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.

 

United States v.s. North Korea

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2003 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Peace........that is the answer. But how can it be acheived?
I dont want to see another war. But I fear that it is inevitable.




posted on May, 3 2003 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Actually, the more we are at War the better it is for our Economy. As for Wars,

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE CIVILIANS AREN'T BEING TOLD EVERYTHING, Imagine how we took Iraq so easily with old equipment, US has probably not even showed the public its true weapons. I've seen some modern equipment in a gun article. No Soldier in Iraq was using it, not one US soldier. We would definetly win the war, but like I said, If no one interviens



posted on May, 3 2003 @ 12:32 AM
link   
i'm sorry, your statistics mean nothing...

N. Korea : Undertrained Pilots
Modern Migs but not kept up mechanically
No $$$ to finance war effort for longer then a few weeks
Not enough working equipment to keep solders armed.
1974 style ICBM's that couldn't hit Russia, much less a US naval Fleet.
Oil supplies vastly overrated,
Coastal Defense Navy only
Same Tanks Iraq had
Starving People
Idiot Dictator which people will abandon once war effort turns against them.
No spy satellites, can't see US troops
Can't rely on Allies to help them out, they are on thier own.


US:
Top notch military, best training in the world
You have seen about 5% of American military might in the last 2 years.
Secret Weapons (EMP, MOAB, RAPTOR, ???, Laser Weapons)
Money to finance long term war effort'
Aid of South Korea, Japan, Austrailia, Spain, and Britain
Dominant Naval Power
Dominant Air Power
Dominant Land Power
Dominant Space Power
Dominant Technology
Logistics (Food, Clothes, Oil, Gas, Windex, you name it they got it and they can get it quick

The first two things, on the north korea list.
N. Korea : Undertrained Pilots
Modern Migs but not kept up mechanically

Pilots in the DPRKAF are trained, maybe not as much as ours, but it doesn't make them undertrained. on more than occasion they've gone into japanese and south korean airspace not gotten shot at, nor given them a reason too, and have forced US spy planes out with their migs, which supplied by russia and china, are maintained as well as any commercial jet liner, and are definately battle capable. not to mention the NK gets a good supply of ah, supplies from china and russia.

Next, No $$$ to finance war effort for longer then a few weeks
Not enough working equipment to keep solders armed

money isn't a problem for the NKs. if their goal is to capture the south, the trade gained there will solve that, not to mention the economy is geared towards war. weapons aren't a problem as north korea is, again, geared towards war, and if need be could easily become and probably is one of the largest weapons dealers on the black and white markets.

Not enough working equipment to keep solders armed.
1974 style ICBM's that couldn't hit Russia, much less a US naval Fleet.

Um, the Tae Po Dong 2 and 3 can hit the west coast of the us and easily hit any us naval fleet in the pacific, not to mention japan south korea, and can carry a nuclear payload.

Oil supplies vastly overrated,
Coastal Defense Navy only
Same Tanks Iraq had

how do they have an overrated oil supply? i didn't even think they had one. they don't have a navy, and won't need one to secure trade cos of the land border with china. and the tanks, iraqi terrain is more suited to tank battle, the mountains of NK aren't so tanks wouldn't be used as much anyway except in urban combat.

Idiot Dictator which people will abandon once war effort turns against them.
Kim Jong Il , while rash, can't be said as a dumbass. maybe maniacal and twisted, but he does have a handle on what he is doing, if not a little. not to mention that he would die fighitng instead of run. north korean pride, in both politics and religion would prevent him from doing this, while crazy, he still has his pride.

No spy satellites, can't see US troops
the war will be fought on land in a small country , not to mention a lot of the battle would be fought in mountainous areas where it's easy to see invaders coming off the coast and across the dmz. there are mountains near the dmz north or seoul where you can see into the north, so this doesn't really matter.

Can't rely on Allies to help them out, they are on thier own.

If the us does something incredibly dumb to aid taiwan in anyway, china will become an enemy really quick, china and north korea is like putting a gun and a bullet together, it makes it work. china is the biggest ally nk has anyway, who's to say they won't decide to stand against the west now.


Top notch military, best training in the world
You have seen about 5% of American military might in the last 2 years.
Secret Weapons (EMP, MOAB, RAPTOR, ???, Laser Weapons)
Money to finance long term war effort'
Aid of South Korea, Japan, Austrailia, Spain, and Britain
Dominant Naval Power
Dominant Air Power
Dominant Land Power
Dominant Space Power
Dominant Technology
Logistics (Food, Clothes, Oil, Gas, Windex, you name it they got it and they can get it quick

Top notch military, best training in the world

but this training accounted for over half of the casualties in the war in iraq. just about half of our losses were from fratricide.

You have seen about 5% of American military might in the last 2 years

dude, we've seen about 80% of our muscle in GW2. coming from a long line of military family, even i can see this. the only reason we took them so quickly is cos of their unwillingness to die for saddam, and our massive buildup of hundreds of thousands of troops. they had like what, 50,000 to 150,000 and we had close to 4oo,ooo soldiers over there. no contest dude.

Secret Weapons (EMP, MOAB, RAPTOR, ???, Laser Weapons)

e bombs weren't used in iraq, and north korea doesn't have any electricity hardly anyway, useless. moab, too dense of population, there'd be more civis killed than soldiers, raptor? wtf. laser weapons, do you mean laser guided weapons? we use these anyway, as for laser cannons, hardly ready for combat use. the ones we do have are huge, taking an entire b-52, or are on ground mounted defence stations, only a few prototype mobile lasers have been tested for use with humvees, and in north korea, it'd be hard to put that to good use seeing as it's more for air defence now than towards star wars style laser tossing.

Money to finance long term war effort'
Aid of South Korea, Japan, Austrailia, Spain, and Britain

money isn't the problem, it's the thought of would the people support a war that long? south korea, if it acts, the north can nuke it, give it a disease, or a nerve gas. they are immobilized. japan can launch a fight, but can be hit by the same stuff the north can. australia will help as much as they did in iraq, maybe less, they trained in an iraq like environment, not a north korea like environment. spain, they can help us too, politically, they didn't have many soldiers in iraq. britain will remain our lap dog through almost nay conflict, as long as blair stays in office that is.

Dominant Naval Power
Dominant Air Power
Dominant Land Power
Dominant Space Power
Dominant Technology

Air Power, look at the uss cole bombing. it's only cos the rest of the world has no navy.
Air Power, greatre than north korea, but not without losses. not to mention an inability to launch. a few pacific island bases like guam and hawaii and japan/south korea, limiting our ability to strike for prolonged periods. not to mention this time around, north korea has a deployable air force. iraq didn't

Land Power, north korea would probably end up the same as Vietnam , except with bio/chem weapons and nukes, NK wouldn't hesitate to toast seoul. don't fool yourselves into beliveing we'd be perfect in urban combat either.

Space Power, doesn't make a large difference for anymore than sight as of yet.

Technology. look to iraq, our technology works against us. hell, even here on fort drum, this year alone there have been four black hawk crashes. think about in wartime. it'll be worse. not to mention it's the knowledge of how to use that technology. american soldiers don't aim, they spray in the general direction. they get lucky a lot by enemy soldiers being lined up, when that happens grenades and missles and stuff get them. so we pick off the little ones. technological advantages depends on the eye of the beholder.

Logistics (Food, Clothes, Oil, Gas, Windex, you name it they got it and they can get it quick

Food, in iraq we were down to two MREs a day at times. Oil, no doubt we're the king, but in a hundred years it won't matter. gas, same as oil. windex, wtf? anyway, our supplies wouldn't be as close to us as in iraq, they'd have to be shipped, that takes a long time across the pacific. it took us three months in iraq, and even then we used a lot.

here's what i see.

a war with north korea should be avoided. we'd come out victorious no doubt, but merely the north korean capacity to kill is unprecedented in any wartime foe we've faced since hitler. even one warhead full of chemical weapons would kill thousands in seoul, the capitol of SK in range of many NK missles. the ground war would no doubt be a vietnam type affair, and with hundreds of artillary pieces aimed at the South from the other side of the DMZ alone, the opening hours would see hundreds of thousands of deaths. not to mention the nk tunnels under the dmz. it's all very bad. very bad.

i hope my analysis of your analysis of both sides doesn't anger you, i'm just highlighting what could go wrong for each, and examples of where some cases have happened. i agree we'd win, but i'm learning to argue a point that is wrong to make it right. it's not easy.



posted on May, 3 2003 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Good Statistics, I got to go withbotj Shining Wizard and phoenix_cross, Both of you make god points, its just that NK has been prepared for war in every way possible, If US, battles NK were in for a long and devestating war, China will definetly join against us, probably Russians and Middle Eastearn countries. NK is to close to home to Russia and China, China needs a buffer Zone between US. North Korean conflict will cause a new world war. I think the US would be stupid to go to war with them.

I think ist pretty obvious the US will go to war, Using gorilla tactics, by that I mean attacking all the smaller countries that cant really defend themselves, like Cuba, Syria, and all the ones that are easy pickings for the US and Allies. US will slowly diminish its enemies by attacking its resources and important areas of control.



posted on May, 3 2003 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Stanger MOAB is the bomb which is declasified



posted on May, 3 2003 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Almost FOUR years ago….
www.wsws.org...

“The G-8 statement, coming in the wake of three days of talks on the outcome of the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia….North Korea to be targetted as a “rogue state”; for its leader… to be vilified in the international media as the Milosevic of North East Asia; and for the Korean peninsula to become the next arena for US-led military build-up, provocation and aggression.

Considering the number of “prophets” on ATS, our record doesn’t seem to be too good…sigh…yawn…



posted on May, 4 2003 @ 01:24 AM
link   
yeah, but Estragon, be mindful of the 'go-getter' we have in office.


[Edited on 4-5-2003 by Bob88]



posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Quite right, Bob, I'd forgotten about Don.



posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Now, that was funny! Rummy is the like the older kid that can buy beer. But, and politics aside, as a defense minister I think he's done a darn good job, really. really, really.



posted on May, 4 2003 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Well, Bob, given that the best method of defence is -according to popular wisdom -attack, I think you're right, there.
And absolutely no skeletons in the business cupboard either!
America is lucky to have such a man.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 10:04 PM
link   
My prediction is that there will not be war for at least 1-2 years. Bush, along with his allies (Australia & United Kingdom) must 1st get their financial operations in their respective countries in order.

Once this is relatively secure, then they can once more channel funds to support a war with North Korea.
This war will be much different that the Iraq war. The Iraqi Regime was depleted in the 1991 Gulf War. They virtually stood no chance against the might of the coalition.
The North Koreans will put up a much stronger opposition. There is natural cover in Korea like there was in Vietnam. Weaponry will not matter, Tactics will win this war.




posted on May, 5 2003 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by barba007
The North Koreans will put up a much stronger opposition. There is natural cover in Korea like there was in Vietnam. Weaponry will not matter, Tactics will win this war.


Do you think that the war would turn out to be like Vietnam?



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I don't think that the war would be that difficult.
Although the terain is similar to Vietnam etc, the Technology is vastly different and and ability of America to take out tunnels, caves, etc and use drones will see a different type of war.

Don't forget that there are technologies that they didn't show this time, such as the laser, so there is more up their sleaves than we know.

I think it will be a couple of years away as well as the military has to replenish its depleeated armamants and weapons.

Vietnam had China as a backer, the big Q this time would be around the involvement of china.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   
The terrain, of course, is entirely dissimilar: not a very great deal of jungle in NC.
A crucial difference is that, notionally at least, the Americans were guests of the host government in S. Vietnam -there was no invasion of N. Vietnam and, again technically, the Americans seldom faced the NVA -regular troops -rather the Viet Cong.
In Korea they would have to invade a foreign sovereign state.
Other differences include the fact that the "host Govt." in this case S. Korea - presumably - is a very different kettle of fish from S. Vietnam and so is the nation.
America would be relying on professional troops not draftees.
It is very unlikely that America could field the sheer numbers that were available in Vietnam: too few troops and too many other commitments.
The next door neighbours are not Laos and Cambodia.



posted on May, 5 2003 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Those interested in a historical perspective might profit from research into how the Korean War issue was exploited to good effect by the Reps when Eisenhower (with Nixon) won the presidency.
This is not a "first".



posted on May, 6 2003 @ 02:50 AM
link   
There is no conceivable way that the U.S. and its allies could lose the war against North Korea; strategically.

There's no way the South Korean people (those that survive) could ever be happy with the outcome is if the preemptive strike by the allies, using every conceivable weapon available to prevent the rain of death upon them, is totally successful.

There needs to be a nonconventional solution to this particular problem. Something better than exploding cigars.



posted on May, 6 2003 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Now the corruptors won't come out of their holes. We got to dig them out. The best way to do that is underground. No overt operations can be used like they were in Iraq. For no justice is served when the true criminals get away from the grip of the ones' they oppressed. Justice must be served, and we must turn in the evil leaders of North Korea to the people. No trillion dollar superbomb will do the job. Only intelligence and skill through the integrated use of all resources available will suffice. We don't allow unlimited resources to the CIA for nothing. Don't ever forget that, cause the great men at Langley, live by that ideal. The CIA has been neglected for many years. It is time we use what resource they have available for us. Should we not?????



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Devestating warand if they lost they're not sane enough to hold there nukes
so I'm hoping we stay away from nk.
Not because we fear them but because they're are cowards and would surely be sore losers
I'd think America would win but things could change, and we could get ourselfs in to big trouble.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shining Wizard
 




You are a bit of an idiot I take it. USA could win but unlikely in that method.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
if we go to war with north korea then china has stated that they will join north korea's side so that basically would mean were #ed
mainly because everyone in china is forced to join the military (unless your to weak to fight) due to its communist government



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join