another reason we back Israel - June 7th 1981

[anonymous]

nk military would get destroyed very fast. no way it can fight sustained war. huge problem is that any war with nk seoul and all civilian in seoul are as good as dead. nk has more than twenty thousand in artillery and rockets all in hardened position and all in range of seoul. first hours of war with nk many infiltrator all over sk and seoul is hit by so much artillery it is totally destroyed. this why iraq first not iran or nk. iran has large moderate group opposes leadership and they not being shot into mass graves yet. nk you go after them you lose seoul and hundreds of thousands of civilians. soft regime change best bet for nk.

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Gixer
North Korea wouldn't be the walk over you'd like to think it is Grun, like Iraq was. If the North invaded their plan would obviously be to take the Peniinsula within a couple weeks making it very hard for the US to resupply what ever if anything was left let alone retake it without a major commitment.

If the fighting fell back to the Norths defenses it would possibly turn into a bloody stalemate like last time. I'm suprised you think the North would be a walk over as it wasn't the first time and wouldn't  be any different today. Especially given how thin US assets are spread around the world at the moment. Commitments to Iraq and a large scale war in Korea would require the draft.

Plus any war with N.Korea today wouldn't stay conventional for long. And would be a pretty terrible scenario for all envolved. Especially for the civilan populations North and South Korea.

I don't think China would step in for North Korea either but it would certinly damage relations for a while. If China did step in it would pretty much be game over as far conventional options.
 


...-Gixer

dont know if nk could actually use nukes in war. i dont think they set up for tactical use are they? if they arent they probably cued up to hold japan hostage and any icbm site is going to be jdamd to stone age before nk has chance to pop the lid and warm up the missiles.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Gixer
North Korea wouldn't be the walk over you'd like to think it is Grun, like Iraq was. If the North invaded their plan would obviously be to take the Peniinsula within a couple weeks making it very hard for the US to resupply what ever if anything was left let alone retake it without a major commitment.

If the fighting fell back to the Norths defenses it would possibly turn into a bloody stalemate like last time. I'm suprised you think the North would be a walk over as it wasn't the first time and wouldn't  be any different today. Especially given how thin US assets are spread around the world at the moment. Commitments to Iraq and a large scale war in Korea would require the draft.

Plus any war with N.Korea today wouldn't stay conventional for long. And would be a pretty terrible scenario for all envolved. Especially for the civilan populations North and South Korea.

I don't think China would step in for North Korea either but it would certinly damage relations for a while. If China did step in it would pretty much be game over as far conventional options.
 
...-Gixer

NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.

Why this obessesion with just the US forces fighting the NK army. SK has a huge modern military and they spend 3X as much on it anually as NK.

The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause.  They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.

They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.

In 1950 with complete surprise and the best current soviet weapons they overran a basically unarmed SK in a matter of weeks.

In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north.  Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.

Yes a lot of people will die simply due to the numbers involved but NK has no hope of winning and really no hope of succeding at all in any significant way.

[montag]

Just curious, you ever plan to join the army and go to Korea to fight int his conflict gruenherz?

[Glas]

Originally posted by anonymous
no he doesnt. nearly every one of his "points" are untrue.

And it's enough for you to say this, for it to be the case?

If you can even dispute a few of Babek's points with reasoned arguments, i'll tip my hat.  But I wont hold my breath......

Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder

[anonymous]

Originally posted by Glas
And it's enough for you to say this, for it to be the case?

If you can even dispute a few of Babek's points with reasoned arguments, i'll tip my hat.  But I wont hold my breath......

Glas
JG13 Lokis Kinder

yes it is enough. ive been to afghanistan and i dont think your armchair international relations expert has. he claims war on terror in afghanistan is not success by pointing out activities by afghanis that have been going on for as long as afghanistan has existed. we didnt go there to eliminate every blood feud between every tribe. we went there to make it so al qaeda could not use the place as a secure base for training and planning for terrorist operations. any taliban or al qaeda left in afghanistan are hiding or trying to sneak out and id call that "not" training and planning to commit terror acts in a secure environment. he points out that a warlord has cia backing like its some kind of dammning indictment. no sheet babek every warlord had cia backing thru the pakis during soviet invasion of afghanistan. and he killed some pows. no he killed fighters from rival tribes. not good but like i said we arent there to convert everyone to the cult of mr rogers we went there to take away al qaedas primary base of operations. he says they still have camps there i say they dont and my opinion is based on being there before and knowing guys there who would love to have a camp to hit instead of crawling around the mountains for days on end looking for "the right cave". there are no training camps left there. four guys hiding in fear of their lives does not make a training camp in my book. two thirds of al quadas top leadership is dead or captured and the rest are on the run and somehow afghanistan is a failure because we cant make them be nice to each other. thats one straight from the coffee shops if ive ever heard it. and now iraq is more of the same. we went to remove sadaam from power and its been done. we are there to stabilize country and its being done. if babek thinks it should be all cleaned up in a year and you side with him then i dont know what to say. you guys either have no grasp of real world timetables or you should be working as foreign ministers because the human race needs someone of your natural ability. either of you guys ever been to iraq or afghanistan? ask your seer babek to provide some facts for his analysis before you ask me to argue with a five year old that the sky actually does end at the edge of the atmosphere.

[montag]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.

Why this obessesion with just the US forces fighting the NK army. SK has a huge modern military and they spend 3X as much on it anually as NK.

The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause.  They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.

They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.

In 1950 with complete surprise and the best current soviet weapons they overran a basically unarmed SK in a matter of weeks.

In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north.  Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.

Yes a lot of people will die simply due to the numbers involved but NK has no hope of winning and really no hope of succeding at all in any significant way.

Grunherz, just be gratefull that neither you nor I will ever have to serve in a conflict in Korea.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by montag
Just curious, you ever plan to join the army and go to Korea to fight int his conflict gruenherz?

Yea! I say that NK isnt as strong as some claim, you say that I want a war inKorea... Fantastic!

[montag]

Ok, then if you sign up, I'll sign up. LOL!

[Gixer]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
NK wouldnt be a walk in the park - many people would die - but the outcome is obvious. NK cant maintain a sustained war.

The only real threat NK poses in the artillery around seoul and the massive casualties it would cause.  They have crappy tanks, they have poor air force, stalinist type command systems, practically no heavy manufacturing, no ability to repair it, no food, outdated air defense.

They have a millon man army. Well thats a million targets for SK/USA airforces beacuse that army has no roof.

In 2004 with badly outdated junk in bad repair they have no chance against a SK with a modern military that spends 3X as much on defense as the north.  Phu that together with US airpower, which NK cant answer and a US carrier or two or four and they are nothing.

I bet 40 years ago allot of Generals were saying similar things about North Vietnam and the Vietcon. And Russian Generals about Afghanistan.

If the war moved back to the North and they were on the defensive why would they fight a conventional toe to toe war anyway? Course they wouldn't but it would be a hell of a slog in that terrain to flush them out where it requires numbers on the ground.

Just because you have carriers,bombers,and more tanks dosn't really work against a enemy that choses to fight where and when they want and with how many.

Look how many troops are tied up and will be tied up for years to come in Iraq just by a few militants. Or "Thugs" as Bush always likes to call them. Imagine what it woujld be like in the mountains of Korea.

Conventional War US probably would wear down the North but it wouldn't be a cakewalk like the initial invasion of Iraq.



...-Gixer

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by Gixer
I bet 40 years ago allot of Generals were saying similar things about North Vietnam and the Vietcon. And Russian Generals about Afghanistan.
ground.





...-Gixer

VN would have been won in 6 months if the polititions had not held back our boys.

[Toad]

Three words:

Tet. They lost.




However, they ended up winning through politics.

[NUKE]

Also might want to look up "Linebacker II" to see what the US could have done to NV all along if we had wanted too.

[Arlo]

One of the main issues with NK is whether or not China would back them up again. For those who've forgotten, we weren't just fighting the North Koreans.

[Toad]

Yeah, check out General James Van Fleet and see how those Chinese ended up.

Another political bailout for the bad guys.