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.

 

North-Korea Army

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
North Koren Army . . .

Lupe 101; In reality many countries now have nuclear weapons; U.S. , U.K., Russia, China, France, Isreal, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Ukraine and possibly several others so it is hardly correct to say we (U.S.) are "limiting" other countries possession of nuclear weapons.

And in the case of the only actual use of nuclear weapons Yes, it was the U.S. which used them. And we all know they were used against Japan, which at that time had a very repressive militaristic government. To get the Jappanese opinion of the use of the two bombs that ENDED W.W.II, from a Jappanese Minister who was one of the officals who signed the document ending the War read "Journy To The Missouri". In this Minister's opinion it (use of nuclear weapons) saved over 1,000,000 Japanese lives alone, including women, old and very young men and the infirm .

War is hell, War is a scourge of mankind, and Yes the U.S. along with many other countries (Russia, U.K., France and China) are attempting to limit or reduce the spread of these weapons, Not just the U.S.

All people are and should be concerned regarding the possiblity of armed conflicts, whether it be the U.S., France, U.K., China or ? What is required is to look at the reasons for an armed conflict, and the justifications for an armed conflict. In the case of Iraq, the world community (U.N. Security Council) has deemed it to be a worthy confrontation and to attempt to disarm Iraq's ability to wage a war of mass destruction.

Posted: 01/06/03
By: USAFSS-SP




posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 11:38 AM
link   
How do you suggest we educate the North Korean population or for that matter Iraqis? The govt. in those countries will NOT allow this for they know it's a threat to the top dog position. Aid? How much of the aid we send to korea actually goes to the people? 1% maybe 2? How about "Food for Oil"? Hmm, the humanitarian supplies being sent is used to buy trucks which in turn are mounted with missiles.
Now consider this. We remove the current regime and put in a "West friendly" government. Education flourishes the local economy skyrockets from once again being a world trade partner and everyone is happy. The country in question no longer needs to spend over a third of thier respective GNP on weapons to fight the West because they now have the protection of the U.N., Nato etc. All is peachy but the most important part is all in the very beginning...Remove the current regime. None of the rest can happen until that part is completed.
Additionally, before you say "let them do it internally" The people in these countries have no means to affect change in thier government in most cases they don't even know how bad they have it and when they do they are fed that it's all the great satans fault.

I'm no republican but I do agree with giving a hand up not a hand out. In this case a hand up is actually a fist coming down is all. I don't think Saddam or the dear leader will just take a walk for the good of the people. We're just escorting them to the door



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Blessed americans, living in the land of the free....

this may be a bit off topic but

WHY ON EARTH DO YOU WANT TO DEFEND A GOVERNMENT WHO LIES, BRAINWASHES AND IS WILLING
TO SHOOT YOUR HEAD OF JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY YOU HAVE SEEN AN UFO, WHICH THEY CLAIM DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!


THE ONLY THING YOU'RE DEFENDING IS ONE BIIIIG LIE

s*ck*rs


Sorry but I had to spit it out



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 12:07 PM
link   
you typically try to keep others from making the same grave mistake, especially when innocents are involved.

As for whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mistake, that is all rather academic, as it's history. The idea is that proliferation will eventually lead to use AGAIN, and nobody really wants that to happen. Nobody wants to see these things USED. Sure we have them, but we haven't used them in over 50 years, despite being involved in several conflicts. This is (I suppose) what defines us as "Stable" whereas others are "Unknowns" and as such aren't trusted by the international community to exercise responsibility with such weapons.



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 12:23 PM
link   
It can be looked at like firearms again in that context. Just because I have guns does not mean I am going out on a shooting spree. I have no criminal record and am not a violent psychopath so in my country I am deemed responsible enough to have firearms. If I start pointing guns at my neighbors or shooting family members I lose that right (as well as many others).
Who would you rather have for a next door neighbor?
The law abiding armed citizen who may save your life someday.
or
The crazy guy with guns who shot his cousin in his house and then decided he wanted the whole neighborhood to himself so he went into the house next door guns blazing. (Iraq)

or

The REALLY mysterious guy that has BIG expensive guns while his family starves in the basement while he tests those big expensive guns by shooting over your roof just to prove he can.
(Korea)

I know what my choice would be



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I read an interesting article a week or so ago in relation to N. Korea and it's nuke plans: Let Japan also go nuclear.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
.

1) 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.

2) 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.



1) You never miss an occasion to write something stupid !

You are really incredible. I wonder what's your going on in your mind.

2) For the first post, I was alone. But my wife came and asked what you was writing in your second post. After my translation, she had this word for you : Moron !


I'm sorry Lupe, it's not my fault.


[Edited on 8-1-2003 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 03:31 AM
link   
wow, did she get out of bed using a sling or did you hoist her over with some sort of special crane?



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Lupe, by 09:00 am, she was not sleeping anymore. But you, you are looking tired.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:22 PM
link   
"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."
Lupe that quote is from you and is moronic, never EVER has America since the only times they were ever used, use Nuclear weapons as a means of forcing policy.

In fact, NO ONE HAS, not even the soviets, get your head out of your A$s and stop saying that every evil man on the earth may have control of the grim reaper, because the only good on the planet has it locked away.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Lupe...so you think we should've invaded Japan with millions of troops instead of dropping two nukes on two cities??? Uh, more people would've died on both sides in that scenario.

By the way, fire-bombing cities in Japan killed more people than the two nukes we dropped.

[Edited on 8-1-2003 by MT69]



posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 06:47 PM
link   
MT69 & FM,

Lupe_101 will do/say EVERYTHING to proof that the US have ALLWAYS wrong and the others ALLWAYS right. If Satan and all his Hell Legions was attacking the USA and that God was defending the USA, he would fight WITH Satan against God, not because he hate God or like Satan, but because he hates the USA.


Lupe, how do you dare to protect nations like NK ??????
Did you ever seen, just one time, hw the NK peoples have to live ? Only because their leaders are all monsters ?

Sometimes, I'm blind. But you, you are ALLWAYS blind !



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:01 PM
link   
North Korea Army:

Regarding the ability or capacity of the North Korean Army to wage a war on the Korean Peninsula; I would like to add my opinion.

First we must admit that the Korean Army of over 1,000,000, IS a formidable force. Second it must be admitted that the NKA would have the advantage of fighting on their own soil.(usually causing more fierce effort). Third the effectiveness of Suprise (timing of an attack) cannot be underestimated. Fourth the willingness and/or capacity of the South Korean Army to resist is in question. Fifth there has been a significant "draw-down" of U.S. Forces pledged to support an armed conflict in Korea, due to the pending Iraq conflict.

In my studied opinion, IF the North Korean Army should strike across the DMZ in great numbers, thereby engaging the U.S. Army deployed there, the U.S. would be initially overwhelmed, suffering significant casualties and requiring the U.S. to resort to the use of nuclear weapons (At least in the "tactical range") to support the defense of our ground forces. Our (U.S.) Air Forces and Naval Forces striking from Bases outside of Korea (Japan, Okinawa, Carriers) using conventional munitions would be used to permit either a "re-grouping" of U.S. Forces in Korea (prior to a political agreement) OR a structured withdrawal of U.S. Forces to Bases in Japan, Okinawa or Hawaii . Not a good forecast, but I do feel that if N. Korea is set upon confrontation & possible war with the U.S. then we (U.S.) must either strike first or we will lose a ground war, at least in the early stages. Just My Opinion.

Pray For Peace; Prepare For War.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Your opinion is not stupid USAFSS-SP. USA have just 27.000 soldiers in South-Korea. But I don't know how many soldiers has SK.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Good assessment USAFSS-SP - I must say.

This Kim character is getting crazier by the day. NK said any more sanctions would mean war. He's firing up a reactor that has no use other than providing a tiny amount of power AND producing nuclear weapons. They agreed to stop their nuke programs for oil and safe reactors - but didn't live up to its end.

So, the world will be poised to renegotiate another agreement in which we'll be giving them something or another. And everyone will think they are going to live up to the new agreement. Which they dont and we shouldnt believe they will.

Now, they're withdrawing from a nuke treaty. And *willing* to talk about a crisis THEY started. All the while they've been blaming the US for everything. Take any situation w/ NK (geez, or anywhere else) and somehow someway it's ALWAYS the US at fault - no matter WHAT - it's absurd.

I think from the get go the US should have said no comment in re NK and referred the matter to the UN and NKs neighbors.

Military wise NK is powerful. The world feeds NK while they build their military. Seoul is in artillery range (God I would hate to be living there now!). The US has a small force there as a stopgap (40k soldiers?) which would be overrun, no doubt. If they were to invade is would be a mess. Not to mention missiles that could strike Japan. I would surely hope that there would be some help from Russia and maybe China if this were to happen. I think China needs to do more than wish for a nuclear free Korean peninsula. How long is the world going to let this monster grow? Oh - Let Japan go nuclear?


[Edited on 10-1-2003 by Bob88]



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The US has 37000 soilders and Marines on the DMZ. My opinion is that we could see a repeat of the last Korean War the ROK and US forces would trade ground to over extend the NKA. Once the NKA had stuck itself in too far US airpower stiking from carriers and Japan would pound their LOC (line of communication) into dust then the USMC would land forces on both coastlines which would fight their way into the central area of South Korea thus cutting the NKA off encircling them and destroying them.
As for this whole Nuke argument.. I have no problem with NK having nukes it is the offensive missle program that is a problem. They have demonstrated a policy of intemidating the south. I believe they are at the end of their rope and this is a way of trying to force unification they are hoping we will stand by as they roll into Seol because they have threatend to go Nuke. Or that the south will seek unification under KJI and his commie's because they fear a Nuke exchange. THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE US!! The reason we have held NK to its promise is because SK is our allie and we protect our alliesTHATS WHY THERE IS A DMZ!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
We wouldn't use tactical nukes in Korea unless they used WMD first. The exisiting American forces in Korea are a speed bump until we can bring enough firepower from the rest of PACCOM, CENTCOM and the CONUS forces.

American airpower would slowly wear down the NK forces and eventually the replacement ground forces would push NK back to their holes in the north. No need for nukes in NK.

Chinese involvement would determine how far the war would go. If they stepped in and supported NK like in the first war, then we'd have a mess on our hands. If they for some weird reason stood by as American technology ripped NK apart, then we'd eventually wipe out the Communists in NK in about 1-2 years.

[Edited on 11-1-2003 by MT69]



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 12:08 PM
link   
MT69, tacticals nukes are not wmd.So, why not used them if necessary ?

A mini-nuke, well placed in their ass...and bye bye the NK nomenklatura.



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
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]


Lupe, we basicly helped them rebuilded Hirosihma and Nagasaki. After we bombed Afganistan we helped rebuild. We haelped those we have hurt, but now Saddam.



posted on Jan, 12 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
If this thread comes back to Planet Earth -which appears unlikely - then the original figures might bear some inspection.
Remember that a 1m NK Army probably means 700,000 field infantry -1m for the West would mean 200,000 infantry on a good day. These people require no support, no D-J's, and no e-mails: just bullets and rice/noodles.
It would be an infantry war -unless there were a massive pe-emptive US strike (inconceivable, given things might miss -and then China, Japan and SK would be very upset).
The North Korean Army would not be easy because it would be infantry warfare on an allys soil and theyre tough and desperate and probably indifferent to casualties. The US was stronger relatively- in 1950. Militarily and strategically, they were ahead of the USSR, occupied in Europe, recovering from WWII and Stalin very ill. Economically, the US was unique: Britain ruined, Europe devastated, Korea a peasant economy, Japan a colony. The US still couldnt win. America could not accept the casualty levels -at present -that a Korean war would imply.
If ever there was a forgotten war except among Vets and their families and friends, it was the Korean unpleasantness. Worse than Vietnam where there was never the sight of US units in full retreat. And that after Great General Doug had insisted that no more than his famous arrogant display of US might would save the day.
The US was chased from Seoul to Pusan and when it recovered and fought to the Chinese border, the Red Chinese joined in and chased the US back again.
Just try a search for Task Force Smith or Chongchon River to grasp how bad for America a war here would be. And it will be an infantry war it will all happen in S. Korea.
Thank goodness this is just media silliness.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join