North Korea deploys surface-to-air missiles on its coast as U.S. and South Korea Prepare. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=manrayer88;26349522]Shit I'm moving away from the west coast[/QUOTE] [sp]if any part of america gets nuked, the entire planet dies[/sp]

[QUOTE=R3mix;26346036] If anyone's wondering about Military Statistics + Budget... [img_thumb]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50114000/gif/_50114613_military_balance_464.gif[/img_thumb] [/QUOTE] But can North Korea even fuel all of there equipment?

[QUOTE=ryasnack1;26349864]But can North Korea even fuel all of there equipment?[/QUOTE] This is where China steps in. They were supplying them for long now.

Why would China support NK?

[QUOTE=ryasnack1;26349922]Why would China support NK?[/QUOTE] Ask them maybe? Kind of communist pride I guess, heh-heh.

Must be. But North Korea is not doing itself any good.

[QUOTE=ryasnack1;26349922]Why would China support NK?[/QUOTE] Because having an annoying neighbor that everyone hates is better than having a US-friendly state on your borders along with thousands of refugees.

[QUOTE=StickyNade;26347952]More than likely. Stretched across two fronts, I don't imagine we'd have the numbers to fight effectively in Korea unless we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine#United_States]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine#United_States[/url] [quote]Under President Lyndon Johnson it was stated that the US armed forces should be able to fight two—at one point, two-and-a-half—wars at the same time. This was defined to mean a war in Europe against the Soviet Union, a war in Asia against China or North Korea, and a "half-war" as well—in other words, a "small" war in the Third World. When Richard Nixon took office in 1969, he altered the formula to state that the United States should be able to fight one-and-a-half wars simultaneously. This doctrine remained in place until 1989-90, when President George H.W. Bush ordered the "Base Force" study which forecast a substantial cut in the military budget, an end to the Soviet Union's global threat, and the possible beginning of new regional threats. In 1993, President Bill Clinton ordered a "Bottom-Up Review," based on which a strategy called "win-hold-win" was declared — enough forces to win one war while holding off the enemy in another conflict, then moving on to win it after the first war is over. The final draft was changed to read that the United States must be able to win two "major regional conflicts" simultaneously. The current strategic doctrine, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued in his Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2001 (before the 9/11 attacks), is a package of U.S. military requirements known as 1-4-2-1. The first 1 refers to defending the US homeland. The 4 refers to deterring hostilities in four key regions of the world. The 2 means the US armed forces must have the strength to win swiftly in two near-simultaneous conflicts in those regions. The final 1 means that the US forces must win one of those conflicts "decisively".[/quote] The United States military has numbers, it has experience, and more importantly it has friends. I think everyone but North Korea would do just fine.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26350001]Because having an annoying neighbor that everyone hates is better than having a US-friendly state on your borders along with thousands of refugees.[/QUOTE] Why so much passive hostility? China and the U.S like really depend on each other don't they? What difference does it make if theres a democracy state? What if NK becomes something else?? edit: Just realized the U.S would force there ideals anyways.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikiuVJB3LCY[/media] img tagging videos doesn't work, o my.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26349401]Alright, you're limited to only a few locations then. Don't think that light infantry is the key to a Korean War? They already know that the South and Americans can slaughter them, otherwise they would have invaded already instead of making noise for 50+ years. As for destroying government buildings, that's going to be hard when US and SK have little to no intelligence on the locations of the many North Korean C2 facilities, which are underground and hardened against PGMs. If you can to destroy them, first you have to know where they are. Getting into the enemy's OODA loop then is going to require ground forces.[/QUOTE] We don't have to even remotely destroy everything. All we have to do is cause an economic collapse. They simply don't have the money or infrastructure to house everything, or even a decent fraction of their government and military, underground. They can have all the hardened facilities in the world, but it doesn't matter if we stop the flow of fuel and ultimately their supply of food. We have all the time in the world. Frankly even if they want to remain in there and magically have massive amounts of foodstuffs, it doesn't matter at that time because we've proved our point. We showed up, ruined their day, and they could only run and hide. Of course if we really wanted to be dicks... If you push them almost entirely into underground facilities and destroy powerstations, they are going to have a difficult time communicating without giving away their position. Tower communications are reliable in that you can have two hidden facilities with their own power sources transmitting and talking, but they each generate a signal which can be triangulated. A cable doesn't have that problem, but you probably need functioning substations getting power from external locations in order to properly maintain communication. Which leaves them with the messenger. But a government operating out of the underground is going to need a great deal of supplies coming in and a large number of orders going out, which with proper surveillance, means eventually we will locate an entrance. Which we then collapse using air dropped conventional munitions. Your bunker always needs an exit to the surface. I imagine there will be emergency escape tunnels, but I doubt there is more than one vehicle entrance, which means that base is effectively crippled and they will need to relocate. Rinse and repeat. Surely this a huge oversimplification, but the concept itself remains generally the same. There are only so many options at your disposal once you take your government underground. You have to resurface eventually or you are no longer the government. :P

South Korea lets the north get away with so much shit. If the north were to attack during the drill it's pretty safe to say they're going to get invaded by at least US and SK.

[QUOTE=Shoe Phone;26350367]South Korea lets the north get away with so much shit. If the north were to attack during the drill it's pretty safe to say they're going to get invaded by at least US and SK.[/QUOTE] no shit

We are gonna be poor