Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North Korea Attack History Shows Pattern In Strikes Against South Korea

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I'm tired of hearing all this propaganda about North Korea's threats just being "saber-rattling". Those who believe that North Korea is all bark and no bite, and that there is no chance of conflict breaking out between North Korea and the US/South Korea, are woefully ignorant of very recent history. Let's put an end to this nonsense.

History of recent North Korean attacks


Recent Korean history reveals a sobering possibility: It may only be a matter of time before North Korea launches a sudden, deadly attack on the South. And perhaps more unsettling, Seoul has vowed that this time, it will respond with an even stronger blow.

[...]Vows of retaliation after naval clashes with South Korea in 1999 and 2009, for example, were followed by more bloodshed, including attacks blamed on North Korea that killed 50 South Koreans in 2010.

[...]Almost a mirror image of the current tensions happened in 2009, when the U.N. approved sanctions over North Korean missile and nuclear tests, and Pyongyang responded with fury. In November of that year, Seoul claimed victory in a sea battle with the North, and Pyongyang vowed revenge.

In March 2010, the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton South Korean warship, exploded and sank in the Yellow Sea, killing 46 sailors. A South Korean-led international investigation found that North Korea torpedoed the ship, a claim Pyongyang denies.

[...]In November 2010, North Korea sent a warning to South Korea to cancel a routine live-fire artillery drill planned on Yeonpyeong Island, which is only seven miles from North Korea and lies in Yellow Sea waters that North Korea claims as its own.

South Korea went ahead with the drills, firing, Seoul says, into waters away from North Korean territory. North Korea sent artillery shells raining down on the island, killing two civilians and two marines.

[...]South Korea's Defense Ministry on Tuesday repeated that it would respond harshly to any future attack from the North. Spokesman Kim Min-seok said there were no signs that North Korea would attack anytime soon, but warned that if it did, it would suffer "much more powerful damage" than whatever it inflicted on South Korea.


And this is from a LIBERAL news aggregator. Next time you go dismissing the "North Korean threat" try to remember recent history. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. North Korea has no ability to "wipe anyone out" but they DO have the ability to turn a small strike into a multinational conflict, even a war. They've done it before. "The game is different this time, we're superior and dominant" you say? Ask returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan how "superior" we are and how "easy" it was for them over there.




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have a different mission than ones in Korea would have. Policing and winning hearts and minds is much harder than going in and defeating your enemy.

Now as for the threats, North Korea's recent history has been to bark very loudly, until someone gives them what they want, and then they go sit quietly again for awhile. There have been attacks in the past, and at some point, this whole thing is going to have to be ended, and it's going to be ended with a lot of bloodshed.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have a different mission than ones in Korea would have. Policing and winning hearts and minds is much harder than going in and defeating your enemy.


Oh really, we're going to just go in and decimate NK and then just leave? That's our strategy since WW2? Read up. We NEVER just go in and decimate and leave. The closest we got was the Gulf War, and we will never do that again since we "learned our lesson" about leaving someone like Saddam in power.

How can you seriously make a statement like this:

Now as for the threats, North Korea's recent history has been to bark very loudly, until someone gives them what they want, and then they go sit quietly again for awhile.


...and then follow it up with this sentence:


There have been attacks in the past, and at some point, this whole thing is going to have to be ended, and it's going to be ended with a lot of bloodshed.


?????????

Cognitive dissonance?
edit on 30-3-2013 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
at most NK does little terrorist tactics. no way do they have the balls for a full blow out war!



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by soloharmony
at most NK does little terrorist tactics. no way do they have the balls for a full blow out war!


Al Qaeda had no ability to wage a "full blow out war". Still, they [supposedly] killed 3,000 Americans (ALLLLLL the way across the ocean, without missiles mind you!) and managed to draw another couple thousand US soldiers to their deaths in the ensuing war. WAR HAS CHANGED. Un doesn't care about his own peoples' lives; if he did, he would feed them. We can attack them all we want; all we're doing is affecting the genocide he doesn't have the "cojones" to commit himself in order to bring his population down. Oh, we killed a hundred thousand North Korean civilians in our new war this time around? His own father killed many times more.
edit on 30-3-2013 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This all very well could be noise and bluster, I think we will soon see. All the incidents you mention are the ones of more recent memory. NK has had a long history of aggressive acts since the armistice was signed. The infamous tree incident on the DMZ comes to mind. I believe the USS Pueblo still is docked in Wonsan. There also has been several incidents of midget submarine incursions with one becoming beached I seem to recall. Assassination teams of SF have been sent south with varying degrees of success, most being intercepted. One came close to working in 1968 with the attempt to get Park Chung Hee. The North is audacious in it's attempts and this should not be forgotten. While I don't think we need to step up on the firing step I do think we should be heads up on this. Lil' KIm may need to make his bones.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Bluetwo because: spelling



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


IF there was a war, then the North and South would integrate, and there wouldn't be a huge need for a US presence for years at a time like in Iraq and Afghanistan. We wouldn't have to decimate and leave, we could fight the war, then turn it over to South Korea, and assist them with the rebuilding process.

As for the rest of my statements, I stand by them. They have a history of making loud threats, and then backing down. However, they have to save face when backing down, so they do things like firing artillery at a South Korean island, or attacking an ROK patrol vessel. That way they can back down gracefully.

The only way this ends is with a war unfortunately. The North Koreans wanted a formal treaty in the 90s, but the US wouldn't agree to the terms they wanted. I don't know all the terms, but with the mentality of the North Korean leadership, I don't see any other way for this to end, or for integration to come about. So the article you mentioned is right, EVENTUALLY there will almost have to be a war, but for now, if they get what they want, and we leave them a way to back down and save face, this can be ended safely.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Unless you were there and lived it first hand, I'd shut up.

I'm guessing you weren't there because you'd have understood how much the ROE made things difficult. Instead you just want to pull something out of your ass concerning the American fighting man being anything less than superior.

The difficulty came from little cry baby lawyers, thousands of miles away, needing to approve action. Just like in Vietnam.

Sun Tzu actually warned about that kind of #.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


IF there was a war, then the North and South would integrate, and there wouldn't be a huge need for a US presence for years at a time like in Iraq and Afghanistan. We wouldn't have to decimate and leave, we could fight the war, then turn it over to South Korea, and assist them with the rebuilding process.


Like we turned over Afghanistan and Iraq to the governments created by their "majority-sensible" populaces? Does South Korea have the military assets to be able to occupy all of North Korea and quell insurgency at any time in the near future while still protecting against any possible Chinese threat in their own country? We thought bringing down Saddam and the Taliban would free up their "sensible majority" to create fun-loving democratic governments with no problem, because they all "wanted freedom". What happens when we realize [again] that invading a country will never make its occupants feel "free"? What happens when we realize we just fulfilled all of Un's predictions to his people?


As for the rest of my statements, I stand by them. They have a history of making loud threats, and then backing down. However, they have to save face when backing down, so they do things like firing artillery at a South Korean island, or attacking an ROK patrol vessel. That way they can back down gracefully.

The only way this ends is with a war unfortunately. The North Koreans wanted a formal treaty in the 90s, but the US wouldn't agree to the terms they wanted. I don't know all the terms, but with the mentality of the North Korean leadership, I don't see any other way for this to end, or for integration to come about. So the article you mentioned is right, EVENTUALLY there will almost have to be a war, but for now, if they get what they want, and we leave them a way to back down and save face, this can be ended safely.


Maybe I'm misreading you. Are you agreeing with my warning of realistic potential of bloodshed, or disagreeing with it?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


South Korea almost has the ability to win a war with the North on their own. But in this case, why would there be such a huge insurgency? It's a totally different situation. In Iraq and Afghanistan, you had two functional governments, where people were at least able to get food, that were invaded by an outside country. In North Korea, you have a barely functional government, a population, the majority of which don't have power and barely have food, and you have an outside force made up of people that understand them, and in some cases may even be family members.

I'm agreeing while disagreeing. Eventually there is almost certainly going to be a war. At this particular moment, I don't see it happening, and I see this as more "all bark and no bite" posturing. I'm hoping I'm right, but I'm keeping a close eye on some sources and monitoring some places to watch for movements. If I don't see them moving, then it's more of the same.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Unless you were there and lived it first hand, I'd shut up.

I'm guessing you weren't there because you'd have understood how much the ROE made things difficult. Instead you just want to pull something out of your ass concerning the American fighting man being anything less than superior.

The difficulty came from little cry baby lawyers, thousands of miles away, needing to approve action. Just like in Vietnam.

Sun Tzu actually warned about that kind of #.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Really, we were superior when we sent our men over without the kind of bullet-proof vests they needed and their own families had to buy and send them the gear? We were superior when we were totally unprepared for the IED revolution and we had to scramble to refit our APCs to TRY to resist these attacks (which they still fail to do)? We were superior when we failed to find our main target for 10 years because China, *I MEAN* Pakistan hid that enemy the whole time? We were superior when thousands of American men and women died in the sand at the hands of people who supposedly "lived in caves"?

I'd rethink your definition of "superiority". Because letting thousands of Americans die doesn't sound "superior" to me. I will NEVER besmirch the American soldier; my father was a Silver and Bronze Star recipient in the Vietnam war. I will ALWAYS challenge the idea that we can send them into whatever kind of war we want because we are militarily "superior".



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


South Korea almost has the ability to win a war with the North on their own. But in this case, why would there be such a huge insurgency? It's a totally different situation. In Iraq and Afghanistan, you had two functional governments, where people were at least able to get food, that were invaded by an outside country. In North Korea, you have a barely functional government, a population, the majority of which don't have power and barely have food, and you have an outside force made up of people that understand them, and in some cases may even be family members.


I was 21 when we went into Afghanistan, and 23 when we went into Iraq. I remember being told about the "poor people of Afghanistan" living with no power, no food, no education, girls being raped and killed every second and not allowed to go to school. I remember the stories of mass genocide by chemical weapons in Iraq, and how only a tiny minority was controlling the whole population, and how much they wanted revenge on their oppressors.

North Korea sends all of it children to school, boy or girl. They all have power, if not all of the day. They have fashion magazines, reality shows, soap operas, OPERAS, internet, etc. They have never used chemical weapons on their own people en masse. They are not the same stone-age repressed enemy they sold Afghanistan and Iraq as being. They are like you and me; so is Iran, for the record.


I'm agreeing while disagreeing. Eventually there is almost certainly going to be a war. At this particular moment, I don't see it happening, and I see this as more "all bark and no bite" posturing. I'm hoping I'm right, but I'm keeping a close eye on some sources and monitoring some places to watch for movements. If I don't see them moving, then it's more of the same.


I'm not saying "this is it". I'm saying that to dismiss a North Korean declaration of war and a threat to use nuclear weapons on South Korea as "all bark" is ridiculous. Anyone who has studied history should know better.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00
North Korea sends all of it children to school, boy or girl. They all have power, if not all of the day. They have fashion magazines, reality shows, soap operas, OPERAS, internet, etc. They have never used chemical weapons on their own people en masse. They are not the same stone-age repressed enemy they sold Afghanistan and Iraq as being. They are like you and me; so is Iran, for the record.


In Pyongyang. There are villages out far away from the capitol that the people can't get enough food, and if you've ever looked at the pictures of North Korea at night, almost none of it is lit. If you listen to the defectors talking, Pyongyang is almost like the right hand that gets you looking, while the left is doing something else.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yeah, you confused 6 different issues in your post. Stick with something you know. Military stuff ain't it.

Even with your Nork rant you are conflating conventional and unconvetional warfare.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by 00nunya00
North Korea sends all of it children to school, boy or girl. They all have power, if not all of the day. They have fashion magazines, reality shows, soap operas, OPERAS, internet, etc. They have never used chemical weapons on their own people en masse. They are not the same stone-age repressed enemy they sold Afghanistan and Iraq as being. They are like you and me; so is Iran, for the record.


In Pyongyang. There are villages out far away from the capitol that the people can't get enough food, and if you've ever looked at the pictures of North Korea at night, almost none of it is lit. If you listen to the defectors talking, Pyongyang is almost like the right hand that gets you looking, while the left is doing something else.


And Afghanistan was "lit up at night" and well-fed before we invaded? Iraq was the Las Vegas of the middle east before we bombed the crap out of them?

John Kerry just went to Afghanistan because they seized and lit a bunch of opium on fire. Ask yourself why.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
Reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Yeah, you confused 6 different issues in your post. Stick with something you know. Military stuff ain't it.

Even with your Nork rant you are conflating conventional and unconvetional warfare.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Well, there you go accusing without anything to back it up. I have links for all of my "issues". Want to play? Let's do it.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


Why? Because he went there to make a movie of himself saving a thousand PoWs from the hands of an evil opium smoker al qaeda terrorist master mind who wanted to take over the world and its cheaper to film on site than to get all this sets and props and crews... well he knows his stuffs he has experience - do not doubt the man.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


Ed?


Seriously, though, exactly. Bunch of BS.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join