Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. Plans Pre-emptive Strike If N.K. Conducts Nuke Test

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
First, the article did say "contingency plan", and such plans are made for every possible eventuality so all options are available when a decision has to be made. It doesn't mean that that would be the action taken even if NK will go ahead with a nuclear test (Do you think they want to risk war with the US?).

Second, it is true Bush will try to avoide a draft. I think the US would try to the 'Long range war' by damaging NK logistics and simply starve them out before they will burst SK defence. NK simply can't feed itself and depends on external support. US will try to avoid ground war for as long as humanly possible

As to why stop NK? Besides directly threatning US and Japan with destruction and SK with 'reunion', NK will surely sell A-bombs to anyone how payes, like Iran, Al-Quaeda etc', as they did in the past.




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
If we get involved in a ground conflict in Korea, there will be brutality that will make the beheading videos seem tame in comparison. I seriously doubt that a test will set it off. You may see some serious posturing afterwards, but a conflict will not begin until everything else has failed.

Korea is a powderkeg the likes of which have not been seen in 50 years. Their armed forces are highly trained and have no remorse. We better make sure that this is something we really want to do before sending our people into this one. It will be very bloody for both sides if we have boots on the ground. I have serious doubts that draft from a country full of a "you owe me everything" generation could have the fortitude to overcome a country which has been brainwashed from the time they can crawl.

We would encounter hard charging, well trained forces who are more than eager to taste the blood of their enemy. I seriously doubt that we could be involved from the air only. We will have to get dirty to win and there will be no room for doubt or second guessing. No press, no politicians, just get it done. Defeat the regime, get out and let the South mop it up. End of story. Anything else will have disasterous results.


[edit on 7-5-2005 by xman_in_blackx]

[edit on 7-5-2005 by xman_in_blackx]


word to that. i asked a friend in the military where he would rather go to fight, if forced to choose between iraq and north korea. he said iraq was a no-brainer choice, because at least the people there are fighting out of passion, rather than brainwashing. he said if you get captured in iraq, you have a small chance, but a chance nonetheless, of living it through, because your captors will probably be members of a small group, and you might be able to talk face to face with the man who decides whether or not to kill you. in north korea, on the other hand, no quarter will be given. they'll have no interest in your life as a hostage or prisoner, and probably won't have any orders or infrastructure regarding dealing with POW's. you'll just get tossed along the hierarchy by those who don't want to kill you until you meet someone who does.

-koji K.

[edit on 7-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If we have a draft why don't we use the people in jail to go to war, after all, those Murders, rapist, killers all like to kill people and like the smell of blood, send them to war and they can kill all they want hehehe. well at least they will be useful that way instead of satting in jail all day watching tv, playing basketball etc.

that was a good idea hehe
what you guys think?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I don't think the North Korea People are starving, that's just propganda for the west. What we really know about the North koreans ,except from the ``Mouth`` of the Military intelligence aka CIA, ? None at all. And we know their history of fact telling aka the Iraq war, as we all know.. As a matter of fact, whether the Bush administration wants a war I don't think they could risk a war with The Iraq saga going on, what a drain on the treasury, listen amrica, don't let your lying politicians fool you, that we have the financial resources to exert a military conflict with any country at any place at anytime. Crap! One more thing, don't you all think that a North Korea conflict will draw a confrontation with China? That could be disastrous. North orea, Iran, Al queda, do not fear the Big Bad America. Let's get real. How Long Can we maintain this Superpower status? How Much Longer, can We maintain this status for the last 60 yrs, stretching our empire, far and wide, draining the treasury in the process. Let's get real, what real War have we fought? besides small nation states?



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
well, the main reason i tell people to cool their heads about invading north korea is because, if it came to that, millions would die, guaranteed, and NOT soldiers. North Korea has us by the balls, whatever we'd like to think. 13,000 dispersed artillery pieces all targeted at Seoul. very hard to get all of them in any pre-emptive strike with our fancy stealths and whatnot, and they don't of course use any sort of rocketry, so no chance of any warning. if they feel threatened enough (which they sure would, if us troops surged over their border) they pop them all off at once, guaranteeing massive casualties in a city the size and density of Seoul. sure, we'd eventually prevail, but at what cost?

this is actually the crux of the N.K./USA/S.K. stand-off, nothing to do with nukes, never has been. the 8th army has been on hairtrigger alert for decades now, even when a nuclear N.K. looked impossible, for this very reason.

-koji K.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Relax !!

Like someone else said, it's just a test. We didn't go to war in Iraq because they were testing. Pretty soon I think that most of our second world countries will either have nucleur resources or will be looking into the research. There is nothing that we need or can do.

Will we be at war someday with Korea ? I don't think we can say for sure. But I do know that things can change in a blink of an eye. I beleive we already have more knowledge than what the US is admitting too in regards to the total situation in NK.

If it does come down to war at some time with NK, hopefully we will have a president like GW Bush with enough balls to just nukem.


No games this time !!



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Korea is a powderkeg the likes of which have not been seen in 50 years.


Anybody remember Davy Crocket?

I think these were the inspiration for Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock's little antimatter mortar outfit. Notice the reference to SADM.

If I were North Korean, I would not want to march South. In fact, I would shut up and make peace- they should know the Americans by now.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by crusader
I don't think the North Korea People are starving, that's just propganda for the west.

Past agreement with NK included a lot of economical support including food in exchange for NK not developing A-bombs. Its not propaganda, only not classiffied. Every initiative for reducing tension with NK includes bribing them with food. Any war with NK is likely to be terrible but that is the cost of being the world's policeman and being safe yourself.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Even airstriking N Korea would be a bad move, as Koji said they've got a division load of artillery all pointed at south korea, a huge number of people would die, US would fall out with just about everyone on this one, AND its just the thing to kick of a global recession, although thats not far away anyway. Lets not even mention whether other countries get militarily involvec, be time to kiss our comfortable lives goodbye.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
What are the alternatives? No one want's a war, but if it is likely in the not-so-far future, a pre-emptive strike before they have the Bomb will be MUCH less costly. If they stopped declaring all the time they intend to overrun SK, and aggreed not to sell the Bomb to others, there will be no war.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
We could try to, I dunno, talk to NK? I mean, a one on one, face to face, mano y mano? Might help.


Well, we're trying that too:


Talks between the two Koreas, Russia, China, Japan and the United States on the North's nuclear programs have been stalled since a third round of talks last June.

The North has boycotted the talks, citing "hostile" US policy, and has publicly announced it has nuclear weapons and it could manufacture more.


I hate to say it, but I think a regime change is necessary in NK. That Kim guy is very unstable.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Theres no need to go to war , dont you think that the countries that surround NK think that he is an unbalanced person.If war happened in that area China would be the first to suffer also Japan. These Countries want to progress like America , so i dont see them supporting NK, I think they want to get rid of him as soon as possible.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by curme
We could try to, I dunno, talk to NK? I mean, a one on one, face to face, mano y mano? Might help.


Well, we're trying that too:



I meant one on one talks, which NK wants, but the US refuses to do. I think some forces in our governemnt want to force a war with NK, so we would have a reason to place troops on China's border. The same far-thinking people who wanted to invade Iraq in the 90's.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Well I don't understand the rationale of the US not wanting to discuss this on any level. Except for the fact that the US can't make a deal that would bind other countries,without their permission.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   


I hate to say it, but I think a regime change is necessary in NK.

"Regime change" is a nice euphemism for war, makes it sound like changing a light bulb or a fuse.

As we're discovering in Iraq, it's not quite that simple, even when the initial invasion is mostly unopposed. Which in NK's case, it certainly won't be.

[edit on 5/7/05 by xmotex]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I think the best way to solve the N.K. "problem" would be regime change, but from the North Koreans themselves. I'm kind of surprised it hasnt happened already. I know Kim Jong Il rules with an iron fist, etc, but surely his generals, upon he relies, must see the benefit of slowly opening up to the rest of the world, so they can reap the fruits of capitalism, not unlike china? I get the feeling I'm missing some factor here, or I'm just being naive.


-koji K.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
koji_K?
Remember Stalin and the Purges?
Alot of western analyst wondered the very same thing you currently are on Kim. Reason he is not been overthrown or had a military coup: fear and the use of silent, unreported purges. You ensure loyalty, one way or the other.




seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Yeah I don't see a revolution toppling the North Korean state, it's so regimented from top to bottom. It's a totalist state unlike any other, think of Stalin's Russia, but an order of magnitude more totalitarian, with the state a constant presence in people's lives in a way it is hard for westerners to understand.

If Kim falls from power, it will be as the entire North Korean state comes unglued catastrophically from total economic stagnation and widespread starvation, IMHO a more likely scenario than revolution or a coup.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
koji_K?
Remember Stalin and the Purges?
Alot of western analyst wondered the very same thing you currently are on Kim. Reason he is not been overthrown or had a military coup: fear and the use of silent, unreported purges. You ensure loyalty, one way or the other.




seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2005 by Seekerof]


you're absolutely right.... i suppose it's a psychological thing.. he looks like such a ponce, i can't understand how his generals would take him seriously. but of course, that's not based on logic. i've often wondered if he's not the real guy in charge, ie, if kim il sung may have installed more than just his son to be the lasting leader of north korea.

EDIT: I should add I wasnt thinking in terms of a great revolution by the people, more something along the lines of Kim Jong Il dying of an "accident," having a huge state funeral, and the country slowly and subtly becoming more open under whoever the new guy in charge would be... but even this view probably underestimates the fear everyone there lives in.

-koji K.

[edit on 7-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
what can we expect from occupying North Korea?

-koji K.

Why do you think we'd invade?
Absolutely nothing, no article or anything, has indicated that we'd invade or even are planning to invade NK.

We'd invade them only if after we attacked them they started to invade SK.
And by "we" I mean most of the world (meaning the notion of a draft is laughable as we'd have every ally and China on our side).






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join