• MORE RED SCARE! North Korea threatens 'sea of fire' on South over island military drills
    71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;33416635]You conveniently forgot the batteries North Korea has pointed at Seoul.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, the south will pay a mercenary working in the area to blow them up before they cause too much damage. They will then go on to blow up that big hotel and ultimately capture Kimmy, and his nukes will blow up harmlessly over the pacific.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33423824]Don't worry, the south will pay a mercenary working in the area to blow them up before they cause too much damage. They will then go on to blow up that big hotel and ultimately capture Kimmy, and his nukes will blow up harmlessly over the pacific.[/QUOTE] But before those nukes explode, the UN will have a massive tank battle with the NK! (And by massive I mean 8 jack-offs and their 3 tanks)
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33422277]What makes war so much harder against countries like this is that they have the ability to take casualties, we don't. Just look at Vietnam. In retrospect, we were kind of winning. I mean, the Vietcong and NVA had suffered MASSIVE casualties in comparison to our, although still large, significantly smaller amount. But because every 1 soldier dead makes the populace here whine like little bitches, we have an easy ability to lose wars against weaker enemies. Seriously America, man the fuck up. If people in WWII could take losing nearly half a million troops, we should be able to take losing a couple hundred. I mean, I know its hard, but its fucking war. People will die. My point here is that there's the very real chance that NK could win just because they can take 100,000 troops dieing in a year, but we couldn't take even 500 in the same amount of time. God help us if we actually had to get into a war against an actual world power. We be out in, like, 1 month.[/QUOTE] WWII was a real threat to America. Vietnam wasn't really a threat to the mainland. They don't mind them dieing for a good cause, they DO mind them dieing for something they thought was pointless like Vietnam.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33422277]What makes war so much harder against countries like this is that they have the ability to take casualties, we don't. Just look at Vietnam. In retrospect, we were kind of winning. I mean, the Vietcong and NVA had suffered MASSIVE casualties in comparison to our, although still large, significantly smaller amount. But because every 1 soldier dead makes the populace here whine like little bitches, we have an easy ability to lose wars against weaker enemies. Seriously America, man the fuck up. If people in WWII could take losing nearly half a million troops, we should be able to take losing a couple hundred. I mean, I know its hard, but its fucking war. People will die. My point here is that there's the very real chance that NK could win just because they can take 100,000 troops dieing in a year, but we couldn't take even 500 in the same amount of time. God help us if we actually had to get into a war against an actual world power. We be out in, like, 1 month.[/QUOTE] I think, possessing the most powerful and well-trained military on the planet we would defeat the North Koreans, IF they were the clear aggressors. The American public might not like it but we do have an obligation to deter a potential North attack against the South, which would justify our men and women fighting and yes, dying. Unlike in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam, where there's a large amount of controversy of whether we should have taken military action, I don't think there would be much if the North fired the first shots.
Haven't the US spent trillions of dollars on military technology and tactics designed to spot the enemy before they spot us and deliver the first strike? I don't think we would lose a lot of people against their malnourished infantry and soviet era tech.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33422277]What makes war so much harder against countries like this is that they have the ability to take casualties, we don't. Just look at Vietnam. In retrospect, we were kind of winning. I mean, the Vietcong and NVA had suffered MASSIVE casualties in comparison to our, although still large, significantly smaller amount. But because every 1 soldier dead makes the populace here whine like little bitches, we have an easy ability to lose wars against weaker enemies. Seriously America, man the fuck up. If people in WWII could take losing nearly half a million troops, we should be able to take losing a couple hundred. I mean, I know its hard, but its fucking war. People will die. My point here is that there's the very real chance that NK could win just because they can take 100,000 troops dieing in a year, but we couldn't take even 500 in the same amount of time. God help us if we actually had to get into a war against an actual world power. We be out in, like, 1 month.[/QUOTE] But you're not getting an important fact: we literally had 0 reason to go to Nam in the first place. It was all based on what SK is facing today from their northern counterparts, just more red scare. [editline]1[/editline] To be honest, I'm worried about North Korea. They have zero stability and brainwashed by terrible leaders. Any war they start can end in nuclear warfare entirely, all in the name of their glorious and evolved leader Kim Jong-il. He's not a great leader, take a look as to how NK is doing right now. If anything, Kimmy would realize that he's losing more and more people and must expand his horizons -- "conquering" South Korea would be a great choice, at least in his mind. He'd most likely bring his entire military power (starved and battered; the first time they see a modern supermarket, they'd get on their knees and cry) and when they all get demolished by the US/SK/etc, he'd make it nuclear. I'm no expert in warfare or international relations, but it's a given that NK can't be trusted with the utmost ability of keeping peace in Asia. They'd try to expand, get obliterated, then suicide/take everyone else with us. [editline]24th November 2011[/editline] But yes, I don't see NK trying anything in the very near future. Stuff like this will continue, yet like the above posters have said, that string of events get interrupted somewhere along the line. It's how wars begin: tensions rise, then lower, then rise, then lower. Then someone fucks up real bad and everybody dies. It was a series of events that caused WWI, WWII, Nam, everything. When NK does pull something, it won't end good. They'll die in the name of their leader, whatever the cost.
[QUOTE=Maximo13;33422397]Doesn't South Korea have the most efficient/best military in the world or something like that?[/QUOTE] Nnnnnno Quite far from it.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;33426176]Nnnnnno Quite far from it.[/QUOTE] Way better than the NORKs
I think that the North and South should just end the damn war already can you even believe that the Korean War officially hasn't even ended yet? After all of this damn time
[QUOTE=EcksDee;33426176]Nnnnnno Quite far from it.[/QUOTE] Err, according to [URL="http://www.globalfirepower.com/"]this[/URL], SK is 7th with NK at 22. Although it doesn't include nuclear capability. I assume any country that has nuclear weapons certainly gives it the fear factor and power factor. SK doesn't have any whatsoever, as warhead sharing for them ended in 1991. Although NK only has 10 or less non-fizzle warheads, that still substantially gives them an advantage. It took two of those (which are by today's standards 1000s of times smaller in terms of power) to finally break Japan in WWII. Still gives NK a huge threat, but SK has the numbers and expertise. [editline]25th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33426248]I think that the North and South should just end the damn war already can you even believe that the Korean War officially hasn't even ended yet? After all of this damn time[/QUOTE] ever heard of the Hundred Years war? Yeah, shit has happened for much longer.
[QUOTE=Soleeedus;33426257]ever heard of the Hundred Years war? Yeah, shit has happened for much longer.[/QUOTE] But this is totally different, modern wars can't last for a long time anymore, plus the Hundred Years War wasn't really one war, it was technically several smaller conflicts that even included periods of peace
The Korean War is in a hibernative state. There hasn't been any open fighting or such, just more so tit for tat threats and that one artillery incident. If anything, this "war" can last for many more years. It'll only take just one more stupid North Korean leader to kill us all (or at least the Asians).
SCORCHED EARTH MOTHERFUCKER
It always seems like the North does something terrible to the South, and then threatens war if the South does anything.
Doesn't the US basically have an operation game over plan for North Korea anyways? North Korea does have China as an ally, but even China is shy of it considering how unstable they are.
[QUOTE=Wilford Brimley;33415990][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf_XpLOYfog[/media] This has been going on for, what, a year now?[/QUOTE] I got the weirdest boner right now :v: [editline]25th November 2011[/editline] Also, cant they just do something dumb so that everyone else starts raining shit down on them? North Korea is a shit place
they wont do it
[QUOTE=Gammashack;33428554]Doesn't the US basically have an operation game over plan for North Korea anyways? North Korea does have China as an ally, but even China is shy of it considering how unstable they are.[/QUOTE] The US has plans for going to war with just about every possible enemy, and most likely even against allies after all even if it's never likely to happen you should have plans
[QUOTE=Tea Guy;33425873]Haven't the US spent trillions of dollars on military technology and tactics designed to spot the enemy before they spot us and deliver the first strike? I don't think we would lose a lot of people against their malnourished infantry and soviet era tech.[/QUOTE] I don' think the US/Korean army would lose a lot of poeple, but the fact that in case of war, the first North Korean strategy would probably be invading Seoul, one of the biggest urban areas of the world, with one million troops who have been indoctrinated with hate against the South since their birth. I suspect massive cilivian casualties under Seoul's population.
I burst out laughing after I saw 'sea of fire'
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33422277]What makes war so much harder against countries like this is that they have the ability to take casualties, we don't. Just look at Vietnam. In retrospect, we were kind of winning. I mean, the Vietcong and NVA had suffered MASSIVE casualties in comparison to our, although still large, significantly smaller amount. But because every 1 soldier dead makes the populace here whine like little bitches, we have an easy ability to lose wars against weaker enemies. Seriously America, man the fuck up. If people in WWII could take losing nearly half a million troops, we should be able to take losing a couple hundred. I mean, I know its hard, but its fucking war. People will die. My point here is that there's the very real chance that NK could win just because they can take 100,000 troops dieing in a year, but we couldn't take even 500 in the same amount of time. God help us if we actually had to get into a war against an actual world power. We be out in, like, 1 month.[/QUOTE] Say that to the victims... [editline]25th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Soleeedus;33426257]Err, according to [URL="http://www.globalfirepower.com/"]this[/URL], SK is 7th with NK at 22. [/QUOTE] That's numbers and not skill.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33423904]But before those nukes explode, the UN will have a massive tank battle with the NK! (And by massive I mean 8 jack-offs and their 3 tanks)[/QUOTE] Except all the tanks get destroyed by North Korea's outdated shit.
No really, there was a NORK general who defected at some point. Think it was he who mentioned the plan of attack, should shit hit the fan. They push to Seoul and do as much damage as possible. Not very clear what would happen then - most likely a counter-attack from vastly superior joint forces would decimate them and ultimately overtake NK in a counter-offensive. Evidently, they don't even have enough fuel to perform military exercises either (or at very limited capacity). Frankly, they're in deep shit even without this war. Whether or not they take the first shot, NK will be fucked over sideways, no matter how fanatical their soldiers are. My biggest concern is NORKs in Seoul going apeshit with civvies. Unless people are evacuated fast enough, there'll be soldiers with their "justified" rage fits beating, shooting and raping anything that moves. And even if Kim is ousted from power, I have doubts about there being a peaceful transition. Never has there been a country with it's people so thoroughly and brutally brainwashed...
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;33433080]Never has there been a country with it's people so thoroughly and brutally brainwashed...[/QUOTE] Which I think is what's most dangerous about them they're fanatics who have been lied to and misled their entire lives so that they believe a false reality that their leaders created as said before in this thread imagine their reaction when they first see a supermarket
[QUOTE=Maximo13;33422397]Doesn't South Korea have the most efficient/best military in the world or something like that?[/QUOTE] Their great especially with stimpack
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33422277]Just look at Vietnam. In retrospect, we were kind of winning. I mean, the Vietcong and NVA had suffered MASSIVE casualties in comparison to our, although still large, significantly smaller amount.[/QUOTE] I always find this comparison amusing, mostly because it's completely wrong. South Vietnam and Allies - Casualties: [b]1,902,000[/b] North Vietnamese and Allies Casualties: [b]1,781,662[/b] (highest estimate). Also considering how the North Vietnamese were outnumbered 4 to 1, and how the Americans still could never mount a successful offensive. The only real difference was the relation to deaths. But you must consider that the entire North Vietnamese Army existed on the same logistical capacity as a single American battalion. They didn't have med-evac or even basic medicine so most wounds would have been fatal. America, at no point in the entire war was 'kinda winning'. Hell they never managed to even destroy the Norths air force.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33438514]I always find this comparison amusing, mostly because it's completely wrong. South Vietnam and Allies - Casualties: [b]1,902,000[/b] North Vietnamese and Allies Casualties: [b]1,781,662[/b] (highest estimate). Also considering how the North Vietnamese were outnumbered 4 to 1, and how the Americans still could never mount a successful offensive. The only real difference was the relation to deaths. But you must consider that the entire North Vietnamese Army existed on the same logistical capacity as a single American battalion. They didn't have med-evac or even basic medicine so most wounds would have been fatal. America, at no point in the entire war was 'kinda winning'. Hell they never managed to even destroy the Norths air force.[/QUOTE] The only reason they couldn't destroy the North's Air Force is because they would use crappy, ridiculously-dated planes to fly below radar, drop a few bombs, and then fly away before anti-air could be scrambled.
the reason why we're not raping North Korea isn't because of how powerful or brainwashed they are, it's because this isn't civilization game where we can repair a ruined city in four turns. if we pre-emptively attack or not, North Korea can and [B]WILL[/B] cross the border to annihilate Seoul before inevitably being destroyed, but that's what the main concern is, Seoul and it's outlying cities has an incredibly high chance of being destroyed before we can mount a counter-attack to rape them we don't want to an entire city, especially Seoul which is our capital to be destroyed, we like to avoid kind of stuff since that'll put our economy in deep shit
[QUOTE=NoDachi;33438514]I always find this comparison amusing, mostly because it's completely wrong. South Vietnam and Allies - Casualties: [b]1,902,000[/b] North Vietnamese and Allies Casualties: [b]1,781,662[/b] (highest estimate). Also considering how the North Vietnamese were outnumbered 4 to 1, and how the Americans still could never mount a successful offensive. The only real difference was the relation to deaths. But you must consider that the entire North Vietnamese Army existed on the same logistical capacity as a single American battalion. They didn't have med-evac or even basic medicine so most wounds would have been fatal. America, at no point in the entire war was 'kinda winning'. Hell they never managed to even destroy the Norths air force.[/QUOTE] Yes, that was "South Vietnam and Her Allies". The majority of those casualties were troops from South Vietnam, but I specifically stated only American casualties in comparison to the NVA. And, if I'm not mistaken, the North's Air force was being supplied by the Soviets and Chinese more efficiently then their ground forces. Basically, in my opinion the only reason we lost was lack of support. It wasn't a casualty problem so much for the US as a public support problem. If our people kept backing the war there is a very, very real chance we may have one it.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;33440595]Basically, in my opinion the only reason we lost was lack of support. It wasn't a casualty problem so much for the US as a public support problem. If our people kept backing the war there is a very, very real chance we may have one it.[/QUOTE] You'd have a hard time garnering support too if the country in question waged war based on ideology and the containment doctrine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.