22 replies to this topic

[Gen.Kenobi]

"The South Korean complaint that North Korea is responsible for the sinking of a warship in South Korea is "so severe that a war could erupt at any moment," warned on Friday, 28, the National Commission Defense North Korea, according to Kyodo news agency."


North Korea talks in war "anytime"...


South Korean ships held exercise to prevent attacks from submarines. Maritime border in Yellow Sea is disputed by the two Koreas.

Source: http://www.estadao.c...te,558196,0.htm
http://www.gazetadop...ressao-com-Seul

Nukes incomming?

[Romanul]

Doubt it.

[Pasidon]

Maybe rabbits with dynamite on their backs...

[partyzanPaulZy]

NK Stalinists are playing badasses and America needs new "playing ground" for their army since Iraq is stabilized and Afghanistan can't be stabilized by anyone except natives,
solution ala Gorge Bush jr. : invading North Korea or Iran
problem: North Korea has an enormous army, partially well equiped, Iran has well equiped army with newest missiles from China copied from Russians or their own MiGs (plans from Russians, bought by Iran)

I really dunno if the NK would try something with their nukes, several nukes launched from a sub would turn this small country into a radioactive wasteland.
I know Russia gives a sh.. about them, but if they did something to Russia, their fate would be sealed by White Swams, FOABs would be enough for that job.

Knowing history of the US Army abroad of the USA, the NK seems to be the most possible candidate for the export of the American democracy (made in China).
And the South Korea?
They will join the "party" which can include few "little" incidents like a village full of children and women killed by the enemy (such things happens in the war, Ussuri River, Transnistria, Cosovian Serbs and Albanians, Congo,...) and Voice of the XYZ, FOX News, Pravda.ru, Reuters or the invisible hand of the market helps to fuel the madness like Göebbels did.

Edited by partyzanPaulZy, 18 July 2010 - 09:28 PM.

[Allathar]

Meh, don't really see the point in it. Iraq and Afghanistan had oil, North Korea only has several million starving citizens and an insane dictator. Not worth the trouble if you ask me.

[Romanul]

Meh, don't really see the point in it. Iraq and Afghanistan had oil, North Korea only has several million starving citizens and an insane dictator. Not worth the trouble if you ask me.

Wise words,wise words.

Also,NK would probably be a big hole of corruption for the unified Korea.Just think of East and West Germany.Tho stuff can go the right direction.

And in comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan,there are still issues in Europe such as Belarus,Kossovo and Transnistria.

Belarus could be a good country that could enter the EU if not run by corrupt communists.

Kossovo issue is nearly done.It will just take a lot of time.

Transnistria - here Houston we got a issue.There's a ammo deposit in which there are enough bombs for a Hiroshima explosion.The way stuff runs there is also incredibly oligarchic - almost all companies,who before were controlled by the state,were "privatised".What actually happened?Well,Sheriff is the only major company in Transnistria.A lot of the stuff which is there is Sheriff - Sheriff vodka,Sheriff Casinos,Sheriff Supermarkets,stadiums,etc.
Surprisingly,its Smirnov's family who's controlling that company.

Not to mention that in that deposit there are also nuclear weapons - and they are probably a big gate for the mafia.

[Allathar]

And as for Iran, I don't see that happening either. Sure, they have oil, but trying to invade that country will only trigger the explosives in the Middle-East. Afghanistan and Iraq weren't risky - every Arab country hated Saddam, and nobody cared about Afghanistan. Iran is backed up by some pretty powerful nations, though.

[Romanul]

And as for Iran, I don't see that happening either. Sure, they have oil, but trying to invade that country will only trigger the explosives in the Middle-East. Afghanistan and Iraq weren't risky - every Arab country hated Saddam, and nobody cared about Afghanistan. Iran is backed up by some pretty powerful nations, though.

Only if Russia's Putin will fall.As far as it looks there's a increasing opposition.In Iran internal opposition is strong too.I think that there's still some sort of "democracy" in all this shit.

[duke_Qa]

1. NK Stalinists are playing badasses and America needs new "playing ground" for their army since Iraq is stabilized and Afghanistan can't be stabilized by anyone except natives,
solution ala Gorge Bush jr. : invading North Korea or Iran
problem: North Korea has an enormous army, partially well equiped, Iran has well equiped army with newest missiles from China copied from Russians or their own MiGs (plans from Russians, bought by Iran)

2. I really dunno if the NK would try something with their nukes, several nukes launched from a sub would turn this small country into a radioactive wasteland.
I know Russia gives a sh.. about them, but if they did something to Russia, their fate would be sealed by White Swams, FOABs would be enough for that job.


3. Knowing history of the US Army abroad of the USA, the NK seems to be the most possible candidate for the export of the American democracy (made in China).
[...]

Err, nothing of what you are saying makes any sense in today's world.

1. Firstly, NK playing badass? please they are barely able to keep their ships afloat. They might have tons of bombs and artillery and tanks, but hell, once they throw an ounce of shit they will get a ton back in an instant. They are doing what they always do, talking tough and hoping nobody calls them on it, which they did with the torpedo attack. They weren't so tough in the mouth then were they?

Iraq and afganistan being stabilized? please, and as mentioned, who the hell would go to NK, a pile of dust and misery, for raw materials when they got billions worth of minerals and metals in Afganistan?

2. Nukes? small 5-20KT nukes(by "small", we are talking 4-10 tons cartoon bombs), the size of what the US dropped over Japan. People are living in those cities on this day. Even have survivors that were in both cities when they dropped them, 80+ and still going strong. Nukes are a bit like the holocaust; a sad scenario blown out of proportion and black-painted to avoid it being repeated. Small nukes are devastating yes, but hardly the end of the world. Also, if NK want to smuggle a Nuke somewhere they'd have to either kamikaze it with a transport airplane; easily shot down. Or a sub with sub-optimal(do-hohoho) detonation position. Firing off a nuke a meter or two above sea-level would probably reduce the effect to 25-50%, because water is an incredible energy conductor and shock-wave absorber.

3. NK ain't worth it. It is much more likely that the west will further strangle them, and China will be pressed to stop supporting them. The fact is that NK is China's way of keeping a capitalist pro-western nation/grouping away from its borders. It is China that has kept life in NK since the fall of the wall. The solution? keep them sweating. They'll never attack SK unless they feel suicidal, and the NK military leaders are just as human as any other corrupt rich bastard, they have self-preservation in their genes. They will either run or they will turn on their leaders in an attempt to survive the revolution.


Quick on Iran: It is a tough land to invade. Sure the younger generations are against the government, but it has an acceptable army and terrible Afganistan-like terrain. The leading goons are strung together in mafia-like ways. Those in power support private militias which again own big businesses and demand taxes off anything that comes into our out of Iran. As long as the web between these organizations are strong, they will beat down any uprising.

That does not mean that we won't see an invasion or military conflict any time soon. After all, the southern desert parts of Iran is where the oil is at. Much easier to occupy that part of the nation and leave the mountainous parts for a Afganistan 2,0. A blow to their military could topple the regime, but it would be a costly affair to get rid of the other corrupt organizations that are a vital part of the dictatorship.

[Ash]

As I've said before, I heartily wish the North Koreans the best of luck if they do decide to start anything. Sure, their armed forces are the fifth-biggest in the world (after China, USA, India and Russia, who all have substantially larger populations), but let's see how the actual level of military equipment stacks up. Yeah. No contest, really. The South's military is, in fact, not that far behind the North's numerically (though it is decades ahead technologically).

Those are quantitative stats, mind, not qualitative. The DPRK's military is mostly WW2-time, or maybe early Cold War at best. It isn't going to stand up against the vastly technologically-superior ROK's American-boosted arsenal. A conventional war would effectively be over before it began; the US/ROK coalition would be able to annihilate anything logistical with total impunity with complete air supremacy. We are talking scores of successful attacks before the DPRK have even fired a shot. Then they have to cross the DMZ, which is a ginormous minefield. Literally, and metaphorically.

Basically, any numerical advantage the DPRK could throw will be effectively worthless, as the Americans and the South Koreans can do more with less. And I feel incredibly sorry for their soldiers, whose fighting capacity will be destroyed in incredibly quick time.

There are two reasons that the US and ROK haven't already stomped Kim Jong-Il into the ground:
1) Strategically, it isn't worth the grievous loss of life on both sides - North Korea is strategically worthless. It has minimal natural or territorial resources, and it would economically annihilate the South to annex it at all, because most of its technology would be quite easily recognisable to a medieval peasant.
2) China. I can't see them taking an invasion of the DPRK lying down. That's despite Kim having severed diplomatic ties with China a couple of times because China wasn't communist enough for him. I think even the Chinese government is getting a bit sick of his shit, though, so they definitely wouldn't back the DPRK if they did kick the war off.

If I were the South, I'd do everything I could to subtly - undetectably - provoke the North into kicking off, and then - for want of a better phrase - swiftly and decisively fucking the DPRK's military right up. Don't occupy, as it's pointless, but we are talking a grievous and savage mauling of the North's ability to fight a war, anywhere, ever. Once their shit has been ruined, the government will just collapse like a house of cards in a stiff breeze. Then be there to assist a pro-South puppet government.

[Allied General]

How about if NK deploys some nuclear weapon though .... the resulting EMP or just eradication of Seoul would make the SK IT focused economy collapse.

The memorial for the dead during the a-bomb drop was held recently and the deployment of such a weapon will last for generations.

Also yes technology wise and society wise no doubt its backward but they got nuclear capability and their developing missile technology every day. Yes they had issues during launch but so does all early missile programmes. I could easily imagine NK gained some form of late WW2/early cold war nuclear armed missile which has enough range to hit Seoul and they probably do have one and if that doesn't work then I'm sure all their artillery pointing on Seoul will do the job.

I have no doublt USA/SK would win the initial engagement but the aftermath will be bloody and etched into history and people for generations.

[Ash]

How about if NK deploys some nuclear weapon though .... the resulting EMP or just eradication of Seoul would make the SK IT focused economy collapse.

To be honest, the EMP effect you see in movies is way exaggerated. A real EMP probably wouldn't even make a pocket calculator stop working. If the ROK were stupid enough to have not backed up, you might almost have half a point were that not the case. But the important ROK data will be in about two dozen places across Korea alone.

Remember the film GoldenEye? How Trevelyan's plan was to wipe out all the important data in London with such an attack? Even assuming an EMP blast would have that effect, it would have worked for...oh, about twenty minutes. Then the backups would've been initiated and undone everything he just did. Another example was 9/11; all that financial data kept in two very distinctive buildings. All destroyed. Until the WTO's backups were initiated. Economically, 9/11 was just a DNS lookup error from which the banking world continued as normal moments later. There's no reason to suggest that the same wouldn't be true of an electronic warfare attack on ROK. The only thing that would be gained for the DPRK to launch such an attack on the ROK would be an immediate and total nuclear bombardment from the United States, which would result in every living thing in the DPRK being vaporised. Antimissile countermeasures would probably mean that Seoul wouldn't even get hit.

Also yes technology wise and society wise no doubt its backward but they got nuclear capability and their developing missile technology every day.

Three versus over nine thousand (yeah literally). And that's three not-even-sure-if-they-work versus over nine thousand guaranteed-to-ruin-your-day.

Yes they had issues during launch but so does all early missile programmes.

All the more reason to lay the boot in now, rather than later when they've perfected the missile. That said, they can launch one but do they even know where it's going? I think not. It would be about as easy to aim as the old German V2.

I could easily imagine NK gained some form of late WW2/early cold war nuclear armed missile which has enough range to hit Seoul and they probably do have one and if that doesn't work then I'm sure all their artillery pointing on Seoul will do the job.

The nuclear missile wasn't really sorted until the late 1960s. They do have the capacity to hit Seoul - they demonstrated they have the ability to nearly hit Japan, so Seoul is well within the realms of doability. I doubt they have the stones to do it, though - I can scarcely think of a strategically stupider thing to do. Conventional artillery wouldn't even reach Seoul - the standard American artillery piece can't do half the distance required, so the Northerners would have to do some serious pushing to make up the range. The time that would take would give the South the time to wreck any hope the Northerners would have of even doing it. I re-iterate: I would wish the North the best of luck. Because when all's said and done, they'd need it.

I have no doublt USA/SK would win the initial engagement but the aftermath will be bloody and etched into history and people for generations.

Not just the initial engagement - they'd win the war in a matter of weeks. Oh, God yes, it'd be bloody. No denying that. But as far as the South is concerned it'd be less bloody than letting the North chuck nukes around. China would wash its hands of the DPRK if it even thought of throwing a nuke, and the superpower deadlock's about all that's keeping the two Koreas from resuming hostilities (even taking into account how one-sided the fight would be if they did).

[Allied General]

Well I still think not being able to live in area because its radioactive for the next 50+ years is good, considering the limited land mass which is SK, not mention limited farmland, non existant resources etc.

This talk about throwing around nukes as if their actually strategic is almost as crazy as those american generals who wanted to nuke vietnam.

Also when I meant initial, I meant standard operations. The bloody aftermath would be the guerilla warfare, the rioting, etc.

But your probably right Ash that if NK did invade they wouldn't rely on nuclear weapons if only cos the great Leader wants to have his IT connection intact.

Also this article kinda highlights how crap 99% of the NK military is and how the illusion of this threat is a context for increased military spending.

http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm

The only reason NK managed to get a stalemate is because of chinese intervention in last conflict.

[Ash]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The South could've crushed them underfoot - the threat of the Chinese sticking their oar in is all that stayed their hand. The North is equipped with old trash that the Soviet Union didn't even want, and whatever little bit of this and that that they've managed to beg, borrow and steal off the Chinese. During the last Korean War the stuff was relatively current, so the parity level was a little better. Right now it'd all be antique at best, and broken at worst. I mean, just look at that night-time picture; the South is practically made out of lights, while the North is in total darkness.

Look, I'm not saying that the nukes should be used or anything. Same as I'm not really saying that I'd like this war to come to pass as it'd be bloodier than the Vietnam War by a long chalk. Mostly because of how fast it'd all happen. That article is perhaps a little over-optimistic but the overall message isn't wrong. The North would be monumentally stupid to make a move. I can't digest why the South hasn't called the North's bluff after the deaths of yet more of its servicemen when its gunboat was torpedoed. This isn't the first time they've sunk a Southern vessel, yet the ROK refuse to throw down. Despite the fact that it wouldn't actually be a war that they won, it'd be somewhere approaching the scale of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, such is the technological disparity.

The strategic value of the DPRK throwing a nuke, as far as the DPRK is concerned would be nonexistent - assuming the bomb even worked it wouldn't actually ever reach Seoul. It'd be the pretext the South (and the US) were waiting for. Effectively, it'd be Kim Jong-Il signing his own death warrant. And that of some half a million or more of his own people before the dust settled. I doubt there'd be an awful lot of guerrilla warfare or insurgency. The DPRK is nothing more than a large Big Brother house, except with uniformed gunmen at the walls to keep the several million housemates in, and outside information out. They are made to believe almost religiously that the DPRK's military is totally infallible. When they watch it turned to dust and echoes in about a fortnight there'll be nothing left to hold them there. Once that job's done, just have a few B-52s drop crates of Encyclopaedia Britannica on the population centres.

[Romanul]

I dare to contradict you Ash. You clearly didn't see some of the videos - Kim Jong Il, Juche, all that shit - its a religion. I bet a couple of enough stupid people will commit suicide just to give a proof of their "love towards Great Leader Kim Jong Il."

They have a 5 million army. On the border. I say that the US army will have to stay there for at least 5 years.

I also bet that it will take quite a while to unify the way they want - especially since both sides don't want a war. Lolz. Nor a East Germany-West Germany style unification.

[Ash]

They kind of have to behave that way. Because if they don't they know that their family will be executed before their eyes and then they'll be killed last. Religion is based on an unshakeable fear, that is true, but those guys make the threat so real it's more like Stockholm syndrome than genuine dogmatic faith. I expect they'd soon snap out of it when the fear's cause is removed.

[Elvenlord]

They have a 5 million army. On the border. I say that the US army will have to stay there for at least 5 years.

....Wat?
Hello

[By the end of the battle, the British Army had suffered 420,000 casualties including nearly 60,000 on the first day alone. The French lost 200,000 men and the Germans nearly 500,000.

Over about 5 months with ancient tech, and only one battle. 5 million with todays tech and multiple engagements? Shouldn't take long.

[Ash]

Armies never get totally wiped out. One side will eventually back down with whatever's left. You wouldn't end up killing all five million. Hell, throughout the whole of World War 2, the Germans 'only' lost about two million, from an army that, at its peak, had about five million in it. And those figures include those who died in POW camps and gulags. If more than 10% of the DPRK's forces actually died at arms, I'd say they were being futilely stubborn. What'll really happen will be about 2% die and the ROK/US forces would have their offensives bogged down by mass North Korean desertion, surrenders and refugees. Ironically, they'd be a bigger problem than the soldiers who hadn't laid down their arms and actually wanted to continue fighting. After all, you don't need to feed and shelter tens or even hundreds of thousands of dead people.

[Elvenlord]

Well, yes, but the main point was that it is possible to destroy large bodies of men rather quickly to refute Romanul believing it would take years.

[Ash]

Ah, right. XD Fair enough.