PDA

View Full Version : The Korea Poll


Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 03:11 PM
So, what do you think? Is this the real deal? Is Jong Un even crazier than his predecessors, or is this just the same old bluster?

sisterhellfyre
04-03-2013, 06:42 PM
So, what do you think? Is this the real deal? Is Jong Un even crazier than his predecessors, or is this just the same old bluster?

I voted for the first option. Nobody's bending over backward to give Sum Dum Guy -- oops, Kim Young'un -- any concessions or favors at all. He's backed himself into a corner. If he orders any kind of attack on SK forces, the new President of South Korea has given her field commanders permission to respond in kind without waiting for word from Seoul. If that happens, the NKs will escalate because they have to.

After that, all bets are off.

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 08:24 PM
I'm going with number two. I think they'll do something, but it won't be all out war.

ZONA
04-03-2013, 08:25 PM
N. Korea aint gonna do shiz. New leader I'm sure wants to stay in power for at least a little while. He's just like a bird spreading his feathers trying to get attention to show his people he's a serious fella. If he did anything serious at all, it would be over for them so fast. That would give S. Korea and the US coalition that chance to take over once and for all. Jongy boy I'm sure wants to live the good life and be the head hancho for at least a little while. He damn well knows any type of serious attack on SK's or anywhere else and he would be dead or in prison within a week. Either that or hiding out in a cave. I'm sure he would rather have his plush digs. He aint gonna do jack.

Rohirrim
04-03-2013, 08:32 PM
I think they need to find a new English grammar book. Their latest statement:

"The moment of explosion is approaching fast. No one can say a war will break out in Korea or not and whether it will break out today or tomorrow," North Korea's state news agency KCNA declared in its latest broadside. "The responsibility for this grave situation entirely rests with the U.S. administration and military warmongers keen to encroach upon the DPRK's sovereignty and bring down its dignified social system with brigandish logic."

:rofl:

Meck77
04-03-2013, 09:40 PM
Well when Israel get's into a little trouble we bomb the hell out of nations for them. Maybe our little buddy will take care of North Korea for us?

Seriously though. What the heck are we getting ourselves into.

broncocalijohn
04-03-2013, 10:57 PM
I'm going with number two. I think they'll do something, but it won't be all out war.

I would say this would be the obvious answer but when he started his Nuclear rhetoric, I am not so sure SK and USA will sit back like they did a couple of years ago when they shot at the SK island. I really think if something happens to SK or USA, it will be a quick strike to take them out or go straight to the nutcase and all the nuclear and long range missle sites and blast them. This "kid" is mental more then his Dad and I would hate to be wrong just that one time.

broncocalijohn
04-03-2013, 11:01 PM
Well when Israel get's into a little trouble we bomb the hell out of nations for them. Maybe our little buddy will take care of North Korea for us?

Seriously though. What the heck are we getting ourselves into.

I don't get this at all. What did we get ourselves into? We have been in South Korea for over 60 years. We haven't done anything to North Korea but stand idle at the border. BTW, who is our little buddy? SK won't go in without some air and ground power by USA. Once we would wipe out their army, the UN will want to bring in their troops.

Rohirrim
04-04-2013, 08:53 AM
Here's the latest. NK has moved a missile with considerable range to its coast.

It came hours after North Korea's military warned that it has been authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons -- the latest in a string of war cries against America in recent weeks.
"The moment of explosion is approaching fast,” the military statement said.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17595178-north-korea-moves-missile-to-coast-as-nuclear-crisis-escalates

spdirty
04-04-2013, 09:07 AM
I don't know. Part of me just wants the whole situation to be over and for Korea to be unified, but there would be so much death and destruction that I don't want that either. I think the darkhorse player in all of this is China. They've been NK's ally since the 50's, and I think it all rests on what China wants. If they tell us not to do shlt, we need to not do shlt. If they divorce themselves from NK, and give us the go ahead and assurances that they will not get involved, fine. Lets get it over with. But if we go to war, it has to be just with NK. Then it will go quick. Bloody, but quick.

I think that if the world just quits giving them aid and propping them up, nature will take its course without a war. That would be the best solution to this whole problem. But no, I don't think NK is serious in these new threats. They just want more goodies.

Pony Boy
04-04-2013, 02:42 PM
I think it's a shame we might have spend billions in another war and we won't get a drop of oil out of that country ........ seems un-American to me.

elsid13
04-04-2013, 04:38 PM
Until yesterday I thought this was regular BS North Korea pulls when wants something, but now I am afraid the little prick has backed himself in the corner and needs to act or he will lose control in that ****hole country. Problem is I doubt South Korea or Japan or will not react to this little **** move. Which means we are involved.

Meck77
04-04-2013, 09:27 PM
Like the old saying goes. It takes two to Tango. For some reason America finds itself dancing with a lunatic. Coincidence?

There is no such thing as a coincidence....

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 02:27 AM
The problem is the S Korean president has promised to retaliate this time. So if the North sinks a ship or shells a city, then S Korea responds by maybe blowing something of their up what would N Korea then do? Would they call it even or escalate.

People have to realize in history wars can break out pretty quickly in situations like this. If it did hit all out war for any period of time Obama should use it as a chance to take out that regime once and for all. IMO the big question would be what does China do?

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 02:32 AM
I think it's a shame we might have spend billions in another war and we won't get a drop of oil out of that country ........ seems un-American to me.

LOL talk about a country with nothing any other country would want. But S Korea important to the world economy and obviously Japan is also. The who world would get behind removing that regime if they step too far. When a country has firepower like N Korea it could get really messy really fast if anything big broke out.

I am confident in only a few months we could have most of their military destroyed but in the meantime who knows what S Korean cities would look like. It could only take a few days of shelling to reduce most to rubble.

I read they have over 100 thousand pieces of artillery. Hell that would take a long long time to take out even with drones and sorties flying everywhere.

IMO the best strategy if we ever had to attack them would be the d-day of drone attacks. Launch like 10 thousand all at once for a first wave and overwhelm their defenses.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 02:33 AM
Here's the latest. NK has moved a missile with considerable range to its coast.

It came hours after North Korea's military warned that it has been authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons -- the latest in a string of war cries against America in recent weeks.
"The moment of explosion is approaching fast,” the military statement said.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17595178-north-korea-moves-missile-to-coast-as-nuclear-crisis-escalates

IMO they should just blow that **** up in transport to send that little troll a message. When a country says we are going to attack then moves a missile IMO the world should not stand for that crap.

Rohirrim
04-05-2013, 07:56 AM
IMO they should just blow that **** up in transport to send that little troll a message. When a country says we are going to attack then moves a missile IMO the world should not stand for that crap.

Then again, that missile could be a complete dummy.

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 09:39 AM
IMO they should just blow that **** up in transport to send that little troll a message. When a country says we are going to attack then moves a missile IMO the world should not stand for that crap.

So your idea is to start the war. Right now it's all rhetorical chest thumping by NK, a strike would be an act of war. The message that would send is; go ahead and start attacking SK & Japan & let's get this war going.

W*GS
04-05-2013, 10:47 AM
I need to read Victor Cha's "The impossible state : North Korea, past and future".

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 10:58 AM
Is it an act of war when you attack a country that says we are going to attack you, then moves a missile into position? Or is that just self defense?

DenverBrit
04-05-2013, 11:26 AM
LOL talk about a country with nothing any other country would want. But S Korea important to the world economy and obviously Japan is also. The who world would get behind removing that regime if they step too far. When a country has firepower like N Korea it could get really messy really fast if anything big broke out.

I am confident in only a few months we could have most of their military destroyed but in the meantime who knows what S Korean cities would look like. It could only take a few days of shelling to reduce most to rubble.

I read they have over 100 thousand pieces of artillery. Hell that would take a long long time to take out even with drones and sorties flying everywhere.

IMO the best strategy if we ever had to attack them would be the d-day of drone attacks. Launch like 10 thousand all at once for a first wave and overwhelm their defenses.

N Korea's equipment. Big raw numbers, but a lot of obsolete equipment or lacking parts.

North Korea’s armoured forces are estimated to include some 3,500 main battle tanks (MBTs), 3,000 armoured personnel carriers and light tanks, and more than 10,000 heavy-calibre artillery pieces, many of which are self-propelled. The MBT force primarily comprises older T-54/55/59 models, but includes some 800 indigenously produced T-62s. Of the estimated 10,000 or so artillery pieces in the North Korean inventory, a considerable number are pre-deployed, in range of Seoul; additional artillery could be moved forward to fortified firing positions at short notice. Of particular concern to Seoul are Pyongyang’s 240mm multiple rocket launchers (capable of simultaneously firing 16–18 rockets), its 152mm and 170mm towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, and its mobile FROG systems – all of which are capable of delivering chemical and biological agents as well as conventional high-explosives. In addition, the ground forces have about 7,500 mortars, several hundred surface-to-surface missiles, 11,000 air defence guns, 10,000 surface-to-air missiles, and numerous anti-tank guided weapons.

The North Korean air force possess some 605 combat aircraft and is organised into 33 regiments: 11 fighter/ ground attack; two bomber; seven helicopter; seven transport; and six training regiments. The air force mostly comprises older MiG aircraft (of the MiG-15/17/19/21 types), but includes small numbers of more modern MiG-23, MiG-29 and Su-25 aircraft. Like North Korea’s ground forces, a relatively large percentage of the air force is deployed near the DMZ – at military air bases only minutes flying time from Seoul. The North Korean navy can be divided into six main groups: 43 missile craft; about 100 torpedo craft; 158 patrol craft (of which 133 are inshore vessels); about 26 diesel submarines of Soviet design; 10 amphibious ships; and 23 mine countermeasures ships. There are also some 65 miniature submarines for the insertion and extraction of Special Forces. Around 60 percent of the North Korean navy is deployed in forward bases, and North Korea has strengthened its coastal defences in forward areas by deploying more modern anti-ship cruise missiles.

On paper, North Korea’s armed forces are formidable, but their actual capabilities are less than the raw data suggest, given the obsolescence of most North Korean equipment. Around one-half of North Korea’s major weapons were designed in the 1960s; the other half are even older. Also, it is certain that due to shortages of spare parts, fuel, and poor maintenance, some weaponry will not be functional. The US Army’s Cold War system for comparing hardware capabilities suggests that ground combat units equipped with modern Western weaponry are about 20–40% more combat effective than units of comparable size with out-of-date equipment. After the 1991 Gulf War, the US-based Analytic Sciences Corporation developed a more up-to-date and realistic model for comparing forces, known as the Technique for Assessing Comparative Force Modernization (TASCFORM), which was utilised in the 1990s by the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. According to this model, modern Western weaponry is generally two-to-four times more capable than Soviet systems.

Conclusion
The combination of North Korea’s long economic decline and enhanced US and South Korean military capabilities has diminshed the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Nonetheless, North Korea retains the ability to inflict heavy casualties and collateral damage, largely through the use of massed artillery. In effect, Pyongyang has more of a threat to devastate Seoul than to seize and hold it. North Korea’s conventional threat is also sufficient to make an allied pre-emptive invasion to overthrow the North Korean regime a highly unattractive option. In theory, US forces could carry out pre-emptive attacks to destroy known North Korean nuclear facilities and missile emplacements, but such attacks could provoke North Korean retaliation and trigger a general conflict.

North Korea cannot invade the South without inviting a fatal counter-attack from the US and South Korea, while Washington and Seoul cannot overthrow the North Korean regime by force or destroy its strategic military assets without risking devastating losses in the process. In this respect, the balance of forces that emerged from the Korean War, and which helped in maintaining the armistice for 50 years, remains in place. None of the principal parties want to fight a war although they are prepared to fight if necessary. In this respect, the balance of forces creates certain vulnerabilities since it places a high premium on carrying out a pre-emptive strike if one side or the other believes that an attack is imminent. The danger is that war will begin out of miscalculation, misperception and escalation, rather than design. As a consequence, reduction of political tensions and conventional confidence-building measures can help to reduce the risk of war.
More here....http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Is it an act of war when you attack a country that says we are going to attack you, then moves a missile into position? Or is that just self defense?

Yes,if a country drops a bomb on us,would it not be an act of war.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 12:25 PM
Yes,if a country drops a bomb on us,would it not be an act of war.

of course but that isn't the question. You left out the part about how you recently sunk a ship, shelled an island causing deaths of S Korean citizens. Would it not already be an act of war for N Korea to threaten to do it again, then move assets into place to accomplish the goal?

My question is when does a preemptive strike by S Korean and its allies amount to an act of war. If the other country already has done an act of war doesn't that put them in a state of war? And make any strike reasonable?

I happen to more lean towards admitting the best move probably to do nothing until we are forced to, but the nationalist in me would love to see a bomb dropped right on that ****ers head.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 12:27 PM
N Korea's equipment. Big raw numbers, but a lot of obsolete equipment or lacking parts.



Conclusion

More here....http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/

I agree that they are probably pretty lame when it would come to hanging with NATO, the USA etc in a conflict. But I sort of do believe they could lay waste to Seoul in only a few days of conflict.

You're probably right though if they can't feed people they also probably have a pretty lame arsenal that would be gone so fast in a real conflict with the USA that little troll wouldn't have time to say ME SO Soooowy!

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 12:34 PM
The primary problem with NK is that,you can't just drop a couple bombs on them & think NK surrenders to our every whim. You would need to put troops on the ground,& I don't believe we have the numbers. Look at Iraq,their army was quite pathetic, & look at the problems that created.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 12:50 PM
Not many countries you can take out by dropping a couple bombs. Not sure if you're even being serious right now.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 12:56 PM
Also when you say Iraqs military caused us problems I have to chuckle. Not they didn't we ripped through them, destroyed them, and then let ourselves get dinged for 7-8 yrs policing the country. That was terrorism not the iraqi army.

No standing army can hang with the USA. You put 10 thousand troops together, 100 tanks, and you will lose them all if you go up against us. We will shoot down all your jets, own the skies, then drop fuel air bombs on your dug in troops. China, Russia, the only 2 countries with the technology and power to hang with our military.

We could reduce N Koreas military to nothing in about 3 months i would guess. Hell we would sink probably 90% of the navy and destroy all the airfields in the first couple weeks.

The problem is the result would be a Seoul laid to ruin because we can't take out all the artillery very quickly. It's the civilian casulties in S Korea and if China would stay out of it that are the major concerns. Not that we would have to put boots on the ground. They have no oil or major arteries the world needs for commerce. We could let them rot after.

cutthemdown
04-05-2013, 12:57 PM
Then once the country throws the military out of power and kills their leader we pump money into it, S Korea unifies and you do it just like Germany. But if we wait until they actually can use nukes in a conflict we are totally ****ed.

elsid13
04-05-2013, 01:01 PM
The primary problem with NK is that,you can't just drop a couple bombs on them & think NK surrenders to our every whim. You would need to put troops on the ground,& I don't believe we have the numbers. Look at Iraq,their army was quite pathetic, & look at the problems that created.

There fundamental difference between combat operations and post combat nation occupation. The second Iraq action in terms primary combat operations was brilliant operation, it was after the defeat of Iraq, where we were not prepared to assume governance role in the power vacuum that we created.

DenverBrit
04-05-2013, 01:11 PM
http://t.qkme.me/35lvc0.jpghttp://1mut.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Hungry-Kim-Jong-Un-meme-collection-1mut.com-26.jpg
http://global3.memecdn.com/kim-jong-un-strikes-again_o_1135735.jpg
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/kimjongun-hungry-3.jpg

peacepipe
04-05-2013, 01:22 PM
There fundamental difference between combat operations and post combat nation occupation. The second Iraq action in terms primary combat operations was brilliant operation, it was after the defeat of Iraq, where we were not prepared to assume governance role in the power vacuum that we created.

Brilliance born out of a massive **** up?
Anyway Iraq had no where near the military that NK has. NKs army will not run at the site of us. If you want another Viet Nam,then sure go to war with NK.

baja
04-05-2013, 01:35 PM
None of the above. China is behind this.

Meck77
04-07-2013, 05:47 AM
None of the above. China is behind this.

Don't think so.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/07/us-korea-north-idUSBRE93408020130407

orinjkrush
04-07-2013, 10:44 AM
None of the above. China is behind this.

Agree. In international relations, nothing is as it seems.

China can bitch slap NK any time it wants; but frankly, it serves a great purpose to have a crazy little brother whom you can plausibly deny when you want. (dumb little critter, he is!)

Now, you can imagine all sorts of interesting scenarios to include one other player in this "chinese checkers game": Japan.

How's this one: NK fires **** at US installations in Japan. US bitchslaps NK back. Japanese citizens call for the removal of USA forces/installations (ala Okinawa), because clearly if they weren't there then everything would be ah so kewl.

The US has to leave, Japan is now weakened (as well as US pacific interests) and the Chinese push the Senkaku islands for the WIN! :thumbs:

or some other devious oriental plan.

Cito Pelon
04-09-2013, 02:54 PM
The youngster Un is feeling his oats. I don't know how much influence China actually has over him. If China does indeed have influence, they're playing a dangerous game letting NKorea be a wildcard in that region. That's instability, something China is not real big on in their front yard, unless they create it themselves.