Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The Inevitability of Korea (again...)
But not me?
And didnt she say something along the lines of why doesnt he take a wrong turn while hes out on a walk
That means he would be lost not dead X( He would just come back and blame the USA for stealing his map
Fine I like you too
w0000t 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8089290.stm
Again if they just killed that asshole we wouldnt have this problem X(
So:
- The new resolution is being backed by China/Russia
- There have been no excessive troop movements in the North
- The long-range rocket hasn't been fired yet
All talk?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/13/north-korea-nuclear-weapon-plutonium
More threats.
I think, in all honesty, China should be the one to inspect the norths cargo. Theres no way
that the north would attack China, so there isn't much to worry about in that regard...
i wouldn't mind an invasion of NK.
North Korea I'm afraid has a big army but it's equipment is junk.
half their equipment they have are of the type that the Soviets put into reserve in the 1980s!!!
Their tanks & planes are obsolete! South Korea has got some really neat western tech plus a lot of indigenous stuff too. I'd take a South Korean fighter any day against an upgraded MIG 21. As for NK tanks- sheesh Does Operation Desert Storm ring a bell?
NK might spend more money on defense than SK but how is that money spent?
Russia for example is downsizing it's forces simply because it is more expensive to maintain a big army when they can probably get a better force out of a smaller more professional army.
plus how far will China go to support NK these days? With the Chinese economy as it is- they are in a relationship with the west now- a far cry from the 1950s. Do they really want to go to war in support of North Korea?
> As for NK tanks- sheesh Does Operation Desert Storm ring a bell?
North Korea is mountain terrain, not desert. Their tanks are equipped as such and
will probably have use. Though they wont be super-duper-cool or anything, i still
wouldn't want a couple thousand of them rolling into my home town...
> NK might spend more money on defense than SK but how is that money spent?
They construct cheaper weapons. They might make crap, but its crap that WILL kill alot
of innocent people.
> Russia for example is downsizing it's forces simply because it is more expensive to
> maintain a big army when they can probably get a better force out of a smaller more
> professional army.
Russia is the worlds biggest country, and a world-leader(-ish) in military might. North Korea
has a single border to protect, and they do so with as much force as possible. Its essentially
the MAD doctrine.
> plus how far will China go to support NK these days?
As soon as China decides to become aggressive towards North Korea, NK is stuffed.
Theres no way they can protect two opposite borders effectively.
A 100 ton tank on a 20% grade needs damn good brakes and lots of replcaements
North Korean tanks don't need brakes...!
I'm convinced of America's invincibility in a conventional 1on1 military conflict. Maybe we aren't so great vs nuclear weapons, occupation, or non conventional tactics, but no single nation's army, navy, or air force can challenge us.
> I'm convinced of America's invincibility in a conventional 1on1 military conflict
Its never a 1on1 military conflict.
The Chinese won't support an invasion by anyone. The amount of North Koreans flooding over the border would be pretty high and China's population problems are bad enough as it is. Same goes with the Russians, they'd have to keep an eye on their eastern borders and they're not particularly friendly with Europe at the moment.
China is 1.3 billion
NK is 24 million
SK is 48 million
> China is...
Even 5 million people flooding the Chinese border would be unwanted.
> The Chinese won't support an invasion by anyone.
They wont have a choice if North Korea starts it.
north korea doesn't intend to win any war long term, just do enough damage so the other guys pay not to have war in the first place
north koreans are like a bunch of somali's on a leaky fishing boat with a couple of AK 47's and an RPG, yes any half decent military vessel could easily overpower them but that doesn't mean they're harmless
"This is a pattern they've come to expect," Mr Obama said.
"We are going to break that pattern."
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8104709.stm
think NoKo will back down?
Thats a good question.
I think its now a question of who will cave first. Although, i'm not entirely sure what
North Korea is actually demanding. Perhaps they just want to be a nuclear power?
With global influences shifting, the tough financial crisis and low amounts of aid from
other countries maybe Kim Jong-Il simply wants to create a state powerful enough
to survive his sons reign.
If he, and his generals, believe the only way for the impovrished nation to survive is
to develop nuclear weapons then perhaps thats what he will do. Maybe even the multi-party
talks over the past half a decade were just to stall for time.
I don't think that Obama will let North Korea obtain multiple nuclear weapons though, and
the Chinese certainly wont like it.
But then again theres still a huge difference from WW2-era nuclear explosions, and the miniaturization
and fitting of a nuclear warhead onto a capable missile.
> If you thought Iraq was strong before desert storm, you need to reasses the situation, in total.
No one thinks that. Iraq was a complete mess before desert storm, it just had a few numbers. North Korea is
right now in a *much* better position militarily then Iraq was or ever could have been.
> Would the United States win versus N. Korea? Yes we would.
No shit .
But as time goes on North Korea will work on both its long-range ICBM technology, and its atomic weapons
technology. Eventually it will put them together, and point 10-15 of them at the U.S. west coast. In response
the U.S. might setup a proper anti-ICBM system targeting the specific threat of these missiles but even if
one plutonium based ICBM hits its target it could cause a mass disaster.
for one iraq had the 4th biggest army in the world be for desert storm. and there is not a def 100per cent chance usa would win you have comitments in iraq and afganistan so i dont think this war will happen in a while and if it does u will be hard stretched to win it and if u think they was hard n. korea wud be alot harder if wud be a vietnam all over again its all jungle and mountains out there most of ur advanced weapons wouldnt count for shit out there maybe at the start of the war they would go head to head but once they realise they couldnt win that way they will do wat vietnam done and the death rate on both sides would be massive and it would probs be betta if u left. i dont think they would mind exploding a nuclear weapon on there own door step just to stop you from winning
> for one iraq had the 4th biggest army in the world be for desert
> storm.
Firstly Soldier numbers are irrelevant if they can't walk outside without
being bombarded.
Secondly Iraq had almost half the strength of the invading force. They
were doomed from the start.
Thirdly Iraq was a desert. Flatter. North Korea isn't anywhere near as flat.
> and there is not a def 100per cent chance usa would win
> you have comitments in iraq and afganistan so i dont think this
> war will happen in a while and if it does u will be hard stretched to
> win it and if u think they was hard n. korea wud be alot harder if wud
> be a vietnam all over again its all jungle and mountains out there
> most of ur advanced weapons wouldnt count for shit out there
> maybe at the start of the war they would go head to head but
> once they realise they couldnt win that way they will do wat vietnam
> done and the death rate on both sides would be massive and it would
> probs be betta if u left. i dont think they would mind exploding a nuclear
> weapon on there own door step just to stop you from winning
It'll be just like the first Korean war, only China wont be there to help with
the counter. So eventually North Korea will loose, unless they gain some
sort of leverage, which i doubt.
That whole 67% desertion rate didn't help the Iraqi army either....
kingsmith, try to write in sentences, I cannot read what you wrote there.
"n. korea wud be alot harder if wud be a vietnam all over again"
From what I understood here points in the direction that you don't know of the Korean War of the 1950's. If this is the case, you may want to brush up on your history of the area you are attempting to talk about.
Also there is something in a previous post I'd like to correct: communism is a way of economy, not a way of government rule, a lot of people confuse Communism with communism, I won't attempt to tell the differences here as it is easy to check for yourselves.
> Kelivut wrote:
> a lot of people confuse Communism with communism
I have never ever ever ever EVER seen it expressed that way! (And probably with good reason... not that you're wrong... but damn! The grammatical difference of whether to capitalize it? Seriously?)
Imperial Forum → Politics → The Inevitability of Korea (again...)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.