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.


North-Korea Army

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2002 @ 06:24 PM
Pop : 21.2 millions.

Budget : 26.6 % ( GDP ).

Defense Force : 1.3 millions.

- Regulars Troops :

1) Army : 1 millions.

2) Navy : 46.000

3) Air Force : 82.000

and many auto-defense militias ( +/- 275.000 )

They are the most paranoids peoples from the whole world.

This US SpySatellite pic show us the difference between the North and the South.

Blacks areas = undeveloped areas. ( In the North, only Pyongyang is developed )

Blue areas = developed areas. ( The South )

Some pics from North-Korea :

Gallery 1

Gallery 2

posted on Jan, 5 2003 @ 10:02 AM
Any attack by the North would be total halted in 24 hours and would total doom the North's leadership.
The US would use tactical nukes, "those new mini-nuke bunker busters", to kill off the leadership. And Japan would pitch in, it has the largest Navy in Asia. The key is to get China involved in the war and dump North Korea on their lap. That way they would be forced to spend the billions of dollars needed to rebuild the North and not us in the west.

posted on Jan, 5 2003 @ 12:53 PM
I would tend to agree with Oraclewow, that should North Korea be foolish enough to provacate a U.S. response, it would go badly for them. Our superior technology gives us an edge that would be almost impossible to withstand or recover from, if we launched an attack.

With nuclear subs that could sit off the coast and launch cruise missiles, we could land a devastating wallop and severely damage North Koreas military infrastructure before they knew what hit them. Also, our unmanned drone systems like the Predator allow us to spy and attack without any losses to human life.

I watched a program about the Gulf War and our superior firepower and level of training made mincemeat out the Saddams armoured divisions.

I watched a documentary on the Discovery channel about our Stealth technology and it's incredible. Our adversaries were firing into the skies long after we had been in, done our business and flown away - all undetected by their radar defenses.

I also saw our new generation tanks. They kind of look like tanks but also quite different. The gun is diamond shaped and fires some sort of mini-missile.

If those weapons systems are on TV, just imagine what we have thats still classified.

I suspect that North Korea is just having a temper tantrum because they want & expect more aid from the U. S. They would be well advised to back off and re-think their strategy because Japan would become involved to protect their own security and China doesnt need a military conflict just across the border. This entire move by North Korea is a lose / lose situation for them.

Hoping it all blows over without incident,

posted on Jan, 5 2003 @ 10:27 PM
i would agree with you about N. Korea getting their rearends whooped. however the reason they came clean about their nuclear weapons is so they don't suffer the same fate as Iraq. It was a "hey we got nukes and we're telling you about them, so please don't kick our ass". I applaud them for that but dammit shut down your reactors before it get's your ass kicked. Welcome to the nuclear club (i guess), now get to dismantaling your stuff or i promise G.W.Bush is gonna make your country into a military training exercise.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 05:53 AM

why shouldn't they have nukes, we have nukes, we're still researching how to improve them. Whats everyones problem with other countrys owning indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

as far as I know the US is the only country stupid enough to have used them anyway, I'm far more scared of a nuke coming from the US than from Iraq, Korea, russia, anywhere.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 09:28 AM
Lupe has us figured out!!! Our secret plan to nuke all of our allies into oblivion has been discovered. What will we do now!?!?!?!?

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 09:39 AM
no, I simply suspect that the US will eventually hold the rest of the world under the threat of nuclear attack and use this to sway foreign governments, and create new ones.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 09:50 AM
The last time I heard the only nuclear power that currently has your country targetted with nukes IS... Russia. So you are more fearful of america launching on you even as we supply you with top of the line military hardware?
Me thinks you need to step back from the blind anti american stance once in a while and think about what you are saying.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:01 AM
The US is currently and aggressively instigating political change in a country through the threat of force.

Its allready done it once in afghanistan and now the propaganda machine has allready started prepareing us for the next step which will probably be Korea.

after that, who knows.

and the US is a nuclear super power.

If any other country in the world was doing this I would be worried.

you have to understand there are no special rules for the us, no reason why I shouldn't regard their global actions with any less intrepedation than if Russia had decided to start removing foreign governments and putting russia friendly governments in their place, or if England started blowing up african states and replacing them with British governments.

The US is currently the most agressive and destructive country on the planet and is currently engaged in an ongoing campaign with an amorphous undefined enemy allowing it to attack any country it suspects of being part of some ambiguous axis of evil.

and it has nuclear weapons.

so thats it the basic facts.

large aggressive country,.
nuclear weapons.
using its military force to remove foreign governments.
and it shows no sign of stopping nor does it suggest what the parameters or limits of its "war" are.

so yeah.

I'm a hell of a lot more scared of Bush than I am of Hussein, Ossamma, or the friggin Yeti.

and, believe it or not, rather a lot of other people are too.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:22 AM
I would be a lot more afraid of the British police/military. You see, they have already disarmed YOU and they still carry guns. Why should the british citizens not be allowed to carry guns when they do? Only seems fair right? Oh yeah, the citizens won't use them responsibly. The citizens voted for it so in a way they made an agreement not to have these weapons. Now if you are caught with one you are punished and disarmed right?

Sounds familiar huh?
That makes your government the super power domestically.

Now as far as Russia aggressively instigating political change in a country through the threat of force.
..They did. Many times.
As did and do the British, Dutch, French etc. (Falklands, Antilles, Gabon etc) and yes, I know about Guam and the other little islands we have too.
Now if we started conquering other countries and calling them provinces then I would be more concerned. As it stands now I don't see this as being a matter of Conquest as much as policing.
What do you think?

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:31 AM
I think you answered your question when you pointed out that british citizens cant carry guns but the police can.

its analagous of what the US are doing, they can carry guns (nukes) but the rest of the world can't.

if you don't agree with the concept domestically in britain how can you defend the policy globally by america?

I see, your suggesting that places like Iraq are too "stupid to use guns sensibly"

I might agree with that, however as far as I can tell the only country to have used a nuclear / atomic weapon (a stupid act regardless of the situation) I really can't say I trust them to use these things any more responsibly than Hussein.

[Edited on 6-1-2003 by Lupe_101]

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:42 AM
The difference is that Korea made an agreement with the rest of the world as you did with your government. They have broken that agreement now and just as if you decided to walk down the street with an AK-47 saying "forget the law" the police will come after you. The same goes with N. Korea. We just happen to be the police in this case.

Contrary to your apparent perceptions, not EVERYONE in America has a firearm. There are strict (and getting stricter) background checks in almost all states here.
I personally would back more testing of potential gun owners as well. I don't want a lunatic running around with a gun any more than anyone else. I see it the same way with the Nuke club.
and BTW before you throw out "The US was the only one to ever use nukes..." argument. Should the police be disarmed because they have used the weapons at their disposal to stop a crime?

edit lol, I see you edited while I typed this

[Edited on 6-1-2003 by Fry2]

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:51 AM
I know not everyone carries in the US just as I know that not everyone is into the whole "kill the rag heads" mentality, I spent a fair amount of time in the US and the perception that I'm "anti-american" simply springs from the same sloping foreheaded inbreeds who think that being against a foreign policy means you hate their country. morons.

Korea broke an agreement? well gosh haven't we all?
we should also be aware that we don't subscribe to agreements we enforce on others, korea and the conventional land mines act being a prime example of how we prescribe one rule for the rest of the world and another for us.

Biological weapons research? we do that, we have to, you don't gain information on a threat without research.
nuclear prolification, yup thats us, sell arms to and harbour terrorsists, dictatorships, yes we happily engage in that but if we catch a whiff of some back water third world country doing it BAM! were down like a tonne of bricks.

presumably they're too uncivilised and corrupt to be able to deal with the barbaric indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction we covet so much.

global stability cannot begin when these levels of hypocracy are being demonstrated by those who are supposed to be leading the moral way.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 10:59 AM
Well yes Saddam is to stupid to have WMD's.He has used them on his own people.

And look at what these third world countries/terroists are doing with simple explosives.

Yeah, you right lupe,they should be allowed to have WMD.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:01 AM
So what would you suggest? Just have a yard sale and invite everyone to come buy some nukes? Never mind how they will be used just go back to my young school days of the siren going off once a week and the old "Duck and Cover" farce that we practiced during the Cuban missile crisis? No thanks.
I would be infinitely happy if NO ONE had the damned things but I doubt I'll see that day in my lifetime. For now I'll settle with trying to keep the proliferation to a minimum.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:04 AM
everytime this comes up we get "AND HE USED THEM AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE" like this somehow makes what he did worse than say, dropping several megatons of atomic radiation on men women and children at Hiroshima or Bombing hospitals and schools to pieces at dresden.

who people use WMD's against isn't the point, they're indescriminate, they destroy innocents.

The US killed plenty of innocents at Hiroshima, Hussein killed plenty of Kurds, why is one an evil dictator and the other a benevolent peace keeper?

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:07 AM
Ummm, one was a declared war and the other was an attempt at ethnic cleansing perhaps?

P.S. It was kilotons back then not mega

[Edited on 6-1-2003 by Fry2]

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:14 AM
my suggestion, as its allways been, is to lead by example and attempt to befriend countrys, change their views through education and political pressure, spend the several billion dollars your about to explode all over the middle east on rebuilding poorer countrys political and financial infrastructure.

do that and you'd have less poor hungry depressed people.

less poor hungry depressed people means theres no one for evil nasty people to manipulate.

no one for evil nasty people to manipulate meens no terrorists.

and no terrorists means your two towers would still be there and ~that~ would mean you didn't have to spend billions blowing up random bits of desert and the odd hospital which could mean you could spend it on rebuilding poorer countrys political and financial infrastructure.

wow see, instead of a vicious circle where hate creates war creates poverty creates more war you've got a nice productive circle where tollerance and aid and peace creates wealth creates more aid creates more tollerance.

then we could all get rid of our nukes and I wouldn't have to come here and bitch about how pissed the worlds getting with US foreign policy.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:16 AM
"Ummm, one was a declared war and the other was an attempt at ethnic cleansing perhaps? "

whenever it comes up people tell me it was to send them a clear signal that if they didn't surrender we'd "cleanse" their entire country. and equatable numbers were killed in both instances through the initial blast and its future ramifications.

I really don't think you can play the morality card here whichever way you see it.

we blew up a # load of civillians and told them we'd do the rest if they didn't comply, hussein killed a bunch over a longer period of time, thats all.

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:21 AM
I see it like this, about that whole Kurd thing: two first graders where fighting in the school yard( Iraq v. Iran) and a HS kid ( USA) comes along and gives one kid brass knuckles & a switchblade ( Reagan giving Iraq bio and chemical weapons starter kits), then turning his back and claiming " it's just two little kids going at it".

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in