the N.K. can't even fire a warhead outside their borders, but I wouldn't be so sure. At least they have a massive army, are known for being big-time military spenders like the U.S., and they probably have all sorts of ties, allies and business partners too. (And then again one could say I'm just grasping at straws here.)
North Korea cannot make aggresive movements, because they know they will be crushed and that China+Russia would not mind that much to see them gone if they do that. US cannot just invade North Korea since China+Russia would not like that and the people in North Korea might not support it due to propaganda.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44662376]NK artillery isn't just sitting in the middle of a field. They're heavily entrenched in mountains. Taking them out isn't as easy as you'd think.[/QUOTE] Technically if they can shoot, they can be shot at. Also it isn't like we don't expect to fight entrenched artillery. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28[/url] The US fields air dropped munitions to defeat entrenched positions behind over six meters of solid reinforced concrete. Not only are we going to field them, but they were sold to the South Koreans as well. Once artillery opens up, they are in some serious trouble.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.