# North Korea Attacks!



## Oldguy

The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!


----------



## Sallow

Guess we have to learn Korean now.


----------



## KnobbyWalsh

Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!



Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Kim thinks he's reenacting "D Day"


----------



## Mac1958

.



I wonder if they pooped their pants when Obama sent those stealth bombers over there for South Korea's training exercises.  They know their nation is crumbling...

.


----------



## KnobbyWalsh

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they pooped their pants when Obama sent those stealth bombers over there for South Korea's training exercises.  They know their nation is crumbling...
> 
> .



What do you expect out of a country whose most sophisticated tool is a broom?


----------



## Nova78

Your either very ignorant or naïve.


In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.

That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.

They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland. 

Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.

"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.

The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.

U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.

Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.

North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.

That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.

They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland. 

Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.

"They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.

The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.

U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.

Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.

"In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!



Ever see "The Mouse That Roared"?



I refuse to see the remake of of Red Dawn for specifically this reason...


----------



## BallsBrunswick

I really hope North Korea doesn't collapse before I'm able to visit there. That culture is an obsolete artifact of the darkest days of the 20th century. I find an archaic Orwellian society so heavy on brain washing and bullshit utterly fascinating.

And North Korea isn't scary because of North Korea. North Korea is scary because they're a puppet of China and any trigger in that area could start a World War scenario.


----------



## Wyatt earp

legaleagle_45 said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever see "The Mouse That Roared"?
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to see the remake of of Red Dawn for specifically this reason...
Click to expand...


dont bother, watched it last night it was stupid. the 1st one was way better.


----------



## KnobbyWalsh

I don't think One Young Him would miss a great meal over a war!


----------



## Mr. Shaman

KnobbyWalsh said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they pooped their pants when Obama sent those stealth bombers over there for South Korea's training exercises.  They know their nation is crumbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect out of a country whose most sophisticated tool is a broom?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing *Kim Jong-dumbya*......​


> ....*is their most sophisticated tool**.*​



What're the chances *Daddy Bush* did some screwin'-around (around the *Koreas*), when he was running the *CIA*?


----------



## ScienceRocks

I wish North Korea would just shut up.


----------



## Billo_Really

KnobbyWalsh said:


> Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Kim thinks he's reenacting "D Day"


Or Cuba Day in South Beach.


----------



## Mac1958

.

Former Ambassador Marc Ginsberg gives the best big-picture view (maybe the *only* big-picture view) of the situation I've seen yet.  Evidently even China has had enough:

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Dangerous Amateur Hour in Pyongyang

.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

loinboy said:


> KnobbyWalsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Kim thinks he's reenacting "D Day"
> 
> 
> 
> Or Cuba Day in South Beach.
Click to expand...


....Or, the *On The Run days*....



> ....*in Alabama**.*
> 
> "They say Bush would prop his cowboy boots on a desk and brag about how much he drank the night before."


----------



## Dajjal

Sallow said:


> Guess we have to learn Korean now.



Do, Tae Kwon Do, the Korean martial art. They make you learn the Korean names for all your moves.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I'm calling it right now...This fucker is bluffing and you will see before the months over that this is bull shit. 

He just wants free shit so he can feed his face!


----------



## Publius1787

Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!



Never fear! Our Fearless leader has things well at hand. He's gonna save the day.


----------



## Dajjal

Matthew said:


> I'm calling it right now...This fucker is bluffing and you will see before the months over that this is bull shit.



I only hope you are right, and if not then I hope China will not join in supporting NK.


----------



## FA_Q2

BallsBrunswick said:


> I really hope North Korea doesn't collapse before I'm able to visit there. That culture is an obsolete artifact of the darkest days of the 20th century. I find an archaic Orwellian society so heavy on brain washing and bullshit utterly fascinating.
> 
> And North Korea isn't scary because of North Korea. North Korea is scary because they're a puppet of China and any trigger in that area could start a World War scenario.



Wont happen.

An attack by NK is unlikely anyway no matter how much chest thumping they do as those in power have to understand it all but ensures they will die.  The leader is one thing  he can be crazy but the generals are another.  They have to know that their lives would be forfeit in such an encounter of nations.  

Also, the idea that China is going to get involved is simply off base.  If WE attacked NK, that is a clar possibility but if NK is the aggressor it is another story altogether.  China is not going to put their entire country in danger, go to war with their best customers and risk destruction on a global scale because of an errant and idiotic dictator of a small neighboring country.  It is not in their interests to go to war with us anymore than it is in ours to go to war with China.  An attack by NK will kill thousands of our troops.  We are not going to fail to respond to that.


----------



## Katzndogz

North Korea has already forced the US to back off.   To them, they are winning and have no reason to believe that they won't continue to win.

U.S. Dials Back on Korean Show of Force - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON&#8212;After a high-visibility display of military power aimed at deterring North Korean provocations, the White House is dialing back the aggressive posture amid fears that it could inadvertently trigger an even deeper crisis, according to U.S. officials.

The U.S. is putting a pause to what several officials described as a step-by-step plan the Obama administration approved earlier this year, dubbed "the playbook


What an utter fool obama is.  What a complete and utter blithering idiot.  He is going to excite North Korea into a full scale attack and we will deserve every bit of it for having put this fool in office.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!


If North Korea *isn't* a threat, then *why* are there so many US Forces there?

Can you explain that one OldMan?


----------



## Avatar4321

American Communist said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!
> 
> 
> 
> If North Korea *isn't* a threat, then *why* are there so many US Forces there?
> 
> Can you explain that one OldMan?
Click to expand...


Because they are a threat, specifically to South Korea, Japan, and others in the region. To us? not as obvious if they are.

I know alot of you guys are mocking them and maybe they do deserve it, but dont take them lightly. They do have a large military and can do some damage with some nukes. They are getting desperate and are in a position where they have nothing to lose. That makes them dangerous.

You might enjoy making fun of rabid dogs, but that doesnt mean you are any less in danger when they actually bite.


----------



## Harry Dresden

KnobbyWalsh said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if they pooped their pants when Obama sent those stealth bombers over there for South Korea's training exercises.  They know their nation is crumbling...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you expect out of a country whose most sophisticated tool is a broom?
Click to expand...


do they even have those?....


----------



## konradv

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea has already forced the US to back off.   To them, they are winning and have no reason to believe that they won't continue to win.
> 
> U.S. Dials Back on Korean Show of Force - WSJ.com
> 
> WASHINGTONAfter a high-visibility display of military power aimed at deterring North Korean provocations, the White House is dialing back the aggressive posture amid fears that it could inadvertently trigger an even deeper crisis, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> The U.S. is putting a pause to what several officials described as a step-by-step plan the Obama administration approved earlier this year, dubbed "the playbook
> 
> What an utter fool obama is.  What a complete and utter blithering idiot.  He is going to excite North Korea into a full scale attack and we will deserve every bit of it for having put this fool in office.



It's be wasteful to keep forces there any longer than necessary.  The message has been delivered and any invasion from the north would be met by overwhelming air power, which would turn their armor into scrap before they ever got to Seoul.  They can't expect a repeat of 1950.  The SKs are ready, we're there to back them up and China knows all a war would do is ruin their economic boom.


----------



## Avatar4321

konradv said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea has already forced the US to back off.   To them, they are winning and have no reason to believe that they won't continue to win.
> 
> U.S. Dials Back on Korean Show of Force - WSJ.com
> 
> WASHINGTONAfter a high-visibility display of military power aimed at deterring North Korean provocations, the White House is dialing back the aggressive posture amid fears that it could inadvertently trigger an even deeper crisis, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> The U.S. is putting a pause to what several officials described as a step-by-step plan the Obama administration approved earlier this year, dubbed "the playbook
> 
> What an utter fool obama is.  What a complete and utter blithering idiot.  He is going to excite North Korea into a full scale attack and we will deserve every bit of it for having put this fool in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's be wasteful to keep forces there any longer than necessary.  The message has been delivered and any invasion from the north would be met by overwhelming air power, which would turn their armor into scrap before they ever got to Seoul.  They can't expect a repeat of 1950.  The SKs are ready, we're there to back them up and China knows all a war would do is ruin their economic boom.
Click to expand...


It isnt as easy to predict the outcome of a war as you might think.


----------



## Katzndogz

The message delivered is that the US will back down when sufficiently threatened.  If that's not enough of a message obama and stooge Hagel are all over the place whining that we are going to cut the military because we are so broke.

obama's government is like the stupid guy who waves a gun around in front of gang bangers telling them it's not loaded cause he can't afford bullets.  It's like obama's fart to Syria about the use of chemical weapons.  His silly playground red line.  He was lying then.  He is lying now.  He is Presidebt Hot Air.


----------



## FA_Q2

Avatar4321 said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!
> 
> 
> 
> If North Korea *isn't* a threat, then *why* are there so many US Forces there?
> 
> Can you explain that one OldMan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are a threat, specifically to South Korea, Japan, and others in the region. To us? not as obvious if they are.
> 
> I know alot of you guys are mocking them and maybe they do deserve it, but dont take them lightly. They do have a large military and can do some damage with some nukes. They are getting desperate and are in a position where they have nothing to lose. That makes them dangerous.
> 
> You might enjoy making fun of rabid dogs, but that doesnt mean you are any less in danger when they actually bite.
Click to expand...


We are also there to fight a proxy war with China the way we fight all major nations.  We cant have open conflict but we can oppose their international interests through smaller nations that take the brunt of the pain.


----------



## konradv

Katzndogz said:


> The message delivered is that the US will back down when sufficiently threatened.  If that's not enough of a message obama and stooge Hagel are all over the place whining that we are going to cut the military because we are so broke.
> 
> obama's government is like the stupid guy who waves a gun around in front of gang bangers telling them it's not loaded cause he can't afford bullets.  It's like obama's fart to Syria about the use of chemical weapons.  His silly playground red line.  He was lying then.  He is lying now.  He is Presidebt Hot Air.



There' been no backdown.  That's just wingnut SPIN.


----------



## auditor0007

N. Korea's Air Force ready to strike at any time now.


----------



## Oldguy

American Communist said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!
> 
> 
> 
> If North Korea *isn't* a threat, then *why* are there so many US Forces there?
> 
> Can you explain that one OldMan?
Click to expand...



I didn't say NK wasn't a threat.  Of course it is, but the questions are to whom and how much of a threat.

They're not much of a physical threat to us, but could hurt South Korea, Japan or any number of nearby states.  However, they could not defeat any of them so the greatest threat they pose is to themselves.

Question: How many US troops do you think there are in Korea on a regular basis?  Answer:  Not many.  Our ground troop presence amounts to about a Brigade Combat Team with air and sea support.  The days of stationing the entire 2nd Infantry division there are over.  South Korea is well able to defend itself and our remaining troops serve as little more than a trip-wire to guarantee American involvement if the North were to be so imprudent as to invade the South.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Oldguy said:


> Question: How many US troops do you think there are in Korea on a regular basis? .



Current force level is just under 30,000 with about 20,000 US Army troops  and about 8,000 Air Force + less than 1,000 Navy and Marines personnel.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Oldguy said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!
> 
> 
> 
> If North Korea *isn't* a threat, then *why* are there so many US Forces there?
> 
> Can you explain that one OldMan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say NK wasn't a threat.  Of course it is, but the questions are to whom and how much of a threat.
> 
> They're not much of a physical threat to us, but could hurt South Korea, Japan or any number of nearby states.  However, they could not defeat any of them so the greatest threat they pose is to themselves.
Click to expand...

*You* claimed they weren't a threat in your *very first post*. Need I remind you?


Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!


As for *why* the Banker controlled United States keeps it's forces there I can only offer one reason: As a threat to the North should they ever try to close the Joint Manufacturing facility *in* North Korea.

All the rest is just for show.


----------



## ScienceRocks

When? I'm not getting any younger.


----------



## Oldguy

American Communist said:


> *You* claimed they weren't a threat in your *very first post*. Need I remind you?



Apparently so as I don't see it.  I get your INTERPRETATION of what I said, but I feel no obligation to defend it.


----------



## BallsBrunswick

I was reading the Times today and it was saying that even China is getting sick of North Korea's shit. Apparently there's just been a regime change with a new President being put into place in China who's been a lot easier to work with than the previous one. Also China hasn't raised public or private objections to the joint US/South Korea military exercises in the area in response to the threats. Kim Jung-Un better relax or he's going to lose the support of his masters.


----------



## Unkotare

American Communist said:


> As for *why* the Banker controlled United States keeps it's forces there I can only offer one reason: As a threat to the North should they ever try to close the Joint Manufacturing facility *in* North Korea.
> 
> All the rest is just for show.





Even among conspiracy nuts you're a feeble-minded idiot.


----------



## hortysir

Sallow said:


> Guess we have to learn Korean now.



Only if ya need a mani-pedi


----------



## ScienceRocks

Well, looks like I'm going to be right about North Korea!


----------



## depotoo

North Korea seen readying for fourth nuclear test: report
 By Ju-min Park and Jack Kim

Reuters

7:56 p.m. CDT, April 7, 2013
SEOUL (Reuters) - Activity in North Korea appears to show it is preparing for a fourth nuclear test, with movement at its atomic test site similar to events preceding earlier blasts, a newspaper reported on Monday, quoting a senior South Korean government official.

North Korea has intensified warnings in recent weeks, declaring it had entered a state of war with Seoul, threatening to strike U.S. targets and blocking access to a border factory complex jointly run with the South.


U.S. commander in South Korea cancels Washington trip over tensions 
"There are recent active movements of manpower and vehicles at the southern tunnel at Punggye-ri," South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper quoted an unidentified government official as saying. The official was referring to North Korea's nuclear test site.

"We are monitoring because the situation is similar to behavior seen prior to the third nuclear test," the official was quoted as saying. It was unclear, the official told the newspaper, whether the activities were intended to mislead U.S. surveillance.

North Korea seen readying for fourth nuclear test: report - chicagotribune.com


----------



## Antares

Concerning your signature, on your best day you've never been intelligent enough to kill anyone's thread.

How does it feel being a lonely communist in this nation?




Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!


----------



## Pop23

Oldguy said:


> The invasion force is at sea!  We're DOOMED!



Row, Row , Row your boat gently out to sea....

Everybody now!


----------



## Vandalshandle

The North Koreans had to plan to bomb Seattle, but it was spoiled when they found out that UPS does not pick up packages for deliery from North korea.


----------



## FA_Q2

Oldguy said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You* claimed they weren't a threat in your *very first post*. Need I remind you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently so as I don't see it.  I get your INTERPRETATION of what I said, but I feel no obligation to defend it.
Click to expand...


How about you provide any other interpretation of that picture.

Stop backpedalling here.


----------



## Esmeralda

BallsBrunswick said:


> I was reading the Times today and it was saying that even China is getting sick of North Korea's shit. Apparently there's just been a regime change with a new President being put into place in China who's been a lot easier to work with than the previous one. Also China hasn't raised public or private objections to the joint US/South Korea military exercises in the area in response to the threats. Kim Jung-Un better relax or he's going to lose the support of his masters.





> China's leaders issued thinly veiled rebukes to North Korea for raising regional tensions, with the president saying no country should throw the world into chaos and the foreign minister warning that Beijing would not allow mischief on its doorstep.


China rebukes North Korea, says no state should sow chaos | Reuters

China has warned North Korea to knock it the fuck off.


----------



## Ernie S.

No contest...


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

North Korea is dangerous.  Very dangerous.  Not because of the sophistication or lethality of their weapon systems, but because they have a large number of them and are really stupid enough to use them.

We know that North Korea has approximately 10,000 artillery pieces close enough to lob about 500,000 rounds of high explosive onto Seoul in the first hour.  The results would be a conflaguration that would consume Seoul.  Imagine the dead.  It would be impossible to get relief in there.  

We know that they have around 4,000 tanks and armored vehicles that would try a massive 'rush' to the south should they decide to cross the DMV.  The 'cutting edge' North Korean tank is on par with Iraqs version of the T-72, although they have a version of the T-82 coming on line.  Remember that most of their tanks come from the Chinese, although they have licensed to build a number of them.

As for aircraft, they have around 1,000 fighters that they could put into the sky.  These are not even remotely on par with the F-35, F-22, the F-15, F-16, or the F/A-18.  We're talking mid 70's - 80's Chinese technology.  But as I said, there are a lot of them.  They have a newer version of a Chinese fighter/bomber that they build on license, but once again, not enough numbers to talk about.

The biggest threat that the North Koreans pose is in the number of bodies that they can put into the field.  1 Million man army.  6 Million if they call up the reserves.  

Where North Korea gets its leathality is in its complete and utter disregard for conventional thought.  Everyone is their enemy.  Everyone.  They don't even like the Chinese really, ESPECIALLY since they have such close ties with the US.  They feel that the Chinese has sold them out completely.  They are convinced that they are alone fighting for their survival.  Couple that with a psychotic leader and ruling council and you have a very volatile mix.

I am a conservative and a member/supporter of the Tea Party.  But, I pray that God grants our President and his advisors wisdom.  I hope and pray that they see that the military MUST be prepared to deal with such maniacs.  30,000 American military members have their lives at stake.


----------



## racewright

As un civilized as this sounds WAR is always about gaining something.
It could be land resources or any other asset a nation has...We are the only nation thats fights defensive wars...this will bankrupt us sooner or later.  The spoiles of war is not a joke when we waste American lives we need to make the countries we fight ours---Oh my god he is talking about conquest  DAM right I'am.  Wake up


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Putting yul brynner's magnificent seven to shame:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/77164_605873526108535_2067377481_n.jpg


----------



## Flopper

Nova78 said:


> Your either very ignorant or naïve.
> 
> 
> In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> "In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.


I agree South Korea would be hit hard.  With Seoul being only about 60 miles from the boarder, it would be toast in a full attack.  However, I don't think the South Korean military would be overrun with over 500,000 troops, 30,000 US personnel, 5,000 tanks, and God knows how many missile batteries.  The South is far better trained and equipped. 

The South Korean strategy is to respond to any attack in kind.  If the North launched and all out attack, Pyongyang along with all high valued targets would be leveled in a matter of days.  However, when it's all over, there wouldn't be much left of Seoul or Pyongyang  which should be enough to keep both sides in check.


----------



## Flopper

FA_Q2 said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really hope North Korea doesn't collapse before I'm able to visit there. That culture is an obsolete artifact of the darkest days of the 20th century. I find an archaic Orwellian society so heavy on brain washing and bullshit utterly fascinating.
> 
> And North Korea isn't scary because of North Korea. North Korea is scary because they're a puppet of China and any trigger in that area could start a World War scenario.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wont happen.
> 
> An attack by NK is unlikely anyway no matter how much chest thumping they do as those in power have to understand it all but ensures they will die.  The leader is one thing  he can be crazy but the generals are another.  They have to know that their lives would be forfeit in such an encounter of nations.
> 
> Also, the idea that China is going to get involved is simply off base.  If WE attacked NK, that is a clar possibility but if NK is the aggressor it is another story altogether.  China is not going to put their entire country in danger, go to war with their best customers and risk destruction on a global scale because of an errant and idiotic dictator of a small neighboring country.  It is not in their interests to go to war with us anymore than it is in ours to go to war with China.  An attack by NK will kill thousands of our troops.  We are not going to fail to respond to that.
Click to expand...

If there is any military action, I think the most likely will either be:


NK attacks and takes one of the Korean islands in dispute.  Supreme Leader could then claim a victory and pursue a truce.  This would give Kim Jong-un just what he wants.


Another real possibility is a mistake on either side of the DMZ.  With over a million troops, thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, and missile batteries on high alert, little more than a pack of firecrackers could start a war.  Unless Kim Jon-un has taken leave of his senses, he's not going to order a full blown attack across the DMZ which he knows would prove to be suicidal once the US unleashed it's air power.


----------



## Jarlaxle

If the North attacks, Pyongyang should--within the hour--vanish in a nuclear fireball.  Time to tell Junior that we are DONE fucking around with him.


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,


1. Never happen, nothing will happen, maybe Obama will throw the *little dictator* a couple hundred million, that's about it.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## Flopper

Avatar4321 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea has already forced the US to back off.   To them, they are winning and have no reason to believe that they won't continue to win.
> 
> U.S. Dials Back on Korean Show of Force - WSJ.com
> 
> WASHINGTONAfter a high-visibility display of military power aimed at deterring North Korean provocations, the White House is dialing back the aggressive posture amid fears that it could inadvertently trigger an even deeper crisis, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> The U.S. is putting a pause to what several officials described as a step-by-step plan the Obama administration approved earlier this year, dubbed "the playbook
> 
> What an utter fool obama is.  What a complete and utter blithering idiot.  He is going to excite North Korea into a full scale attack and we will deserve every bit of it for having put this fool in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's be wasteful to keep forces there any longer than necessary.  The message has been delivered and any invasion from the north would be met by overwhelming air power, which would turn their armor into scrap before they ever got to Seoul.  They can't expect a repeat of 1950.  The SKs are ready, we're there to back them up and China knows all a war would do is ruin their economic boom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isnt as easy to predict the outcome of a war as you might think.
Click to expand...

This one would be pretty easy.


----------



## Flopper

Vandalshandle said:


> The North Koreans had to plan to bomb Seattle, but it was spoiled when they found out that UPS does not pick up packages for deliery from North korea.


Which reminds me....
Missiles are not the only vehicle that can delivery nuclear devices to US cities.  With over 12,000 miles of coast line and millions of containers arriving in US ports, there is plenty of opportunity to delivery a nuclear payload into the US a lot more reliably than a 6 or 7 thousand mile missile shot.


----------



## Flopper

OldUSAFSniper said:


> North Korea is dangerous.  Very dangerous.  Not because of the sophistication or lethality of their weapon systems, but because they have a large number of them and are really stupid enough to use them.
> 
> We know that North Korea has approximately 10,000 artillery pieces close enough to lob about 500,000 rounds of high explosive onto Seoul in the first hour.  The results would be a conflaguration that would consume Seoul.  Imagine the dead.  It would be impossible to get relief in there.
> 
> We know that they have around 4,000 tanks and armored vehicles that would try a massive 'rush' to the south should they decide to cross the DMV.  The 'cutting edge' North Korean tank is on par with Iraqs version of the T-72, although they have a version of the T-82 coming on line.  Remember that most of their tanks come from the Chinese, although they have licensed to build a number of them.
> 
> As for aircraft, they have around 1,000 fighters that they could put into the sky.  These are not even remotely on par with the F-35, F-22, the F-15, F-16, or the F/A-18.  We're talking mid 70's - 80's Chinese technology.  But as I said, there are a lot of them.  They have a newer version of a Chinese fighter/bomber that they build on license, but once again, not enough numbers to talk about.
> 
> The biggest threat that the North Koreans pose is in the number of bodies that they can put into the field.  1 Million man army.  6 Million if they call up the reserves.
> 
> Where North Korea gets its leathality is in its complete and utter disregard for conventional thought.  Everyone is their enemy.  Everyone.  They don't even like the Chinese really, ESPECIALLY since they have such close ties with the US.  They feel that the Chinese has sold them out completely.  They are convinced that they are alone fighting for their survival.  Couple that with a psychotic leader and ruling council and you have a very volatile mix.
> 
> I am a conservative and a member/supporter of the Tea Party.  But, I pray that God grants our President and his advisors wisdom.  I hope and pray that they see that the military MUST be prepared to deal with such maniacs.  30,000 American military members have their lives at stake.


I think we are very well prepared to deal them, just not on their terms.


----------



## Oldguy

Flopper said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The North Koreans had to plan to bomb Seattle, but it was spoiled when they found out that UPS does not pick up packages for deliery from North korea.
> 
> 
> 
> Which reminds me....
> Missiles are not the only vehicle that can delivery nuclear devices to US cities.  With over 12,000 miles of coast line and millions of containers arriving in US ports, there is plenty of opportunity to delivery a nuclear payload into the US a lot more reliably than a 6 or 7 thousand mile missile shot.
Click to expand...


Especially if one is in a COSCO trailer.  In case you don't know COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company) is one of the largest manufacturers and shippers of container trailers in the world.  It's a multifaceted company based in Beijing and is a joint government/public company, as all large businesses are in China.  More importantly, its controlling government entity is the Chinese Ministry of Security, their equivalent of our CIA.

Even more troubling is that COSCO trailers shipped from some foreign ports, including Hong Kong and Shanghai (I believe) have agreements with our customs department to pre-clear and seal trailers bound for the United States.  Those agreements were made during the elder Bush and Clinton years, I think.  In any case, our customs inspectors accept Chinese guarantees that nothing illegal is onboard those trailers, subject to periodic, random inspections.  Those agreements are reciprocal, but we're not likely to sneak anything into China, are we?  

In other words, they could theoretically load a remote detonated nuclear weapon onto a COSCO trailer, certify the cargo as whatever, seal the doors and the only real likelihood of being caught would be if our customs department decided to scan it for radiation when it leaves the port area.  Which, incidentally, is not likely at the Port of Los Angeles/San Pedro since the Clinton administration gave the old Long Beach Navy Base to COSCO.

Bombs could theoretically be delivered by American truckers unaware of the real cargo to any point in the USA.

Just something to keep you awake at night.


----------



## ScienceRocks

What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?


----------



## Oldguy

Matthew said:


> What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?




What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?"  Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Oldguy said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?"  Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?
Click to expand...


Military wise.


----------



## Oldguy

Matthew said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?"  Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Military wise.
Click to expand...


They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.

Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.


----------



## Esmeralda

China is run by a lot of old men.  North Korea's new leader is under 30.  China is not going to allow this lad to start any wars over there.  China has grown quite a bit since it opened up in the 70s.  They are a player on the international stage and do not want a war.  And as has been posted, they prop up North Korea.  I think the mouse is doing some loud squeeking right now, but China will be the cat, get it by the tail, scare the shit out of it, then let it go.  The mouse will run back to its little hole and behave.  This North Korean leader, he is so young and inexperienced and has no realisitic vision of the larger world: he has no idea what he would be getting into if he tried to start a war.


----------



## FA_Q2

Oldguy said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?"  Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
Click to expand...


In the same manner that we own SK.

That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land. 

Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.  

The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK...
Click to expand...



We don't "own" South Korea in any way.


----------



## Oldguy

FA_Q2 said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
Click to expand...



I disagree.  China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.


----------



## Lovebears65

I guess you forget our soldiers are on the border in South Korea. I am worried for them not here.


----------



## FA_Q2

Oldguy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
Click to expand...

Except China is ALREADY distancing themselves from NK as well as making statements to the opposite of supporting NK and nothing has even happened yet. 
BBC News - Is China ready to abandon North Korea?
I think it is completely unreasonable to think that China is going to risk war with the US, their best customer with the most powerful war machine on the face of the planet because of a rouge leader starting a war he cannot win.  As one post pointed out, nations go to war when there is something to be gained and China has NOTHING to gain by instigating the US.  We would essentially destroy each other, with China ending up getting the short end of the stick.

They WANT NK there but NK would take any reason for them to keep it if it attacks the south.  The devastation, loss of life and of American soldiers ensures our involvement and essentially removes China from being able to defend them.  



Unkotare said:


> We don't "own" South Korea in any way.


Then China doesnt own NK in any way.  You cant have it both ways; our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.


----------



## Indofred

Oldguy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  C*hina would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.*  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.

Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
I don't.


----------



## Unkotare

FA_Q2 said:


> our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.





In relative terms? Absolutely not. Not even close.


----------



## WillowTree

Jarlaxle said:


> Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.



Remember Benghazi!


----------



## Indofred

Jarlaxle said:


> Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.









If you bomb in the summer, China, Japan and Russia are going to be less than pleased but, if you bomb in the winter, you fuck yourselves.

Any other insane ideas?


----------



## Oldguy

Indofred said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  C*hina would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.*  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.
> 
> Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
> I don't.
Click to expand...



They did in 1950.  Why shouldn't they now?


----------



## Oldguy

FA_Q2 said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  China would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except China is ALREADY distancing themselves from NK as well as making statements to the opposite of supporting NK and nothing has even happened yet.
> BBC News - Is China ready to abandon North Korea?
> I think it is completely unreasonable to think that China is going to risk war with the US, their best customer with the most powerful war machine on the face of the planet because of a rouge leader starting a war he cannot win.  As one post pointed out, nations go to war when there is something to be gained and China has NOTHING to gain by instigating the US.  We would essentially destroy each other, with China ending up getting the short end of the stick.
> 
> They WANT NK there but NK would take any reason for them to keep it if it attacks the south.  The devastation, loss of life and of American soldiers ensures our involvement and essentially removes China from being able to defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't "own" South Korea in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then China doesnt own NK in any way.  You cant have it both ways; our support for SK is actually MORE direct and larger than Chinas support for NK.
Click to expand...



China has voiced similar sentiments before and backed away when the chips were down.  They'll likely do the same this time.

The situation right now makes me think of the Balkans at the beginning of WWI.  A few radical hotheads pulled the whole world into a war nobody wanted, a war which offered "victory" to nobody...yet it happened all the same because events spiraled out of control after the assassination of the Arch Duke.


----------



## konradv

WillowTree said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember Benghazi!
Click to expand...


Remember Beirut!


----------



## Circe

racewright said:


> *As un civilized as this sounds WAR is always about gaining something.
> It could be land resources or any other asset a nation has...*We are the only nation thats fights defensive wars...this will bankrupt us sooner or later.  The spoiles of war is not a joke when we waste American lives we need to make the countries we fight ours---Oh my god he is talking about conquest  DAM right I'am.  Wake up




We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose because we don't REALLY fight. Even Truman pulled back MacArthur, and look at the situation we are in now. So I agree with you: if we go to war, the only good way to fight is to fight to win.

Fighting to win really worked in WWII. Nothing since has worked, and we get bogged down ten years at a time and have to borrow all the money for the wars from China.

So if war is about gaining something and NK is aggressing, what does it want to gain?

I'm reading it's about getting normalized as a nuclear power so it can sell high-tech weapons and become less impoverished that way. After that, it will want to unify (conquer) the penninsula and take over South Korea.


----------



## Unkotare

Circe said:


> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...








Which one of those did we "lose"?


----------



## Circe

FA_Q2 said:


> [Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer &#8216;conquer&#8217; other nations.  We don&#8217;t really want the land.




I don't agree with any of this.

You think humans are in a "War No More" mode? And that no one will ever use nukes?

Consider that the major international issue for years has been Iran and NK trying to nuke up; that suggests to me that someone is afraid of these weapons spreading and being used.

We go over and invade aggressively lots of places. The fact that we don't bother to conquer them and defeat them is ineffectiveness -- it has nothing to do with the land. We DO want colonization, we just want security colonization with many, many foreign bases rather than economic colonization like the British Empire did. 

We are failing because we don't defeat anyone anymore and so we can't even get bases we can keep. Pax Americana has had a long run, but there was a period of no big wars in the "long 19th century," too, from 1815 to 1914, if you don't count the French-Prussian war, which wasn't a world war. 

This long peace is purely down to us, but we are declining, apparently, and nothing lasts forever. NK and Iran smell this and are nuking up for big power in the new conditions ahead.


----------



## Circe

Flopper said:


> *The South Korean strategy is to respond to any attack in kind. * If the North launched an all out attack, Pyongyang along with all high valued targets would be leveled in a matter of days.  However, when it's all over, there wouldn't be much left of Seoul or Pyongyang  which should be enough to keep both sides in check.




I don't know why you say that, Flopper: that has NEVER been SK strategy so far. They let NK shoot their planes out of the sky, ships out of the water, shell their island and kill the islanders --- they don't respond to ANYthing and never have so far. 

I know they are SAYING "this time is different," but I don't believe it. 

We may see if they mean it by this week sometime: NK continues a steady pace of escalations, and did shut down the Kaesong complex entirely. What have they got left except one of the murderous provocations they do so often?

Flopper, do you think the South Koreans will treat another ship sinking/island shelling sort of provocation as an act of war and reply in kind? Or back off, as they always have done?

I think they'll back off again.


----------



## Circe

Unkotare said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
Click to expand...




All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?


----------



## legaleagle_45

Circe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?
Click to expand...


But... but.... but... gun control advocates keep saying that a ragtag group of civilians would get wiped out in 30 seconds against the all powerful US military.  How is this possible?


----------



## Circe

legaleagle_45 said:


> But... but.... but... gun control advocates keep saying that a ragtag group of civilians would get wiped out in 30 seconds against the all powerful US military.  How is this possible?





Yes, well, you might have a point there.

Red Dawn Rides Again.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
Click to expand...


You were forced to a standstill in Korea.
You were kicked out of Vietnam.
You lost thousands of troops in Iraq for absolutely no gain, after starting an illegal war based on lies.
Afghanistan is yet another serious defeat unless you're a body bag manufacturer.

Unless you call losing thousands of men to a bunch of farmers and getting absolutely nothing in return, a victory  - you lost the lot.


----------



## Indofred

I'll argue again when I get a second. 
I'm so busy at the moment, I just don't have the time to research posts fully and that means I can't contribute properly.


----------



## Unkotare

Circe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, obviously. Duh! What, are you one of those "WE WON IN VIETNAM!!" dreamers?
Click to expand...


You could make the case for a political loss in Vietnam, but we didn't lose even one major battle in that entire conflict. You can't even make an argument for the others on your list.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
Click to expand...



"Forced"? No.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> You were kicked out of Vietnam...





"Kicked out"? No.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> You lost thousands of troops in Iraq for absolutely no gain, after starting an illegal war based on lies...





Not "illegal," not "lies," and accomplished the stated goals.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Afghanistan is yet another serious defeat...





Overthrew the Taliban as we intended to. Have killed loads of terrorists since as we intended to. 



Nothing on that BS list holds up as a "defeat."


----------



## FA_Q2

Oldguy said:


> China has voiced similar sentiments before and backed away when the chips were down.  They'll likely do the same this time.
> 
> The situation right now makes me think of the Balkans at the beginning of WWI.  A few radical hotheads pulled the whole world into a war nobody wanted, a war which offered "victory" to nobody...yet it happened all the same because events spiraled out of control after the assassination of the Arch Duke.



I wont say that it is not possible but I remain skeptical.  Things could always spiral out of control but I think there is too damn much to lose particularly with the symbiotic relationship that we have with China.  A falling out now would be doubly bad as well since China is just starting to turn away from its wrongs against its own people.  Mind you, I said starting.


Line Einstein said: 
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Unkotare said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
Click to expand...

Vietnam. OldGuy can tell ya', he was there.

OldGuy: "We didn't lose ONE battle in Vietnam! Our leaders lost it for us!"
Me: "We didn't win ONE Revolutionary War battle, just as the Vietnamese did. Look who ended up winning."

We're in Afghanistan just for the Drug Trade.


----------



## FA_Q2

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with any of this.
> 
> You think humans are in a "War No More" mode? And that no one will ever use nukes?
> 
> Consider that the major international issue for years has been Iran and NK trying to nuke up; that suggests to me that someone is afraid of these weapons spreading and being used.
> 
> We go over and invade aggressively lots of places. The fact that we don't bother to conquer them and defeat them is ineffectiveness -- it has nothing to do with the land. We DO want colonization, we just want security colonization with many, many foreign bases rather than economic colonization like the British Empire did.
> 
> We are failing because we don't defeat anyone anymore and so we can't even get bases we can keep. Pax Americana has had a long run, but there was a period of no big wars in the "long 19th century," too, from 1815 to 1914, if you don't count the French-Prussian war, which wasn't a world war.
> 
> This long peace is purely down to us, but we are declining, apparently, and nothing lasts forever. NK and Iran smell this and are nuking up for big power in the new conditions ahead.
Click to expand...


?
Did you even bother to read what I typed in?

No where did I EVER state that we are in a war no more mode.

We dont fight wars AT ALL with other major nations though.  We fight them through smaller nations and that is just a fact.  For decades we have been in a CONSTANT state of war without any reprieve, all with minor nations.  Thats how we do it now because open conflict with a major nation could end the plant so instead we make little nations pay for the larger nations conflicts.


----------



## Flopper

Oldguy said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would happens if modern China with its giant economy jumps on North Korea's side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "jumps on North Korea's side?"  Who do you think has been propping up that regime for the past 60 years or so?
Click to expand...

And that's a problem for China.  In the mid 20th century North Korea was a part of the communist trade pack.  Almost all China's trade was between other communist countries.  In those days, North Korea produced goods that China really needed.  Today they produce almost nothing that China needs.  As a result NK has become a burden to China.  Without China, NK would starve and carrying on an extended war would be impossible.  Now NK is threatening a war that puts China in a very difficult position.


----------



## Circe

FA_Q2 said:


> Did you even bother to read what I typed in?
> 
> No where did I EVER state that we are in a war no more mode.



[Sigh] Why yes, obviously I did read what you wrote since I replied to it point by point. Perhaps you didn't say what you wanted to say, but you certainly said what you said.

You said:  





FA_Q2 said:


> Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.



See? WAR NO MORE! WAR NO MORE!! Ohhhhh, the destruction, destroying everyone, world learned its lesson, won't use the bad bad nukes, etc. 





> We dont fight wars AT ALL with other major nations though.  We fight them through smaller nations and that is just a fact.  For decades we have been in a CONSTANT state of war without any reprieve, all with minor nations.  Thats how we do it now because open conflict with a major nation could end the plant so instead we make little nations pay for the larger nations conflicts.



Whatever. Hope on, hope ever. Time passes, things change. Were you supposing this would last forever?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Not that worried about North Korea. Sure, they can do some damage, just like a suicide bomber can. And they'll wind up the same way. Doesn't do much good to fret over it and it doesn't do any good to try to appease them either.

We'll just have to respond as best we can when and if they take complete leave of their senses.


----------



## Flopper

FA_Q2 said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military wise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already provide NK with most of their equipment and training, have partnered with them Syria and Iran on nuclear development and defended their territory with Chinese troops in 1950.
> 
> Nobody should EVER forget that North Korea is a wholly owned subsidiary of China and has been since the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in our relationship with South Korea and China's relationship with North Korea. South Korea buys arms from the US and exports hundreds of billions of dollars in consumer goods to US markets.  South Korean relations with the US is more of a partnership where North Korean relations with China is more of a dependency.


----------



## Circe

nodoginnafight said:


> Not that worried about North Korea. Sure, they can do some damage, just like a suicide bomber can. And they'll wind up the same way. Doesn't do much good to fret over it and it doesn't do any good to try to appease them either.
> 
> We'll just have to respond as best we can when and if they take complete leave of their senses.






THANK YOU, nodoginnafight!! Great minds work alike. Or at least yours does. I was JUST THIS MORNING realizing that there could be a major crossover between two thread themes ----------- North Korea and assault rifles. Something short-circuited and I realized .....Kim Jong-un is about 28, prime schizophrenia time, just like the school shooters.  And the mass shooters nearly ALLLLLLLLLLL want to shoot and shoot until they hear the pounding footsteps of the SWAT team, and then they kill themselves or get shot full of lead. Usually they suicide.

I'm thinking, omigod, why couldn't Kim Jong-un simply be one of the many crazies? Only he has a really, really, really big assault rifle. He didn't get his position by merit or by any effort: and lots of hereditary monarchs have been crazy as hoot owls, really impaired --- Henry VI, Louis XVI, etc. 

I thought, naaaaaaaaah, nobody would credit that idea. But you do...........

It IS possible. That, quite simply, he's crazy and he has a bomb.


----------



## HUGGY

Nova78 said:


> Your either very ignorant or naïve.
> 
> 
> In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> "In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.



"*That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
*"

That should make them easy to find and target.


----------



## FA_Q2

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to read what I typed in?
> 
> No where did I EVER state that we are in a war no more mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Sigh] Why yes, obviously I did read what you wrote since I replied to it point by point. Perhaps you didn't say what you wanted to say, but you certainly said what you said.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? WAR NO MORE! WAR NO MORE!! Ohhhhh, the destruction, destroying everyone, world learned its lesson, won't use the bad bad nukes, etc.
Click to expand...

And then, in the next sentence, I typed:


FA_Q2 said:


> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.


Thats what happens when you cut out key lines and ignore them.  You come out looking like a liar.


Circe said:


> We dont fight wars AT ALL with other major nations though.  We fight them through smaller nations and that is just a fact.  For decades we have been in a CONSTANT state of war without any reprieve, all with minor nations.  Thats how we do it now because open conflict with a major nation could end the plant so instead we make little nations pay for the larger nations conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Hope on, hope ever. Time passes, things change. Were you supposing this would last forever?
Click to expand...

Never said that it will last forever.  At some point things WILL change.  I dont see that happening right at the moment though and I believe it is unlikely.  You, apparently, believe differently but I really do not see the evidence of that yet.  For the moment, it does not look like anything is going to change soon.


----------



## Circe

HUGGY said:


> Nova78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> "In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.*
Click to expand...

*



Very interesting and useful post. I did not know they had "5,000 tons of chemical warheads"!  Nice guys, huh? It just reminds me that all, all, all weapons are always normalized AND used, however many people say they are "inhuman," dah-dah-dah, like people always do. 

They forget, of course, that inhuman is exactly what is WANTED. As long as they achieve a win.

Well, I do not have a good feeling about this. My best hope is that it all has destabilized the region enough that the war fever will settle down but a reunification of Korea will break thru --- with South Korea governing it.  I don't think we can go back to business as usual after this; it has the feeling of Yeltsin on the tank, somehow.*


----------



## Circe

FA_Q2 said:


> You come out looking like a liar.




Here's the rule:

If you can't talk nice, you can't talk to me. Good-bye, FA_Q2.


----------



## Flopper

Indofred said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner that we own SK.
> 
> That is just the reality of it.  Large powers no longer fight wars because the distruction that it causes destroys all involved.  The world learned this during the last world war and we are no longer interested in that occurrence with the new weapons that are ready to be brought to bear.  It is one of the reasons that we no longer conquer other nations.  We dont really want the land.
> 
> Instead, we fight proxy wars through smaller nations.  NK is simply the nation that we are fighting China with atm.  In all reality though, war will be a reflection of the aggressor.  If NK attacks, as I stated before, China is NOT going to get involved.  It is simple as that.
> 
> The reason that China has been issuing statements of that like recently is that they are already relying themselves to abandon NK if they attack.  It is HIGHLY unlikely that they will BUT China does not make a habit of relying on likely.  Again, China is not going to suffer the negative consequences of going to war over an errant dictator.  IF SK was the aggressor then you would see china involved and we, in all likelihood, would not get involved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  C*hina would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.*  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.
> 
> Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
> I don't.
Click to expand...

Like China, Russia has more ties to the west than they do to North Korea.  Russian relations have cooled with North Korea over the nuclear arms.  In fact, trade deals with North Korea have been tied to a moratorium on nuclear weapons development.

50 years ago boarder consideration would have been of paramount importance to both China and Russia, however I think economic considerations are more important today for both countries.  South Korea is a major trading partner with China and Russia is trying to increase trade. A shared boarder with South Korea would benefit both countries, far more than a shared boarder with North Korea.


----------



## FA_Q2

Circe said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You come out looking like a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the rule:
> 
> If you can't talk nice, you can't talk to me. Good-bye, FA_Q2.
Click to expand...


If you want me to be nice, do not misquote me and misrepresent what I have said.  Other than that, I have been quite nice to your posts.  Good bye to you as well.


----------



## Unkotare

American Communist said:


> Me: "We didn't win ONE Revolutionary War battle...








Um, yes we did. Were you too busy with conspiracy theories to pay attention in history class?


----------



## Unkotare

American Communist said:


> We're in Afghanistan just for the Drug Trade.





That's stupid. Loosen your tinfoil hat.


----------



## Oldguy

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
Click to expand...



"Forced?"  Yes.


----------



## Oldguy

American Communist said:


> OldGuy: "We didn't lose ONE battle in Vietnam! Our leaders lost it for us!"



Don't put words into my mouth.  I never said that and never will.


----------



## Circe

Oldguy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced?"  Yes.
Click to expand...





If he had to do it again, considering what is going on now, I wonder if Truman would have let MacArthur go on north. And also use nukes. 

Looks like a missile launch tomorrow, headlines here are saying. If war comes, I bet a lot of people will wish Truman hadn't got cold feet. Never, NEVER accept an Armistice. If we didn't learn that from the 20th century, which had two disastrous armistices, we didn't learn much.


----------



## Lovebears65

got this on facebook


----------



## Jarlaxle

Indofred said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you bomb in the summer, China, Japan and Russia are going to be less than pleased but, if you bomb in the winter, you fuck yourselves.
> 
> Any other insane ideas?
Click to expand...


Tell the Chinese to curb their mad dog.  Don't care what they do or how they do it, but deal with him permanently!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Oldguy said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  C*hina would defend North Korean territory because it serves as a buffer between them and free South Korea.*  China does not share a border with any truly free country except India, and even there it's comprised of the rugged Himalaya's.  IF South Korea and the US repeated the subjugation of the North as we did in 1950, I believe China would react pretty much the same way because an accessible border with a truly free state would draw disaffected and unhappy Chinese by the thousands, a state of affairs which would reveal the lie of the so-called "moderate" China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should remind posters, Russia also shares a land border with North Korea and that border in within artillery range of the Vladivostok naval base.
> 
> Do you think the Russians will allow American troops that close?
> I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did in 1950.  Why shouldn't they now?
Click to expand...


They didn't rely on exports for their entire economy in 1950.  Also, China could be brought to its knees with a very simple tactic: they import almost all their oil.  Stop the imports and the country grinds to a halt.


----------



## Jarlaxle

American Communist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't fight defensive wars anymore. We fight aggressive wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan. And we always, always lose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Vietnam. OldGuy can tell ya', he was there.
> 
> OldGuy: "We didn't lose ONE battle in Vietnam! Our leaders lost it for us!"
> Me: "We didn't win ONE Revolutionary War battle, just as the Vietnamese did. Look who ended up winning."
> 
> We're in Afghanistan just for the Drug Trade.
Click to expand...


You are a troll with no grasp of history.  Please shut up, your betters are talking.


----------



## Jarlaxle

HUGGY said:


> Nova78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your either very ignorant or naïve.
> 
> 
> In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> "In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> *"
> 
> That should make them easy to find and target.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like it's a perfect place to use nerve gas!


----------



## Unkotare

Oldguy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced?"  Yes.
Click to expand...



Only if you mean by politicians back in DC.


----------



## KnobbyWalsh




----------



## Circe

Jarlaxle said:


> Sounds to me like it's a perfect place to use nerve gas!



Small tactical nukes. Assuming they use nukes first. Otherwise we can't.


----------



## Jarlaxle

No, not nukes.  Nerve gas.  Phosgene.  I can't imagine the NK troops have ANY protective gear.  Those that do...well, that's what fuel-air explosives are for.


----------



## Flopper

Circe said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2010, the North Koreans sank a South Korean warship, killing 46, and launched an artillery barrage on an island that killed two of its civilians and two South Korean marines.
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> North Korean forces are arrayed along the demilitarized zone with 10,000 artillery pieces capable of reaching Seoul, said Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst now at the Heritage Foundation.
> 
> That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.
> 
> They also have long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Japan and U.S. bases in Guam, Okinawa and the Japanese mainland.
> 
> Any conventional attack from the North would likely begin with an artillery barrage, which could include chemical weapons. The North Koreans have 5,000 tons of chemical warheads, Klingner said.
> 
> "They would try to overwhelm U.S. and Korean forces with volume," he said.
> 
> The artillery barrage would probably be followed by a blitzkrieg of tanks. The North has at least 4,000 tanks, though most of them are older Soviet-era models. Mechanized forces and infantry could also pour across the border. The North's special forces could infiltrate south in advance of an assault.
> 
> U.S. warplanes would attempt to destroy the artillery and tanks quickly in precision airstrikes, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. The worst case: a nuclear missile or aircraft carrying such a weapon could slip through the South's defenses.
> 
> Any initial assault would face about 28,500 U.S. troops and about 600,000 troops in the South Korean armed forces.
> 
> "In the war game simulations eventually we prevail, but it's World War I (levels of) casualties," Klingner said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*That proximity would let them cause a lot of casualties and damage in the initial stages of an attack. The North Koreans have about 1.1 million troops in their armed forces. Three-quarters of them are staged within 60 miles of the DMZ, Klingner said.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting and useful post. I did not know they had "5,000 tons of chemical warheads"!  Nice guys, huh? It just reminds me that all, all, all weapons are always normalized AND used, however many people say they are "inhuman," dah-dah-dah, like people always do.
> 
> They forget, of course, that inhuman is exactly what is WANTED. As long as they achieve a win.
> 
> Well, I do not have a good feeling about this. My best hope is that it all has destabilized the region enough that the war fever will settle down but a reunification of Korea will break thru --- with South Korea governing it.  I don't think we can go back to business as usual after this; it has the feeling of Yeltsin on the tank, somehow.*
Click to expand...

*
A unification of Korea would benefit everyone accept the government of North Korea.*


----------



## Flopper

U.S. defenses could intercept a ballistic missile launched by North Korea, the top U.S. military commander in the Pacific said Tuesday, as the relationship between the West and the communist government hit its lowest ebb since the end of the Korean War.

During an exchange with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Locklear said the U.S. military has the capability to thwart a North Korean strike, but he said a decision on whether a missile should be intercepted should be based on where it is aimed and expected to land.

"I believe we have the ability to defend the homeland, Guam, Hawaii and defend our allies," said Locklear, who added that it wouldn't take long to determine where a missile would strike.

U.S. can intercept North Korean ballistic missile, top American admiral says - CBS News


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


>




Don't forget the Udon 1. Its full range is still unknown:

http://treeofmamre.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/long-udon-noodle.jpg?w=640


----------



## PaulS1950

Since the North Koreans put a satellite into orbit last month it would not be beyond expectations that they could put a nuclear device into orbit. There are no surface to air missiles that can reach that high. All the North Koreans would have to do is wait for the orbit to go over their target and detonate it in space - causing a massive EMP. It could take decades to recover from such an attack as all power generating stations, sub-stations, and transformers in use at the time would be toast. In addition to that all electronics would be fried whether they were in use or not. No radio, internet, telephone, lights or power would be available to industry or citizenry.


----------



## Oldguy

Circe said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced?"  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he had to do it again, considering what is going on now, I wonder if Truman would have let MacArthur go on north. And also use nukes.
> 
> Looks like a missile launch tomorrow, headlines here are saying. If war comes, I bet a lot of people will wish Truman hadn't got cold feet. Never, NEVER accept an Armistice. If we didn't learn that from the 20th century, which had two disastrous armistices, we didn't learn much.
Click to expand...



MacArthur was allowed to go on north, all the way to the Yalu River, which is the border between North Korea and China.  And, THAT is what precipitated the Chinese intervention.


----------



## Oldguy

Unkotare said:


> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced?"  Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you mean by politicians back in DC.
Click to expand...



No.  The Chinese fought UN forces to a standstill which lasted nearly 3 years and resulted in the cease fire which ended the war pretty much where it started.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldguy said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced?"  Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you mean by politicians back in DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The Chinese fought UN forces to a standstill which lasted nearly 3 years and resulted in the cease fire which ended the war pretty much where it started.
Click to expand...



Had the politicians not "forced" American forces to stop rather than pushing into China, had they had the green light to use the atomic bomb, there would have been a very different outcome.


----------



## Circe

Oldguy said:


> MacArthur was allowed to go on north, all the way to the Yalu River, which is the border between North Korea and China.  And, THAT is what precipitated the Chinese intervention.




Thanks for the intel. I was hung up on the 38th Parallel, I guess. My knowledge of the Korean War is very shaky. If we actually do go to war, I'll read more about it. It was an interesting war for a lot of reasons.


----------



## Indofred

PaulS1950 said:


> Since the North Koreans put a satellite into orbit last month it would not be beyond expectations that they could put a nuclear device into orbit. There are no surface to air missiles that can reach that high. All the North Koreans would have to do is wait for the orbit to go over their target and detonate it in space - causing a massive EMP. It could take decades to recover from such an attack as all power generating stations, sub-stations, and transformers in use at the time would be toast. In addition to that all electronics would be fried whether they were in use or not. No radio, internet, telephone, lights or power would be available to industry or citizenry.



I understand the pope is to start using a unicorn as a 'green' method of transport.

Well, it's about as likely as that crap.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were kicked out of Vietnam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Kicked out"? No.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can explain how you weren't kicked out.
The American invasion of Vietnam was a total defeat.
You lost, you got your arses handed to you and loads of American were killed for absolutely nothing.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost thousands of troops in Iraq for absolutely no gain, after starting an illegal war based on lies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not "illegal," not "lies," and accomplished the stated goals.
Click to expand...


Please show me the evidence of WMD.
Your government lied.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Afghanistan is yet another serious defeat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overthrew the Taliban as we intended to. Have killed loads of terrorists since as we intended to.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing on that BS list holds up as a "defeat."
Click to expand...


And you're about to leave with the Taliban stronger than the American backed Afghan government forces.
The Taliban will be back in control within a couple of years.
How many people died for nothing?


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those did we "lose"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were forced to a standstill in Korea..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
Click to expand...


Forced, yes.
The Chinese didn't want you that close to their border so they backed NK and forced to to a standstill.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were kicked out of Vietnam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Kicked out"? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how you weren't kicked out.
> The American invasion of Vietnam was a total defeat.
> You lost, you got your arses handed to you and loads of American were killed for absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...



"For absolutely nothing" is your subjective view and nothing more. We never lost one major battle there. We left because of political/social reasons, not military. If you call that a "loss" I'll give you that, but "arses handed to you" is patently untrue. I understand your personal bitterness and feelings of inferiority, but it doesn't excuse ignorance.


----------



## Circe

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced, yes.
> The Chinese didn't want you that close to their border so they backed NK and forced to to a standstill.
Click to expand...




Ummmmmmmmmm............that's not exactly the case. It was a real choicepoint at the time. MacArthur wanted Truman to use nukes to win, and the decision was made not to do so. 

Recent history would be very different if Truman had done so; China our implacable enemy, nukes set free among all countries of the world, perhaps. But it wasn't a cost-free decision: the Armistice has been a real disaster and the splitting of Korea into a rich and a poor Korea has been awful.

It is not clear to me now whether Truman was right. If there is a huge war, I am going to be even more doubtful.

One thing I am sure of after the Korean Armistice and the 1918 WWI armistice that led directly into WWII: never, never, never settle for an Armistice. The aggressive power ALWAYS simply regroups and then tries again.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jarlaxle said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attack on South Korea by North Korea should result in Pyongyang vanishing in a nuclear fireball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you bomb in the summer, China, Japan and Russia are going to be less than pleased but, if you bomb in the winter, you fuck yourselves.
> 
> Any other insane ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell the Chinese to curb their mad dog.  Don't care what they do or how they do it, but deal with him permanently!
Click to expand...


The use of nukes (or chemical warfare) is totally unnecessary and would be a terrible idea.  There is no reason to stoop to that position when we have conventional warheads that could be used to essentially level the entire country if we wanted to.  They have a LOT of crap but it is still crap.  They cant even detect our stealth aircraft, we could bomb with impunity and face virtually zero resistance in the air.  The rest, we should leave to the south Koreans, they would fight the ground war as we are used to performing in this manner  we control the battlefield and someone else takes most of the risk/casualties.


----------



## Indofred

My last post brings me to my next.
If American forces invaded NK and looked like they were going to win, China would be pretty sure to re-enter the conflict and Russia may well join in.
Neither country want America on their borders and that means you may well find yourselves on the receiving end of something you won't like.

Most U.S. troops ?would die? in N. Korean onslaught

A reasonable chance of up to 28,000 dead Americans in the first day or so.
As it say, better than average chance the US would soon down all the Korean aircraft and AA but, if America went into the country, China would probably step in.
That's always assuming NK didn't deploy nukes.

Now, consider this.
If America invaded NK, that makes the US mainland a valid target of war.
If a bomb or few killed dozens in New York, that would be a legal attack by a defending force, not an act of terrorism.

If you start a war, sooner or later, someone will bring it home to you and kill you on American soil.
There may well be North Korean military in major American cities, ready to strike at an invader on his home ground.
You use an aircraft, they use a truck.
It wouldn't be that hard to get a truck mounted missile system into the US without you knowing about it.
Look at how much cocaine gets in.
Say, "bye bye" to the white house.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Kicked out"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain how you weren't kicked out.
> The American invasion of Vietnam was a total defeat.
> You lost, you got your arses handed to you and loads of American were killed for absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "For absolutely nothing" is your subjective view and nothing more. *We never lost one major battle there*. We left because of political/social reasons, not military. If you call that a "loss" I'll give you that, but "arses handed to you" is patently untrue. I understand your personal bitterness and feelings of inferiority, but it doesn't excuse ignorance.
Click to expand...


Tell me, how did you do in the battle for Saigon?


----------



## Circe

Indofred said:


> My last post brings me to my next.
> If American forces invaded NK and looked like they were going to win, China would be pretty sure to re-enter the conflict and Russia may well join in.
> Neither country want America on their borders and that means you may well find yourselves on the receiving end of something you won't like.
> 
> Most U.S. troops ?would die? in N. Korean onslaught
> 
> A reasonable chance of up to 28,000 dead Americans in the first day or so.
> As it say, better than average chance the US would soon down all the Korean aircraft and AA but, if America went into the country, China would probably step in.
> That's always assuming NK didn't deploy nukes.
> 
> Now, consider this.
> If America invaded NK, that makes the US mainland a valid target of war.
> If a bomb or few killed dozens in New York, that would be a legal attack by a defending force, not an act of terrorism.
> 
> If you start a war, sooner or later, someone will bring it home to you and kill you on American soil.
> There may well be North Korean military in major American cities, ready to strike at an invader on his home ground.
> You use an aircraft, they use a truck.
> It wouldn't be that hard to get a truck mounted missile system into the US without you knowing about it.
> Look at how much cocaine gets in.
> Say, "bye bye" to the white house.




Well, hope on, hope ever.    I see you are on the enemy side, but we have a pretty good record of holding our own if there's a real war. 

You make a good point that sooner or later someone will attack us on our homeland. Or at least, it's a point I've been posting, too. We forget that because it hasn't happened since 1814. That was the last time we had to say "bye bye" to the White House, when the British burned it. There was bin Laden!! He was just a non-state actor. But still, it warned us of possibilities. 

As for your idea about North Korean invaders here, you should know that Red Dawn was not a newsreel, it was just for entertainment!

As for the "tripwire troops," yes, you may be right. I don't like it, but that was their function under the treaty, to die and make the rest of us mad. Whether we'll get mad at North Korea or our own government for putting them in an indefensible position, I wonder.

Rooting for America to be defeated in a real war hasn't worked for two centuries, so I'd say that's not where the smart money goes. Those little invasion social work wars we've been trying on since the '60s don't count. And remember, while Afghanistan was of course not worth any REAL effort, we did keep on and keep on till we got bin Laden found and killed.

People always think they can back us off and we'll stop and give up ---- this surprises me, because we never, never have, once attacked. It's foolish for a country or even a non-state actor like Islamists to attack us, because then we turn into the Terminator.


----------



## Oldguy

Circe said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced, yes.
> The Chinese didn't want you that close to their border so they backed NK and forced to to a standstill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmmmmmm............that's not exactly the case. It was a real choicepoint at the time. MacArthur wanted Truman to use nukes to win, and the decision was made not to do so.
> 
> Recent history would be very different if Truman had done so; China our implacable enemy, nukes set free among all countries of the world, perhaps. But it wasn't a cost-free decision: the Armistice has been a real disaster and the splitting of Korea into a rich and a poor Korea has been awful.
> 
> It is not clear to me now whether Truman was right. If there is a huge war, I am going to be even more doubtful.
> 
> One thing I am sure of after the Korean Armistice and the 1918 WWI armistice that led directly into WWII: never, never, never settle for an Armistice. The aggressive power ALWAYS simply regroups and then tries again.
Click to expand...



It's hard to fault Truman for not being willing to kick off another major conflict, and possibly one using nuclear weapons, when the world had just gone through the most terrible war in human history a mere 5 years before.  Most of the rest of the world was still in ruins in 1950 and nobody had much stomach for starting it all over again.


----------



## Indofred

Circe said:


> Well, hope on, hope ever.    I see you are on the enemy side,
> 
> As for your idea about North Korean invaders here, you should know that Red Dawn was not a newsreel, it was just for entertainment!
> .



Where did I say I was on North Korea's side.
You invented it, ie - lied.
I simply pointed out, America is the invading army and NK forces may well be ready for a strike on your home land if you attack theirs.

As for "red dawn", I assume it's a film but I've never seen it.

As for North Korean troops in the US, better than average chance as I'm pretty sure America has spies and so on over there.

As for an attack on America, I wouldn't like to see it because so many would die but, in the medium term, in may well be a good thing if a war was brought onto your doorstep.
Seeing your own children killed in a war may make you realise what a bunch of murderers your military are.

Like to admit it or not, American troops, CIA drone strikes/bombings and support for evil governments  has killed thousands of kids in its wars since 1945 but you carry on because war is something on TV.


----------



## Indofred

Just while I'm at it.
Lies and misinformation are out there, pushed by people who want war.

BBC News - South Korea blames North for bank and TV cyber-attacks



> Investigators in Seoul reported their initial findings suggested North Korea's military-run Reconnaissance General Bureau had been responsible.
> 
> A spokesman announced that 30 out of 76 programs recovered from affected computers were the same as those used in previous strikes.
> 
> In addition he said that 22 of the 49 internet protocol (IP) addresses involved in the incidents matched those used in attacks blamed on the North over the past five years.



What naughty communists.

South Korea: Chinese address source of attack



> BEIJING &#8212; A cyberattack that caused computer networks at South Korean banks and television networks to crash Wednesday afternoon originated with a Chinese Internet address, South Korea's telecom regulator said Thursday.
> 
> The state-run Korea Communications Commission said its initial analysis found that a Chinese address created the malicious code in the server of one of the banks, Nonghyup, where computers crashed



BBC News - South Korea says China hack link a 'mistake'



> Officials in South Korea say they incorrectly linked a Chinese IP address to a cyber-attack earlier this week.
> 
> On Thursday, the Korean Communications Commission said it had traced the attack to an internet address in China, although the identity of those behind the attack could not be confirmed. But it said further investigation showed the malware came from a local computer in one of the affected banks.



In other words, anyone could have done it but they want to blame North Korea.


----------



## Circe

Oldguy said:


> It's hard to fault Truman for not being willing to kick off another major conflict, and possibly one using nuclear weapons, when the world had just gone through the most terrible war in human history a mere 5 years before.  Most of the rest of the world was still in ruins in 1950 and nobody had much stomach for starting it all over again.




True. Well! I could do "what-ifs," but we've got the reality we've got, and there were a number of pay-offs from that decision.


----------



## Circe

Indofred said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hope on, hope ever.    I see you are on the enemy side,
> 
> As for your idea about North Korean invaders here, you should know that Red Dawn was not a newsreel, it was just for entertainment!
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was on North Korea's side.
> *You invented it, ie - lied.*
> I simply pointed out, America is the invading army and NK forces may well be ready for a strike on your home land if you attack theirs.
> 
> As for "red dawn", I assume it's a film but I've never seen it.
> 
> As for North Korean troops in the US, better than average chance as I'm pretty sure America has spies and so on over there.
> 
> As for an attack on America, I wouldn't like to see it because so many would die but, in the medium term, in may well be a good thing if a war was brought onto your doorstep.
> Seeing your own children killed in a war may make you realise what a bunch of murderers your military are.
> 
> Like to admit it or not, American troops, CIA drone strikes/bombings and support for evil governments  has killed thousands of kids in its wars since 1945 but you carry on because war is something on TV.
Click to expand...




This is the common forum tactic I've named "First eat my shit, then we can talk." First the poster lays down an insult. THEN (it's always a man, I guess it's a male dominance tactic) he puts out several interesting points for discussion. The idea is to lure people in to first eat shit and thus submit to the insulter.

I've decided not to eat any more shit, however. If you are smart enough to be civil, we can talk. Otherwise, it's not going to be worth my bothering with you. 

There is NOBODY on this forum who can possibly be in any doubt that you are an enemy of the United States! That's not an insult, that is obvious. What, did you think you were confusing people?? I have a certain tolerance for someone clearly identifying himself as an explicit enemy, though of course I don't like it. If you think you are fooling anyone, I very much doubt that you are.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Indofred said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hope on, hope ever.    I see you are on the enemy side,
> 
> As for your idea about North Korean invaders here, you should know that Red Dawn was not a newsreel, it was just for entertainment!
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was on North Korea's side.
> You invented it, ie - lied.
> I simply pointed out, America is the invading army and NK forces may well be ready for a strike on your home land if you attack theirs.
> 
> As for "red dawn", I assume it's a film but I've never seen it.
> 
> As for North Korean troops in the US, better than average chance as I'm pretty sure America has spies and so on over there.
> 
> As for an attack on America, I wouldn't like to see it because so many would die but, in the medium term, in may well be a good thing if a war was brought onto your doorstep.
> Seeing your own children killed in a war may make you realise what a bunch of murderers your military are.
> 
> Like to admit it or not, American troops, CIA drone strikes/bombings and support for evil governments  has killed thousands of kids in its wars since 1945 but you carry on because war is something on TV.
Click to expand...


So all those bodies go on America's ledger, huh? Nothing to do with people who attack us and then bravely cower behind women and children, huh?

We are not perfect - far from it. But if those who attack us want to square off with us in an open field - where civilian casualties could be eliminated - we'd be more than happy to oblige.

Interesting that you started your scoreboard after 1945 - which by coincidense is the last year anyone challenged us in an open field.


----------



## Flopper

PaulS1950 said:


> Since the North Koreans put a satellite into orbit last month it would not be beyond expectations that they could put a nuclear device into orbit. There are no surface to air missiles that can reach that high. All the North Koreans would have to do is wait for the orbit to go over their target and detonate it in space - causing a massive EMP. It could take decades to recover from such an attack as all power generating stations, sub-stations, and transformers in use at the time would be toast. In addition to that all electronics would be fried whether they were in use or not. No radio, internet, telephone, lights or power would be available to industry or citizenry.


According to Pentagon spokesman Richard Lehner, downing an incoming missile would be pretty straightforward. Theres an arsenal of interceptor missiles just waiting for the opportunity to take out an EMP threat before it explodes.  It doesnt matter if the target is Chicago or 100 miles over Nebraska, he said. For the interceptor, its the same thing.
Is Newt Gingrich's EMP Doomsday a Reality? : Discovery News

If North Korea is truly intent on self destruction it makes more sense that they would opt for mass destruction rather than mass disruption.


----------



## Flopper

Circe said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Forced"? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced, yes.
> The Chinese didn't want you that close to their border so they backed NK and forced to to a standstill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmmmmmm............that's not exactly the case. It was a real choicepoint at the time. MacArthur wanted Truman to use nukes to win, and the decision was made not to do so.
> 
> Recent history would be very different if Truman had done so; China our implacable enemy, nukes set free among all countries of the world, perhaps. But it wasn't a cost-free decision: the Armistice has been a real disaster and the splitting of Korea into a rich and a poor Korea has been awful.
> 
> It is not clear to me now whether Truman was right. If there is a huge war, I am going to be even more doubtful.
> 
> One thing I am sure of after the Korean Armistice and the 1918 WWI armistice that led directly into WWII: never, never, never settle for an Armistice. The aggressive power ALWAYS simply regroups and then tries again.
Click to expand...

Had Truman unleashed SAC on North Korea and China, there would have been at least a hundred targets in China that would have been wiped off the map.  The chance of a nuclear exchange with Russia would have been high.  However, the major impact would be on the future of the planet.  War and nuclear war would have become synonymous.


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost thousands of troops in Iraq for absolutely no gain, after starting an illegal war based on lies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not "illegal," not "lies," and accomplished the stated goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show me the evidence of WMD.
> Your government lied.
Click to expand...




Your conclusion is illogical. The absence of WMDs is not proof of "lies." All you're doing is airing your subjective views (based, as they are, on bitterness and justifiable feelings of inferiority).


----------



## Indofred

nodoginnafight said:


> So all those bodies go on America's ledger, huh? Nothing to do with people who attack us and then bravely cower behind women and children, huh?



Perhaps you can try to name a country that has attacked America and started a war since 1945.
Come to think of it, Japan didn't attack America, just American occupied Hawaii.


----------



## Circe

Flopper said:


> If North Korea is truly intent on self destruction it makes more sense that they would opt for mass destruction rather than mass disruption.




Good point....

I read carefully Dick Cheney's words in a recent Senate consult. I thought he was implying Kim may be psychotic. He kept saying that we may think we know what Kim is thinking, but we don't, really. 

Kim Jong-un is a hereditary monarch. He has NO job experience, he is very young, he went to a "special" school in Switzerland, never really a good sign, and he definitely did not win the position by merit.

Hereditary monarchies have always had a major, major problem with serious mental impairment. There's a real issue of inbreeding, too, at least in European history. The number of kings with active schizophrenia, retardation, or autism is amazing. And these conditions always, always, always caused wars, except in Russia, where they apparently created retarded Tsars on purpose so the boyars could keep control. They had quite a string of them. Poisoning? Probably often happened. 

This stuff going on is too weird for it to be business as usual, IMO. People think it's about Kim securing his power with the military or extorting the usual favors from the West, but is anyone listening to what he is actually saying???

He's saying he will rain thermonuclear fire and destruction down on the Capitol and the White House. And obliterate Seoul. And kill everyone he can in America or from America. Does this sound normal to anyone??? 


It's not normal. I think the guy is one of the mass murderers like our shooters. Really. Why not? Crazies are _everywhere_.


----------



## Flopper

Circe said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If North Korea is truly intent on self destruction it makes more sense that they would opt for mass destruction rather than mass disruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point....
> 
> I read carefully Dick Cheney's words in a recent Senate consult. I thought he was implying Kim may be psychotic. He kept saying that we may think we know what Kim is thinking, but we don't, really.
> 
> Kim Jong-un is a hereditary monarch. He has NO job experience, he is very young, he went to a "special" school in Switzerland, never really a good sign, and he definitely did not win the position by merit.
> 
> Hereditary monarchies have always had a major, major problem with serious mental impairment. There's a real issue of inbreeding, too, at least in European history. The number of kings with active schizophrenia, retardation, or autism is amazing. And these conditions always, always, always caused wars, except in Russia, where they apparently created retarded Tsars on purpose so the boyars could keep control. They had quite a string of them. Poisoning? Probably often happened.
> 
> This stuff going on is too weird for it to be business as usual, IMO. People think it's about Kim securing his power with the military or extorting the usual favors from the West, but is anyone listening to what he is actually saying???
> 
> He's saying he will rain thermonuclear fire and destruction down on the Capitol and the White House. And obliterate Seoul. And kill everyone he can in America or from America. Does this sound normal to anyone???
> 
> 
> It's not normal. I think the guy is one of the mass murderers like our shooters. Really. Why not? Crazies are _everywhere_.
Click to expand...

For all we know he could be nuts.  However, I have to go with prevailing wisdom, that the rhetoric is to "consolidate and affirm his power" and to show he is "in control of North Korea."  

The North's statement with respect to the closing of the industrial complex seems pretty confusing.  The South asked for negotiations and the North said  that it "entirely depends on the attitude of the South Korean authorities."  That and other statements from the North lead me to believe that Pyongyang's  agenda has nothing to do with responses from the US or the South.

World recognition of North Korea as a nuclear power to be reckoned with is important, not just for the gratification of Supreme Leader but economically.  This prestige will boost sales of military hardware which is their only export in demand.


----------



## Circe

Flopper said:


> [World recognition of North Korea as a nuclear power to be reckoned with is important, not just for the gratification of Supreme Leader but economically.  This prestige will boost sales of military hardware which is their only export in demand.




Yeah, assuming he's not simply mad as a hatter, he wants normalization of NK as an accepted nuclear power, so he can sell nuclear technology and missiles all around town. He means to keep throwing a tantrum till he gets it. 

I don't think this will end happily.


----------



## Indofred

The whole situation in Korea is a perfect example of why America should stop interfering in other people's politics.
NK was never any threat to America and propably never would have been if America had stayed out of their politics.
You would probably have been trading with Korea and watching it return to capitalism by now but, becauce of what you did, you're looking at possible thousands dead and maybe even nukes being used.


----------



## JimH52

China is the key.  Kim Jong Un is acting like a spoiled brat will stop the blustering in the Chinese tell him to.  His nation will starve without the food that China sends.  I say the young leader is cementing his name as a leader.  His words of war are for political gains.  But he is playing a terribly dangerous game.


----------



## Bleipriester

Indofred said:


> The whole situation in Korea is a perfect example of why America should stop interfering in other people's politics.
> NK was never any threat to America and propably never would have been if America had stayed out of their politics.
> You would probably have been trading with Korea and watching it return to capitalism by now but, becauce of what you did, you're looking at possible thousands dead and maybe even nukes being used.


Acts of defiance are the normal response to what the US does to other countries. This or the genuflection US-satellites practice every day. 

At the sight of this List of sanctions against North Korea, it should not wonder, how the country acts and we should not mock its economy, which does not collapse in spite of this stranglehold:
North Korea - Sanctions Wiki


----------



## Unkotare

Indofred said:


> The whole situation in Korea is a perfect example of why America should stop interfering in other people's politics.
> NK was never any threat to America and propably never would have been if America had stayed out of their politics.
> You would probably have been trading with Korea and watching it return to capitalism by now but, becauce of what you did, you're looking at possible thousands dead and maybe even nukes being used.




You've got the most severe case of inferiority complex I've seen in a long while.


----------



## Unkotare

JimH52 said:


> China is the key.  Kim Jong Un is acting like a spoiled brat will stop the blustering in the Chinese tell him to. .




No he won't. China tells NK to knock it off all the time. They rarely comply fully. China's in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation with NK.


----------



## Bleipriester

JimH52 said:


> China is the key.  Kim Jong Un is acting like a spoiled brat will stop the blustering in the Chinese tell him to.  His nation will starve without the food that China sends.  I say the young leader is cementing his name as a leader.  His words of war are for political gains.  But he is playing a terribly dangerous game.





		Code:
	

Chinese exports to North Korea 2010, 2011 in Million USD:
Mineral fuels:                              478,8 	711,0 
Crude oil:                                   325,8 	518,4 
Light oil:                                    104,9 	        192,4 
Machines:                                  245,5 	        277,3
Cars, parts:                                159,8 	220,6 
Electronics, electrical engineering:  190,8 	252,5 
Plastics, -goods:                         84,4 	        110,9 
Synthetic filaments:                     78,8 	        110,0
Gum elastic, -goods:                    51,4 	        75,8
Man made fibers:                         54,6 	        94,3 
Iron, steel:                                 70,9 	        84,5 
Goods made of iron and steel:        52,1 	        58,9
Clothes:                                     57,6 	        61,5 
Corn:                                         59,8 	        102,3 
Rice:                                         35,4 	        55,0
Maize:                                       23,5 	        45,9 	
Overall:                                      2.277,6 	3,165,0




		Code:
	

North Korean exports to China 2010 2011 in Million USD:
Pit coal:                                                            387,0 	1.126,9 
Ores, scoria, ashes:                                            251,6 	405,7 
Iron ores:                                                          194,5 	324,5 
Clothes:                                                            186,4 	414,5
Iron, steel:                                                        108,5 	154,8
Fish, crabs, etc:                                                 59,7 	82,8 
Calamari:                                                           45,9 	62,8 
Salt, brimstone, stone, dirt, gypsum, chalk, cement: 30,8 	49,9 
Magnesia:                                                          21,7 	29,2 
Cornet:                                                             47,7 	65,3 
Electronics, electrical engineering:                         20,9 	31,6 
Transformers, converters, inductors:                      17,1 	21,8 
Wires:                                                               1,9 	6,2 
Nuts:                                                                9,3 	26,9 
Pine nuts:                                                          4,9 	21,1 
Aluminum, -goods:                                               12,9 	10,9 
Overall:                                                              1.187,9  2.464,2




		Code:
	

South Korean exports to North Korea 2010, 2011 in Million USD:
Clothes:                                     345,6      299,0
Electronics, electrical engineering:  250,3      231,3
Cell phone components:                23,4 	      47,0 
Circuit boards:                            25,0 	      44,4 
Wires:                                       38,3         28,0 
Machines:                                  69,5 	      56,2 
Car parts:                                  10,8 	      12,3 
Chemical ores:                            52,5 	      58,3
Basic consumables:                      44,8 	      46,0 
Goods made of iron and steel:        22,9 	      28,2 
Mining ore:                                 26,2 	      31,1 
Ore of agriculture, etc:                 41,3 	      27,5 
Plastics, gum, leather:                  14,7 	      21,8  
Overall:                                      868,3       800,2




		Code:
	

North Korean exports to South Korea 2010 2011 in Million USD:
Textiles, clothes:                         515,2       407,3 
Electronics, electrical engineering:  220,5       296,8 
Cell phone components:                69,4 	      78,9
Circuit boards:                            20,9 	      72,6 
Wires:                                       44,3 	      49,6 
Rice cookers:                              12,7 	      14,2 
Computer components:                 12,4 	      15,8 
Electronic connection parts:          9,9 	      11,8 
Lamps:                                      6,0 	      9,6
Basic consumables:                      69,1 	      78,6  
Machines:                                  60,4 	      66,2 
Car parts:                                  19,4 	      22,0 
Optical lenses:                            2,6 	      15,4
Para suits:                                  2,5 	      3,0
Chemical Ore:                             24,9 	      34,0 
Plastics, gum, leather:                  12,7 	      14,9
Goods made of iron and steel:        43,9 	      9,1 
Overall:                                      1.043,9     913,7


----------



## Circe

> 4/11 (CNN) -- The Pentagon's intelligence arm has assessed with "moderate confidence" that North Korea has the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon with a ballistic missile, though the reliability is believed to be "low."




After telling us 1700 times that NK could NOT "weaponize" a nuke, and probably didn't even HAVE a nuke, suddenly we're hearing this.

At first I thought they knew it all along and just want to get out in front of the news in case NK does fire something more dangerous than they've been claiming all this time to keep us calm.

Then I realized that saying NK has the nukes they keep talking about shooting at us would be a real, real good excuse for war if they decide to jump in with all four feet. I must say, nobody ever had a better "just war" justification of imminent danger than we do against NK. It's a lot better than the WMD that Saddam said he did NOT have, and indeed, he doesn't seem to have had any.

It would work. NK keeps threatening to nuke us and is testing bunches of weapons and carrying on like a psycho --- I'm amazed that we aren't paying attention to it all in a military sense. If the USA decides the guy is too crazy to leave in power, Kim has no one to blame but himself. Well, logically. He WILL blame everyone but himself, of course, but possibly not for very long......


----------



## ScienceRocks

Kim jong un won't do anything besides fire off his little rocket into the pacific.


----------



## Indofred

Unkotare said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole situation in Korea is a perfect example of why America should stop interfering in other people's politics.
> NK was never any threat to America and propably never would have been if America had stayed out of their politics.
> You would probably have been trading with Korea and watching it return to capitalism by now but, becauce of what you did, you're looking at possible thousands dead and maybe even nukes being used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've got the most severe case of inferiority complex I've seen in a long while.
Click to expand...


Insults do not comprise a valid argument.
Perhaps you'd like to comment on my previous post where I compared development in Vietnam to a non-American interfered with Korea.

Is Vietnam and enemy of America and how often do we hear of Vietnamese threatening the United States?
Easy, we never do because their daft commie extremists and slowly going the way of the dinosaur, exactly as Korea's idiots would have done if America hadn't got stuck in.


----------



## georgephillip

Both people and both economies would be much better off today if the US had not oppossed reuinification elections after WWII. American capitalists were afraid their economy would revert to depression without another war. They got their wars, and millions of Asians paid with the loss of their lives, health, and land. The  US lost thousands of its young men, and Wall Street found profit in the losses on all sides. Can you say: New World Order?


----------



## HUGGY

Indofred said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole situation in Korea is a perfect example of why America should stop interfering in other people's politics.
> NK was never any threat to America and propably never would have been if America had stayed out of their politics.
> You would probably have been trading with Korea and watching it return to capitalism by now but, becauce of what you did, you're looking at possible thousands dead and maybe even nukes being used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You've got the most severe case of inferiority complex I've seen in a long while*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insults do not comprise a valid argument.
> Perhaps you'd like to comment on my previous post where I compared development in Vietnam to a non-American interfered with Korea.
> 
> Is Vietnam and enemy of America and how often do we hear of Vietnamese threatening the United States?
> Easy, we never do because their daft commie extremists and slowly going the way of the dinosaur, exactly as Korea's idiots would have done if America hadn't got stuck in.
Click to expand...


He took all of the mirrors out of his mommy's basement.


----------



## Dajjal

Found this on facebook


----------



## ScienceRocks

Matthew said:


> Kim jong un won't do anything besides fire off his little rocket into the pacific.



Shit. This moron was even too chicken shit to do that. wow. 

North Korea doesn't have the balls.


----------



## Indofred

Matthew said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim jong un won't do anything besides fire off his little rocket into the pacific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit. This moron was even too chicken shit to do that. wow.
> 
> North Korea doesn't have the balls.
Click to expand...


Maybe not but it does have the stupidity.

If you leave a dog alone, it'll growl a bit and go away.
If you poke it with a stick, it'll probably bite you.

America is poking North Korea with a stick and it may just get bitten.
OK, you lot'll hammer the place but at what cost in American life and what will you gain?
Thousands dead for bog all.


----------



## georgephillip

Indofred said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim jong un won't do anything besides fire off his little rocket into the pacific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit. This moron was even too chicken shit to do that. wow.
> 
> North Korea doesn't have the balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not but it does have the stupidity.
> 
> If you leave a dog alone, it'll growl a bit and go away.
> If you poke it with a stick, it'll probably bite you.
> 
> America is poking North Korea with a stick and it may just get bitten.
> OK, you lot'll hammer the place but at what cost in American life and what will you gain?
> Thousands dead for bog all.
Click to expand...

All North Koreans are not stupid or cowardly but they do remember how the US totally destroyed every city between the Yalu River and the 38 parallel in the early 1950s. The US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs during that war, most of it on the north. We dropped 650,000 tons of bombs on Germany in WWII. No doubt the US and South Korea would prevail in an all out war, but I suspect the death toll would be in the tens of millions. Who gets rich from that?


----------



## Indofred

georgephillip said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit. This moron was even too chicken shit to do that. wow.
> 
> North Korea doesn't have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not but it does have the stupidity.
> 
> If you leave a dog alone, it'll growl a bit and go away.
> If you poke it with a stick, it'll probably bite you.
> 
> America is poking North Korea with a stick and it may just get bitten.
> OK, you lot'll hammer the place but at what cost in American life and what will you gain?
> Thousands dead for bog all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All North Koreans are not stupid or cowardly but they do remember how the US totally destroyed every city between the Yalu River and the 38 parallel in the early 1950s. The US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs during that war, most of it on the north. We dropped 650,000 tons of bombs on Germany in WWII. No doubt the US and South Korea would prevail in an all out war, but I suspect the death toll would be in the tens of millions.* Who gets rich from that?*
Click to expand...


American arms manufacturers.


----------



## georgephillip

Indofred said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not but it does have the stupidity.
> 
> If you leave a dog alone, it'll growl a bit and go away.
> If you poke it with a stick, it'll probably bite you.
> 
> America is poking North Korea with a stick and it may just get bitten.
> OK, you lot'll hammer the place but at what cost in American life and what will you gain?
> Thousands dead for bog all.
> 
> 
> 
> All North Koreans are not stupid or cowardly but they do remember how the US totally destroyed every city between the Yalu River and the 38 parallel in the early 1950s. The US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs during that war, most of it on the north. We dropped 650,000 tons of bombs on Germany in WWII. No doubt the US and South Korea would prevail in an all out war, but I suspect the death toll would be in the tens of millions.* Who gets rich from that?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American arms manufacturers.
Click to expand...

There was profit earned one every single bomb dropped on Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc, etc, and it is not the case that all the money goes to Wall Street and the US investor class. There are many middle class jobs that depend on building weapons. The arms trade is the most profitable industry on the planet right now, and it doesn't seem likely that will change until there is more money in peace than in war.


----------



## Katzndogz

North Korea SHOULD attack.  It's all obama needs.  His middle east policy is reaming his ass, dometically he's a failure.  North Korea would make it a trifecta.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea SHOULD attack.  It's all obama needs.  His middle east policy is reaming his ass, dometically he's a failure.  North Korea would make it a trifecta.


Obama and Bush and Clinton all serve the same 1% of Americans.
Why do you selectively criticize one and not the others?


----------



## Unkotare

Take it to the Conspiracy Forum, head case. >>>


----------



## georgephillip

Surely you have noticed which one percent of Americans has increased their share of wealth and income over the last two generations, regardless of which party holds power?


----------



## Indofred

georgephillip said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> All North Koreans are not stupid or cowardly but they do remember how the US totally destroyed every city between the Yalu River and the 38 parallel in the early 1950s. The US dropped 635,000 tons of bombs during that war, most of it on the north. We dropped 650,000 tons of bombs on Germany in WWII. No doubt the US and South Korea would prevail in an all out war, but I suspect the death toll would be in the tens of millions.* Who gets rich from that?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American arms manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was profit earned one every single bomb dropped on Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc, etc, and it is not the case that all the money goes to Wall Street and the US investor class. There are many middle class jobs that depend on building weapons. The arms trade is the most profitable industry on the planet right now, and it doesn't seem likely that will change until there is more money in peace than in war.
Click to expand...


You got it.
At the moment, America is selling arms to Muslim countries all over the middle east and, to maintain the military advantage held by Israel, is giving away (for free) a few billion Dollars worth of weapons to them.
The potential war in NK is just one more excuse to increase arms sales in that region as the turning of China from a trading partner to an enemy is doing.

Before WWII, the American arms industry was doing nothing but there has always been a reason to build up weapons since then, even when there wasn't a reason.
Vietnam was never any threat to America as wasn't North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia or any other country America has attacked.
What, you don't think America has attacked Iran yet? Tut tut, you don't read the news, do you?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Katzndogz said:


> North Korea SHOULD attack.  It's all obama needs.  His middle east policy is reaming his ass, dometically he's a failure.  North Korea would make it a trifecta.



Fuck the way things are going, why shouldn't china attack? They could beat us and take our resources.


----------



## ScienceRocks

georgephillip said:


> Surely you have noticed which one percent of Americans has increased their share of wealth and income over the last two generations, regardless of which party holds power?



Sadly, they're the ones that understand how to build wealth. How do we make the poor build wealth? More of a question of knowledge then transfer of money.


----------



## georgephillip

Matthew said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you have noticed which one percent of Americans has increased their share of wealth and income over the last two generations, regardless of which party holds power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, they're the ones that understand how to build wealth. How do we make the poor build wealth? More of a question of knowledge then transfer of money.
Click to expand...

Lately they seem better at extracting wealth than in producing or building wealth.
Once upon a time US investors needed a solid middle class of productive workers to produce the goods and services. The middle class drove 70% of US GDP with their purchases. Today, US investors have a much larger middle class rising in places like Brazil. India, and China. This tends to increase the wealth of ten percent or less of Americans and decrease the net worth of the remaining 90%.


----------



## Katzndogz

Matthew said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea SHOULD attack.  It's all obama needs.  His middle east policy is reaming his ass, dometically he's a failure.  North Korea would make it a trifecta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the way things are going, why shouldn't china attack? They could beat us and take our resources.
Click to expand...


They would only get the resources they already own.


----------



## Unkotare

Matthew said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea SHOULD attack.  It's all obama needs.  His middle east policy is reaming his ass, dometically he's a failure.  North Korea would make it a trifecta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the way things are going, why shouldn't china attack? They could beat us and take our resources.
Click to expand...



No, they couldn't, you idiot.


----------



## aleks.iv

Indofred said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> American arms manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> There was profit earned one every single bomb dropped on Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc, etc, and it is not the case that all the money goes to Wall Street and the US investor class. There are many middle class jobs that depend on building weapons. The arms trade is the most profitable industry on the planet right now, and it doesn't seem likely that will change until there is more money in peace than in war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got it.
> At the moment, America is selling arms to Muslim countries all over the middle east and, to maintain the military advantage held by Israel, is giving away (for free) a few billion Dollars worth of weapons to them.
> The potential war in NK is just one more excuse to increase arms sales in that region as the turning of China from a trading partner to an enemy is doing.
> 
> Before WWII, the American arms industry was doing nothing but there has always been a reason to build up weapons since then, even when there wasn't a reason.
> Vietnam was never any threat to America as wasn't North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia or any other country America has attacked.
> What, you don't think America has attacked Iran yet? Tut tut, you don't read the news, do you?
Click to expand...


I agree with you Next war will be in Syria, and as always, it is very beneficial to our government and our Pentagon, our press we hang noodles on the ears, saying that there is already used chemical weapons as the war with Iraq, but the death of soldiers and civilians, and of course our manufacturers obogoscheniya weapons and moneybags death for them to earn money


----------



## Indofred

aleks.iv said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was profit earned one every single bomb dropped on Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, etc, etc, and it is not the case that all the money goes to Wall Street and the US investor class. There are many middle class jobs that depend on building weapons. The arms trade is the most profitable industry on the planet right now, and it doesn't seem likely that will change until there is more money in peace than in war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got it.
> At the moment, America is selling arms to Muslim countries all over the middle east and, to maintain the military advantage held by Israel, is giving away (for free) a few billion Dollars worth of weapons to them.
> The potential war in NK is just one more excuse to increase arms sales in that region as the turning of China from a trading partner to an enemy is doing.
> 
> Before WWII, the American arms industry was doing nothing but there has always been a reason to build up weapons since then, even when there wasn't a reason.
> Vietnam was never any threat to America as wasn't North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia or any other country America has attacked.
> What, you don't think America has attacked Iran yet? Tut tut, you don't read the news, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you Next war will be in Syria, and as always, it is very beneficial to our government and our Pentagon, our press we hang noodles on the ears, saying that there is already used chemical weapons as the war with Iraq, but the death of soldiers and civilians, and of course our manufacturers obogoscheniya weapons and moneybags death for them to earn money
Click to expand...


It may well be.
America is shoving the 'fact' of Syrian chemical weapons but absolutely no mention of the UN report, saying there is hardly any evidence of this.
Evidence of Syria chemical weapons use not up to U.N. standard | Reuters


----------



## aleks.iv

Indofred said:


> aleks.iv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it.
> At the moment, America is selling arms to Muslim countries all over the middle east and, to maintain the military advantage held by Israel, is giving away (for free) a few billion Dollars worth of weapons to them.
> The potential war in NK is just one more excuse to increase arms sales in that region as the turning of China from a trading partner to an enemy is doing.
> 
> Before WWII, the American arms industry was doing nothing but there has always been a reason to build up weapons since then, even when there wasn't a reason.
> Vietnam was never any threat to America as wasn't North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Cambodia or any other country America has attacked.
> What, you don't think America has attacked Iran yet? Tut tut, you don't read the news, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you Next war will be in Syria, and as always, it is very beneficial to our government and our Pentagon, our press we hang noodles on the ears, saying that there is already used chemical weapons as the war with Iraq, but the death of soldiers and civilians, and of course our manufacturers obogoscheniya weapons and moneybags death for them to earn money
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may well be.
> America is shoving the 'fact' of Syrian chemical weapons but absolutely no mention of the UN report, saying there is hardly any evidence of this.
> Evidence of Syria chemical weapons use not up to U.N. standard | Reuters
Click to expand...


UN takes the position do not know and do not want the press is silent but the fact teroristov use of chemical weapons against Assad is present for this case is preparing an operation to capture Syria and Assad essentially fighting against militants and murderers .Syria News: Terrorists Suffer Heavy Losses during Army Operations Syria News: Summary for 27 Apr 2013 SANA


----------



## aleks.iv

Here's more about Syria if interestedhttp://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/27/300485/syrian-army-kills-several-militants/There would be no war now in Korea yet.


----------



## georgephillip

Hopefully you are right about no war in Korea.
War destroys the poor everywhere on this planet, but only Korea has the potential to murder, maim, and displace millions of civilians within a matter of days, if not less. Eventually the US and South Korea would prevail militarily but that would involve the virtual destruction of North Korea; refugees would flood China, and those communists who survived would probably envy those who did not.


----------

