Here is the article
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/24/nkorea.us/index.html
Has the attack on Iraq lead to a possible WW3? or what.
NK’s just blowing air up our skirts.
Militarily, they don’t stand a chance against the US.
Not in the long run, but how many men are you willing to sacrifice? And are these men of “the first wave” that have to know they walk into an attack with a tactical nuclear warhead willing to sacrifice themselves in such a way?
DS, you’re right, NK doesn’t stand a chance. After they launch an attack killing a million civilians in the first 24 hours the southern allied forces would try to contain the attackers for 9 months while the US brings in 3/4 of a million troops to conqour the north and there is a 100% chance of winning after about a 1 year of the most vicious fighting since Vietnam. There might only be a few million deaths provided the North didn’t use any of their tens of thousands of chemical weapons or any of their nukes.
What’s a few millions deaths in Axis and Allies, not much really 30-40 INF maybe. But this is real life and millions of the deaths would be plain ordinary citizens along with about 100 thousand dead US soldiers.
I believe that would be a great example of a Pyrrhic victory.
BB
Well, I didn’t say it wouldn’t involve a lot of lives lost. However, I wouldn’t underestimate the ingenuity of the US armed forces when dealing with a conflict of that magnitude. Remember, back in Gulf War I, the projected allied casualties where in the hundreds of thousands.
Next, I don’t think it would only be the US sending in 750,000 troops to conquer the North. If Seoul was hit with a nuke, I’m sure you’d have the support of MANY nations willing to send thousands of troops to help.
As for the “first wave”, these are crack squad of elite soldiers, and I’m sure they have multiple contingency plans for dealing with every possible scenario that can be thrown at them.
Funny, I thought the military was supposed to hope for the best and plan for the worst. Maybe they changed that axiom without informing me. Anyway, if North Korea launched a nuke in the middle of the US offensive then nearly everything on the southern portion of the pennisula would die. What if they had two nukes, you ask? they’d probably launch it at Japan, and the US would kiss their staging ground in the area goodbye. It would take months to get our armed forces back on track, what would be left of them.
You seriously think that the world would come to our aid if the North Koreans used a nuke to protect their national sovriegnty against a far superior invading military? I don’t think the world would do much. I believe that (hypotheticly, of course) if the US was being invaded with no chance of repeling the invaders conventionally, most people would feel it is alright to use nuclear weapons. You cannot assume that the US will have support agianst a nation just because our president has branded it a rouge state.
Nobody ever said we were invading. I said we would have the world’s support if North Korea pre-emptively used nuclear weapons against the allies.
Besides, don’t you think military strategists have been planning for this ever since the Korean War halted?
Why else would the North Koreas use a nuke? They aren’t stupid, they wouldn’t kill themselves by launching a nuclear weapon at anyone. Just becuase the cold war is over doesn’t mean the game of mutually assured destruction ended too. Therefore, the only reason for the Koreans to use such a weapon would be in self defense.
I don’t care how long our generals have been planning an invasion of Korea, one cannot prepare for a nuclear war. If you have a large force in the open (say, in the middle of an offensive) when a nuclear device is detonated then, chances are, everyone in that force is going to die.
First of all, you’re making quite a few assumptions.
NK’s ballistic missiles are untested (yes we know they have the range), but there’s no gaurentee they’d be able to hit us with a nuke before we shoot it down.
I still don’t understand where you’re getting this idea that we’re going to invade them. The only people that are threatening war are the North Koreans!
@Deviant:Scripter:
First of all, you’re making quite a few assumptions.
NK’s ballistic missiles are untested (yes we know they have the range), but there’s no gaurentee they’d be able to hit us with a nuke before we shoot it down.
I still don’t understand where you’re getting this idea that we’re going to invade them. The only people that are threatening war are the North Koreans!
If you read the article:
@article:
(GWB) said the United States would continue to work with Japan, South Korea, China and others “to say to the North Koreans and the world that we’re not going to be threatened.”
This sounds very much like the rethorics used before the attack on Iraq.
But more of a question is the following: Why do you think they would attack first, and so many others think the US might attack first?
You might have noticed that most posts here assume that NK would use the nuke as a tactical weapon (btw, then you don’t need a rocket for such a use), that needs an armed conflict started or about to start with some armed forces in reach to be destroyed.
You seem to assume that just because the US jumps around invading countries “pre-emptively” that every other country would do so too ;)….
@Deviant:Scripter:
As for the “first wave”, these are crack squad of elite soldiers, and I’m sure they have multiple contingency plans for dealing with every possible scenario that can be thrown at them.
Ok, then the “second wave”, the masses of regular soldiers to fight the army of N.K. … and no matter how many plans you have, if someone throws a tactical nuclear warhead at you, you are dead.
DS, during the gulf war, if Iraq had thousands of artillery pieces that could rain down 500,000 shells per hour and were dug into the sides of mountains and if all those shells could rain down on a city of 10 million don’t you think the predictions of 100 of thousands of casualties would have been true in say the first hour?
The US war plans DO call for 3/4 of a million troops. Who else could send any troops that would matter? The French, Germans, Canadians? Would the UN step in? If you put troops in that didn’t have the right communication equipment to integrate with the US forces they might as well not be there.
As for the first wave…. there would be about a million in the first wave against 35 thousand US soldiers.
They don’t need to use a nuke to start the war, they have about 17, 000 artillery pieces that can rain 1/2 a million shells per hour into the south.
As for their untested ballistic missles, yeah, the ones that can hit continental US are untested. The missles that can hit Japan are called Scuds, NK makes them and sells them and they work pretty good for nukes or bio/chem weapons.
Why would NK attack first you ask F_alk? Why did they attack first before? Because their leader is insane. Why do their leaders teach their citizens that S. Korea is controlled by the imperial US forces? Did you know that the mission statement of the north is to conqour the south by armed conflict?
So, you have an insane leader who starves millions of his own people, convinces them that the US is trying to conqour the other half of Korea, runs a regime that has invaded the south before, has nukes, threatens not only to use them but to sell them on the open market.
With all this you try to apply logic and reason? North Korea is not Denmark and the leader is not Ghandi. This is a sad but good example of how wars end up being fought because of 1 crazy person. Sad.
BB
DS, during the gulf war, if Iraq had thousands of artillery pieces that could rain down 500,000 shells per hour and were dug into the sides of mountains. And if all those shells could rain down on a city of 10 million don’t you think the predictions of 100 of thousands of casualties would have been true?
Well, actually I was referring to military casualties, but I should have been more specific.
In any event, you’re right BB, I have no doubt that there would be millions of civilian deaths. That’s why I don’t think war would be the ideal option in this situation.
You seem to assume that just because the US jumps around invading countries “pre-emptively” that every other country would do so too ….
Have you even read what the leader of NK is saying??? Becuase it seems like you just keep trying to tie this to Iraq. Two different countries…two different situations.
If you put troops in that didn’t have the right communication equipment to integrate with the US forces they might as well not be there.
You’re right, I didn’t even think about that. :(
I’ll repeat it again: The only people threatening war here are the North Koreans, yet some people still think we’re poised to invade!
Why would NK attack first you ask F_alk? Why did they attack first before? Because their leader is insane. Why do their leaders teach their citizens that S. Korea is controlled by the imperial US forces? Did you know that the mission statement of the north is to conqour the south by armed conflict?
The insanity is a point, all the rest applies to the US during the cold war as well, and still the US didn’t start the overkill. (goes for the USSR at that time as well), the mission statements were slightly different though (except the one of Reagan).
With all this you try to apply logic and reason? North Korea is not Denmark and the leader is not Ghandi. This is a sad but good example of how wars end up being fought because of 1 crazy person. Sad.
Yes, i still apply logic. Kim wants to stay in power, that i think we can agree on. He knows a war with the US will be lost. Ergo, he can not wage a war. He can bluff, try to intimidate as good as he can, whatever. But for a war to break out in Korea, i assume you need two players.
BTW, i kind of wonder how you can use Gandhi and reason and logic in two consecutive sentences ;) (<- mark the smiley)…… I mean, Gandhi was most illogical in his behavior of not fighting the oppressors…
(not meant seriously).
Why was Ghandi illogical? Fight the brits and be killed or do it another way and live. You say the latter is illogical and the former is logical? Oh this must be one of those moments when you introduce a spurious argument. Got ya. Ignore point as it is spurious.
I am not sure what you are saying on the mission statement and overkill. I guess you are equating on one side the US position of “If russia nukes us, we nuke them back and utterly destroy them”, the MAD doctrine. On the other side is the policy of NK to lie to their people about history and have as their mission statement the reunification of SK with NK by military force with of course NK as the ultimate ruler. This is the same ruler who has stared millions of people. Yep, I can see how the two are the same pret’near. Oh this is one of your spurious arguments AGAIN isn’t it? You stinker you! Right, Ignore your point again.
Tell me F_alk, I’m a bit new at this game, what parts of your post were actually serious?
OK, KIM wants to stay in power, I can agree with that. He is insance, we both agree to that. He knows a war would be lost with the US? Are you sure he beleives he couldn’t fight and win a war, by say inflicting a few 100 thousand casualties and force some sort of armistance at the end of his nuclear missles? Do you think when NK says they are willing to sell nukes they are kidding? NK just got busted for selling heroine in Australia, a state sponsored act! Oh this is one of your silly moments YET AGAIN, you TRICKSTER F_alk!!! You are so sneaky when introducing your spurious arguments. :lol:
BB
I can’t believe BlairBush is waiting so long . . . . Do they have to discover oil in NK before they attack? For crying out loud, it’s been at least 2 weeks since the last war!
I could say the same thing about Clinton. :(
Fight the brits and be killed or do it another way and live. You say the latter is illogical and the former is logical?
The illogical part (for you) should be “there are other ways to solve problems than fighting”. Pretty much like “you can get the crap beaten out of you, but if you stick to your principles you still win” is totally inunderstandable for the current government of the US as it seems, they seem to prefer to fight back and sacrifice all their values that they were once honored for on the way.
I am not sure what you are saying on the mission statement and overkill. I guess you are equating on one side the US position of “If russia nukes us, we nuke them back and utterly destroy them”, the MAD doctrine.
Don’t forget the former indoctrination that “all commies are evil” and “the USSR is the empire of evil”. That sounds a lot to me like “Why do their leaders teach their citizens that S. Korea is controlled by the imperial US forces?”. It is the same rethorics, just used the other way round.
Yep, I can see how the two are the same pret’near.
The point was the question “why should NK attack first”. You made some points why they could. I compared that to the situation during the Cold War. During the Cold War, US citizens were taught that the USSR is evil and a danger, using vocabularies from the same “class struggle” word book as their “enemy”. Ronald Reagans “mission statement” was not at all “if they attack, we shall bomb them”. From the Soviet side, Stalin was the last “aggressive”, Chrustchev the first “cooperative” leader in terms of their mission statements.
Both sides possessed nuclear weapons and knew that if they should go to war against each other directly, it would mean the end of the world.
You might want to call the leaders of the USSR insane as well, so that then would fit as well.
Now we have a minor nuclear power, so it would not be the end of the world but devastation of an area.
Still, the words used are comparable, the threat is smaller for us far away, but as big for those close by.
So, noone started the war in a comparable situation for about 35 years. Why should one side start a war now? Why should the NK do that?
He knows a war would be lost with the US? Are you sure he beleives he couldn’t fight and win a war, by say inflicting a few 100 thousand casualties and force some sort of armistance at the end of his nuclear missles?
How many does he have?
One, two, or more?
He can go for an armistice only if he can use nuclear weapons and still have a few left in case his armistice efforts fail. But he also must take into account that if he fails, he is dead, his country gone from the world.
That for me is a position where i can lose or reach an expensive draw. I would not play that game unless someone forces me to do it. The other side in that game would be the US, so as long as the US don’t force me to play that game, i wouldn’t play it, as i can not win.
I can’t believe BlairBush is waiting so long . . . . Do they have to discover oil in NK before they attack? For crying out loud, it’s been at least 2 weeks since the last war!
:lol:
He can go for an armistice only if he can use nuclear weapons and still have a few left in case his armistice efforts fail. But he also must take into account that if he fails, he is dead, his country gone from the world.
That for me is a position where i can lose or reach an expensive draw. I would not play that game unless someone forces me to do it. The other side in that game would be the US, so as long as the US don’t force me to play that game, i wouldn’t play it, as i can not win.
If NK drops a nuclear weapon, the last thing you’ll see is an armistice. NK would be swept aside.(to put it mildly)
What “game” are you talking about, F_alk?
You’re not suggesting that NK isn’t responsible for its own actions are you?
On another note……dosen’t anyone else find this funny…
Iraq says it has no WMD, the US says it does and goes to war. NK says, yes, we have WMD and US says I don’t think they do or Na, their just bluffing… is it me or is that funny…not in a haha way, but you know…funny…
@Mr:
If NK drops a nuclear weapon, the last thing you’ll see is an armistice. NK would be swept aside.(to put it mildly)
What “game” are you talking about, F_alk?
You’re not suggesting that NK isn’t responsible for its own actions are you?
I agree totally with the first.
The “game” i was talking of is the “game of power”. I used that word because in games and wars you can win, lose or draw.
Iraq says it has no WMD, the US says it does and goes to war. NK says, yes, we have WMD and US says I don’t think they do or Na, their just bluffing……
I love that.
