Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rude on February 06, 2003, 09:52:38 AM
-
I believe we will take out the nuclear threat in North Korea within the next 90 days.
I could be mistaken, but I got a feeling.
-
I dont think the US Govt wants a two front war.
NK is just taking advantage of the disarray right now - once Iraq is "cured" you wont hear of any more problems from those brave NK's.
I would be surprised to see us go into NK - I would think that the "legality" and potenital "pissing off the wrong people" factor would be enough to keep us out.
With Iraq its much easier - who cares what France thinks? :D
-
NK tends to fight back furiously.
Its delicate, so sadly for Mr. Bush, he'll have to use diplomacy :(
-
N Korea is already talking about a preemptive strike.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
N Korea is already talking about a preemptive strike.
Links?
-
See the only thing is we can't risk pissing of China..We piss off China we lose Taiwan.. and then have a 3 war front.
-
I hope not. A strike on their nuclear sites would almost certainly lead to all out war with North Korea. Hundreds of thosands, if not millions, would die. The US would most likely suffer casualties in the tens of thousands, maybe eventually much higher.
I've been accused of seeing things in black and white on this board. Iraq and N. Korea aren't the same enemy. To say that we're hypocrites for attacking Iraq but not N. Korea is to truly see things in black and white, and very dangerous imo.
-
links? Just catch the news once in a while.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030206_301.html
-
Originally posted by Fatty
links? Just catch the news once in a while.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030206_301.html
Exactly. been in the news for the last 2 days.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A NK preemptive strike prolly means if you park a carrier off their coast, they'll attack it first. I doubt they're talking about attacking the USA.
No, they are bold, but they know they wont get anywhere near a carrier group without getting all their planes shot down.
A preemptive strike means they use their artillery to attack any SK city in range - that includes Seul.
-
GScholz, a preemptive attack means they will attack South Korea. You do realize that the US has maintained a sizeable presence in South Korea since the '40s? We currently have approximately 37,000 troops there now. Seems I read that the US is prepared to send over 600,000 troops to Korea in the event of war.
-
North Korea doesn't have the amount of "support" that Iraq has. Even if they built nukes, they couldn't use them because there's nobody out there that would condone their use. At least Iraq has terrorists and the other Muslim Nations. The US has a lot more time to deal with NK.
Should North Korea strike first and soon, the war would be quick and bloody. China is in no position (politically) to protect them so they'd have to rely on their own military (while large, has very little means of supporting themselves for a prolonged war)
NK isn't a threat
-
Or Iraq ;)
-
Originally posted by Preon1
China is in no position (politically) to protect them so they'd have to rely on their own military (while large, has very little means of supporting themselves for a prolonged war)
I have little doubt that S. Korea could defeat N. Korea, at least with help from the US and assuming China doesn't intervene. A very dangerous assumption I must add. Way to many variables to predict what China might do.
Anyway you look at it loss of life all around will be very high.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Preon1, Nk have nukes, and lobbed a test missile right over Japan only weeks ago.
GScholz, if memory serves, the missile was called the Tae Po Dong, and it went over Japan like 4 years ago. I'm not saying they're not capable. I'm saying that they're not apt to determine that the only solution to their problems is a military one.
-
China?
Probably will invade NK and take a slice of the cake.
An alliance with the Devil? ;)
China have too much to loose to side NK.
Even if you see them as your enemy (they are commie bast@@@, no?), they have a lot interests to be "virtual" allies of the western countries.
The tendence they have is a slow change toward a controlled market, with some capitalistic aspects.
They opposed the sudden change that the Tien an men boys were asking... "opposed"... well... :rolleyes:
Their mandarines (the power people) are probably preparing the terrain to build large economic empires in their hands, and let the people be happy with "capitalistic freedom", when ready.
They saw what happened in URSS when the change is too sudden, and they want to hold the power.
-
I believe N.Koreas talk to be cheap....I believe they are merely testing the waters as to our will to deal with them. In addition, I believe they are being encouraged to do so by China. China's interest in Taiwan might be more bold in the future depending on how we deal with NK.
Experience has taught me in my life to deal with threats directly...bullies and those who tend to threaten have backed down quickly when hit in the face and hit hard. Boundaries for behaviour are set in place by action, not cheap talk.
Underestimating GW will not be wise....unlike most, I believe him to be one to do what he feels is the right thing irregardless of what popular opinion may be. Now that may scare some of you, but appeasement for the sake of itself is not what has yielded peace throughout our history. What it does is encourage those who have ambitions which are hurtful and destructive toward others.
That's why I like GW....I believe he will do what he feels is best for this country because it's the right thing to do, not because its politically expedient or politically correct. If folks don't like the decisions he has made, he will be a one term pres like his daddy and I don't think that would bother him in the least.
Of course, I could be mistaken, but I doubt it:)
-
Iraq was defeated and agreed to disarm as the terms of their surrender. North Korea wasn't and owes us no disarmament other than in exchange for aid.
To allow Iraq to refuse compliance weakens the UN. To allow N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons only threatens the stability of that region.
The US, along with the UN have worked over the last few decades to prevent nuclear proliferation around the world. Many seem to resent the protectiveness of the "big brother". Maybe it's time for the US to step back and let our naturally aggressive natures run their course.
The strong will prevail, or maybe just the cockroaches.
-
Having served a year of my life at Camp Casey/Hovey/Grieves I'd like to tell all war mongers that a battle on Korean peninsula is no joke....
This is not desert terrain.. Its Hills and Mt's all the way up to the DMZ and the North..
and on every single hill Mountain etc... there is a bunker network and trench system....
Infantry will rule the battle field due to the terrain... air power and amror will be secondary...
Now considering that.. Our armed forces relies on technology mostly in the forms of tanks and aircraft...
This will be no easy fight....
Throw nuclear weapons into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster..
Dont get me wrong I think the west and South Korea would prevail but at a heavy heavy cost....
Up near the DMZ they even have psyops going 24 seven... You get to hear Chagi Boy NK propaganda master lullaby you to sleep every night.. " GI go home you take our women etc.. etc.." Its right out of freaking movie... no joke...
while our system broadcasts AC DC and metallica across the borders with about ten times the watts as their system...
Fellas go find your self a map... look at Seoul and look at the DMZ , only like 50 miles.. Now imagine 1 million plus starved and pissed off troops plundering south.... Then youll understand this conflict is no joke... Even with our superior forces the shear mass they can bring in the form of infantry is frightining. And lets not even talk about their artillery capabilities...
dont take my word for it go check global security.org and others youll see im not BSing..
DoctorYO
-
Doc, you're correct about the logistics and topo....the NK artillery alone is mind numbing.
My take is that I don't think they would do it....I believe we could flatten all producing nuclear plants(2 or 3?) and they would not respond as you have depicted.
I just get the feeling that this is a test and only a test of our will to respond in this region.
I hate all war....still, there are those who need to be dealt with and dealt with directly. We tried the appeasment approach and it didn't solve the problem.
Wherein lies the solution?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
To allow Iraq to refuse compliance weakens the UN.
The UN is already weak and pitiful. Look whos chairing the
human rights commisions. Why do we bother with such a crock?
-
Preon1: Even if they built nukes, they couldn't use them because there's nobody out there that would condone their use.
And that would matter to them because...?
At least Iraq has terrorists and the other Muslim Nations.
Do you know for sure where all 90+ NK submarines are at the moment?
Probably will invade NK and take a slice of the cake.
Which cake? 20 million of starving desperate koreans to take care off? A poisoned land, contaminated rivers and abused soil? Some cake, indeed... You think Chinese rulers would mind too much if NK hurts us some?
miko
-
North Korea appears to be applying the age-old negotiating tactic of increasing your offensive stance as you close in on a negotiated settlement.
If you know you are going to negotiate a truce, you go on a last minute offensive to ensure that there is maximum gained (for both sides) from a truce. It also helps you save face (by apparently having forced the truce).
We can hope that the increasingly belligerent actions of North Korea are an indication that a negotiated settlement is imminent.
-
The problem is North Korea are prone to believing their own lies. They get so chin deep in lies that after a while they've got no grip on reality.
I wouldn't be suprised if NK are in cohorts with the Iraqi's at this time in stirring up the toejam. Saddam must see them as a great supporting actor on the world stage and a useful tool to stretch the US thin. Likewise the NKs probably think this is great time to start a pissing match with the US.
So what are the possible scenarios?
- Iraq backs down, NK has to follow suit as the focus switches its way
- US strikes Iraq, NK launches a 'response' to a supposed SK strike
- NK pre-empts and strikes SK first, Iraq follows with pre-emptive strike (probably NBC) at US forces in golf
Then throw in the China vs Taiwan issues.
The only question I have is if Iraq is capable of a pre-emptive strike?
What would Jack Ryan do?
-
sand cupcakes or gooks what the hell lets kill em all
-
Originally posted by rc51
sand cupcakes
This is a new one, never heard before.
-
in!
-
My crystal ball says that Dubya's going to hold off as long as possible then use NK in his '04 campaign thinking that we won't want to change dicks in the middle of a screw < an old Nixion era term not to be taken literaly >
One thing Dubya won't do is try to win another term while engaging in what will be a lenghty ground war in NK. IMO.
-
out!
-
We won't have to. Best thing we could do is remove every single American solidier/sailor/airman on the peninsula, ignore them totally and cut off the food.
They may realize that they can make nukes but can't eat 'em.
Or they may remain in an anal/crainal insertion position and we'd have to:
Let 'em make nukes.
Let 'em then try to eat nukes.
Let 'em try to use a few nukes when they find out they can't eat 'em.
At the clamorous request of the entire UN General Assembly (save the vote of North Korea, of course) totally obliterate them with full world justification and approbation.
Problem solved.
Oh, by the way, like they used to tell me in the blue suit days:
"You've got to expect a few losses in an operation of this magnitude."
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
I dont think the US Govt wants a two front war.
Did you forget Afghanistan? According to Robert Fisk (http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=375608), you haven't quite finished that one yet.
-
I don't know....
how much oil do they got?
-
I like Toads solution... Think I had a scenario like that the other day playing CIV 3...
DoctorYO
-
Originally posted by miko2d
And that would matter to them because...?
That would matter because anybody intelligent enough to rise to power over an entire Nation has the capacity to look at the consequences of his actions. A person can be belligerent, unpredictable, AND intelligent all at the same time.
Originally posted by miko2d
Do you know for sure where all 90+ NK submarines are at the moment?
Maybe my information is wrong, but NK only has 26 WWII era diesel/electric driven submarines. They also have 60+ small submersibles (maybe that's what you're talking about?) At any rate, I don't see why you think this is a threat? These subs aren't equipped for anything beyond close maritime engagements. Do you think they're secretly shuttling around extremists with them?
Kim Jong Il isn't a moron. His country needs an energy source to grow its economy and feed its military. By taking these measures, the DPRK is simply increasing its power and importance in the Asian community. They've got a good thing going and they're not going to blow it by nuking Seoul.