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 masses 50,000 troops on border

page: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grantbeed
The USA will certainly be involved heavily if the North attacks the South. There are around 25,000 US troops stationed there for good reason.

Even Obama would not avoid this one.


More like the last line of defense / counter attack!


Official U.S Army briefers in Korea have stated that the U.S. has no responsibility for the frontline defense of South Korea; Instead, U.S. forces will form a mobile reserve behind the front lines when an attack is imminent.

Source

Best keep an eye on US forces rather than NK's to establish NK's initial response.

P.s. not to sure what to make of the source though - I always thought the landmines were a credible deterrant to NK land attack!




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 

Simple.

Because USA is really lead by Israel - by AIPAC and CFR - thats why Israels interest rules US policies and North Korea is not Israels "Holy" direction... But soon it possibly will be their main concern too - Because US Forces will be stretched to their limits. And thats ok for Russia and China too.

New war in ME have to prevent with any costs - and next what I think if Korean war is not enough - Taiwan and Georgia will be on SCOs target list.

All of this just to prevent WW3 what will happen if USA/EU/Israel attacks Lebanon, Syria or Iran.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


I was waiting for your reply since you have been following the Korean peninsula situation closer than many have.
What if the USA is preparing to support/aid So. Korea to respond to the North. They could just be keeping it very quiet at the moment until the window to strike opens up. This would also maybe give NK more confidence to attack if they don't hear publicized USA intentions.

The troops moving to the border could be a response to China saying they would NOT back NK in an attack. So instead of waithing for Chinese forces or aid the North is moving a large amount of its own resources to prepare for the assault they will carry out. With or without China's OK.

Just speculating on possiblities.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by Chamberf=6]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I don't think NK would send 50k troops to the border and not attack immediately if they had any intentions of attacking.

Why would they show their hand if they intended on an attack? They wouldn't, they couldn't afford to.


Nothing is coming out of this, that is why the major news outlets aren't covering it.


The day NK becomes serious about an attack there will be no warnings, it will happen immediately.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Breifne
 




More like the last line of defense / counter attack!


I can't help but think that if NK attacks, that a few weapons will conveniently find their way to the US base. Then what?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
Because Obama is soft. It's real simple.


He's not soft he's an arrogant fool. He can't just ignore North Korea like he does the birther issue. It's not a "fringe group" It's a foreign army we're still technically at war with.

This not directly engaging in diplomacy with North Korea or Iran is a big mistake.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Possibly. It could just be faulty memory on my part, but it seems like every time something happens and Iran starts ruffling feathers, North Korea goes and tries to ruffle some more. I just can't decide if it's North Korea taking attention off Iran intentionally for whatever reason, or if it's just a series of coincidences..

reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


They are wars in everything but name. Technically they are both an authorized use of force. The reality is that there isn't much of a difference regardless of what you call it.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Jenna]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by belial259
 

What are the enemies that USA has fight wars since 80s?

- Libya
- Panama
- Grenada
- Nicaragua
- Somalia
- Iraq
- Kosovo/Serbia
- Haiti
- Afghanistan...

Wont see in that list anything like North Korea? - Thats a very different ball game, and thats why in front of real threat of war USA is not interested... War in Korea will mean blood - lots of US blood.

Active personnel 1,190,000(2008 est.)
Reserve personnel 4,700,000(2008 est.)

The KPA ground forces are by far the largest component of the DPRK's military. As at 2001 the army was composed of approximately 1,003,000 personnel organised into 20 corps consisting of 176 divisions and brigades. The army is equipped with very large numbers of artillery and armoured fighting vehicles and approximately 70 percent of active units are based near the border with South Korea. The KPA also has a special operations force comprising over 90,000 personnel.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JanusFIN
 


Well not having the stomach for a fight doesn't mean it's not going to happen. They should be seriously preparing for a major war. But my own country and the EU are certainly not in any condition for a war right now our miltiary are too small.

As you say those "wars" are what America has been fighting. These posters who consider Iraq or Afghanistan to be "war" are dead wrong. It's a policing action by the worlds only super power. But it is not war.

Not many people in the west are remotely prepared for the possibility of total war. But it looks inevitable.

I can clearly see an opposite side to NATO forming. Even if it isn't official or binding it's motivated by shared interests.

The only way to stop these interests is to make them think they can't win. I think that is the only reason we've had relative peace for the past 60 years, because no one thought they could beat NATO.

Are we in the west have rested on our laurels assured of our own superiority for far too long.

But now we really look vulnerable and there are the makings of a major new war, and we aren't ready. Economically or militarily. This ignorance and inaction on the part of our leaders will lose us that war.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

Silence in news is what makes situation in Korea most freigtening, but its also understandable because SK is very huge economical player in western markets. One day I took overlook to SK industry and value of those markets and I understand that even a threat from war there will cause huge impacts to western markets globaly.

LG, Huyndai, Kia, Samsung... We all have their products and their banks investments.

I have seen signs many months where world is fast alligning to two different camps and thats why Korea is very possible theater for this great game what is going on since last Georgian attack to Ossetia, where Russia was forced to fight with its army against US backed troops. I think causes are far away from Korea - Oil - but what it does if hell breaks loose is wide impact to western markets and that is what weights here in table of eastern coalition.

Stakes are high but US/Israel/EU is still asking for world wide hegemony - but China and Russia is after multipolarism, and they have gained lots of support from India, Brazil, Turkey, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Ukraine, ... to their cause. I dont know how we can prevent WW3 in future, but maybe opening war now in Korea will make West to think again their next movements in Middle East to.

I think in public China will take stance "against" this war play as mediator, and Russia will just stay quiet - like in Georgia China stayed totally quiet - but behind the scenes we see direct support flowing to NK in case of war. But same day when China/Russia will get guanatees from ME safety in Syria and Iran - their support is out and war in Korea will end. I hope this everything will happen before first shot will be fired.

Russia has moved its fleet to Indian ocean - and China moves also large fleet to same area, thats also something to remeber. I would watch also Myanmar (Burma) if Korea will flame.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
- Kim goes rogue and attacks SK by himself (China would invade NK if that happened)


What makes you think that?....



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


China contingency plans. That were published in chinese news around 2006.

China doesn't want NATO on their border. If NK goes at it without Chinese help they are sure of losing. And that means NATO on their border...maybe worse...an United Korea right on their border.

China wants either...
- Status Quo
- Taking over NK
- Taking over all of Korea

So NK attacks SK alone, China takes over NK so NATO ain't on their border.

Also, China is set to have a new leader in 2012... Xi Jinping... that could change things. Also the current leader Hu Jintao, could want to stay in power and do a stunt like that to stay... who knows.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Vitchilo]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Not to mention his health is fading, and he said he wanted to go out with a bang, this could be his bang.

What better way to usher in his son as the new leader after all these years of grooming him for the position, and at the same time to reign in anyone in NK that may be feeling opposition to Kim?

A restatement of his power and willingness to kill is all he would need.

And how many troops we have in SK? 35k? Or 28k? I think they pulled a few out to go to Iraq/Afghanistan.

He has always been a master at brinksmanship, but he has always also stayed far enough from that edge to not incite SK with the US troops so close. He is treading on thin ice.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by belial259

Originally posted by Libertygal
Because Obama is soft. It's real simple.


He's not soft he's an arrogant fool. He can't just ignore North Korea like he does the birther issue. It's not a "fringe group" It's a foreign army we're still technically at war with.

This not directly engaging in diplomacy with North Korea or Iran is a big mistake.


I agree, but I stand by the "soft" statement too, as he fails to take a firm stand on anything except his own agenda. Even then, he stays behind the scenes and pushes his cabinet and others into the forefront because he cannot and will not accept any responsibility for anything real that happens.

Case in point is trying to blame the Emirates for the SUV bomber. He wants the spotlight if it is a positive one, otherwise, he has to make other people make his decisions for him.

He is a puppet, there is no doubt about that, and Big Sis and Pelosi and Reed are more of his puppeteers than anyone is willing to admit to.

When it comes to aggressiveness, he is nothing but apologetic.

edit: typos

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
I don't think NK would send 50k troops to the border and not attack immediately if they had any intentions of attacking.

Why would they show their hand if they intended on an attack? They wouldn't, they couldn't afford to.


Nothing is coming out of this, that is why the major news outlets aren't covering it.


The day NK becomes serious about an attack there will be no warnings, it will happen immediately.


I tend to agree with you on this. If they wanted war with SK, they would have fessed up to the torpedo attack. I think this is just posturing. Besides, Kim will be so Ronery if he lost all his troops over the border (sorry..I had to do it :lol



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by Breifne
 




More like the last line of defense / counter attack!


I can't help but think that if NK attacks, that a few weapons will conveniently find their way to the US base. Then what?


Then Japan will be all up in it in support of the US.

Then China, the Russia, then Israel, then.. everyone else.

It is going to be a huge chain reaction. Some trigger fingers are itching, and some are just going to be knee jerk responses.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
What's amazing is SK's response so far. I mean it's obvious that NK sank their ship and killed 40+ sailors. SK needs to grow some balls and deal with NK once and for all. I mean would the US have this same response these days? Probably. It's pathetic!



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
What's amazing is SK's response so far. I mean it's obvious that NK sank their ship and killed 40+ sailors. SK needs to grow some balls and deal with NK once and for all. I mean would the US have this same response these days? Probably. It's pathetic!


Well this is what I am concerned about. If SK isn't going to respond. As it's allies we need to go over there and make an appearance so they don't think they can just keep getting away with it. Or some harsh words, or something. ANYTHING.

North Korea's leaders and military must be high-fiving eachother because it seems they can just do whatever they want and we're too scared to do anything about it. They just sunk a ship and got away with it Scot free.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Another source...

North 'deploys' troops on Koreas border


www.presstv.com...



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
What's pathetic is wishing death and destruction on others.
It's a paradigm which is holding back our development as a species.
An eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join