I see this conflict a lot like a man in a horde of zombies. Even if he is going to die, he sure as hell will arm every grenade he can find. The only difference is that the zombies are the good guys.
North Korea doesn't have a chance.
Well, if China would attack NK from the North, I think it would serve as a distraction good enough to release some pressure from the South and give time to mobilize NATO and who ever is on SK's side. Of course, there is a chance that China will remain neutral if war would break out.
Hah. Like the UN would do anything anyways...
[QUOTE=Re-y-tard;22364843]What this guy said. Poor North Korea. ;_; What went wrong?[/QUOTE]
Pfft, when were they right?
[QUOTE=Kalibos;22375020] And don't even mention nukes because it's highly unlikely that the west will bring its nuclear arsenal to bear on NK. Nukes are for dick-waving and little else.
[/QUOTE]
Agree agree agree agree.
I highly doubt that any civilized country in the world, even NK, would be so stupid as to use nuclear weaponry on another country. [I]If[/I] a war breaks out, it probably would be like older conventional wars like WW2, except obviously with modern technology and tactics. The only way I could see a nuke actually going off would be a terrorist or other non-military group got their hands on one, which I don't find too likely.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;22367678]That won't mean shit when we're striking the crap out of their cities with Predator drones, bombing the crap out of them with our F-22s, or when we're rolling over them with our M-1 Abram tanks and Bradleys.[/QUOTE]
Actually no all our forces need are akimbo FMJ dual gold(with pink tiger stripes) desert eagles
aww North Korea is trying to mess with the big kids now
how cute :3:
Careful, they might throw stones at us!
NK: "If you do not meet our demands, we will build bomb!"
UN: "Nuclear?"
NK: "No."
UN: "Thermobaric?"
NK: "No."
UN: "Biological?"
NK: ":saddowns:"
More like;
NK: "If you do this we will retaliate with bad things"
UN: "Again?"
NK: "Yeah"
UN: "k"
*UN goes and does something that NK doesnt like*
NK: "continue with this and we will consider it as an act of war"
I don't think NK and SK are even going to stand a chance if there is a war. NK will fuck SK royally. However, NK will probably get their asses kicked by the rest of the world. Doesn't mean it will be easy though.
North Korea has the worlds sixth largest army, compulsory conscription, the second largest reserve force, the sixth largest destroyer fleet, including an AEGIS cruiser, as well as the ninth largest air force. It has the second highest soldier per capita rate in the world, the backing of many world powers and 15% of all government spending is poured into the military.
Wait, that's South Korea. North Korea will not 'roll over them'.
This is just North Korea's way of begging for more money :P
[QUOTE=spekter;22364900]It's hard to reason with a bunch of brainwashed idiots who think the world envies them.
Force should be applied when needed to show them they can't win. It's the only way they will learn properly.[/QUOTE]
If anything, that will make us much more worse than North Korea.
This just seems like their bluff is going to be called eventually.
NK: We're warning you, punish SK or pay the price!
UN: Uhhhhhhhuh....and how are we going to "pay"?
NK: We, uh, erm, well the glorious Kim Jong-Il will curse your countries, that's what!
ohohohohoh tough guys!!!!!!
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22381289]Instantly my ass. It took months for a Coalition forces, especially US units to be deployed to the Middle East. Try deploying two corps' worth of forces plus a few more bits in a contingency operation, it's not easy nor quick.
Iraq was never prepared against the US military. Current potential conventional US adversaries on the other hand have had a chance to analyze past US military operations and point out their weaknesses. If US military planners in the future fought against a conventional force with your views, they'd probably end up creating a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rocroi]Rocroi[/url].[/QUOTE]
Uh, a seven month war is pretty damn fast, especially considering a lot of it wasn't "real fighting". They were able to crush the fourth largest army because they got practically everyone else on their side.
Wait you do know what the Gulf War is don't you.
Because if you're thinking of the current Iraq War then durp.
Also Iraq isn't a bunch of cave-dwellers they are a conventional army, however that army again fell quickly and what you see on the media are poor insurgents, not at all an Iraqi army.
[QUOTE=Mexican;22406670]Uh, a seven month war is pretty damn fast, especially considering a lot of it wasn't "real fighting". They were able to crush the fourth largest army because they got practically everyone else on their side.
Wait you do know what the Gulf War is don't you.
Because if you're thinking of the current Iraq War then durp.
Also Iraq isn't a bunch of cave-dwellers they are a conventional army, however that army again fell quickly and what you see on the media are poor insurgents, not at all an Iraqi army.[/QUOTE]
What you see on the media. Think about what you DON'T see.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;22421032]What you see on the media. Think about what you DON'T see.[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that there's a trained conventional military force fighting on behalf of the late Saddam Hussein that the media is not covering?
[QUOTE=Mexican;22406670]Uh, a seven month war is pretty damn fast, especially considering a lot of it wasn't "real fighting". They were able to crush the fourth largest army because they got practically everyone else on their side.
Wait you do know what the Gulf War is don't you.
Because if you're thinking of the current Iraq War then durp.
Also Iraq isn't a bunch of cave-dwellers they are a conventional army, however that army again fell quickly and what you see on the media are poor insurgents, not at all an Iraqi army.[/QUOTE]
Fast? You want fast look at the 2008 South Ossetia War. The length of the war doesn't change the fact that it took a long time for US forces to be deployed to the theater of operations. In that time Saddam could've told his commanders to move south and invade Saudi Arabia.
I said two corps. Did the US deploy two corps in Operation Iraqi Freedom fulled with some units that were deactivated by 1992? No. Therefore keep the 2003 invasion out of this discussion.
I never said they were "cave dwellers". Where the fuck did you get that impression? While the Saddam era Iraqi army was a conventional force they were basically using old Soviet doctrine that was already considered obsolete by the Soviets themselves back in 1991, not to mention the fact that the Iraqi military was equipped with tons of downgraded monkey model stuff.
The South Ossetia war was closer to Panama or Grenada than the Gulf War.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;22422412]The South Ossetia war was closer to Panama or Grenada than the Gulf War.[/QUOTE]
Urgent Fury and Just Cause were contingency ops conducted primarily by light forces while in the 2008 South Ossetia War Russia used mainly heavy mechanized forces.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22422877]Urgent Fury and Just Cause were contingency ops conducted primarily by light forces while in the 2008 South Ossetia War Russia used mainly heavy mechanized forces.[/QUOTE]
The TOTAL casualty count for all of the Ossetian conflict was what, around 300?
Compared to the Gulf War, which was around 40,000.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;22422974]The TOTAL casualty count for all of the Ossetian conflict was what, around 300?
Compared to the Gulf War, which was around 40,000.[/QUOTE]
Oh, now you're changing the topic to casualty figures in an attempt to prove I'm wrong or something? If you're going to talk about casualties, then you should've said so in your previous post. I'll stop here.
My entire point was "hey fourth largest army doesn't mean they're any good". Not that I want a war. Just saying that the U.S. being afraid of NK is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22423065]Oh, now you're changing the topic to casualty figures in an attempt to prove I'm wrong or something? If you're going to talk about casualties, then you should've said so in your previous post. I'll stop here.[/QUOTE]
Right....Changing the point. That's exactly what I did.
My point is Ossetia was a tiny scale in comparison to the Gulf War.
Christ, Facepunch has the most ridiculous argument techniques I have ever seen.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;22424494]Right....Changing the point. That's exactly what I did.
My point is Ossetia was a tiny scale in comparison to the Gulf War.
Christ, Facepunch has the most ridiculous argument techniques I have ever seen.[/QUOTE]
Then say so. Why couldn't you just say "South Ossetia was more like "insert comparable conflict here" in terms of scale."
[QUOTE=Mexican;22421364]Are you suggesting that there's a trained conventional military force fighting on behalf of the late Saddam Hussein that the media is not covering?[/QUOTE]
I'm suggesting there's stuff you don't see, like soldiers getting their faces blown off. :downs:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
