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.

 

'Koreas on 'brink of war' because of Seoul, Pyongyang says'.brand new cnn article

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
it's different now, we didn't have a 2 financialy draining wars going on for 10 years army bases with troops literaly all over the world, nuclear bombs, etc. Things about us are just different now, we had a constotution back then, our people were tougher, everyones weapons were less ineficient. I'm not underestimating us i'm just saying our troops ARE spread thin. 28,500 to over a million strong. That's not spread to thin?




Troop levels in Iraq have dropped, The Stan has picked up about half the number that have left Iraq. We still have forces and equipment in Europe, Japan and Korea etc that has never been used or seen action outside of exercises. About 80% or more of US military hardware around the globe has still not seen action/combat.

Yes we are spread around the globe but I think many are too quick to point out the fallacy and erroneous belief that US forces are worn out has beens. Far from it.
edit on 24-11-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
it's different now, we didn't have a 2 financialy draining wars going on for 10 years army bases with troops literaly all over the world, nuclear bombs, etc. Things about us are just different now, we had a constotution back then, our people were tougher, everyones weapons were less ineficient. I'm not underestimating us i'm just saying our troops ARE spread thin. 28,500 to over a million strong. That's not spread to thin?



Your guys understanding of military tactics seems to be poor. Once the USA gains air and navy supremacy, and this will happen within hours of war, we will dominate NK. We can take out hundreds of thousands of troops without setting foot on shore. Look at gulf war 1991. Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world and we had no problem with them.

Like you said this is not 1941-45 anymore. We would take them out from the ski and have the troops pick off the left over. Numbers don’t matter anymore. It’s all about technology and who has more off it.

A million troops on the ground is no match for a F-22 raptor in the air.

edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
hmmmm, I kind of agree with you, it would be different if the United States wasn't constantly at war, but we are. We've got confrination in the middle east, korea, and an economic rival thats wooping our ass, china, if we weren't constantly instigating fights I wouldn't point it out as much. But we do and I think if war with korea does break out and Iran too which inevidably will, they'll re enstate the draft, why? Cause our troops are spread too thin!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
Everything you said in that post in 100% true and I agree with you, I don't think N korea will win but they'll do a ton of damage, in a short amount of time, kinda like a lighting war like Germay and poland, I never said I thought N korea would win, I just think both sides will take MASSIVE casulties, and the fact that the United states IS spread so thin will give N korea confidence, it may be false confidence, but confidence none the less, also they have China, I don't know how much China will help, if at all but if they decide to take a stand for their allys then the tides MAY turn.


key word MAY



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


i understand, SK would get blow out of the ski before the war would end.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by belial259
 
hmmmm. Why can't it win? It has a massive standing army, a crazy, ruthless leader, and a whole bunch of guns pointed right at a super overpopulated country. Also they have nuclear weapons, and China, wherever they may stand.



Exactly! - people will just not think outside the box, EMP from a NK sub or feighter of the US coast and the US is finished, within a yr. The NK's have enough nuclear proof bunkers to house thier entire army plus food for over a yr.

Such a scenario would suit China very well - they will get to take the US, after a yr most of the Amreica will be dead of starvation, civil war and disease, no-one will be manning the subs or missiles they will be defenceless!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
hmmmm, I kind of agree with you, it would be different if the United States wasn't constantly at war, but we are. We've got confrination in the middle east, korea, and an economic rival thats wooping our ass, china, if we weren't constantly instigating fights I wouldn't point it out as much. But we do and I think if war with korea does break out and Iran too which inevidably will, they'll re enstate the draft, why? Cause our troops are spread too thin!


Well first off I think we should NOT attempt to be the worlds police.

Real or imaginary, I agree that period in American history has ran it's course. We should pull most of our forces back and consolidate. But that's just my opinion. But realize by doing so we would leave gaps in certain parts of the world. Our troops are spread thin BUT most [the bulk] are in relatively safe non combat zones.

The EU are big boys and girls now they can and should be able to handle their own affairs. Japan is one of the largest economies on the planet so is South Korea. They all should be able to foot the bill for their own complete defense. All we should really be concerned with and defend are those locations that are absolutely critical to US security. I'm sorry many hawks would like to push the out dated view of the US spreading peace and democracy.


I on the other hand feel the world has grown up and has moved forward. [For the most part] and that we should be aware of the changes that have occurred over the past couple of decades. The USSR is gone and China is now capitalist. Hell China has more economic ties and more in common with South Korea than it does with that backwards Orwellian welfare state they are propping up, which is more interested in obtaining a Nuclear power state status than it is in feeding it's own people.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by belial259
 
hmmmm. Why can't it win? It has a massive standing army, a crazy, ruthless leader, and a whole bunch of guns pointed right at a super overpopulated country. Also they have nuclear weapons, and China, wherever they may stand.



Exactly! - people will just not think outside the box, EMP from a NK sub or feighter of the US coast and the US is finished, within a yr. The NK's have enough nuclear proof bunkers to house thier entire army plus food for over a yr.

Such a scenario would suit China very well - they will get to take the US, after a yr most of the Amreica will be dead of starvation, civil war and disease, no-one will be manning the subs or missiles they will be defenceless!




Really? i doubt NK has the Tech to do any type of EMP blast and if so they would EMP themself. lol. really dumb idea. im sure all our ships and war plains are updated with EMP blast shields anyways.

hahaha bunkers for a million men and food for a year. lol i doubt that to. NK can bearly feed itself and do you have any idea how much food it would take to feed a million people for a year.

Lets thing about things first before hand

edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
um well, I don't think N korea is interested in taking over the U.S.A, and China either, physicaly anyway, I thnk China wants to take us over financialy. I think if China takes a stand for N korea, N korea could win the war. But I'd say the odds right now are in favor for S Korea, because i'm not sure what China will do, it all depends on china.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
our troops are not spread to thin. dont forget we fought Japan and the Germans in WW2 dont under estimate the USA. this country if fully capible of fighting in koria along side its allies
edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Yes, they are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, Belgium, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait....the U.S. has over 300,000 troops stationed in over 120 countries.

Anyone know why Rome fell?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 
agreed, we have no argument




Except, the world has grown up and matured, while I think that most of the world has grown up significantly. It's not enough, our world faces more problems than ever and greed and ignorance are still slowing the progress of the solutions to these problems. Our world is far from mature..!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
it's different now, we didn't have a 2 financialy draining wars going on for 10 years army bases with troops literaly all over the world, nuclear bombs, etc. Things about us are just different now, we had a constotution back then, our people were tougher, everyones weapons were less ineficient. I'm not underestimating us i'm just saying our troops ARE spread thin. 28,500 to over a million strong. That's not spread to thin?



Your guys understanding of military tactics seems to be poor. Once the USA gains air and navy supremacy, and this will happen within hours of war, we will dominate NK. We can take out hundreds of thousands of troops without setting foot on shore. Look at gulf war 1991. Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world and we had no problem with them.

Like you said this is not 1941-45 anymore. We would take them out from the ski and have the troops pick off the left over. Numbers don’t matter anymore. It’s all about technology and who has more off it.

A million troops on the ground is no match for a F-22 raptor in the air.

edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Yes, Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world. Right now, North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world. They have at least 700 battle ships and 1100 military jets.

Everyone gets all caught up in the whole 'iraq had the fifth largest military' bs. Perhaps you ought to take a look at the dropoff after the big 4. Iraq, even at there strongest, could not sniff the military power of the big 4.

Also, standing military means very little in this day and age. Tech means WAY more. And like it or not, N Korea has some tech. Its not iraq with very little actual military weaponry and sophistication.

And saying navy and air dominance would be gained in hours? Too much top gun in your life.
edit on 24-11-2010 by captaintyinknots because: Because i dont want to sit and argue as to what can be 'classified' as a battle ship



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 
Exactly! Rome didn't have nuclear weapons, but still were in 100% agreement..!








posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by camaro68ss
our troops are not spread to thin. dont forget we fought Japan and the Germans in WW2 dont under estimate the USA. this country if fully capible of fighting in koria along side its allies
edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Yes, they are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, Belgium, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait....the U.S. has over 300,000 troops stationed in over 120 countries.

Anyone know why Rome fell?


yes this is true but we also have 100+ million ready able body men fresh for enlistment.

and to regards to Rome, they fell because they out sourced there army when it comes down to it. Little different story



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 




once again bravo.. we are in agreement, North Kora's new revealed nuclear capablilities proove they mean business..!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
It's only a different story because it's a new day and age, the principles are the same. The United States needs to be careful in the coming years, the winds of change are blowing, scarcer recources poliitcal and geographical turmoil, and climate change whether it be natural or man made will be an issue, it will be interesting to see how things play out!



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Yes, Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world. Right now, North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world. They have at least 46,000 battle ships and 110,000 military jets.
And saying navy and air dominance would be gained in hours? Too much top gun in your life.



AND too much BS in yours.

If you took the UK, US, Russian and Chinese navies combined you wouldn't get that many uuuhmmm..."Battleships"


110,000 Jets eh?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Your GOVERNMENTS NEED a NEW WAR to try to stabilize the US / World Economy. Now you know why this is happening now - and right after it happens, Russia and China announce they are dropping the dollar for bi lateral trade. Wake up noobcakes



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Double Post - Please Delete
edit on 24-11-2010 by Bonified Ween because: Double Post



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by camaro68ss
 
it's different now, we didn't have a 2 financialy draining wars going on for 10 years army bases with troops literaly all over the world, nuclear bombs, etc. Things about us are just different now, we had a constotution back then, our people were tougher, everyones weapons were less ineficient. I'm not underestimating us i'm just saying our troops ARE spread thin. 28,500 to over a million strong. That's not spread to thin?



Your guys understanding of military tactics seems to be poor. Once the USA gains air and navy supremacy, and this will happen within hours of war, we will dominate NK. We can take out hundreds of thousands of troops without setting foot on shore. Look at gulf war 1991. Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world and we had no problem with them.

Like you said this is not 1941-45 anymore. We would take them out from the ski and have the troops pick off the left over. Numbers don’t matter anymore. It’s all about technology and who has more off it.

A million troops on the ground is no match for a F-22 raptor in the air.

edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Yes, Iraq had the 5th largest army in the world. Right now, North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world. They have at least 46,000 battle ships and 110,000 military jets.

Everyone gets all caught up in the whole 'iraq had the fifth largest military' bs. Perhaps you ought to take a look at the dropoff after the big 4. Iraq, even at there strongest, could not sniff the military power of the big 4.

Also, standing military means very little in this day and age. Tech means WAY more. And like it or not, N Korea has some tech. Its not iraq with very little actual military weaponry and sophistication.

And saying navy and air dominance would be gained in hours? Too much top gun in your life.


Hahahahaha, 46,000 "battleships" and 110,000 military jets. lol where did you get those numbers from. hahaha

first off "battleships" are out dated so if they have 46,000 of them bring it on. we can blow them out of the water 100+ miles away.

110,000 military jets. get real. if you can provide me with a credible source i would belive you but there is no way.
edit on 24-11-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join