North Korea attacks South

[Niko_Vercetti7]

 

Don't know, man. Last time, Soviets placed some mighty impressive AA systems there. Modern Russian AA is still one of the very few things that can shake US air superiority. If a few of these find their way to NK, either via China or directly from Russia (Russia shares border with NK. They don't want US in NK any more than Chinese do.) I would not want to be a pilot flying over NK.

 

Luckily I'm not a pilot. I used to work on cyber security and unmanned vehicles in the Air Force. But yeah your right they do have some pretty impressive AA systems. I wouldn't want to be one of those pilot flying over there.

[860]

I know this sounds bad as plenty of innocent lives will be lost but I was kind of hoping for this to happend.

 

South Korea is nice. Everyone likes South Korea, except North Korea, who is a bully. No one likes a bully. And these days when there's a war everyone wants their piece of it. Who is the rest of the world gonna side with? They are going to side with one. No way will other countries watch from the side how the bad kicks the good.

 

Ultimate happy happy rainbows 'n' sh*t scenario: North will be brought to it's knees, the corrupt leaders will be inprisoned, Korea becomes one again under the rule of the nice Southern people.

[dog_day_sunrise]

I'd happily re enlist in the Air Force if we declared war on the North.

Don't know, man. Last time, Soviets placed some mighty impressive AA systems there. Modern Russian AA is still one of the very few things that can shake US air superiority. If a few of these find their way to NK, either via China or directly from Russia (Russia shares border with NK. They don't want US in NK any more than Chinese do.) I would not want to be a pilot flying over NK.

AA defense systems have lagged behind the ability to suppress them from the air for about 3 decades now. Just look at the Israeli use of SEAD in Lebanon-

> Drone aircraft "persuades" forced to turn on radar systems

> Radar systems are hit from stand-off range of at least 50 miles by anti-radiation missiles (either air or sea launched). SAMs are now blind.

> Aircraft come in to "mop up" remaining missile systems.

 

It' a very similar system to that used over Kosovo and rates of attrition for aircraft were incredibly low then. No reason to believe that the DPRK are any better equipped in air defense terms than Serbia were in '99- especially with the various arms and trading embargoes stifling more over-the-counter methods of getting Materiel into the north.

[_-=Zombie=-_]

North Korea = Biggest troll ever

[_Rob_]

Just realised, Korea will probably nuke around the year 2012, damn those Mayans!

[dog_day_sunrise]

Just realised, Korea will probably nuke around the year 2012, damn those Mayans!

Naa. Korea hasn't managed to detonate one nuclear weapon in a controlled environment yet. Two sub-kiloton fizzles doesn't exactly inspire confidence in them being able to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon by 2012. Most estimates say it will take Iran, who have much more international assistance and less in the way of arms embargos, at least 10 years from building a nuclear device to making one of any real threat to anyone but themselves. With DPRK, it will be even longer 'til they can build a bomb that can hit anything outside of South Korea.

[Niko_Vercetti7]

 

North Korea = Biggest troll ever

 

Agreed

 

 

Just realised, Korea will probably nuke around the year 2012, damn those Mayans!

 

Yeah right, even if they do we will surely retaliate. Look we have approximately 5,400 nukes in our stockpile not counting the Cold War stockpile and all the other dangerous gas and chemical weapons we confiscated way back when. The point being made here is if North Korea even tries to send one nuke towards DC we'll have ten ICMB's headed straight to Pyongyang in a matter of seconds. Not to mention the nukes they have right now couldn't even reach DC if they tried because they're so short range.

[dog_day_sunrise]

 

Yeah right, even if they do we will surely retaliate. Look we have approximately 5,400 nukes in our stockpile not counting the Cold War stockpile and all the other dangerous gas and chemical weapons we confiscated way back when. The point being made here is if North Korea even tries to send one nuke towards DC we'll have ten ICMB's headed straight to Pyongyang in a matter of seconds. Not to mention the nukes they have right now couldn't even reach DC if they tried because they're so short range.

And the rest...

 

Russia- 12000 warheads

US- 9600 warheads

France- 400 warheads

Israel- 200-300 warheads

UK- 200 warheads

China- 200 warheads

India- 150 warheads

Pakistan- 75 warheads

DPRK- 3 (est) non-functioning weapons, 0 deliverable warheads.

 

Mind you, that includes MIRVs as independent warheads.

 

Oh and you don't have any chemical or biological weapons, as a signatory of their respective treaties. I assume you're US based by the warhead number you gave even though your icon is the Israeli flag- Israel has had a clandestine chemical weapons program for years (that El Al aircraft that crashed in the Netherlands a decade or so back was full of the precursors to making VX). Then again they aren't hard to cook up from base ingredients...

Edited November 23, 2010 by dog_day_sunrise

[YoungFresh]

I might be wrong or not, but North Korea have nuclear technology. This is a serious problem if they decide to continue on.

[860]

 

Sorry.

[Robinski]

I'm a bit politically retarded (well internationally at least), but I have been reading up on and following this today. But even so, I'm nowhere near as informed as I should be before I judge the situation. But I'm a human being so here's my take.

 

I can't believe that SK has been putting up with this for so long, I mean, there's been over 150 clear NK on SK offensive action both in SK and NK, as well as in China, since the Korean War ended in 1950. It seems that one of the main mitigating factors is the "ally" NK has in China, and when I say ally I mean China will support NK just to prevent millions of refugees flooding in. The "alliance" is terribly weak and unlikely to come into play if NK were invaded by a SK/NATO/US force.

 

There's also the fact that Seoul is believed to be well within range of NK artillery, which could easily level much of the capital within hours/days of all out war starting. Similarly is the gulf in military might. While significantly better equipped the SK military has a significantly lower number of troops than NK, who have over 1m enlisted (in a country of roughly 24m). If the NK military were to push into southern territory the equipment advantage (such as high speed bombers) may prove ineffectual, as any country would be reluctant to bombard its own infrastructure and property.

 

So that seems to be what's keeping SK from finally saying "F*ck it" and storming northwards (despite the economic pains it'd go through in trying to absorb the terribly underdeveloped economy of the North). But what's stopping the mentalists of NK storming south? Apparently the US have about 10k soldiers stationed in SK, a relatively small number in a war we'd be talking about. As such, in a potential invasion by NK these guys would surely be slaughtered, probably very quickly. They're there to act as a tripwire, because while 10K is a small number in an all out war, it's a hell of a lot of lost citizens for the US to shrug off without intervention.

 

It would seem that SK would need the support of US/NATO/other world powers to successfully topple the regime of the north, and even then it'd be a massive undertaking, not to mention the hard, hard times it'd go through as a result of trying to assimilate such as different country in terms of quality of life, education, infrastructure, economy, the list goes on. Nevertheless, of all the possible wars over the last decade this would seem like a much more justifiable war to engage in than Iraq. Look at it: we actually know they have capability of WMDs and the regime is just as, if not more, despicable than that of Iraq.

 

But yeah, I realise I don't know all of the facts so I'm sure someone'll call me out on some of my "facts".

[Illousion]

I'm very interested to see what comes out of this. Sweden probably won't lift a finger if the situation escalates, because for the last ten years we've practically been disassembling our own defence.

[Niko_Vercetti7]

 

Russia- 12000 warheads

US- 9600 warheads

France- 400 warheads

Israel- 200-300 warheads

UK- 200 warheads

China- 200 warheads

India- 150 warheads

Pakistan- 75 warheads

DPRK- 3 (est) non-functioning weapons, 0 deliverable warheads.

 

Exactly we have all those nations on our side. If North Korea wants to start a war they're damn well going to get one.

[Robinski]

Russia- 12000 warheads

US- 9600 warheads

France- 400 warheads

Israel- 200-300 warheads

UK- 200 warheads

China- 200 warheads

India- 150 warheads

Pakistan- 75 warheads

DPRK- 3 (est) non-functioning weapons, 0 deliverable warheads.

 

Exactly we have all those nations on our side. If North Korea wants to start a war they're damn well going to get one.

It doesn't even matter who you mean by "our" side, this is a ludicrous statement. You really think all those governments would agree on anything?

 

There's a reason they developed their own nuclear weapons capabilities, and it ain't out of solidarity with the other big boys.

[Fnorg]

 

I'm very interested to see what comes out of this. Sweden probably won't lift a finger if the situation escalates, because for the last ten years we've practically been disassembling our own defence.

Yeah, exactly. The defense has been dismantled. The Swedish armed forces haven't been able to defend jack since probably before the second world war, and they haven't had an enemy to defend themselves from either (let's face it, the Russians had bigger fish to fry). Instead, Sweden has opted for a highly specialized international force deployed alongside other UN or EU forces, like in Somalia or Afghanistan. So it's actually not that unlikely that Sweden would join in if the UN were to do something.

 

This isn't really Sweden's war, so I don't really see why it should lift a finger if the situation somehow escalated. And even if it escalated it would still be on the Korean peninsula.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Gronf

[anus]

Knowing China, I can tell you without a doubt that China will do nothing to help NK if something major goes down.

 

They also have their 'methods' to keep refugees out.

[dice]

Why would China ally with North Korea as hinted by many and risk valuable trade relationships it has with the whole world ? The only powerful ally the North Koreans could get is Russia, which is currently the only force that could oppose the US in an actual war, but since they mainly rely on the EU who is Americas boyfriend, I doubt that will happen.

[Max]

China is enjoying it's status as a global leader too much to risk it all for North Korea. Its owed too much money by Western economies and the benefits it recieves from North Korea are nothing to the potential benefits it stands to gain if curent economic and diplomatic trends with the West continue.

 

The only way China woud get involved would be if US troops approached the Yalu river and were deemed a threat to China itself. This action dragged China into the Korean war in 1951 and it could do so again. Although it would still need far greater provocation.

 

Furthermore America doesn't want to get embroiled in another foreign war. I think North and South Korea will duke this one out without a military UN interverntion but probably with massive support being sent to South Korea.

[Robinski]

 

China is enjoying it's status as a global leader too much to risk it all for North Korea. Its owed too much money by Western economies and the benefits it recieves from North Korea are nothing to the potential benefits it stands to gain if curent economic and diplomatic trends with the West continue.

 

The only way China woud get involved would be if US troops approached the Yalu river and were deemed a threat to China itself. This action dragged China into the Korean war in 1951 and it could do so again. Although it would still need far greater provocation.

Yeah, like I said earlier, the only reason China is "supporting" NK at all is to keep all the refugees out. If it all kicked off on the peninsula they'd just close their border and line in with military blockades and let it all blow over.

 

 

Furthermore America doesn't want to get embroiled in another foreign war. I think North and South Korea will duke this one out without a military UN interverntion but probably with massive support being sent to South Korea.

I think this is the minimum that outsides powers would do. Without any intervention, military or otherwise, the whole thing would just end up a pointless bloodbath with neither side gaining any ground, physically or ideologically.

 

The North has been increasingly making itself a target for the best part of the last half-century. It's all going to come to a head eventually where one side will break. I don't think this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back though, SK have been putting up with stuff like this for decades.

[Waddy]

Realistically can America or most other nations actually afford to even think about going to war again? Maybe NK have found the perfect time to take the piss, if this had happened 10 years ago there would have already been carriers and the like on route.

[cidamelo]

Waddy I'm asking myself it too! I hope there isn't another war

[nerner]

Realistically can America or most other nations actually afford to even think about going to war again? Maybe NK have found the perfect time to take the piss, if this had happened 10 years ago there would have already been carriers and the like on route.

Quite ironic that when we may actually need to, we're so f*cked up by the wars that we fought when we probably didn't that we can't muster up the effort. As you say, before 9/11 this would have caused huge problems, but right now I see no chance of another war.

[Robinski]

I think I mentioned earlier, I would be much more likely to support an intervention/invasion here than in Iraq. Granted I was only 12ish at the time of the Iraq invasion, but I know now that I disagree with it. What we seem to be seeing with North Korea is what a justifiable Iraq would have been like. Confirmation of WMDs? Check. Horribly oppressive regime with literally millions starving? Check. Already outwardly offensive towards our close allies? Check. This is what the Iraq checklist should have been like, but instead had "maybe" or "it could be in the future!" as answers.

 

I highly doubt you'd get the amount of protesters Iraq brought onto the streets now for North Korea.

[Typhus]

Russia and China, despite appearances are pretty much oligarchies now. Ruled by a cabal of the wealthy elite. Russian mafia, party members and so on. We're a long way from the Iron Curtain and an East and West firmly divided by ideology. Now, all we want is for the wheels of business to turn as always. International co-operation means everyone keeps making money. Neither Russia nor China have any time for a Stalinist loose cannon like Kim Jong Il.

 

Money wise, a war is not desirable. But we need to acheive two big aims:

 

1. Take out Kim Jong Il. His death will lessen tensions in the region considerably.

2. Once Kim Jong Il is gone, ensure that North Korea is not in a posistion to perfect their nuclear technlogy. We don't want to face this same problem down the line.

 

If we could, I would use China to lure him out and then simply have him murdered. He's the problem, it's not the fault of the starving peasants or even his generals. HE has to go.

Just murder him and use the chaos that follows to get a good, lasting foothold in the country.

[Minus the Boom]

 

Sorry.

Don't worry about it man, somebody had to do it.

[baptiste]

 

 

Most likely, nothing is gonna happen.

[Kevin...]

Realistically can America or most other nations actually afford to even think about going to war again? Maybe NK have found the perfect time to take the piss, if this had happened 10 years ago there would have already been carriers and the like on route.

Yeah, I would totally agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that its f*cking North Korea.

 

Lets be honest here, NK is one of the lest deadliest countries. Its like midget with anger issues and a little man's complex. Sure he can caused a few problems and stir the kettle a bit but compared to, oh I dunno, Iraq or Afghanistan, this is an easy win. We are dealing with a different type of people in a totally different geography. Even if there was a full blown conflict I don't see a war lasting very long. Like a week to a month long. With USA tag teaming with Canada, most of the EU, Australia, and the rest of our buddies around the world, they would not stand a chance being attacked by air or sea. Even if sh*t hit the fan we wouldn't need nukes.

[Ryan]

 

Realistically can America or most other nations actually afford to even think about going to war again? Maybe NK have found the perfect time to take the piss, if this had happened 10 years ago there would have already been carriers and the like on route.

Yeah, I would totally agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that its f*cking North Korea.

 

Lets be honest here, NK is one of the lest deadliest countries. Its like midget with anger issues and a little man's complex. Sure he can caused a few problems and stir the kettle a bit but compared to, oh I dunno, Iraq or Afghanistan, this is an easy win. We are dealing with a different type of people in a totally different geography. Even if there was a full blown conflict I don't see a war lasting very long. Like a week to a month long. With USA tag teaming with Canada, most of the EU, Australia, and the rest of our buddies around the world, they would not stand a chance being attacked by air or sea. Even if sh*t hit the fan we wouldn't need nukes.

You're completely forgetting about China here. China and NK are best buddies. Anything NK does, China sticks up for them and protects them. Any attempt at military invasion via the UN security council is going to get nowhere considering China holds a veto power and can veto any motion they like. Even if an invasion would somehow happen, you could potentially have WWIII. China supports NK, and the rest of the world basically supports the US. If they attack NK, China is going to get involved, then everyone else. It's really no secret anymore, China has the biggest army in the world, and could easily kick the United Sates ass. At this point in time, it seems in everyones best interest to sit back and let the Korea's fight it out amongst them selves.

[Kevin...]

Yeah. I get where you are coming from, but I just can't see it. For as much as everyone bitches about China loving NK more than the US and backing them till the death, I think we would quicker see them siding with us and our trade sharing rather than side with a country that provides nothing aside from its human shield value.

[Robinski]

China only really supports NK because it doesn't want the flood of millions of refugees coming into its back yard when someone finally takes aggressive action against NK. There's no economic or ideological benefit from backing up NK for China. They both claim to be communist countries but do so in vastly different ways that are similar only in their delusional label.

 

Whereas in contrast China has massive economic links to a lot of the UN and Western world, I'm pretty sure it'd rather just beef up border patrol than lose a sh*t load of business because they stood up for some ideal that they don't even share with the country they're defending.

 

E: Basically, what Kev said.

 

E2: \/\/ Heh. You were more concise.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Robinski