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: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Guido the Killer Pimp
 


apples and oranges dude..were not fighting a conventional war in the middle east. Havnt been since day one. The Iraqi army wasnt dumb enough. They threw on civies and hid amongst the population. That was the smartest thing they could have done. They had no standing army by the time America rolled in. Crickets is what we got.

the conventional war that would be fought would not take long to settle between the Koreas if the American Navy and Airforce were involved. Its just honestly that simple. And they probably would be if things went full scale, which I highly doubt.

The capabilites of those branches of Americas military is truly unlike the world has ever seen. Again not a policy I agree with or think America should posses. I feel it is a waste of money and resources to a large degree. Nevertheless it would effectively eliminate any real threat of full scale war like they fought in the fifties. N. Koreas major targets would be neutralized within hours and the picking off of each identified threat would then ensue.

It would be naive and stupid for American boots to hit the ground. We could probably protect the border well, but you wont see an Iraqi style of warfare over there. Pointless and stupid, aint gunna happen and therefore irrelevant to discuss.




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Firefights, cross-DMZ mortar attacks, no # firefights in the middle of the #ing JSA
Commando infiltrations, assassination attempts (NK commandos were able to kill the SK first lady)
The Pueblo in 68, The axe murders of Bonifas and Barrett in 76, the infiltration tunnels and a whole #-ton of other actions and incidents pepper the border history.

Funny how the media makes it look isolated in occurrence and self-limited.

That said, balloon goes up on the peninsula and it will be a war unlike what's seen in recent times.. Actual shooting will be measured in weeks and one side will cease to exist as a nation-state.

Global implications will be felt for years afterwards

Who's ready for some bulgogi, kimchi and soju?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hmm...The point most people are missing is the nature of U.S warfare. Believe it or not, the U.S is exercising restraint when it comes to the methods they are employing when fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the U.S were to fight a TOTAL WAR, disregarding collateral damage and civilian casualties, the Iraq war could have been finished in 15 minutes, and the Afghan war in half an hour.

The world should consider themselves lucky the U.S is willing to, at least most of the time, willing to follow international law.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by RodOfIron
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Hmm...The point most people are missing is the nature of U.S warfare. Believe it or not, the U.S is exercising restraint when it comes to the methods they are employing when fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the U.S were to fight a TOTAL WAR, disregarding collateral damage and civilian casualties, the Iraq war could have been finished in 15 minutes, and the Afghan war in half an hour.

The world should consider themselves lucky the U.S is willing to, at least most of the time, willing to follow international law.



'Course, if we didnt, we'd be fighting ww3 us against everyone, but hey, why mention that....



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thecinic
 


Who said anything about attacking North Korea? Certainly not I. I think the very notion of a war on the Korean Peninsula is about as stupid as it gets...

As for you advocacy of a nuclear strike on North Korea? To call it misguided and counterproductive is to bring the art form of understatement to its ultimate fruition. But hey, it's your fantasy, run with it. Meanwhile, in the real world, this tempest in a teapot will, in all likelihood, go away. Mostly because folks like you aren't in charge. To which those of us, who'd rather not see a nuclear holocaust, are most profoundly grateful.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RodOfIron
 


I concur. I'll lalways say I dont believe we should be in the middle east or anywhere else in the world at this day in age for that matter, but if America were to stop giving a # the world would be tens of millions of people shy of its current population numbers.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Course, if we didnt, we'd be fighting ww3 us against everyone, but hey, why mention that....


You speak for all 6.6 billion Earthlings?

I think you fail to remember that the Korean War was a UN war not just the US. And that NATO is on board with Building a missile defense system and if you are foolish enough to think it's all because of Iran then you have another thing coming. The western powers are developing this next generation technology for other possible threats of the future.

Shangri-la doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


No-one wants war. All rational people would agree with this. However, we're not living in the 19th century anymore. It is getting easier for "rogue" nations, call them what you will, to kill millions of people in the blink of an eye.

A world where the U.S is not playing the role of World Police is a world I wouldn't want to live in. It's a world of chaos and destruction, and although most people out there hate the U.S...if they ever collapsed and the world was left in the hands of Russia or China.....they would mourn that loss for the rest of their lives....



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


exactly you're quite right...

I'm not American....but I wouldn't be British if it weren't for those brave U.S soldiers who fought against Germany...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Course, if we didnt, we'd be fighting ww3 us against everyone, but hey, why mention that....


You speak for all 6.6 billion Earthlings?

I think you fail to remember that the Korean War was a UN war not just the US. And that NATO is on board with Building a missile defense system and if you are foolish enough to think it's all because of Iran then you have another thing coming. The western powers are developing this next generation technology for other possible threats of the future.

Shangri-la doesn't exist.


Good lord man. You just like to argue, huh.

If the US went full fledged war (read, nuclear war) we would be in violation of the UN among other things, would face sanctions, and probable eventual war over it.


I think maybe you took my comment out of context.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Good lord man. You just like to argue, huh.

If the US went full fledged war (read, nuclear war) we would be in violation of the UN among other things, would face sanctions, and probable eventual war over it.


I think maybe you took my comment out of context.



Oh for the love of Pete...

Who said anything about a full out Nuclear strike? Not I.

Total war is not a full nuclear exchange. It's on par with flattening every single building from the air and going after the major population centers, wiping out ALL their Rail systems destroying their automobile bridges, highways and tunnel systems. Taking out all the TV, Radio and Telephone services. Flattening their power companies. Wiping Hospitals and schools off the face of the Earth etc. Sinking every single one of their ships both military as well as commerce not to mention taking out every single aircraft available.

Generally making them have a bad day on a scale that hasn't been seen since WWII.

NO I'm not advocating this sort of an attack just giving an example of TOTAL WAR.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Good lord man. You just like to argue, huh.

If the US went full fledged war (read, nuclear war) we would be in violation of the UN among other things, would face sanctions, and probable eventual war over it.


I think maybe you took my comment out of context.



Oh for the love of Pete...

Who said anything about a full out Nuclear strike? Not I.

Total war is not a full nuclear exchange. It's on par with flattening every single building from the air and going after the major population centers, wiping out ALL their Rail systems destroying their automobile bridges, highways and tunnel systems. Taking out all the TV, Radio and Telephone services. Flattening their power companies. Wiping Hospitals and schools off the face of the Earth etc. Sinking every single one of their ships both military as well as commerce not to mention taking out every single aircraft available.

Generally making them have a bad day on a scale that hasn't been seen since WWII.

NO I'm not advocating this sort of an attack just giving an example of TOTAL WAR.


*sighs*

Total war is just what they want.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Good lord man. You just like to argue, huh.

If the US went full fledged war (read, nuclear war) we would be in violation of the UN among other things, would face sanctions, and probable eventual war over it.


I think maybe you took my comment out of context.



Oh for the love of Pete...

Who said anything about a full out Nuclear strike? Not I.

Total war is not a full nuclear exchange. It's on par with flattening every single building from the air and going after the major population centers, wiping out ALL their Rail systems destroying their automobile bridges, highways and tunnel systems. Taking out all the TV, Radio and Telephone services. Flattening their power companies. Wiping Hospitals and schools off the face of the Earth etc. Sinking every single one of their ships both military as well as commerce not to mention taking out every single aircraft available.

Generally making them have a bad day on a scale that hasn't been seen since WWII.

NO I'm not advocating this sort of an attack just giving an example of TOTAL WAR.


I responded to the person that said the world is lucky that America follows international law and does nt go to all out war when they want. A full strike would be nuclear. You didnt say it, the person I responded to did.


In this day and age a full scale war could only go nuclear. Let use NK as an example. Lets say the US marches in with everything they have short of nukes. Starts overrunning NK. Think KJI would not give the order? There is no way this situation wouldnt go nuclear.

But back to the statement I made-the person I responded to said the world is lucky the US follows laws. I said if we didnt, we would be facing sanctions and possible war action, just as EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WHICH BREAKS UN LAW faces.

Again, you just feel like arguing for arguments' sake, huh.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
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


We need another war like a hole in the head. Stabilize our economy? - because the last two wars were so successful at stabilizing our economy so well weren't they?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
"In this day and age a full scale war could only go nuclear. Let use NK as an example. Lets say the US marches in with everything they have short of nukes. Starts overrunning NK. Think KJI would not give the order? There is no way this situation wouldnt go nuclear. "

Again, you just feel like arguing for arguments' sake, huh.



OK thanks for that opinion of how things may go.

I have not ADVOCATED an attack or invasion of North Korea. [Who said the US would invade the North Anyway]? You in your hypothetical scenarios?

Remember North Korea has been the one which has for Decades been threatening their neighbors not the other way around. South Korean and US forces have been demonstrating restraint. Have we all forgotten the very real history of the past 40 to 50 years or so of who exactly of the two Korea's which one has been the loudest chest pounder in the region?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by camaro68ss

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)


Conventional wisdom is that NK has an EXTREMELY complex underground system in their country. This is not out of the question.


Oh - and by the way an EMP blast, results from the gamma rays produced by even a crude nuclear detonation - it just need to be at about 200 miles above the continental US - well within NK's capability, their target is not military hardware bot to collapse the civilian infrastructure.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

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)


Conventional wisdom is that NK has an EXTREMELY complex underground system in their country. This is not out of the question.

You forgot about the bunker busting bombs they go REEEEEEEAAAAAAAAALLLLY deep.
edit on 24-11-2010 by thecinic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Oh - and by the way an EMP blast, results from the gamma rays produced by even a crude nuclear detonation - it just need to be at about 200 miles above the continental US - well within NK's capability, their target is not military hardware bot to collapse the civilian infrastructure.


That goes for any country on the planet not just the US.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
North Korea not preparing for extended campaign: US
beta.ca.news.yahoo.com...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States believes North Korea's artillery attack on a South Korean island this week was an isolated action and Pyongyang is not preparing for an extended military campaign, the State Department said on Wednesday.


There you have it. NK is not prepping up and neither will the US/SK, even in spite of these actions.
If NK planned to attack the South during these upcoming war games, they certainly would mobilize troops.

[Yes I realized the mobilized tens of thousands of troops on DMZ back in March]



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 
well, if this is the case this is certanly good news! But on the other hand we also had no idea until 3 days ago there nuclear capacities, and another thing, while the msm does hold a little truth to it. It's only a little, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join