U.S. B-2 stealth bomber conducts first-ever firing drill in Korea.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

In Iraq though, you had a force that was for all intents and purposes in the open at all times. With North Korea, you're looking at caves, tunnels, and mountainous terrain. Yes the US will eventually hand them their heads, and has trained for this, but it's gonna hurt.

Air support, navy etc... thats all ok. I just think its very difficult for the US to deploy any type of ground troops in NK. The US military is not ready for that kind of warfare. They need the time to adjust to these new conditions. The vehicles are simply not suited to the terrain

If the US deploys anything on the ground that arent special forces, it has everything to be a mindless slaughter...

If anything happens, only the ones already deployed at the DMZ and SK troops will be doing the fighting. It will be a freaking nightmare...

Originally posted by Stingray77
I understand, what the United States, feel what this demonstration as an anolog of giant poking a rat which has been cornered with a "nuclear" stick... But if you poke rat enough, it's a guarantee, what a rat will retaliate, and try to escape "poking", even if it'll die in a process ...
I hope cooler minds will prevail ...

Well then, maybe we ought to just get this all over with now? And be done with lil kim forever. Has anyone wondered if perhaps this IS the US strategy?

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Stingray77
I understand, what the United States, feel what this demonstration as an anolog of giant poking a rat which has been cornered with a "nuclear" stick... But if you poke rat enough, it's a guarantee, what a rat will retaliate, and try to escape "poking", even if it'll die in a process ...
I hope cooler minds will prevail ...

Well then, maybe we ought to just get this all over with now? And be done with lil kim forever. Has anyone wondered if perhaps this IS the US strategy?

edit on 29-3-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

But it will cost lives... its a stupid strategy if the alternative is leaving kim barking at a pole alone... and stop provoking the little man with sanctions which btw are by themselves an act of war.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


True, but inevitable war will have less casulties now vs when they have more advanced nuclear capabilities.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

True, but inevitable war will have less casulties now vs when they have more advanced nuclear capabilities.

edit on 29-3-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)

Yes and you're thinking like truman - that was the argument when he nuked nagasaki and hiroshima, then a few years later he wanted to nuke korea.

Its always that talk about "kill less now so they dont kill more later" The bad part is that I actually heard that rhetoric on official channels and I just dont buy it anymore... well, we dont really know what happens later, so we'll just decide what to do later, later and deal with the now, now. And right now we have 2 or 3 guys have issues with they little private parts and cant resist to react to each other's puny provocations and demonstrations of power and cant help to escalate things a bit further than the other.

Funny thing is nobody seems to care that are thousands if not millions of civilian lives at stake in this stupid little game here and although kim is crazy the US as the stronger (so much wiser and ponderate) nation should stand down while it can, while its still possible, but no... its acting like crazy kim, and playing his game. B2s? Really? Why not setting off something like the Tsar in the marshall islands just to show him that the us can play ball... look, the world knows the us can play ball, kim knows, the world knows, everyone knows... why this show of "mine is bigger than yours"? To drag kim into war because you know he wont resist being see as "weak".

Theres an agenda here, and the agenda is not to protect the world or to protect any human lives using "a tough and hard decision"... no. This is about an egotistical self centered agenda now lets see what comes out of it... soon kim really has to put his money where is mouth is and the us is drooling about it. And your rulers are willing to put your soldiers in that cesspit... and yet you approve of that crap, you're barely out of vietnam...

This is truly crazy... Like I said, someone has to stand down while its possible...

After it starts... well may the gods, if they exist, have mercy on their souls, soldiers and civilians alike... even lil kim

One question I want to ask this board:

Why is US present in South Korea???

If US can leave Vietnam, why not Korea???

The presence of US in South Korea has prolonged the Korean conflict indefinitely.

Conflicts get settled violently or peacefully much faster when outside parties are not present.

I want an intelligent and logical answer to this question.

Originally posted by GargIndia
One question I want to ask this board:

Why is US present in South Korea???

If US can leave Vietnam, why not Korea???

The presence of US in South Korea has prolonged the Korean conflict indefinitely.

Conflicts get settled violently or peacefully much faster when outside parties are not present.

I want an intelligent and logical answer to this question.

Intelligent and logical?

Sorry you wont get it - only hypocritical nonsense and politically correct bs can justify it.

In vietnam they left because well... they failed in 2 fronts. The "away front" Thousands died for nothing when they decided they failed to conquer the heart of the vietnamese people by unifying the whole country under a republic of vietnam and after millions of vietnamese deaths and couple of hundreds of thousands more in laos and cambodia with that stupid domino theory that a 5 year old could prove wrong from the start. 2. the "home from" - the war became unacceptable at even the government and the president lost credibility over it.

In korea... well... for now is a show - Im best, no Im best, Im bestest, no Im best bestest. Its a popularity contest. B2s... really? well... why doesnt the US detonate a Tsar in the marshall islands to show kim how mighty the us really is while they're at it...

reply to post by GargIndia


Because the South want in a position to defend itself completely alone. The US is turning control of military forces oj the peninsula to the South soon, but they'll still need US support for some things.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Because the South want in a position to defend itself completely alone. The US is turning control of military forces oj the peninsula to the South soon, but they'll still need US support for some things.

Zaphod, I read a lot of what you say, you really know your military stuff, and I listen when you say things related to these types of situations.

Now NK has said it is in a state of war, and that ANY further provocation will be dealt with swiftly, what do you think our response is going to be?

Is this where he must act if we say fly another B2 over there?

Whats next Zaphod?

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


What, the US isn't allowed to fly aircraft over an ally anymore for fear they might offend someone? B-2s have been used in every major exercise with Korea, this one included. The only difference this time is they actually dropped a payload on a bombing range. I'd be more nervous about the B-52 than the B-2. The-52 carries a lot more of a missile payload than the B-2, and there are a lot more of them in the area than the two B-2s.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


You are right.

However it may be too late now.

Felling of twin tower was the logic behind Iraq action while none of the culprits was an Iraqi. All we know is that the people who blew up the planes were Saudis.

Everybody knows that the fanatical Islamic doctrine of al Qaida has origins in Pakistan. But Pakistan is an ally.

So it continues.

Now with open threats from North Korea to attack US interests, I am not sure if US can back down. The empire cannot be seen to back down from open threats.

So I guess it is just a matter of time now.

I give this round to the US.

People killed? People are dying every day in numerous conflicts around the world. Why single out Korea?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Because the South want in a position to defend itself completely alone. The US is turning control of military forces oj the peninsula to the South soon, but they'll still need US support for some things.

You know how that sentence could be correct? Watch this...

"Because the South is not in a position to defend itself completely alone. The US is in complete control of military forces of the peninsula to the South, so they'll still need US support for most things."

That was easy.

Originally posted by GargIndia
One question I want to ask this board:

Why is US present in South Korea???

If US can leave Vietnam, why not Korea???

The presence of US in South Korea has prolonged the Korean conflict indefinitely.

Conflicts get settled violently or peacefully much faster when outside parties are not present.

I want an intelligent and logical answer to this question.

After the 1953 truce and the DMZ was set up, the South Koreans maintain an alliance with the US.

During that period until now, S. Korea has enjoyed a booming economy and a well fed nation. Indeed I saw this with my own eyes while living there from 1976 to 1979.

NK on the other hand...........

The presence of the US and UN in S. Korea may have "prolonged" the conflict, but only because it's not allowing NK to do what it wants to do:

Invade S. Korea and force it to be under the rule of NK.

Considering how NK has treated their own people, do you really blame the S. Koreans for having the US and UN there?

reply to post by lnfideI


I think it's getting close to the edge but hasn't quite gotten there yet. I'm not sure what the North is really after here, but I think he needs a way to say he made the US back down. As long as we don't see the 25th ID out of Hawaii making a move, or large scale preparations for a fighter drag, things will remain calm. If you start seeing odd fighter or tanker movements, it's gonna go off.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


Try again. Korean forces are only controlled by the US in wartime, in fact the US already pulled troops further south, and by next year the ROK will assume full military control of the south.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

What, the US isn't allowed to fly aircraft over an ally anymore for fear they might offend someone? B-2s have been used in every major exercise with Korea, this one included. The only difference this time is they actually dropped a payload on a bombing range. I'd be more nervous about the B-52 than the B-2. The-52 carries a lot more of a missile payload than the B-2, and there are a lot more of them in the area than the two B-2s.

Come on zaph... enough playing the innocent. It was a provocation. You know it was. I know it was. The whole world know it was.

The least you can do is admit it... it was an act of provocation to fly a B2 in that setting and to make it public like they did in those very particular circumstances. Its part of the psychological warfare.

I guess... since the "piss them off" didnt quite work out with Iran, the US had to turn to plan B - the little kid with the god complex.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

Try again. Korean forces are only controlled by the US in wartime, in fact the US already pulled troops further south, and by next year the ROK will assume full military control of the south.

"Korean forces are only controlled by the US in wartime" Really? Lets see... 1. Why would they need the US in peace time? 2. And whats that "peace time" since those two never actually "agreed to peace" but to an "armistice" - an armistice is a situation in war. Therefore they're never actually "at peace" Thus the US has always control over Korean forces... damn was that hard zaph?

EDIT: but you can be more direct. Is the South in any condition to actually defend itself alone against a full scale NK invasion? Be honest.


EDIT2: nvm that. you know its not. You know the reason SK still exists is the US presence, if not the south would have been invaded long time ago, decades, years, months or yesterday... even 2 hours ago... doesnt matter. The north would go through the south like a hot knife through butter. The us is there to act as a deterrent. And is working... till now at least.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

Try again. Korean forces are only controlled by the US in wartime, in fact the US already pulled troops further south, and by next year the ROK will assume full military control of the south.

"Korean forces are only controlled by the US in wartime" Really? Lets see... 1. Why would they need the US in peace time?

2. And whats that "peace time" since those two never actually "agreed to peace" but to an "armistice" - an armistice is a situation in war. Therefore they're never actually "at peace"

Thus the US has always control over Korean forces... damn was that hard zaph?

EDIT: but you can be more direct. Is the South in any condition to actually defend itself alone against a full scale NK invasion? Be honest.

edit on 29-3-2013 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)

EDIT2: nvm that. you know its not. You know the reason SK still exists is the US presence, if not the south would have been invaded long time ago, decades, years, months or yesterday... even 2 hours ago... doesnt matter. The north would go through the south like a hot knife through butter. The us is there to act as a deterrent. And is working... till now at least.

edit on 29-3-2013 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)

No, their not. Not controlled that is.

My father was stationed at JUSMAG -K (Joint US Military Assistance Group - Korea). Repeat, "Assistance"

Would ROK be over run on their own? Most likely. Is that why they've asked us to stay there? Most likely also.

Have they benefited from us being there? Of for sure. No doubt about that. Look at their economy.

Why does that bother you so much?

Now I'll agree with you that we (the US) is posturing too. I don't doubt that. We always hold military exercises with SK (it's called an exercise, but what it is, is training. I know, been through enough of them myself, and a military that does not keep up training is a very poor military, especially when it comes to working with other country's forces), however it was moved up.

Now, for all we know, yes, this is to get Kim to do something.

Because we couldn't get Iran to do something? Don't be daft.

Iran and NK are like night and day. Iran hasn't been detonating actual bombs. Iran claims their nuke program is for peaceful purposes. Iran has actually let inspectors in. Iran can act crazy, but they are willing to talk also.
NK on the other hand, no, they meant to and did build the bomb. They have detonated at least 3. They have decided that they are not going to talk to anyone, and have removed those lines of communications. They've made threats, that are increasing in nature.

Has Iran done any of that? Not really. They've said and claimed some things that sound pretty serious, but they've stopped short of isolating themselves and threatening to blow up the US, Japan, etc.

What this could be (just throwing this out here), is something planed by us and China. Seriously. After the 3rd nuke detonation, it could have been something like this behind close doors and in secret:

US: Hey China, you need to get a hand on your problem child there, enough is enough.
China: We'd like to, but we don't want to come off as the bully here. We can't just march in.
US: What if we provoke them? Get them to throw the first stone, then we could use a lot of our munitions to soften them up for you.
China: Ah! Yes, then we could tell you to "back off" and then we send in our solders...er....Humanitarian Aid people, and set up our own puppet government that we really do control.
US: Sounds good to us, we'll get to work on pissing Kim off.
China: And we'll draw up plans to build more factories there. BTW - we landed a new contract for some items. Should see them in your Walmart stores soon. Low quality, but very low price!
US: Sounds good! Our people LOVE buying cheap crap all the time made by you guys! Okay, I got to send some B2s over there. Talk at you later.

Seriously. For all we know, that could be exactly what is going on.

Or not. This IS a conspiracy site though.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


Except that everyone keeps pointing out that there is peace there. However I should have said an ACTIVE wartime situation, when there is more shooting going on than has happened since the DMZ was implemented.

As for the South being able to defend itself that's a harder question to answer. There isn't a straightforward answer to it. They're in a much better position, but quantitatively they are outnumbered by the North. They have better equipment, but they don't have quite the same combined arms doctrine the US has, or the experience. They could probably hold their own until help arrived, but in my opinion they would still need help.

reply to post by GargIndia


South Korea is our Ally. So what, let N Korea attack them? Which they would do BTW, without a US presence. N Korea is one crazy mother and they need to have a major country on each side, holding them back like a rabid Rottweiler on a leash. This is balance and is most definately needed. If little Kim goes even more psycho everyone needs to be prepared. Come on admit it, little Kim is acting more like a toddler with a gun than a ruler. He is very dangerous to himself and his country.