Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 2, 2006 11:20:12 GMT -5
My friend, you seriously over estimate North Korea's chances, especially in an offensive war.
You see, on todays battlefield, nobody can come close to invading any country protected by the lone super power. Sure, North Korea would be able to cause heavy casualties in the openning stages of a war, but as soon as large numbers of US aircraft entered the area, any offensive move by North Korea would be quickly repulsed. The US would have air superiority quite easily. That means any North Korean Tanks or Artillery that show themselves are toast.
Even if that wasn't true, the US M1 Abrams Tank has proven itself far superior to the old Soviet tanks that North Korea will be using. Of course, this is almost a mute point anyways. The previous Korean War shows that tanks are largely ineffective in the mountain terrain of Korea.
As for having the largest Submarine force in the world, who cares? They aren't Nuclear Submarines. They have to surface to for air often, and while they're surfaced, US aircraft will pick them off as if it was a shooting gallery.
Sure, the US will not attack North Korea. It would be a major war, and I doubt that a US invasion would be all that successful. The reasons for this are the North Korean populus (and perhaps Chemical Weapons), not the North Korean army. Remember Desert Storm back in the early 1990s? Iraq had the third (I'm not sure on this, but it was in the top five) largest army in the world. It didn't help them.
If the US was to go to war with North Korea, it would probably use airstrikes to neutralize targets, not a full invasion.
|
|
|
Post by lulu on Aug 2, 2006 11:32:25 GMT -5
You are close, Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 2, 2006 12:33:56 GMT -5
My friend, you seriously over estimate North Korea's chances, especially in an offensive war. You see, on todays battlefield, nobody can come close to invading any country protected by the lone super power. Sure, North Korea would be able to cause heavy casualties in the openning stages of a war, but as soon as large numbers of US aircraft entered the area, any offensive move by North Korea would be quickly repulsed. The US would have air superiority quite easily. That means any North Korean Tanks or Artillery that show themselves are toast. Even if that wasn't true, the US M1 Abrams Tank has proven itself far superior to the old Soviet tanks that North Korea will be using. Of course, this is almost a mute point anyways. The previous Korean War shows that tanks are largely ineffective in the mountain terrain of Korea. As for having the largest Submarine force in the world, who cares? They aren't Nuclear Submarines. They have to surface to for air often, and while they're surfaced, US aircraft will pick them off as if it was a shooting gallery. Sure, the US will not attack North Korea. It would be a major war, and I doubt that a US invasion would be all that successful. The reasons for this are the North Korean populus (and perhaps Chemical Weapons), not the North Korean army. Remember Desert Storm back in the early 1990s? Iraq had the third (I'm not sure on this, but it was in the top five) largest army in the world. It didn't help them. If the US was to go to war with North Korea, it would probably use airstrikes to neutralize targets, not a full invasion. Of course US would win the war, I didn't mean it wouldn't win it. What I meant to say was that it wouldn't be as easy as most people think. About those submarines. I have a feeling that the main target for them is civilian ships. And besides, isn't over estimating better than under estimating?
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 2, 2006 13:27:51 GMT -5
Sure it would be easy. One US tank battallion wiped out 550 tanks in 10 hours during the Iraq war with no casualties. Tech > Numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 3, 2006 1:04:44 GMT -5
Of course tech wins if it's far more superior than other's side tech. I thought North Korea has more modern tanks than old Soviet tanks.
But war isn't only about winning the army of the other country. What about those civilians? Most North Koreans think Kim Jong-Il is almost a god. US will have hard time convincing them that they're liberating them.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 4, 2006 12:39:29 GMT -5
War with North Korea can be won. Occupation of North Korea is suicide. As Alter-Ego pointed out, Kimmy is their God. Meaning things will be a hell of a lot worse than Iraq where only a small group liked Saddam. We can win a war. We can raze their cities and such if necessary. But if we stick around, we will lose. Unless of course we go genocidal, at which point the world prolly would get a bit pissy
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 4, 2006 20:40:09 GMT -5
Speaking as an American, I say do nothing. I'm sick and tired of our government sticking their noses in other country's business. So many times we've wound up with a bloody nose. We backed the Shah of Iran, he was overthrown and that whole country hates us. We backed Osama when he fought the Russians in Afganistan, and look where that got us. We backed Sadam when he came to power in Iraq and look where we are now. We sent our troops into Mogadishu and their dead bodies were dragged through the streets. Maybe if we had minded our own business in the past, we wouldn't be so afraid of someone shooting a nuke at us in the future. -Levi
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 4, 2006 20:52:43 GMT -5
Levi, a man after my own heart Isolationism FWD!
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 4, 2006 21:13:13 GMT -5
Levi, a man after my own heart Isolationism FWD! Hehe, yes, it is such and underated concept. I hate this whole globalization thing. -Levi
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 8, 2006 7:15:22 GMT -5
Well, they've done it. Fired nukes, and medium range conventional missiles over Japan. According to officials interviewed by the NY Times ( linky), the most advanced missile imploded a minute or so after being launched, but the design is still capable of reaching California or Alaska, according to "experts". So what should we do? The US *was* going to shoot them down, since the display was more symbolic than anything, but N Korea fired them during poor weather, which was a surprise, I guess. Bush decided not to hit the launch bay with missiles, though, so that option for now looks out of the question. I think we should definitely look into removing him from power, since he's bad for his people, and for the region. Fired nukes? I most certainly doubt it. And their most advanced missile technology is at about the same level as an abacus. The technology (for lack of a better word) should be employed trying to actually SAVE THE STARVING PEOPLE rather than inflate the ego of some little man. My suggestion; the poor bastards under his rule are being punished and starved - therefore depose him, just do a Dr. Strangelove (Hell, I'll ride the bloody bomb just for kicks) and crush the leadership - most of the brainwashed people would probably come to their senses as soon as operation "Macca drop" begins. Edit: proper tense, I've not ridden a sodding bomb yet.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 8, 2006 15:56:06 GMT -5
"Macca drop"? What's that?
It isn't as easy as "Just kill the dude!" You have to know where he is first.
Kim is paranoid person. When he leaves the country, train stations, harbours and airports are covered in smoke. Then the trains, ships and airplanes will leave. There's no way of knowing where he is.
At least that's what I've heard. That maybe total BS. I know it sounds crazy but he's a dictator. They tend to be little different than other people.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 8, 2006 20:03:35 GMT -5
What? Powerslide, it's been documented twice that they've launched an ICBM.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 8, 2006 20:14:13 GMT -5
What? Powerslide, it's been documented twice that they've launched an ICBM. DH, ICBMs aren't always nuclear. They carry lots of things... Conventional Weaponry, Monkeys, Dogs, Humans...
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 8, 2006 21:37:07 GMT -5
What? Powerslide, it's been documented twice that they've launched an ICBM. DH, ICBMs aren't always nuclear. They carry lots of things... Conventional Weaponry, Monkeys, Dogs, Humans... WAHTEVAR NUB! ... okay, so I might be wrong here. Um...
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 9, 2006 12:36:53 GMT -5
What? Powerslide, it's been documented twice that they've launched an ICBM. Inter Continental Ballistic Missile - Could carry bloody doughnuts if they wanted it or rain petunias down on their enemies to have hippie happiness everywhere!
|
|
Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Post by Zadak on Aug 9, 2006 19:49:43 GMT -5
North Korea is one messed up country. Bush should go to war if only to put them out of their misery
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 10, 2006 0:41:21 GMT -5
An ICBM remember is only the carrier of the said "silo".
It can theorotically carry anything.
A country with nukes is no worry. A country with the power to launch nukes is a worry.
Up with Marxism-Leninism! Down with the DPRK system of corruption!
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 10, 2006 14:53:05 GMT -5
North Korea is one messed up country. Bush should go to war if only to put them out of their misery Yes, because war will make everything so much better. Meh. Down with Marxism-Leninism, up with Marxism if you ask me. Marxism-Leninism spawned Stalinism, which then spawned whatever they call the system in DPRK. Marxism-Leninism, in my opinion, is not a very good system in itself, disregarding what it leads to.
|
|
Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Post by Zadak on Aug 10, 2006 20:27:11 GMT -5
North Korea is one messed up country. Bush should go to war if only to put them out of their misery Yes, because war will make everything so much better. In this case it will N.korea is a dictatorship and the dictator there acts like he is a God, moves the citizens around like chess pieces, they have no freedom at all It is the worst government in the world
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 10, 2006 21:01:53 GMT -5
In this case it will N.korea is a dictatorship and the dictator there acts like he is a God, moves the citizens around like chess pieces, they have no freedom at all It is the worst government in the world So, you want a war? If we go to war in North Korea anytime soon, there will be thousands of people killed. There will be international troops in there for at least a decade. It would be one thing to send troops into a rebellion already in progress, but quite another to start a war on our own.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowLynx on Aug 11, 2006 2:18:44 GMT -5
Well, everything is born from everything. You can't really blame Marxism-Leninism for Stalinism. Because you can never anticipate what will happen. If you know what will happen then you wouldn't start it would you? Also Marxism-Leninism was necessary in Russia.
War is bad, why would you want to invade Nth Korea? Kick out a dictator? Look at Iraq, you get rid of the dictator and the whole place is a cesspit. At least the Americans gained some stuff. Oil etc which isn't a lot and it doesn't help alot. Why invade Nth Korea? It'll just make the place more crappy.
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 11, 2006 6:12:47 GMT -5
In my opinion, the North Korean dictatorship has become what it sougt to prevent - a system geared totally away from the workers and proletariat.
Any liberation, I REALLY mean liberation of them would be most welcome by their people, methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Alter-Ego on Aug 11, 2006 8:55:17 GMT -5
In this case it will N.korea is a dictatorship and the dictator there acts like he is a God, moves the citizens around like chess pieces, they have no freedom at all It is the worst government in the world So, you want a war? If we go to war in North Korea anytime soon, there will be thousands of people killed. There will be international troops in there for at least a decade. It would be one thing to send troops into a rebellion already in progress, but quite another to start a war on our own. I think thousands of people is underestimating. Unless you meant soldiers. I mean civilians and chemical weapons... not good, not good at all.
|
|
Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Post by Zadak on Aug 11, 2006 16:57:39 GMT -5
civilians would not be killed if the troops were trained properly unlike some of the americans in Iraq
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 11, 2006 17:39:34 GMT -5
civilians would not be killed if the troops were trained properly unlike some of the americans in Iraq That's crap, and you know it. No matter how much you train, some bullets are still going to go astray. Some Bombs are still going to hit regular houses. Some identitys are going to be mistaken. Civilians die because they are in a war zone, not because one side or another is untrained.
|
|