It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Well first thread, so about North Korea and USA.....

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
If it really came to war, with all these weapons that both sides have, could we win? Or the US I mean, I'm not as expert on weapons like everybody else so how do you all think the conflict would end up if North Korea just decided to attack South Korea? Right now, at this very time.




posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
The United States has 10, 000+ thermonuclear warheads. Korea could have no more than a handful of atomic ones. If China didn't step in on NK's side, then the U.S. could quite easily wipe the country off the map.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
South Korea, on their own, could easily defeat the North in a conventional battle. They outnumber them in all relevant areas of air, land and sea power and they have HUGE technologic advantage (200 odd F-16C.30/.50 vs. 50+25 MiG-23/29) besides.

Our role is merely to act as turn-key on whatever atomic stockpiles are there or 'could be' present to ensure that the North does not attempt a decapitation attack.

About the dumbest element of the entire ROK situation is the relative ease with which Seoul can be reached with even conventional artillery from hillside redoubts along the DMZ; making desultory brinksmanship all too tempting to the insane bastards across the wire.

Yet for all this, 'Assuming nothing changes'; the best Kim Jong Il can hope for is to live out his life like his Pop, hated and mocked as a reclusive despot with Hollywood Dreams. More Khaddafy than Kruschyev.

Because while he could certainly despoil the ROK with a major atomic attack there and perhaps Japan, it would only be China that he was serving in the long run and he fears them as much if not more than U.S. as they hold his trade tail and can give it a good yank whenever they wish.

The PRC itself doesn't want this to end however as they use our 'defense' of Taiwan and Korea as a stalking horse justification to bleed us white with excessive defense spending and at the same time, they cannot afford the embarrassment of a flourishing, united, Korea because they are the ones who propped up Kim Il Sung to begin with and it would defacto mean admitting that 50 odd years of hereditary communist stupidity was entirely their doing.

That Pyongyang is something like 250 miles from Beijing doesn't help of course but the sad fact is that, if it were simply a matter of conventional force, we should have let the ROK 'have their way' with their DPRK neighbors a /long/ time ago.

As is, Kim Jong Il has undoubtedly realized that, all his drama queen antics aside, we are simply waiting out the loyalties if not lifespan of a punk ass petty tyrant (in the literal Greek sense) and nothing he does about it, conventionally, will make a difference.

Nothing he does about it with nukes will either. Except to make other people's lives (selling to terrorists etc.) miserable with his passing.

Nations smaller than Continent size should not have nukes for the same reason that 3 year olds shouldn't be given loaded guns. They have no idea what they are risking and no /care/ that they could cost others that they SHOULD care about everythning because they are too much a bunch of tiny ass runts with attitudes compensating for assets as they bark like little dogs thinking they can win the world over with fierceness.

For this too, I hold the PRC collectively to blame as they have propped up Norkia's short-person psychology even as I acknowledge that their diversionary politics are successfully taking us out of the game with a runaway global-cop insanity of spending on things not directly related to our own 'self defense' through economic betterment and self-ownership.


KPl.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marine022345
If it really came to war, with all these weapons that both sides have, could we win? Or the US I mean, I'm not as expert on weapons like everybody else so how do you all think the conflict would end up if North Korea just decided to attack South Korea? Right now, at this very time.


Of course the USA and South Korean forces will win, the USA has stealth bombers while most of the DPRK aircraft are antiques. The big problem is the level of damage the dictator Kim will create before he goes down. One of the greatest concerns about the DPRK's abilty is not its Nuke weapons but its No-Dong-II missiles, they have a range that can hit Okinawa, Seoul, Tokyo, Kunsan, Kyoto and Osan Air Base.

Kim has got a biological and chemcial WMD program running for the past few years. The N.Koreans have one of the largest special forces and DPRK army have a load of RPGs and anti-tank missiles and several foreign nations buy them. Iranians acquired a number of Koksan guns from North Korea in 1987. Back at that time, it was the longest-range field gun made anywhere in the world, capable of firing a rocket-assisted projectile to a range of almost 60 kilometers. It had been used by the Iranians to conduct harassment fire from the Al-Faw Peninsula into Kuwait's northeastern oil fields. It has been reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. South Korean security analysts suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm could fire over 9,000 rounds per minute to Seoul. The DPRK's large guns are hidden in caves or bunkered in. Kim can rain 450,000 conventional and bio or chemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. Ask the soldiers what they call all those border fortresses they guard, they call them 'Speed-Bumps' and for good reason aswell. In an armed conflict the North Korean forces would be ultimately be defeated, but how many lives would it take and what would the economic impact be on the rest of the world?

N Korea links tests to 'pressure'
news.bbc.co.uk...
North Korea will not carry out a second nuclear test unless "harassed" by the US, according to media reports in South Korea and Japan.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
South Korea may not outnumber North Korean military forces, but their qualitative superiority alone would mean South Korea could most certainly defeat North Korea on its own. The problem is, this would be a one-shot deal, as South Korean forces would be decimated just defeating the enemy.

You also have remember that a South Korean military victory would mean absolutely nothing. North Korean forces are inferior, but their numerical advantage, the terrain, the dominance of close-quarters combat, and the DPRK's massive artillery arsenal would level not only Seoul, but over 50% of South Korea, maybe more if theater ballistic missiles are used. The casualty rates would be off-the-charts because of the close proximity of combat; North Korea would become uninhabitable and South Korea would become a massive burial ground.

All in all, the war really would mean nothing. Even if North Korea ended up winning, they'd have nothing left to give afterwards. No nukes, no missiles, no nothing. It almost seems more attractive to let North Korea win.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The US will NOT strike with nukes UNLESS NK launches bio,chem.or nuke at any ally.Then all bets are off.It would be his and NK suicide.No dought.NK artillery targeting seoul would be terminated quickly either by SK airforce or with US assistance.Would be much loss of life in DMZ area tho.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xfile
The US will NOT strike with nukes UNLESS NK launches bio,chem.or nuke at any ally.Then all bets are off.It would be his and NK suicide.No dought.NK artillery targeting seoul would be terminated quickly either by SK airforce or with US assistance.Would be much loss of life in DMZ area tho.


If NK used NBC weaponry against Korea, Seoul would be gone anyway because the strike would be followed by the artillery bombardment. As much as the U.S. government likes to herald the quickness of the U.S. military, this quickness is a matter of hours, not minutes. By then it'd be far too late. Also realize that U.S. and South Korean military bases would be one of the first targets to be hit, severely damaging response time.

Whatever way you look at it, Seoul is gone, as well as every major city and military installation within 60 miles of the DMZ is gone. That's the complication of the entire scenario. Taking an astronomical number casualties is a pre-condition for military victory.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Yeah the US and South Korea would "win" but IMO the loss and damage would still be severe, especially for South Korea. This makes such a conflict undesirable even though the end result is not in question.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
we wont nuke em, thats rediculous. nukes are last resort when all else fails. i can see north korea useing them for short range purposes. like to blow up gulf oil or something like that. i see norht korea and iran together plotting something with nukes and the oil. i dont trust those gov'ts, or venezuella, cuba, japan,iraq, united arab emerits,lebonon, parts of africa.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
This is why I actually hope China will end up leading the charge on the matter. Regardless of what the neoconservatives cook up, this is not worth the lives of the 37,000 American troops and their families stationed in Korea. Their life expectancy in a war is probably ten minutes. They should not be there and this country is doing a disservice to them by leaving them there.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
We could lose easily if we fight conventionally against 1.2 million NK men. Since we are concious about casualties these days sadly. If we lose about 5,000 men and women in the battle for Korea, we may have to pull out.
Even if it looks like we are winning, losing 5,000 is not acceptable.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I can't understand how one can term utter destruction north of Busan as victory!!

Its not even pyrrhic!!
1 million men marching down a frontline barely 500km wide!!
With immense artillery coverfire..
Bio-chem weapons...sleeper agents.. its just overwhelming..



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Losing even one American troop in any crisis around the world is unacceptable. The citizens of the United States (meaning me!) pay taxes to support the military for OUR PROTECTION. Enough with all this bs, going all over the world and creating more problems for us in the future.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
It's a big planet, I believe that we can all get along. I just wish that a$$holes like Kim would shut up and die. What is the need for bio chemical weapons. Why does the US need to have thousands of nuclear missles. Why cant we all get along. There is no need for human life. just prosperity.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I don't North Korea will ever attack South Korea, unless the leader of North Korea know his regime will fall within soon.

North Korea could flatten Seoul in a day.

And North Korean ground forces would make good progress for about two weeks.

After that the ground battle would stablize and the air superiority and firepower will be the end of the North Korean gambit.

Why would a dictator blow its card of survival by invading South Korea?

Just my opinion.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
The PRC itself doesn't want this to end however as they use our 'defense' of Taiwan and Korea as a stalking horse justification to bleed us white with excessive defense spending and at the same time, they cannot afford the embarrassment of a flourishing, united, Korea because they are the ones who propped up Kim Il Sung to begin with and it would defacto mean admitting that 50 odd years of hereditary communist stupidity was entirely their doing.

KPl.


Well ch I have some bad new for you. The last thing China can do is bleed us (America) dry via defense spending. We're hardly spending anything at all.



[edit on 23-10-2006 by Number23]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join