Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: vorticon on September 12, 2004, 02:36:29 PM

Title: what if.
Post by: vorticon on September 12, 2004, 02:36:29 PM
rather than invade iraq, bush went after north korea...


1. would the UN have backed him
2. would more or less people died
3. would he have more or less support from the world
4.  would they have actually found wmd, or attempts at obtaining them
Title: what if.
Post by: FUNKED1 on September 12, 2004, 02:42:47 PM
1. would the UN have backed him
2. would more or less people died
3. would he have more or less support from the world
4. would they have actually found wmd, or attempts at obtaining them

1.  No.  UN was not going to back pre-emptive war with a Republican in office.
2.  Yes.  Probably by a factor of 100.
3.  Less.  See 1.  Plus the body count.
4.  Yes.
Title: what if.
Post by: 1K3 on September 12, 2004, 02:47:59 PM
Remember, North Korea is HIGHLY indotrinated and NKs would actually for him.
Title: Re: what if.
Post by: vorticon on September 12, 2004, 02:58:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by vorticon
rather than invade iraq, bush went after north korea...


1. would the UN have backed him
2. would more or less people died
3. would he have more or less support from the world
4.  would they have actually found wmd, or attempts at obtaining them


whoops forgot to answer my own what if question

1. probably, more countries would have supported it, though france would have still vetoed since he would actually have some evidence.
2. more.
3. probably about the same or a little more.
4. yes
Title: what if.
Post by: NUKE on September 12, 2004, 03:12:18 PM
this thread is gayness.
Title: what if.
Post by: vorticon on September 12, 2004, 04:10:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
this thread is gayness.


only since you showed up
Title: what if.
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 12, 2004, 04:17:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by FUNKED1
1. would the UN have backed him
2. would more or less people died
3. would he have more or less support from the world
4. would they have actually found wmd, or attempts at obtaining them
1.  No.  United Nonthing
2.  10,000's if not 100,000's more.  NK is a country that is willing to use material unlike iraq.
3.  probably less.  Asia specificly.
4.  Hard to tell.  Their leader is very secerative and might have just been bluffing.
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 12, 2004, 04:32:32 PM
One million dead in the first 24 hours, if I remember correctly. And that's just the conventional weapons estimate.

 Seoul would be the "sea of flames", as they like to threaten. Seol is in range of NK arty, of which there are over 10,000 pieces on the DMZ. Something like 200 240mm mlrs pieces are supposedly in range of Seoul. Japan would would sustain missle attacks. The north koreans would roll over the 2nd ID and the South korean's initially. The korean soldier is possibly the most regimented and toughest in the modern world. The civilian population of north korea isn't much softer.

We would have to burn down their country again to eject them from south korea.

You should watch this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/
Title: Re: what if.
Post by: Rafe35 on September 12, 2004, 04:45:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by vorticon
rather than invade iraq, bush went after north korea...


1. would the UN have backed him
2. would more or less people died
3. would he have more or less support from the world
4.  would they have actually found wmd, or attempts at obtaining them


1.)  UN is useless
2.)  50-50 Chances that more people died
3.)  Probably less support
4.)  Can't tell
Title: what if.
Post by: OIO on September 12, 2004, 05:15:24 PM
1. UN? Nope. The last time the UN did uphold its charter was, ironically, in the Korean War (gulf war 1 was UN approved because of the oil all the main UN nations depended on).

2. Without a question, more. Exponentially more. The south korean capital wouldve been anhiliated before the UN forces even landed in korea. Remember NK has thousands of high caliber artillery trained on it. Plus they also have nukes and biochems.

3. Support from the world? See #1.

4.  no doubt, yes and hell yes.
Title: what if.
Post by: Staga on September 12, 2004, 05:54:33 PM
Suave you should really look out the strenght of the S-Korean army and compare it to NK's army.

You might find the reason why NK is so eager to develope a nuclear weapon.
Title: what if.
Post by: FUNKED1 on September 12, 2004, 05:55:49 PM
Yes, it's all South Korea's fault.  They have no reason to be well armed.  History proves that North Korea and China are no threat whatsoever, while South Korea has a long established pattern of agression against them.   It is time for Scandanavia to rise up and help defend their North Korean brothers against unchecked aggression.  Deth to Amreeka!!!  :D
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 12, 2004, 06:12:06 PM
DPRK wants nukes because they want to get paid.
That, and the leadership has convinced the populous that the USA is determined to invade their country.

North Korea's military, with the exception of it's navy, is quite a bit larger than that of South Korea combined with the US forces that are there.

And I'm just talking about the active duty military. 30% of able body men and women in north korea are in reserve units.
Title: what if.
Post by: Dowding on September 12, 2004, 06:28:53 PM
Quote
10,000's if not 100,000's more. NK is a country that is willing to use material unlike iraq...


... which had none.

NK is a pretty tough nut to crack. Diplomacy is probably the best option, although of course that wouldn't provide the same amount of interesting gun-cam footage that could be posted by retards on internet forums.
Title: what if.
Post by: xrtoronto on September 12, 2004, 06:34:11 PM
no war against NK--

united states of israel doesn't wage war against a country that has real weapons to fight back with
Title: what if.
Post by: Flyboy on September 12, 2004, 06:40:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by xrtoronto
no war against NK--

united states of israel doesn't wage war against a country that has real weapons to fight back with


canada it is then..
Title: what if.
Post by: Cabby44 on September 12, 2004, 06:53:40 PM
Quote:

"united states of israel doesn't wage war against a country that has real weapons to fight back with"

Who is this anti-semitic, Leftist  pinhead??  

C.
Title: what if.
Post by: 1K3 on September 12, 2004, 06:56:33 PM
Kim Joing eel has no other interest than staying in power, watch western movies, and surf the net! :lol Kim has no support except the Armed Forces. He's just being pressured by the military to commence the nuke program. Without the military suport, Kim would be easily replaced by more NK hardliners.
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 12, 2004, 06:57:01 PM
Cabby I believe the answer to your question lies within your question.
Title: what if.
Post by: 1K3 on September 12, 2004, 07:01:39 PM
fooo we support israel because we supply 'em with nukes, tanks, and "inteligence" to convert the inferior countries Islam to "democracy"

Take Iraq as an example.


(just kidding) :D
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 12, 2004, 07:06:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by 1K3
Kim Joing eel has no other interest than staying in power, watch western movies, and surf the net! :lol Kim has no support except the Armed Forces. He's just being pressured by the military to commence the nuke program. Without the military suport, Kim would be easily replaced by more NK hardliners.


I disagree very much, Kim is worshiped almost to the degree that his father was. And his father was diety who was loved by all north koreans as if he was a member of their family. His father remains the president of North Korea, even though he has been dead for years.

To understand this you must keep in mind that North Korea is a very closed society that recieves zero information from outside of NK. The main source, well only source, of news is a radio/TV box that is in every home with electricity. It recieves only one channel, and that channel is state run propaganda and although the volume on the box can be adjusted slightly, it can not be turned off.

The North Korean people genuinely believe that the USA will invade their country, because north korea is the richest country in the world and americans are very poor, and very evil. For this reason they very much want a nuclear deterent. None the less, they are confident that with the guidance of the great leader they will defeat america, just as the Great Leader defeated Japan in 1945.
Title: what if.
Post by: RTStuka on September 12, 2004, 07:08:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flyboy
canada it is then..



Sounds good to me, I always hated the whole american, canadian falls thing, I think just having them all to ourselves would be nice.
Title: what if.
Post by: Fishu on September 12, 2004, 07:34:34 PM
If you got the balls, go for it.. just don't come back to cry the losses inflicted by NK's.

Even China is wondering whether to consider NK as their friend or foe.
They don't really like the idea of NK having nukes and all the military in their neightborhood.
Makes up for a tough question for them.. to ignore or side with NK's if the evil americans attacks.
Title: what if.
Post by: Cabby44 on September 12, 2004, 08:00:53 PM
Quote:

"f you got the balls, go for it.. just don't come back to cry the losses inflicted by NK's. "

No, we would like those two powerhouses of  wisdom, those famous liberators of the oppressed and enlsaved peoples of the world, Finland and France to lead the "UN" charge into North Korea.  

We want to see if you have  big enough  "balls" to match those big mouths...

C.
Title: what if.
Post by: superpug1 on September 12, 2004, 08:18:34 PM
1.The UN truly is one of the more useless things devised. We would not have their backing, however i feel that we would have more countries on our side.
2.In the first hour, your lookin at over 10,000 dead, wounded, missing. That is countin civilians. We would push into NK about 20miles at most. Then the hundereds of thousands of north koreas infantry would push back.
3. More, mostly from asian countries.
4.They would find WMDs about an hour into it when NK nukes south korea. then we SK will use its WMDs then the american missiles subs off station in the sea of japan/yellow sea/off the coast will use their arsenals. Pretty much a war with north korea would turn the whole peninsula into a boiling, fuming, buring, nuklear mess. the fallout would spread and it would not be a good thing. Theen koreas communist allies would shoot their missiles and it would become WW3.  Eventual death toll could get to a billion if things happen the way i beleve they could. BUUUUT thats just me and my crazy 15 year old mind, whos believes teenagers in such things.:aok
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 01:05:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Suave


North Korea's military, with the exception of it's navy, is quite a bit larger than that of South Korea combined with the US forces that are there.

And I'm just talking about the active duty military. 30% of able body men and women in north korea are in reserve units.


Suave read:

http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 01:07:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
If you got the balls, go for it.. just don't come back to cry the losses inflicted by NK's.

Even China is wondering whether to consider NK as their friend or foe.
They don't really like the idea of NK having nukes and all the military in their neightborhood.
Makes up for a tough question for them.. to ignore or side with NK's if the evil americans attacks.


China will NOT side with north korea.   The USA is far more important to and integrated with China's wellbeing and interests than North Korea is now and in the future...
Title: what if.
Post by: MrCoffee on September 13, 2004, 01:08:30 AM
Never happen. Wheres Osama?
Title: what if.
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 13, 2004, 01:11:25 AM
Chinese have population to expend.  i wouldn't be so sure Grun.
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 01:17:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Chinese have population to expend.  i wouldn't be so sure Grun.


And they have a huge USA export market and investement opportunities  that they cant "expend."

Some 300 million wealthy US consumers and investors are far more importnat to China today and in the foresseable future than 12 million starving pennyless North Korean human skeletons... This is not 1950..
Title: what if.
Post by: MrCoffee on September 13, 2004, 01:18:42 AM
When NK finaly goes down, its going to be one of  two outcomes. Whether its people in the havoc take power or NK goes south as a last gesture. War is a great motivator.
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 01:25:02 AM
NK has no significant navy.  NK has no significnat airforce.

All they have is large unweildy 1960s era Soviet style land aramy with old equipent much of which is in exterememly poor repair.  

Their only real threat now, and the only reason NK still exists is thae artillery around Seoul. Thsi would tens or kill hundreds of thousands of peopel before it was all knocked out.  After that NK is done.  

In a war they will quickly have no fuel, they will have no food, they will have no resupply, no standing factories, nothing.

It wouldnt be as easy as taking Iraq but it would be nothing like the firstr Korean war. No Chinese support or troops, no technological parity beteen US and the enemy, no air combat, nothing.


Thats why NK is building a nuke, either as a detterant or a ploy to get the USA to sign a pledge of non agression.
Title: what if.
Post by: MrCoffee on September 13, 2004, 01:40:09 AM
Their only chance of survival is their relations with China.
Title: what if.
Post by: Fishu on September 13, 2004, 02:21:25 AM
Just keep in mind US is already havings troops in Iraq and Afganistan.
It is already a noticeable burden.

N.Korea would need alot more troops than Iraq.
In Iraq there was paid off commanders, troops with low morale and training, etc.
However N.Korea has alot of troops which are much more committed to defending their beloved earthly god figure than Iraqis.
The terrain is also alot different.
Every damned village has a homeguard units or whatever they refer to them as and they're all up for searching possible spies and what not.

Their hardware might be very old, but they got lots and lots of much better brainwashed troops than Iraq could of dream of.

Not sure about their level of training though..
They do have kick arse royal guard units, but thats probably just the guards and maybe a few insignificant 'frontline' troops.
Averagely they're probably far more fanatical than skilled, but likely better than the iraqis, who had neither due to Saddams misdeeds towards regular army troops. (guess he should've kept them in better shape :rolleyes:)
Title: what if.
Post by: Staga on September 13, 2004, 02:32:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Suave read:

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


Interesting read; I was comparing the man power figures found from Here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 02:34:25 AM
The NK army soldier is not in good shape as it is now. I just heard thast the NK army reduced physical standards for conscription because of the effects of malnutrion on physical development. He would be in much much worse shape when the USA stops feeding him during a war..

You see American food aid  provides NK with much of its food, and most of that is illegally diverted to feed the army, a lot of the rest goes on black market.  All of it would stop in a war.

If it wasnt so sad it would be comical. We in the USA provide food and fuel oil aid to prop up a crumbling country that is blackmailing us with nukes and thousands of artillery pieces around an allys capital..
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 02:50:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Staga
Interesting read; I was comparing the man power figures found from Here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/)


Oops I thought yiu were Suave sorry.. :)

The figures in the article square with the CIA factbook.  Even the defense budget figures are spot on.  CIA factbook is the first place I checked when I intially read the article..

Do you think the nubers at CIA favor your stance of NK military might?

CIA factbook figures:

NK has 23 million people

SK has 48 million people

NK has 3.6 million men fit for service.

SK has 9 million men fit for service.

NK defense budget is 5 billion dollars a yaer..

SK defense budget is 15 billion dollars a year...

Do you really think SK gets  a bad deal out of spending 3x as much as the north on defense? And more per capita?

Not to mention that SK are well fed, phisically fit and developmentally superior (no food, no protein, noot good for your brain).  Also their army has a far more flexible and responsive system, much more freedom of intiative, more modern weapons etc etc..

So do you really favor a 1,000,000 man outdated starving NK army over a 700,000 man modern well fed SK army that has an immediate access to 5,000,000 trained and healthy reservits?

Do you think that NK can match 5,000,000 trined and health reservists?

Though I gotta say the NK put on some kickass parades, they are the only ones I have seen come close to or match Waffen-SS  in goose stepping...

Wont do them much good aginst JDAMs though... :rolleyes:
Title: what if.
Post by: Staga on September 13, 2004, 03:12:20 AM
Yep and that's why I think NK wants to get a nuke; they've realized in their twisted minds that they're not able to stop S-Koreas army if, for some crazy reason, it would decide to take a walk over the DMZ straight to the Pyongyang.
Title: what if.
Post by: Momus-- on September 13, 2004, 05:03:17 AM
North Korea doesn't sit on some of the biggest known hydrocarbon deposits on the planet. Likewise, North Korea didn't redenominate it's oil sales in the Euro at the expense of the Dollar, and sign massive exploitation contracts with US commercial rivals in France and Russia, thus threatening the strategic grip the US feels it needs on a shortly to be diminishing resource.

But even if North Korea did fit this profile, G.W.Bush could never go beyond sabre rattling towards North Korea for fear of offending China, it is that simple. It's a moot point anyway; if North Korea did sit on that kind of mineral wealth, the Chinese would have already invaded and no-one could have stopped them anyway.
Title: what if.
Post by: Saintaw on September 13, 2004, 05:42:03 AM
Hallo I am korea!!!111

*crr crrr crrr*
Title: what if.
Post by: Staga on September 13, 2004, 05:44:09 AM
gogogogogogogogo korea!  ^_^
Title: what if.
Post by: deSelys on September 13, 2004, 07:13:27 AM
1. Prolly not
2. Certainly more
3. Dunno, but prolly more from Europe
4. Certainly yes

NK is a much bigger world threat than Iraq IMO.

OTOH, what are the US doing with their 'ally and friend' Pakistan??

1. it's certainly no democracy
2. lots of radical muslims, ambigous relations with Al-Quaeda
3. biggest source of black market nuclear material...
4. hasn't signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty (along with India and Israel)
5. India and Pakistan are a keg of powder waiting for a spark...
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 10:47:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Momus--


I HATE AMERICA

 
Title: what if.
Post by: deSelys on September 13, 2004, 11:04:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ


McCarthy is teh R0XX0R!!!!1111

 
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 11:11:35 AM
:rofl

Though he went overboard MCarthy was often right about his accusations and he did spotlight some real problems during a very dangerous time for our country..
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 13, 2004, 11:15:57 AM
Here's another chart, the equipment numbers look right, but the numbers of personel in reserve units of NK is way too low.  In these speculations it's important to consider that one country is a military dictatorship and one country is a democratic republic. Combat engineer and ADA units, maybe of particular importance in a korean conlfict. Since the ADA capabilities of both sides will make the use of transport helicopters very risky. I know that some of the transportation infrastructure is rigged for self destruction on both sides of the DMZ, but I don't know to what extent. It could be just important bridges and tunnels near the DMZ.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-military.html
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 11:37:14 AM
Those figures dont show the north in a good light either.

1,000,000 starving robotic stalinistic soldiers who will attack in mass vaves vs 700,000 healthy and innovative western style soldiers is not a good ratio.

Even that site says both have the same reserves, CIA data would ligically disagrre since it states that only 3.6 million NK men are are fit for service. But lets think of what those reserves are like. I'll bet the SK ones are better.

How can you say the NK reserves are too low. The site states  some 4.7 million NK reserves, out of a cpuntry of 22 million, too low? How, whats your data? What, do you think they should count 6 year old girls and their grandmothers (all starving) as reserves?

Sure the NK forces have more tanks and artillery.  But how many of the tanks are servicable? How many of them are basic model T54/55 class? How often do they train, tank training is very expensive.. Compared to SK modern tanks and trained army those number begain not to be so great.. Etc etc..

Sure they look great on paper and in parades, and I'm sure they would kill planty in seoul, but they have no chance to win any war aginst the SK army, let alone a SK army backed even only by US air dominance...
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 13, 2004, 12:30:43 PM
Well way too low was probably innapropriately subjective. 30% of capable adults male and female (ages 18 - 60 I think) are in reserve militias in North Korea. One such militia has 4 million members.  Both countries would be considered militarized by our standards, we don't have a lot of roof-top ADA around our airports like one sees in south korea. But I would venture to say that North Korea is the most militirized place in the world. By the time a North Korean is an adult he or she has had a good amount of training in basic soldiering, at least as much as Pvt Lynch had.

And, "human wave tactics vs innovative western style"? Is this an exageration for dramatic effect? :)

I'm not speculating that NK would succeed at "reunification" if the ceasefire broke. I'm just suggesting that with the US and ROK forces that are on the penninsula now we would not be able to protect the south.  Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.
Title: what if.
Post by: Suave on September 13, 2004, 12:42:49 PM
If you'd like some additional insight on the ROK army, ask somebody who was stationed there about his experience with KATUSA personel.
Title: what if.
Post by: Fishu on September 13, 2004, 12:52:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Suave
Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.


I noticed this too when reading DoD articles, stating there are units in Iraq which had been assigned to Korea.
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 12:58:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Suave
Well way too low was probably innapropriately subjective. 30% of capable adults male and female (ages 18 - 60 I think) are in reserve militias in North Korea. One such militia has 4 million members.  Both countries would be considered militarized by our standards, we don't have a lot of roof-top ADA around our airports like one sees in south korea. But I would venture to say that North Korea is the most militirized place in the world. By the time a North Korean is an adult he or she has had a good amount of training in basic soldiering, at least as much as Pvt Lynch had.

And, "human wave tactics vs innovative western style"? Is this an exageration for dramatic effect? :)

I'm not speculating that NK would succeed at "reunification" if the ceasefire broke. I'm just suggesting that with the US and ROK forces that are on the penninsula now we would not be able to protect the south.  Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.


I just dont put too much weight in mal nourished mass reserves of a starving and poor communist state.  My father was in the armed forces of the old Yugoslav army he says and the training he recieved was a joke.. And I'll bet the old yugo ary trained a buch more than the NK can afford.

As for tactics, maybe a bit of an eggareration but I doubt its much. I just dont see those guys being too creative. Plus I think they will be overconfident due to all the propaganda of NK greatrness and SK/USA weakness they are bombarded with.  In contrast our forces are overly worried qabout the NK..

As for KATUSA is that still goping on in any significant way?  I thought it was mostly a 1950s and cold war program..
Title: what if.
Post by: -MZ- on September 13, 2004, 01:36:12 PM
If we launced a pre-emptive war against the North, the South would be so mad (what was left of it), that we could lose the whole country.
Title: what if.
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 13, 2004, 01:41:02 PM
The NK couldnt do anything south of Seoul. The US wouldnt do any war against the north without south korean agreement.
Title: what if.
Post by: -MZ- on September 13, 2004, 02:08:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The US wouldnt do any war against the north without south korean agreement.


Which you will never get unless NK attacks first.