• North Korea threatens US troops with 'final destruction'
    116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Croninberg;39698553] In all seriousness, NK looks like it's simply trying to big itself up to look more powerful than it really is.[/QUOTE] The thing is, they are immune to the United States since they hold South Korea's capital hostage.
[QUOTE=Garik;39698202]Everything's not quite gravy for the people who live in NK.[/QUOTE] Yeah so we liberate a nation filled with people who would be more fanatical than Al Queda and more willing to kill invaders and fight tooth and nail. I don't believe everyone in the North is super brain washed but a large part of them will be and if we invaded you'd see them fight back, and if we killed the leaders you'd see some of them commit mass suicide AS WELL as Seoul being turned into powdered bone, smashed concrete and chunks of charred meat. It [b]will[/b] end badly, hundreds of thousands will die, and both South and North Korea would be absolutely [highlight]devastated.[/highlight]
Out of curiosity, what is stopping SK from just dedicating some time to evacuating civilians from Seoul and then ready reconstruction projects before going into conflict with NK and crushing them? I mean I know it will take some time to evacuate all those people, but it shouldn't take more than a week to do so.
[QUOTE=Unit-05;39699110]Out of curiosity, what is stopping SK from just dedicating some time to evacuating civilians from Seoul and then ready reconstruction projects before going into conflict with NK and crushing them? I mean I know it will take some time to evacuate all those people, but it shouldn't take more than a week to do so.[/QUOTE] Probably because it's easier to just not fucking go to war?
[QUOTE=Unit-05;39699110]Out of curiosity, what is stopping SK from just dedicating some time to evacuating civilians from Seoul and then ready reconstruction projects before going into conflict with NK and crushing them? I mean I know it will take some time to evacuate all those people, but it shouldn't take more than a week to do so.[/QUOTE] Nothing I suppose, but they probably don't want to go into conflict since they don't have much to gain from it.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39698731]Yeah so we liberate a nation filled with people who would be more fanatical than Al Queda and more willing to kill invaders and fight tooth and nail. I don't believe everyone in the North is super brain washed but a large part of them will be and if we invaded you'd see them fight back, and if we killed the leaders you'd see some of them commit mass suicide AS WELL as Seoul being turned into powdered bone, smashed concrete and chunks of charred meat. It [b]will[/b] end badly, hundreds of thousands will die, and both South and North Korea would be absolutely [highlight]devastated.[/highlight][/QUOTE] We managed to do it with Japan
[QUOTE=Unit-05;39699110]Out of curiosity, what is stopping SK from just dedicating some time to evacuating civilians from Seoul and then ready reconstruction projects before going into conflict with NK and crushing them? I mean I know it will take some time to evacuate all those people, but it shouldn't take more than a week to do so.[/QUOTE] if a war starts like 80% of the population in NK are gonna either fight back against invaders and get killed or commit suicide once Un is inevitably killed or captured. it's better this way, trust me
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39698731]Yeah so we liberate a nation filled with people who would be more fanatical than Al Queda and more willing to kill invaders and fight tooth and nail. I don't believe everyone in the North is super brain washed but a large part of them will be and if we invaded you'd see them fight back, and if we killed the leaders you'd see some of them commit mass suicide AS WELL as Seoul being turned into powdered bone, smashed concrete and chunks of charred meat. It [b]will[/b] end badly, hundreds of thousands will die, and both South and North Korea would be absolutely [highlight]devastated.[/highlight][/QUOTE] I didn't say anything about going to war or invading them, I was just saying they're in a shitty situation and they aren't gonna be getting out of it in a while.
[QUOTE=download;39699148]We managed to do it with Japan[/QUOTE] No we didn't, not even close, we dropped two colossal bombs on Japan and they didn't have the capital city of an allied nation held hostage. If the allies had to invade Japan the fighting would have been worse than pretty much anything seen in Europe and the Japanese would have fought tooth and nail to very end and have taken as many of us with them as they could.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39699161]No we didn't, not even close, we dropped two colossal bombs on Japan and they didn't have the capital city of an allied nation held hostage. If the allies had to invade Japan the fighting would have been worse than pretty much anything seen in Europe and the Japanese would have fought tooth and nail to very end and have taken as many of us with them as they could.[/QUOTE] I meant in terms of them not being completely batshit insane and being able to become a democratic country
[QUOTE=download;39699508]I meant in terms of them not being completely batshit insane and being able to become a democratic country[/QUOTE] Yeah but we actually had options in that scenario, here we don't, it's either leave them to do what they're doing now and maintain the current balance or pulverise the Korean peninsula.
[QUOTE=mopman999;39688971]we should get a bunch of saws, cut north korea out and get some helicopters to fly it off into the ocean somewhere[/QUOTE] I can just imagine all the world leaders standing at the border of South and North Korea, pushing North Korea off into the ocean while Kim Jong Un screams "I WILL GET YOU NEXT TIME AMEWICA!", like an eskimo drifting away on a small iceberg.
OK, so: What if we dig a HUUUUGE tunnel under Seoul that leads somewhere that's not Seoul, and slowly move every person in Seoul out, replacing them with clever cardboard standees so that Un is none the wiser?
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39699550]Yeah but we actually had options in that scenario, here we don't, it's either leave them to do what they're doing now and maintain the current balance or pulverise the Korean peninsula.[/QUOTE] A life of slavery isn't a life worth living if you ask me..
[QUOTE=download;39699809]A life of slavery isn't a life worth living if you ask me..[/QUOTE] That's great, but fortunately it's not your choice to make, it's not your life on the fucking line dude.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39699840]That's great, but fortunately it's not your choice to make, it's not your life on the fucking line dude.[/QUOTE] Nor are you in the position to determine what course of action the peoples of the Korean peninsula may or may not (wish to) take. I admit, I dislike innocent civilians dying just as much as you, but I equally dislike it when people advocate stagnating a horrible situation in order to simply avoid a perceived worst case scenario. The longer Seoul is in the sights of a crazed dictator's brainwashed army and artillery, the longer meaningful progress of any kind is withheld from both sides. Of course, it's easy for those not directly involved to play the voice of reason. You'd rather not risk potential change, because anything other than the present situation is somehow, inexplicably, unequivocally worse.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;39703597]Nor are you in the position to determine what course of action the peoples of the Korean peninsula may or may not (wish to) take. I admit, I dislike innocent civilians dying just as much as you, but I equally dislike it when people advocate stagnating a horrible situation in order to simply avoid a perceived worst case scenario. The longer Seoul is in the sights of a crazed dictator's brainwashed army and artillery, the longer meaningful progress of any kind is withheld from both sides. Of course, it's easy for those not directly involved to play the voice of reason. You'd rather not risk potential change, because anything other than the present situation is somehow, inexplicably, unequivocally worse.[/QUOTE] if everyone in Seoul dying a horrible death is a better result I think we must be in one hell of a pickle
[QUOTE=Cone;39703641]if everyone in Seoul dying a horrible death is a better result I think we must be in one hell of a pickle[/QUOTE] That's ignoring that in our current situation, North Korea is a military dictatorship where everyone suffers. [url]http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf&wit_id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf-2-1[/url] I'm not sure I really want to go to war, but I can understand the rationale when stuff like [I]that[/I] is happening.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39698560]The thing is, they are immune to the United States since they hold South Korea's capital hostage.[/QUOTE] Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703727]Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?[/QUOTE] If it is a myth, why not prove it with sources?
If someone [I]really[/I] pisses of NK,the world will watch nearly entire SK burn,then they will see NK burn too,then they see most of NK being taken by China and most of SK being a part of the USA.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;39703733]If it is a myth, why not prove it with sources?[/QUOTE] Because I'm not making the claim? But I'll humor you. [url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul[/url] [quote]"Artillery is not that lethal," says Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and is a national security analyst for ABC News. "It takes a long time for it to produce the densities of fire to go beyond terrorism and harassment." Even in a worst-case scenario, where both U.S. and South Korean forces are somehow paralyzed or otherwise engaged, and North Korea fires its 170mm artillery batteries and 240mm rocket launchers with total impunity, the grim reality wouldn't live up to the hype. Buildings would be perforated, fires would inevitably rage and an unknown number of people would die. Seoul would be under siege—but it wouldn't be flattened, destroyed or leveled. If this sounds like squabbling over semantics, it is. But semantics and language matter. The casual, and largely unsupported references to Seoul's potential flattening punctuates the notion that Kim Jong Il is holding a city hostage. It recasts a complex strategic vulnerability as a cartoon: an entire city facing a perpetual firing squad. It also ignores physical laws, and the realities of modern warfare. Barring the use of nuclear weapons or large-scale bombing runs, destroying a city requires an extended campaign of shelling and demolition, the likes of which the world hasn't seen since WWII. When the Chechen capital of Grozny was all-but-destroyed by Russian forces in 1999, it was the result of months of artillery and missile bombardments, as well as air strikes. There's no doubt that North Korea's massive deployment of artillery, and potential deployment of roughly 300 ballistic missiles, could wreak havoc on Seoul and its population. What's clear, however, is that a sudden barrage of shells and missiles would only mark the beginning of a battle for the city, not an apocalyptic fait accomplit.[/quote] Need more? Look at the shelling of Yeonpyeong island in 2010. Withing minutes of the attack, South Korean batteries responded by firing back and destroying North Korean artillery positions. We know exactly where their guns are and how to deal with them. North Korea has no air force to speak of besides a few antiquated squadrons of Migs from the 70's. They would not be able to concentrate fire on Seoul long enough to do anywhere near enough damage to "destroy the city". The entire idea is just, as the Popular Mechanics article states, a cartoon and a scary buzz word used by the media to draw in views. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=IPK;39703808]If someone [I]really[/I] pisses of NK,the world will watch nearly entire SK burn,then they will see NK burn too,then they see most of NK being taken by China and most of SK being a part of the USA.[/QUOTE] How would "nearly entire SK burn"?
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703727]Why does this myth keep getting perpetrated?[/QUOTE] Because war between the north and the south would be the biggest thing since WW2.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39703969]Because war between the north and the south would be the biggest thing since WW2.[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer my question in any discernible way.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39703854]Because I'm not making the claim? But I'll humor you. [url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul[/url] [/QUOTE] How many civilian casualties in the first five minutes of a war are 'acceptable'? Buildings would still be standing; duh, buildings are fucking strong. But thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, would be left dead. These aren't people who are prepared for the barrage, they're going through their every day lives. They're not in cover or anything like they were in WWII, Yugoslavia and Chechenya. The first barrage is always the most devastating, because 90% of shit that can go down will go down there. The rest will stay standing for however long it takes for NATO and SK to wreck the guns, which won't be long, but long enough for thousands to die.
[QUOTE=Riller;39704047]How many civilian casualties in the first five minutes of a war are 'acceptable'? Buildings would still be standing; duh, buildings are fucking strong. But thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, would be left dead. These aren't people who are prepared for the barrage, they're going through their every day lives. They're not in cover or anything like they were in WWII, Yugoslavia and Chechenya. The first barrage is always the most devastating, because 90% of shit that can go down will go down there. The rest will stay standing for however long it takes for NATO and SK to wreck the guns, which won't be long, but long enough for thousands to die.[/QUOTE] tell me the ways of war oh wise one
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704018]That doesn't answer my question in any discernible way.[/QUOTE] I don't care. That is the only reason there hasn't been intervention yet. Casualties and war.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;39703702]That's ignoring that in our current situation, North Korea is a military dictatorship where everyone suffers. [url]http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf&wit_id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf-2-1[/url] I'm not sure I really want to go to war, but I can understand the rationale when stuff like [I]that[/I] is happening.[/QUOTE] Damn, that is brutal. I've read defector testimonies before, but they were mostly soldiers or military officials. I kinda had a clue, but the horrors enacted on the people are mind-blowingly evil. Not to mention the guards aren't moved one bit by their pleas.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39704082]I don't care. That is the only reason there hasn't been intervention yet. Casualties and war.[/QUOTE] I agree. But that's not what I asked about. You as well as other keep pretending that "Seoul will be destroyed within minutes!", a blatant falsehood.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;39704117]I agree. But that's not what I asked about. You as well as other keep pretending that "Seoul will be destroyed within minutes!", a blatant falsehood.[/QUOTE] What if by chance they develop nuclear artillery.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.