It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What it will take for War on NK...

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:19 AM
Apparently, Kim Jong-Il can build nukes all day long if he wants to -- it won't provoke military action from the U.S. or any other Asian player in the region.

So, just what will it take to take out North Korea? I mean, after all, it took just the perceived threat that Saddam had a WMD program for us to go in and bring down Iraq.

Apparently, the moment he sells a nuke or nuke-related materials to another country or terrorist.

That's the word from the International Crisis Group -- a private foreign policy analyst group in Washington.

7. Use of force: Military force will need to remain on
the table as a last resort. Russia, Japan, South Korea
and the U.S. agree that in this context, the red line
would be the actual or attempted transfer of a nuclear
weapon or fissile material by North Korea to another
country or non-state actor. As horrific as the
consequences would be, there is a preparedness to back
the U.S. in the use of military force to enforce this.

You can read the whole report here

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 02:14 PM
Yeah, how to bring down Kim Jung-Il. That's an interesting tactical question. Would it suffice to assasinate him? War is not feasible, since all "active" citizens of DPRK are more or less a branch of his army.

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:07 PM
"What will it take for war on NK"

Well it will take people who dont value life very much.As a war with NK will cost many lives of American soldiers,and NK civilians.So basically it will take someone who values power and money over life to start this war.You think history will teach that ground wars in Asia fail.But there is something to be said about our administartion is taking adive from Henry Kissinger(aka Mr. Vietnam).

America cant handle Iraq and Afghanistan at this moment,theres no way AMerica could deal with a disaster,that would be a war with NK,when they couldnt handle a hurricane.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Black_Fox]

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:13 PM
last time i checked North korea doesnt have any oil let alone that much natural resources the US will have use for,
so north korea is safe

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:53 PM
Only way to win against NK (yes I said win): 100% casualties of every living and non-living thing in north korea. Why? Because they wont give up, they NEVER give up, just like the NVA and Viet Cong, they WONT give in even to a far superior force unless they darn well want too. The only way to stop them cold would be all out nuclear assault or to release bio-weapons that kill them all but that would just mean you knock one off and the rest of the world turns you to dust in return. So you cant win the war no matter WHAT you do unless you win the PEOPLE over. Right now that WONT happen, they all see what the US govt. is doing and has done and that has set the mark of they WONT change sides.

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:15 AM
It will require NK to either directly attack or like the pilot post says, an act equivalent to that..

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:21 AM
I dunno guys... I think the latest threat by NK being put into action would result in military confrontation.

"We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes"

If North Korea fires a Nuclear tipped missile anywhere on Earth the United States will fire back.

As hard as it is to take that in it will happen. The United States Nuclear policy states that the US will fire Nuclear arms back regardless of whether the North Korea missile is shot down (which it most likely will be).

That won't necessarily cause Nuclear war but relations with China and Russia would be seriously ruined.

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:27 AM
I think the original post is right. Short of N. Korea actually attempting a new invasion of the south, or firing missiles (conventional or otherwise) on Japan we will not attack N Korea, UNLESS, he has or appears to be transfering the nukes and/or associated abilities.

Realize in a War with N Korea, (unless we use NUKES), your looking at probably 15,000 US military deaths. 25,000 or so S. Korean military, 100,000 S. Korean Civillians. The NK's would probably have 1.5 million military casualties and probably 500,000 civillians (not counting allies, Japan, and who knows what China will do).........all this in about 30 days. This is (give or take a few hundred thousand) is what most studies indicate. That's about 1.7 million deaths and we haven't even talked wounded. Not to mention, one of our biggest trading partners (S. Korea) will be devastated) so our ecoonomy will suffer in the process.

The only way we are going to start that is if we get nuked, or have hard info the nuke stuff is going to a 3rd party (read Al Quaedia). And if we get nuked, we will probably just send a return package about 100 times over the equivalent of what NK sends.

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Black_Fox
America cant handle Iraq and Afghanistan at this moment,theres no way AMerica could deal with a disaster,that would be a war with NK.

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Black_Fox]

Hitler came unstuck when he got too big for his boots and fought wars on too many fronts (namely, he took on Russia and the UK at the same time) ... not that I'm comparing the US to Hitler. Empires fall not from wars with enemies that are bigger than themselves, but from wars with smaller enemies on too many fronts (eg. Rome).

top topics


log in