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.

 

US ready for ‘conventional’ war with N. Korea

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

The US is "prepared" to engage in a 'conventional' war with North Korea but it requires time to adjust to the new front, says the military.

Gen. George Casey appearing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday said the US was ready to enter an old-fashioned war with North Korea if necessary.

Full Article Here


I'm surprised the U.S. has not began assaulting North Korea yet, didn't take them long to decide to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh yeah that's because they also have lots of oil and figured it would be an easy sweep, but we all know how that turned out. I think the U.S. is just bluffing in my opinion ... I mean if you're not going to attack a country for testing some nuclear missiles when you tell them they can't what's the worst they could do besides actually attacking someone? is that what they're waiting for? or are they waiting to see if the sanctions will hold?

What are your thoughts?




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
and the money to pay for this will come from.......where exactly?

oh the taxpayer, right right




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I think they have a lot of irons in the fire already. I'm sure TPTB would love nothing more than to send a few thousand more of our boys to a grinder in some other country to die for some more lies....but they are busy making the plans for the other two (at least) countries already in line for invasion. They are not alowed to skip to the ice cream before they eat their vegetables. Even irresponsible, murdering liars have rules they must follow.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


Reason for going into Iraq- Fear of WoMD.

Reason for not going into N. Korea even though they do have WoMD and working ones- Not enough oil....



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
would a conventional war be cheaper than a modern war??

i would imagine that a conventional war would lead to many casualties, as it did in many other conventional wars.

could this be a ploy by the government to strain more american industries in order to force bankruptcy and full scale nationalization of american industry?

i guess only time will tell, i dont think we have the funds to support this with the way the economy is going, and its only going to get worse if we go to war.

special interests will be served, with the cost of blood. A gamble they have always been willing to take.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by phi1618
 


America would be very hard-pressed to battle a conventional war with North Korea. It's not Iraq. They are actually a highly organised and highly trained military force, not a 'joke' like Iraq. North Korea has massive and well equipped air force and navys. They have a standing army of 3.6 million soldiers, the largest in the world. They have heaps and heaps of combat and support vehicles and they're extremely fanatical.
I personally don't believe that the USA could win a conventional war against North Korea in North Korea. They would have to use unconventional weapons. Unless of course the USA was willing to sacrifice something like 2-4 million soldiers, which it doesn't have nowadays.

Here's some advice to the USA. Use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, today.

Also, a lot of weak, politically correct, left wing pussies whinge and moan when 6000 soldiers die in Iraq over a period of 6 years, they think that's a high body count. In ww2 some battles claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a single day. In a single day. This would be the kind of losses you can expect froma conventional war in North Korea. Are the liberals ready for that? I don't think so.

The US ready for 'conventional war' with North Korea? No, they're not!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by NathanNewZealand]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
reply to post by phi1618
 


America would be very hard-pressed to battle a conventional war with North Korea. It's not Iraq. They are actually a highly organised and highly trained military force, not a 'joke' like Iraq. North Korea has massive and well equipped air force and navys. They have a standing army of 3.6 million soldiers, the largest in the world. They have heaps and heaps of combat and support vehicles and they're extremely fanatical.
I personally don't believe that the USA could win a conventional war against North Korea in North Korea. They would have to use unconventional weapons. Unless of course the USA was willing to sacrifice something like 2-4 million soldiers, which it doesn't have nowadays.

Here's some advice to the USA. Use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, today.

Also, a lot of weak, politically correct, left wing pussies whinge and moan when 6000 soldiers die in Iraq over a period of 6 years, they think that's a high body count. In ww2 some battles claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a single day. In a single day. This would be the kind of losses you can expect froma conventional war in North Korea. Are the liberals ready for that? I don't think so.

The US ready for 'conventional war' with North Korea? No, they're not!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by NathanNewZealand]



You couldnt be more correct Sir. I'm in the miltary right now, Japan to be exact, from what I see on a day to day basis, not much is going on here with the miltary besides our daily duties. No one is freaking out about N.Korea, its just a stunt they pull just about every year to show the world they are still here being a thorn in our side. As for a conventional war, its not going to happen, we learned that tactic doesnt work. Its all about taking out targets from Miles and Miles away. We cant afford to lose troops to a Byonett charge like the used to do. We stand back and fire missles and take out the things that are going to cause the most problems. Its pointless to send people into a meat grinder. WE know this, but they know it to, a War with todays weapons is going to be a HUGE MESS, for both countries.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Too bad they didn't save the war machine for something that actually mattered... now one of the largest military nations on earth is gonna throw the A bomb around and the US will not be ready.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


No it is not lack of oil in NK.

First give Obama some credit please. He's not GWBush.

Second the danger is creating a wider conflict with China.

Thirdly the Bush administration created false justifications. The Obama administration is reluctant to act until NK clearly trangresses. I think Obama is to be commended for his handling.

You people are too stingey with your praise of Obama. I guarantee that he has leaned on China to close it's border with North Korea.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   



I'm surprised the U.S. has not began assaulting North Korea yet, didn't take them long to decide to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh yeah that's because they also have lots of oil and figured it would be an easy sweep, but we all know how that turned out.


Well, they're overstretched. Who's he going to send in to do the fighting? The cast of 'Greys Anatomy'?? The Denver Broncos?? Chuck Norris and the Monday Night RAW roster???

That was one of the things that really bugged me about the Iraq war (not the main thing that bugged me about it, obviously). It occurred to me at the time (when it became obvious that the thing was going to drag on, and on, and on) that if anything REAL kicked off somewhere, USA would be bogged down in a largely pointless struggle.

Everyone took their eye off the ball re. NKorea... and lookie at the mess now.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
reply to post by phi1618
 


America would be very hard-pressed to battle a conventional war with North Korea. It's not Iraq. They are actually a highly organised and highly trained military force, not a 'joke' like Iraq. North Korea has massive and well equipped air force and navys. They have a standing army of 3.6 million soldiers, the largest in the world. They have heaps and heaps of combat and support vehicles and they're extremely fanatical.
I personally don't believe that the USA could win a conventional war against North Korea in North Korea. They would have to use unconventional weapons. Unless of course the USA was willing to sacrifice something like 2-4 million soldiers, which it doesn't have nowadays.

Here's some advice to the USA. Use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, today.

Also, a lot of weak, politically correct, left wing pussies whinge and moan when 6000 soldiers die in Iraq over a period of 6 years, they think that's a high body count. In ww2 some battles claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a single day. In a single day. This would be the kind of losses you can expect froma conventional war in North Korea. Are the liberals ready for that? I don't think so.

The US ready for 'conventional war' with North Korea? No, they're not!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by NathanNewZealand]


hmmm...I wonder just how 'fanatical' they are. I doubt there are 2.3m or whatever number of people in any given country dumb enough to believe the BS that the NK 'administration' spews out. I wonder how much of this fanatacism is based on the fact military personnel are more likely to get fed than non-military. I also wonder about how well-equipped they are.

Meanwhile left-wing pussies whinge about deaths moreso when kids die for f***-all. In WW2 there was a point to it all. Anyway, I doubt that General dude was talking about sending in the boys on horseback with swords, or trench warfare, or whatever your gung-ho, glorious vision of conventional warfare is.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
They are ready but need more time?

What a stupid thing to say to the press.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I think you guys are misreading the quote. He's saying the US can fight a "conventional" as in warfare using non-nuclear weapons. Someone pointed out in another thread the missle capabilities of our sub's and other missle capable naval vessels. From that perspective, yeah, the US could inflict a considerable amount of tactical damage.



-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eniac
 



There's absolutely plenty of NK'ers who are totally mentally fanatic about their Glorious Leader - & the majority of the whole population are in the army. As a country they might not spend so much on food or much of anything but by-gum they'll spend $$$ on the military. Sure, some of them are fanatic through necessity (food & survival etc - the military are better fed) some are fanatic through fear of the brutal regime - but actually a surprising proportion are just plain old fanatic through undying love for their Glorious Leader.

The rest of them are either not so bothered or desperate to get out & leave cos they hate it so much - but those really are the minority there.

[edit on 1/6/2009 by moobaawoof]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
What I find interesting is that North Korea has been a target of a prayer campaign by many christians on behalf of the poor North Korean church, which is being slaughtered by their 'dear' leader.

Last time this sort of prayer mobilization happened, the Soviet Union fell. Now I see that their satanic leader is about to be introduced to his master in hell and I see that the regime may be committing suicide by escalating their war footing.

It could still end well if we get regime change out of this, and some relief for the poor victims of his work camps.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


I'm guessing you're referencing to the U.S.'s deployments in the 'wars' in Iraq/Afghanistan/surrounding area? If you are, I agree ... they were and it seems to me like they still are focusing too much military in those places and need to save more supplies/troops for other problems that are developing elsewhere.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by eniac

Meanwhile left-wing pussies whinge about deaths moreso when kids die for f***-all. In WW2 there was a point to it all. Anyway, I doubt that General dude was talking about sending in the boys on horseback with swords, or trench warfare, or whatever your gung-ho, glorious vision of conventional warfare is.


You talk like a ten year old. So how on earth have you the right to accuse anybody of any political leaning of anything, let alone 'being a pussies'.

Maybe it's just a little thing called a conscience.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
A conventional war is a very bad idea, a previous poster used the phrase sending men into a meat grinder... I would say that's about right.

Is there some reason Obama wants to loose that many American lives?

I hope talk of a conventional war is just to keep the words moving until either the whole deal dies down or NK gets sucker punched with tactical nukes.

North Korea has the potential for being some very nice real estate - it's just the current occupants are a little bit bothersome.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by baseball101
 


The US has been struggling with those wars as it is. It's been extremely difficult to drum up popular support every time they decide to 'surge' Iraqistan. Their last major surge in Afghanistan involved sending in 20 000 fresh troops, an astronomical number considering the circumstances.

North Korea has over 1 000 000 ground troops, all of whom are probably running drills this very moment, and probably have been their entire lives; they are ready.

I just found this interesting article pertaining to the succession of Kim Jong-Il which adds an interesting spin to the purpose of NK's recent devious actions. The guy is going to die pretty soon most likely, so he has named his successor who happens to be his youngest son of +-25 years of age.

It is very possible that all of this pomp regarding military splendour and the acquisition of the bomb has merely been a display, not to the international community, but rather to the North Korean people themselves to indicate the strength and power of the current regime/dynasty at the moment the baton of power is to be handed to a man in his mid twenties.

Personally, I think NK's leadership is realistic; they know they will be destroyed by SK, the US, Japan especially, and even Russia. Pomposity and propaganda looks are far more likely explanation for this whole debacle.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Forgot to link the article


Today from the BBC:

North Korea names Kim's successor



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join