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.

 

This is why North Korea is dangerous! ALL READ!

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


guess you didn't bother to cross check the "facts" in your propaganda piece.

the t-62 is a fairly old tank. it was produced from 1961 to 1975. has a 115mm smooth bore main gun. has to stop to aquire its target and fire/

the U.S. M1A1 has a 120 mm smooth bore main gun, can shoot on the go and has a greater range and more accurate .
the t-62 tank is no match for the M1A1 let alone the M1A2 tanks that are in service in the U.S. now.

I'm not even going to discuss the rest of this POS propaganda piece you posted as proof that NK has a better Military.

OP before you believe anything you read on the internet check the sources then double check the known facts for yourself!

and OP No one is saying that a war with NK is going to be another desert storm, we all know it will be a much tougher war. The regular army troops might be willing to fight to the death but the everyday NK is not! they are starving, all the food goes to the government and the military not the people that need it.

and they might have a larger standing army, and more equipment, but most of their equipment is obsolete to today's standards. and their larger standing army makes for better bomb targets that a few guys that can easily hide in an Iraqi market.

Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different types of war than what a War with NK would be like.

A war with NK would be large scale Battles in mountains and valleys. something most U.S. Army units have trained for since WWII!

I guess you forgot about all those troops we had stationed in Germany after WWII. what did you think they were over their to look pretty? NO the were over there learning how to fight against russian tanks in mountains.

the exact scenario they would face in NK.

Again op like many have told you in this thread learn some history and check your facts before you try to speak in public so you don't look like a fool.




posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Maybe you need to go back and take a 3rd grade reading COMPREHENSION class. I NEVER insinuated North Korea has a better military than us. That's ignorant. My point was most of you are completely downplaying the NK threat to the tune of being a bunch of starving, barefoot, grass hut living despots. And it's funny out of the entire list of things to criticize you find one? LMAO! And you say a war with NK would be in mountains and valleys. What he hell do you think Afghanistan is? And we are no closer to winning that war or whatever you want to call it than when we started.

And I guess having the most advanced technology in the world and what not is doing wonders in Afghanistan. Typical military lackey who can't see the forest for the trees.


[edit on 25-6-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Actually,
North Korea has been preparing for war with South Korea and ultimately the US for better than half a century.

I was deployed in South Korea for a year and a half back in the mid eighties and six months of that was on the DMZ. It was widely understood by troops back then that we were a "speed bump" and that was basically it. Our job was just to slow them down a bit while the South Koreans set up their defense of Seoul and sent as many civilians south as possible and the US deployed the main forces to the far east.

The US Govt. will decide either to fully to fight them on the ground in the south or go in and bomb them back into the stone age in the north or a combination of both. This choice will be determined mainly by the prevailing policy at the time.

The US will have no need to occupy North Korea and it would be very costly to do so. The line of defence would be drawn as far north as possible and everything between it and China would be turned into a wasteland.

It would be a huge loss for South Korea and North Korea.

It would be a huge waste of human life and massive drain on resources for the US and anybody else who helped.

Ultimately it is unwinnable for North Korea so would make no real sense but Kim Jong Il doesn't necessarily care about what makes sense.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



Maybe you need to go back and take a 3rd grade reading COMPREHENSION class. I NEVER insinuated North Korea has a better military than us. That's ignorant. My point was most of you are completely downplaying the NK threat to the tune of being a bunch of starving, barefoot, grass hut living despots. And it's funny out of the entire list of things to criticize you find one? LMAO! And you say a war with NK would be in mountains and valleys. What he hell do you think Afghanistan is? And we are no closer to winning that war or whatever you want to call it than when we started.

And I guess having the most advanced technology in the world and what not is doing wonders in Afghanistan. Typical military lackey who can't see the forest for the trees.


[edit on 25-6-2009 by Zosynspiracy]


Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq


Casualties in Afghanistan:
Afghan troops killed 11,152
Afghan troops seriously injured 33,456
Afghan civilians killed 7,589
Afghan civilians seriously injured 13,660
U.S. troops killed 682
U.S. troops seriously injured 2,046
Other coalition troops killed 382
Other coalition troops seriously injured 1,146
Contractors killed 75
Contractors seriously injured 2,428
Journalists killed 6
Journalists seriously injured unknown
Total killed in Afghanistan: 19,886
Total injured in Afghanistan: 52,736


Looks like our modern technology is prevailing after all. The war is not being lost on a military scale that I have ever seen. Seems to me that the only loss that is being portrayed is that of a bias media to the event.


Iraqi troops killed 30,000
Iraqi troops seriously injured 90,000
Iraqi civilians killed 697,523
Iraqi civilians seriously injured 1,255,541
U.S. troops killed 4,295
U.S. troops seriously injured 31,156
Other coalition troops killed 318
Other coalition troops seriously injured 10,821
Contractors killed 933
Contractors seriously injured 10,569
Journalists killed 163
Journalists seriously injured unknown
Total killed in Iraq: 733,232
Total injured in Iraq: 1,398,087


Once again the technology seems to me to be the dominating force. I am not condoning any of the actions over seas but I am stating that our military is far superior than most.

The fact is that the media is making it sound worse over there than what it is. Our troops are not dying like the media makes it out like. You need to get your facts straight. Most of us do not take kindly to half truths backed by little data other than what the other side is saying.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


There is no need to polarise the issue - you are comparing the two poorest countries on earth to the richest - almost ridiculous - seriously. North Korea is one of a very few and select countries to have Nuclear Capacity - further any ground invasion can not in any way be compared to invading Iraq nor Afghanistan.

The outcome is entirely dependant on what is sought.

Finally - the US is withdrawing from Iraq basically under a white flag - that should tell you a great deal about technology - it fail in a guerilla war.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


There is no need to polarise the issue - you are comparing the two poorest countries on earth to the richest - almost ridiculous - seriously. North Korea is one of a very few and select countries to have Nuclear Capacity - further any ground invasion can not in any way be compared to invading Iraq nor Afghanistan.

The outcome is entirely dependant on what is sought.

Finally - the US is withdrawing from Iraq basically under a white flag - that should tell you a great deal about technology - it fail in a guerilla war.


How has the US failed at a "guerilla" war in Iraq or Afghanistan? The numbers do not show failure. People need to quit basing their oppinions on what the media and "anti-war" propogand artists are telling you, and start looking at the numbers.

I am not saying there will not be more casualties but they as these listed in my above post will be more one sided.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
For me this part of the "piece" sealed the deal for me as being pure propaganda.

"North Korea has developed special bikes for mountain warfare. Special forces use these bikes for fast deployments on mountains. Switzerland is the only other nation that has bike-mounted special forces trained for mountain warfare."

The U.S. Special Forces have utilized and trained on specialized ATV'S, sand buggies, and motocross bikes since the mid 70's. The person who wrote this knows nothing of our special forces capabilities. My cousin was an aggressor army moto-bike operator in the 80's becasue of his past racing dirtbikes. He helped train our green-berets and other spec ops as well as helped teach 10th mountain trainees how to combat against vehicles used in mountainous terrain.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
If N Korea went to war, they wouldn't have the means to feed their people. They'll just starve to death guarding their trenches.

It funny because if u live in China looking over into N Korea. The whole country looks like a wasteland, while China has modern sky scappers and buildings. You can see the people looking over.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I think the big thing a lot of people forget is that it won't be just the US vs. North Korea. South Korea is far from being a pushover for its brothers in the north. Not only is it of substantially higher quality than the North Korean military, but their numbers nothing to scoff at either. While the total forces in South Korea are very outnumbered it's no where near as bad as it looks as when you're just comparing the US forces stationed there.

I also think it's very likely that we'll see some sort of action from the Japanese Self Defense Force. I'd be willing to bet that they'd push an amendment through their constitution through to all them to go on the offensive. At the very least I suspect they'd be providing an immense amount of logistical support and likely a lot of medical support as well.

I also suspect the possibility of China or Russia launching their own invasions in order to make a grab for North Korea's resources.

Simply put, the odds are highly against North Korea. It's already well known that the quality of their military is exceptionally low, and the kind of coalition that would be raised to fight them could potentially match them in numbers, even outnumbering them by a huge margin if China gets in on the action.



posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
S&F for you OP. I love the armchair warriors on these forums that all claim to know exactly how well armed the NK are nd their battle strategies, and how long it ill take for us to beat them.

It has been nearly impossible for us to plant any intellience on the ground in NK, and all we know about them is what our spy planes can apture from the air, yet a few ATS posters know everything they are capable of. You guys should report your recon to the government. I'm sure they will be overjoyed to know how easy a war with NK is going to be.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
True, if they do have any high tech modern equipment(tanks,aircraft,etc.)they sure are hiding it well. I don't think one of the posters gets it yet,
Afgan.- Guirella war, no "hard targets". No miltary bases, logistics lines to attack.
Iraq- Was conventional for the first week or so untill the Iraqi military was defeated, now its also a gurrilla war. The "freedom fighters"/"Terrorists" don't have fixed bases or supply routes that can be cut.
NK- Would be a very conventional war, with large airbases, industrial centers, supply routes and tank depots that could be destroyed in a matter of a few days by both stealth aircraft and cruise missiles from offshore. Economic, military and industrial targets would not last very long.

Response to a post about the US being "rusty" at conventional warfare.
Don't kid yourself. I just got out of the Marine Corps last year. We don't spend all that time and money sitting on our butts all day doing nothing. We still train for conventional warfare, we just supplement it with alot of guirella warfare tactics because of the current wars we are in.

Don't get me wrong, I"m not saying we wouldn't take massive casulties-if we even sent ground troops in. They are a huge destabilizing power in the region and I don't think the US and SK would be fighting alone.
I don't think however that the US will attack NK for no reason yet, they will have to act first(could always be wrong though...look at Iraq).

To be fair though, everything I know about NK I"ve heard from the MSM and a few military intell sources, maybe we've all been fed a spoonfull of horse@##%. But I don't really think so.

Remember the video from the news of the opening of the Iraq war? In Baghdad and around the country they were being bombed by warplanes and cruise missiles. THat would be NK, but on a much more massive scale.
SK would be in a verrrrry bad spot though.....

Sorry about any spelling or factual errors...I've been up all night and my light is off so its a bit hard for me to type at the moment. I welcome any arguements for anyting above I said though.

One last thing. Does anyone think the common NK person would want another war? I suppose many forgot about the Korean war, but if the conventional army was defeated, would they stand and fight a gurilla war? If they did we very much would find ourselves in a positiion like Viietnam, Afganistan and Iraq.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by eightonefive
 


Not all of us are "armchair warriors". Some of us are real warriors.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This statement really only shows a goverment that has constructed a army with the primary aim of a conventional defencive force capeability only.There was not much mentioned about there navy or airforce.The rest of the world would proberly be more worried if a country like north korea had a naval streagth simlar to the united states.Unfortunatly that country will never have a navy anywhere near the streagth of the united states.The nuclear force is very limited and the united states are much more advanced in nuclear weapony than north korea.I could not see the north koreans launching a massive nuclear strike against the united states anytime soon.The united states has got very good intellegence about north korea but there not going to admit that anytime soon.Saying too much at this time may comperise cia intellegent angents working inside north korea.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
It's pretty clear that America could 'cakewalk' NK ..... right?

I mean after 8 years fighting in Afgan they've totaly beaten the taliban... right?

.... ok jokes aside, after 8 years in Afghanistan not only has America NOT beaten them but they still have the resources to now attack Pakistan. NK has more people, more tanks, more bombs, more firepower and not to mention nukes.... do people realy think America can 'cakewalk' NK when they still cant win the war they started 8 years ago?..... LOLLLLLLLLLL

Americans are funny



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
"NK Would be a very conventional war, with large airbases, industrial centers, supply routes and tank depots that could be destroyed in a matter of a few days"

Just as Iraq and Afghanistan were. And on Day 3, you have exactly the same problem as there, except NK is much, much better prepared.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

"NK Would be a very conventional war, with large airbases, industrial centers, supply routes and tank depots that could be destroyed in a matter of a few days"

Just as Iraq and Afghanistan were. And on Day 3, you have exactly the same problem as there, except NK is much, much better prepared.


Exactly... finaly someone that see's sense



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
they couldn't even spell blitzkrieg that's a good indication to not take the article to seriously man



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
make no mistake, america might get tied up in diplomacy and have "long"wars, but its not lke we couldnt go and take over and level anyone we wanted to. north korea would fall. quicker if our gov werent goodie to shoes and just flat out stomp sum ass like we should



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by krazykajun425
 


Ah i see we have a comedian it is very funny because it is not true perhaps sarcasm? or ignorance i can't tell but i can tell this guy is just 1 slice of bread short of a picnic. Is goody "to" shoes what you use to describe a sane government with rational logic behind it's actions?? or are you THAT rushed for time you can't think of the NUMBER two so have to take little shortcuts here and there?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join