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.

 

Pentagon Estimates 250,000 US Dead In A North Korean War

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xavi1000
You americans are joking , NK will be hell to US , 250 000 is a joke , i expect 4-5 milions with ground troops ,
And dont forget the DOGS , THIS IS NOT IRAQ



Holy crap, that is scary to watch. I was calculating the image of a child in a military uniform on another thread (Kim Jong Un looking at stuff) and this footage of their army marching. This one is in slow motion and it actually helps to show the precision of the step that they are making:


That takes a whole lot of training and discipline and based on the image of that child, I'd say that these people have been raised from childhood to be military. We do not normally do that in the US. Military training for most of those in it began at 18, not 6, except for a few kids. I don't think that our actually having childhoods is a bad thing, btw. Again, not to discount the abilities of our soldiers in the slightest--they are all b.a. beyond a doubt. Yet, there is a difference between someone who has been militarily indoctrinated from a young age and someone who started training at 18. It is quite obvious to me that the NK military has literally trained for their whole life for the act of war.

This is not Iraq indeed. Iraq took 10 years and our military was dealing with "insurgents" in a form of urban guerrilla warfare. These insurgents were unlikely to have been highly trained and the style of their attacks made them more difficult, in some ways, to combat. However, in the prior Korean War, they were using a blend of guerrilla warfare with fighter planes and ambushing in the mountainous terrain. That was back then after just a few years of freedom from Japanese occupation. I don't even want to think about what it would look like this time around.

Like I said, no disrespect to our military as I do immensely respect them. Just stating what I saw and realized. We value freedom in our country and that means that we had the freedom (well, most of us) to be children and not children being raised to be soldiers. That is the key difference between NK and the US and our difference is beautiful. I just think that a lot of people are seriously underestimating what it really means for a nation to be heavily militarized.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Yep they look real uniformed and disciplined.. Until the bombs start falling then they will be scattering like cock roaches when the light comes on



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Yep they look real uniformed and disciplined.. Until the bombs start falling then they will be scattering like cock roaches when the light comes on


I would hope that would be the case should we get to that point. I care very much for the young men and women who choose to serve our country in the military. I would hate to see them be thrown into a meat grinder without absolutely good reason. If NK were to attack the US, that would be the very good reason. Outside that, I hope we tread with the utmost caution.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
as you know world domination can only be accomplished with population reduction, so of course they need a bunch of people to die , it helps out the NWO



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   
You guys cant be serious...First off, this article is pretty ridiculous claiming North Korean troops landing inside SK/USA airbases with their rag tag surplus soviet era military equipment. Not to mention making up the Pentagon figures with absolutely NO SOURCE and after google searching, nada...

Firstly, before any type of attack, they are going to mobilize their troops. This is going to set off a huge red alarm to the SK and US military. North Korea is under constant surveillance and a massive invasion would be seen days, if not weeks, in advance giving the US PLENTY of time to prepare a defensive strategy or preemptive action.

Second, in the first Korean war the US lost only 30k troops fighting NK AND China under a much more equal footing. As much of a wet dream it would be for a lot for you to see, the US and China won't be fighting in a war anytime soon, especially not over North Korea. Both sides have nothing to gain and every thing to lose in that scenario.

Today, the technological gap is so incredibly vast, the North Korean military would defeated in a few months at best. So many people eat that propaganda crap up. Scary videos of starving 5'2" guys marching in unison. Fact is, they have zero military experience, absolutely abysmal military training, and 40+ year old out dated military technology. They are so desperate, they photoshop pictures of their war games to exaggerate their numbers They have, at best, a 8 billion a year military budget. Against the US, for better or worse, who is constantly at war. More modern war experience than anyone on earth combined, well fed, well trained, state of the art military technology, and a military budget damn near a trillion dollars. I'm afraid it doesn't look good for Kim or his "supporters". North Koreas artillery and SAM units would neutralized within the first few days, their "Air Force" and navy within the first day. This would give the US complete air superiority and allow them to shock and awe North Korea 24/7 with cruise missiles and massive bombardments from US bombers. The NK army and its leadership would surrender within weeks.
edit on 4/11/13 by pugachev because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
There are some right retards in the USA from these comments

Ok...

1) To those who say "ye ha! we can just glass them with nukes war over in 1 hour USA! USA!". You are the most retarded.
Yes you can do that. But if you bothered to look at a map (something I think allot of American cant be bothered to do) you will see North Korea is guess what! Next to south Korea your allies! O and it also next to Japan. So nuking them into oblivion is not a option seeing as your allies will get lumped with radioactive fallout! Also (And I don't want to overload your little minds here with geography) North Korea is next to Russia and China. Country that would defiantly not appreciate radioactive clouds floating over there countries. I do hope that in the USA military retards that go with this idea don't get above Captain. and if this idea was to be used well whoever ordered it should get a medal.....for the universes biggest Fckwit....o wait no one will be alive to pin it on his/hers radioactive corpse due to you know the nuclear war that will ensue.

2) "The hey we can just bomb it into oblivion with conventional weapons", any troop movement will end up like the highway of death in Iraq/Kuwait. Your guys are semi retarded. Again if you look at North Korea the terrain is different. Yes you can do that in Iraq/Afghanistan as there the terrain is mostly open plains and deserts and exposed hills and mountains . But North Korea its full of vegetation and covered mountains and valleys, I know you Americans seem to want to forget it but remember Vietnam? Remember operation rolling thunder? didn't work too well did it? Any actions in North Korea will face similar problems like in Vietnam. So no you will not be able to win the war with just American bombs.

3) "If the USA go in this time don't let them have there hands tied like previous wars". So what does this mean? They can go raping and massacring civilians? Way to be just as evil as the people you are fighting! And it also negates the advantage of the next point.

4) " policing North Korea will be as bad as Iraq and Afghanistan". Maybe not a stupid theory but unlikely. These are people who have been starved and live under a regime that would make Hitler feel pity for them. I have a feeling once the North Korean Army Break and the leaderships has been killed or captured it wont be that hard. Once these poor people realise there is a better world out there and more importantly food! they will be very happy to rejoin there south Korean Brothers. Just look at the amount of North Korean Defectors and even spys that have turned due to realising the truth.

My theory the war will be short. 3-6months (as long as China keeps out) but bloody as the North will use Chem and biological weapons and they do have enough artillery to level allot of south Korean Bases and city's conventionally before the might of the USAF can take them out. The USA and allies will win but It wont be a easily war with light causalities. But to be honest the west better sort them out now rather than wait 10-20 years when they defiantly will have Nukes capable of reaching round the world!

Also just a theory but what's to stop North Korea using Q-Ships? They could get a large civilian vessel hide a SCUD or other short range missile on it tipped with nuke and discreetly sail to the coast of the USA then deliver there weapon? Ok the ship will be sunk as soon as they fire but the payload would be delivered.

edit on 11-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


In total agreement with you. Though they should just look at what happened in the Korean War. The scenario between that war and today is actually quite similar. Back then, part of our issues was that we were coming out of WWII. This time, it's Iraq and pretty sure we still have forces in Afghanistan. Terrain was a major problem in the Korean War and you're absolutely right.

In terms of fallout, we can't drop nukes on them as that risks fall out on either China, SK, or Japan--and none of those countries would be particularly fond of that. To give an idea of fallout range, Castle Bravo was detonated at the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands and the closest inhabited atoll was Rongelap, about 100-150 kms away. Rongerik Atoll was yet another 100-150 kms away. Both got hit by fallout and compared to what we currently have today, Castle Bravo was a wimp.

Marshall Islands: Bikini Atoll

Whereas Japan is about 900 to 1100 km away from NK, SK and China are bordering NK. Fallout could easily reach them and is associated with everything from death, cancer and birth defects. Yeah, we're not dropping a nuclear weapon on NK unless we really, really, really have no choice. If we did, China would most definitely enter into the fray. That's bad.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I didnt even go into the whole bunker issue aswell.

From what little intel is and what defecter say the North is just one big complex of Bunkers and tunnels.

Now yes you have Bunker Busters. Good you will need them. But by the sounds of it you will need Tens of thousands of them. 1 bunker buster is only going do so much. You will also need to find them first.......

It will takes months to locate them all and then drop a bunker buster on them. Plus by what I have heard some of these tunnels are deep inside mountins and hill. A your best Bunker buster can only go 60m from what I hear.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I will also add if the USA does go into war with the North it will be one of the USA finest hours up there with world war 2.

Once people see the USA and it allies liberating the Norths Concentration camps and uncovering the true horrors of North Korea all the USA embaressments like Vietnam/Iraq and Afghanistan will be forgotton.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

4) " policing North Korea will be as bad as Iraq and Afghanistan". Maybe not a stupid theory but unlikely. These are people who have been starved and live under a regime that would make Hitler feel pity for them. I have a feeling once the North Korean Army Break and the leaderships has been killed or captured it wont be that hard. Once these poor people realise there is a better world out there and more importantly food! they will be very happy to rejoin there south Korean Brothers. Just look at the amount of North Korean Defectors and even spys that have turned due to realising the truth.


Maybe if South Koreans are policing NK, but Americans? No way. The intensity of the propaganda is stupendous. They have an extreme ethnocentric attitude.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok
I didnt even go into the whole bunker issue aswell.

From what little intel is and what defecter say the North is just one big complex of Bunkers and tunnels.

Now yes you have Bunker Busters. Good you will need them. But by the sounds of it you will need Tens of thousands of them. 1 bunker buster is only going do so much. You will also need to find them first.......

It will takes months to locate them all and then drop a bunker buster on them. Plus by what I have heard some of these tunnels are deep inside mountins and hill. A your best Bunker buster can only go 60m from what I hear.


The bunker buster bombs would have very minimal worth against North Korea's hardened sites. Those sites were built based on Russian military designs and were designed to withstand nuclear bombs. All the bunker busters would do is cause damage above the ground. They would not do a thing to the actual underground facilities.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Red Cloak

Originally posted by crazyewok
I didnt even go into the whole bunker issue aswell.

From what little intel is and what defecter say the North is just one big complex of Bunkers and tunnels.

Now yes you have Bunker Busters. Good you will need them. But by the sounds of it you will need Tens of thousands of them. 1 bunker buster is only going do so much. You will also need to find them first.......

It will takes months to locate them all and then drop a bunker buster on them. Plus by what I have heard some of these tunnels are deep inside mountins and hill. A your best Bunker buster can only go 60m from what I hear.


The bunker buster bombs would have very minimal worth against North Korea's hardened sites. Those sites were built based on Russian military designs and were designed to withstand nuclear bombs. All the bunker busters would do is cause damage above the ground. They would not do a thing to the actual underground facilities.



Yup Bunker Bunkers are not a I WIN weapon like alot of American think they are.


Form what I gather of North Koreans Bunkers think Cheyene Mountin but hundreds of them all connected.

These are not going to be a few quickly thrown up dirt tunnels that can be collapsed to block people getting in or out either. They will no doubt have thousands of secret exits and entrances ect

Concretes ship and tunneling equipments cheap, labour in North Koreas plentifull, the terrain is pefect for bunkers with hills and mountins and they have had 60 years to dig dig and dig.

Just look at the short makeshift tunnels they helped build in vietnam!
edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



The bunker buster bombs would have very minimal worth against North Korea's hardened sites. Those sites were built based on Russian military designs and were designed to withstand nuclear bombs. All the bunker busters would do is cause damage above the ground. They would not do a thing to the actual underground facilities.


This is true of the standard "bunker busters" we used in Iraq...but against both Iran and NK, the new gen MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) is a 30,000lb bomb that can penetrate 41m of rock (so just two to get to their most dug in bunkers). Guess how many a B-2 carries? That's right...2.

Of course, these were developed so we had a conventional option, instead of tactical nukes which would already reach suck targets. There's also the option of DU bunker busters, but I doubt we want the political fallout from them. (DU is denser, so more penetration power).


edit on 12-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by crazyewok
 



The bunker buster bombs would have very minimal worth against North Korea's hardened sites. Those sites were built based on Russian military designs and were designed to withstand nuclear bombs. All the bunker busters would do is cause damage above the ground. They would not do a thing to the actual underground facilities.


This is true of the standard "bunker busters" we used in Iraq...but against both Iran and NK, the new gen MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) is a 30,000lb bomb that can penetrate 41m of rock (so just two to get to their most dug in bunkers). Guess how many a B-2 carries? That's right...2.

Of course, these were developed so we had a conventional option, instead of tactical nukes which would already reach suck targets. There's also the option of DU bunker busters, but I doubt we want the political fallout from them. (DU is denser, so more penetration power).


edit on 12-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



But you have to fine them first! Plus ok 2 thats 81m I have been bellow 200m in just a mine. If the base is built into a mountin you have a problem unless you use Nukes but as I said and you said you will be politicaly constrained by such weapons.

Look at vietnam. The tunnels wernt exactly bomb proof as they were very quickly made. But they were hidden and plentifull and constructed in a way that if you bombed one part the other bits still functioned and usa such you still needed Infantry to clear them.

Im not saying at all the USA cant win this. But it will be the hardest battles you guys have fought since vietnam or even in the pacfic war.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
250,000 my ass.How can anyone who saw how we outright dismantled Bagdad in minuits underestimate U.S.skill and hardware?Another anti-American fantasy.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawg61
250,000 my ass.How can anyone who saw how we outright dismantled Bagdad in minuits underestimate U.S.skill and hardware?Another anti-American fantasy.


O god another one


Do you guys forget vietnam?

North Korea is not Iraq, The terrain is complety diffrent and will be more like vietnam. Your great big bombs will not be a instant I WIN here


No I doubt it will not be 250,000 US dead (stupud figure). Most likey 25,000-50,0000 dead.

But please diffrent war diffrent place.

Its not Anti American just fact.

O and I am from the UK so as such we will mostly likely be going in too and at the front with you Americans like always. So I have no reason to laugh or gloat about allied deaths.



edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


A person who uses the term "retarded" more than once usually has "retarded" issues himself. Leet's look at the obvious lack of understanding of both the military and geography in you rather inane post.

1). Granted. Use of nukes in NK is problematic, but more from political fallout than nuclear fallout. First of all, the prevailing weather would take teh fallout east, so the only country that would be affected in any way would be Japan. What you fail to realize is that there are various yields of nuclear weapons in our arsenal and those of the "tactical" variety that we actually planned to use in the Fulda gap, could close portions of NK without large areas of fallout. Military "#wits" actually understand the weapons they plan to use, rather than taking their information from movies and television.

2). Completely wrong. NK transportation and infrastructure is actually MORE vulnerable due to the terrain because, unlike Iraq with its wide open spaces, NK with its mountainous terrain is a series of choke points. It would be quite easy to cutoff lines of resupply and troop movement. Vietnam was over 40 years ago. Infrared and other sensor systems are quite a bit more advanced. Hiding large troop movements and armored vehicles will not be easy at all.

3). They are quite correct. I see you have not studied history. In the original Korean war, we actually took over the whole peninsula and drove the communists out. MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges over the Yalu river but the president did not permit this so a million Chinese came over those bridges and we were fought abck to the current lines. We lost the victory we had in our hands because we tied our own hands.

4). We won't have to police the are after the war, SK will be glad to do so and the NK, once they see they actually get more food without communism will not revolt: see both Japan and Germany after WWII.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by TDawg61
250,000 my ass.How can anyone who saw how we outright dismantled Bagdad in minuits underestimate U.S.skill and hardware?Another anti-American fantasy.


O god another one


Do you guys forget vietnam?

North Korea is not Iraq, The terrain is complety diffrent and will be more like vietnam. Your great big bombs will not be a instant I WIN here


No I doubt it will not be 250,000 US dead (stupud figure). Most likey 25,000-50,0000 dead.

But please diffrent war diffrent place.

Its not Anti American just fact.

O and I am from the UK so as such we will mostly likely be going in too and at the front with you Americans like always. So I have no reason to laugh or gloat about allied deaths.



edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


Uhh, Korea is not like Vietnam. It is a temperate zone and not a jungle. The trees and plants lose their leaves every fall just like in the Northern US and there is no triple canopy jungle to hide under. I take it you have never been there.



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
reply to post by crazyewok
 



1). Granted. Use of nukes in NK is problematic, but more from political fallout than nuclear fallout. First of all, the prevailing weather would take teh fallout east, so the only country that would be affected in any way would be Japan. What you fail to realize is that there are various yields of nuclear weapons in our arsenal and those of the "tactical" variety that we actually planned to use in the Fulda gap, could close portions of NK without large areas of fallout. Military "#wits" actually understand the weapons they plan to use, rather than taking their information from movies and television.

You fail to realise I was refering to those on here who suggest just glassing North Korea not to actuall Nuclear depolymnet in general, I am quite aware of the small and rather "clean" tactical nukes. These are just big bombs and wont be turning the whole country to rubble like some on hear want.
I did not call your commanders "fckwits" only the nuke happy people on hear. I know US and allied commanders in charge of Nuclear deploymnet will not be useing them lightly.




Originally posted by NavyDoc
2). Completely wrong. NK transportation and infrastructure is actually MORE vulnerable due to the terrain because, unlike Iraq with its wide open spaces, NK with its mountainous terrain is a series of choke points. It would be quite easy to cutoff lines of resupply and troop movement. Vietnam was over 40 years ago. Infrared and other sensor systems are quite a bit more advanced. Hiding large troop movements and armored vehicles will not be easy at all.

Hence why there are reports and of Underground tunnels and bunkers. North Korea millitary commander are not stupid they know there land and will know how to use it to there advantage. Asian Countrys especialy those with links to the Japanese in world war two seem to have a good grasp of asymetrical warfare and guerrial tactics and unorthadox logitics.After all this time I could be wrong but so far there is no way to prove otherwise as no recent wars have been fought in this area.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
3). They are quite correct. I see you have not studied history. In the original Korean war, we actually took over the whole peninsula and drove the communists out. MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges over the Yalu river but the president did not permit this so a million Chinese came over those bridges and we were fought abck to the current lines. We lost the victory we had in our hands because we tied our own hands.

And MacArthur had got his way then yes the Korean war could very well have been won but World war 3 could have been triggerd. To big of a risk. Political restrictions are not always there to make life more difficult but instead to prevent a worse situation. Anyway I was refering to a few idoits who suggested tearing up the Geneva convention and going full out brutel.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
4). We won't have to police the are after the war, SK will be glad to do so and the NK, once they see they actually get more food without communism will not revolt: see both Japan and Germany after WWII.



If you had proberly read point 4 I 100% agree.



I take it your a military man and you seem smart if not a little too overconfident. You should know its always best to side with caution in a unkown situation and that arrogance and overconfidence coast lives and can prolong and even lose wars.
edit on 12-4-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
These estimates are based on an invasion of NK by the US and south Korea.

I just thought that I might throw that in.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join