open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked "the severest punishment no one has ever met in the world"
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Barakkus
Posted - 2010.08.16 22:26:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Rylie Gayle
I mean we've done some pretty ****ed up counterblows in the past... If they really are going to, kinda makes me think bio.


They will more than likely just nuke south korea, why **** with biological warfare when the retalliation for a nuke will pretty much be the same.

Epicbeardman
Posted - 2010.08.16 23:30:00 - [32]
 

North Korea's military strength is roughly equal to a very large beehive.

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2010.08.17 00:09:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Alias Forgotten

There is a fundamental flaw with your plan 'pinpoint every piece of artillery they have...' They are believed to have around 13,000 pieces of artillery scattered near the border. Also, most of the artillery is mobile. It would take a small percentage of the artillery to remain standing to deal devastating damage to Seoul. The moment a move is taken against them they would unleash holy hell upon South Korea and the rest of the world would condemn the 'instigators' of North Korea.

Next, you are ignoring the possibility of North Korea possessing nuclear weapons. Some sources claim them to potentially have material to construct 9 nukes.

Finally, your comment on 'die hards in the woods...' seems to completely disregard the fact that they have one of the largest standing armies in the world (larger than China!). 1.2 million active personnel and 9.7 reserved/retired personnel. You may think that 'MANY people in the north would love to shuffle off their government...' however I don't think you realize that they have been force-fed propaganda their entire lives. A great majority of North Koreans love their government and will fiercely fight to protect it. Given that 50% of the population is either active, reserve, or retired military, invading North Korea would be extremely difficult (think: trying to invade Texas!)

In closing: I agree, it wouldn't be pretty. This would not be a cakewalk like Iraq was. We are talking REAL resistance, REAL consequences, REAL WMDs!!!! Shock n'Awe would be North Korea's gameplan/slogan. I doubt it would make people happier though...


iraq was hardly a cakewalk. it's still going on!

no, i agree with you on much of that and you make some very good points.
i was really trying to not sound like 'heh yeah we can do that no prob'. so i hope i didn't

i'm not naive to the scope of n koreas artillery or their military numbers. and i think my comment about 'die hards in the woods' was poorly chosen/misunderstood... like i said it would very much be similar to vietnam trying to engage their military in a traditional manner.

no one suggested we could pull it off without south korea suffering damage, that's just silly. but with the technology we have i think we could locate and destroy almost all of their artillery in very short order. our technology is really way out there. again, wouldn't be pretty.

as for nukes... i did ignore that. my useless opinion/guess is they don't have ****. but that's really the question isn't it? do they actually have a capability? would they use them? can they or do we know we can delete that capability?
i think there are people that know these answers but they ain't us :P


If we can do and south korea decides they want it to happen, we will.
but if there is any real question of our ability to execute or correctly know the answers to some of these questions at top levels of the military we won't dare risk it.

A military overthrow of n. korea is not something any civilian or military leadership would be willing to gamble on trying to sell to the public like Iraq. And no one would try to sell it. For all intents and purposes we are still at war with them.
My guess? Thousands would already be dead on both sides by the time the news could even react.
It would be explained as "South Korea decided to... and as allies we supported them".

Chipan Asty
Posted - 2010.08.17 02:43:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
... all they have left is die hards in the woods. which as 'nam taught us, can be significant. but if played right, i think many MANY people in the north would love to shuffle off their governments coil.

wouldn't be pretty. stuff like that never is. and i hate to make pro war comments because it's never as simple as it sounds but.... in the long run it would probably be for the best.
would definitely make millions upon millions of people much much happier


I say go for it and invade. Worked in nam, afghanistan and iraq.


Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
Posted - 2010.08.17 13:13:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Vogue on 17/08/2010 13:17:46
South Korea and USA military in North Korea.. that would really **** in China's rice bowl Cool. But to get to that post war state North Korea could flatten Seoul with its huge number of artillery pieces ugh

Apart from China meddling I think a post war North Korean populace with old order dismantled would warm to the idea of a reunited Korea. So long as its not another USA botch job of talking lots of hot air about 'democracy' but not giving the natives water, electricity, sanitation and other basic requirements. Which was the case in Iraq.

Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari
Guiding Hand Social Club
Posted - 2010.08.17 13:37:00 - [36]
 

About the 13,000+ North Korean artillery guns pointed at Seoul...

Yeah, not so much. This guy has painstakingly assembled sat-footage of the Norks' artillery emplacements, and while they DO have tens of thousands, only a few are capable of hitting Seoul with sustained fire. The others are limited by their arcs of fire, or simply don't point at Seoul at all.

Additionally, there's the fact that if they started shooting, they'd have far more important military targets rather than a densely populated civillian city. There's nothing gained by wrecking it, except a 100% assured retaliation in kind.

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.08.17 13:55:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
About the 13,000+ North Korean artillery guns pointed at Seoul...


Additionally, there's the fact that if they started shooting, they'd have far more important military targets rather than a densely populated civillian city. There's nothing gained by wrecking it, except a 100% assured retaliation in kind.


Wrong. NK knows they cannot win a fight with the US. Their main goal is to take Seoul, and even if they can't take it, they can destroy it because it's the linchpin for the entire peninsula. It's not just casualties, it's the economic fallout that everyone's afraid of.

The NK regular army is not what people are afraid of...rather, it's their immense spec ops corps that has everyone worried. They have one of the largest in the world. People aren't worried about bombers, they're worried about thousands of Kims or Lees jumping on top of a building in Inchon with an RPG and taking down aircraft or blowing up infrastructure.

Fumitsugu
Posted - 2010.08.17 15:35:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Chipan Asty

I say go for it and invade. Worked in nam, afghanistan and iraq.




My irony senses are tingling.

Alias Forgotten
Posted - 2010.08.17 17:58:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia

iraq was hardly a cakewalk. it's still going on!

no, i agree with you on much of that and you make some very good points.
i was really trying to not sound like 'heh yeah we can do that no prob'. so i hope i didn't

i'm not naive to the scope of n koreas artillery or their military numbers. and i think my comment about 'die hards in the woods' was poorly chosen/misunderstood... like i said it would very much be similar to vietnam trying to engage their military in a traditional manner.

no one suggested we could pull it off without south korea suffering damage, that's just silly. but with the technology we have i think we could locate and destroy almost all of their artillery in very short order. our technology is really way out there. again, wouldn't be pretty.

as for nukes... i did ignore that. my useless opinion/guess is they don't have ****. but that's really the question isn't it? do they actually have a capability? would they use them? can they or do we know we can delete that capability?
i think there are people that know these answers but they ain't us :P


If we can do and south korea decides they want it to happen, we will.
but if there is any real question of our ability to execute or correctly know the answers to some of these questions at top levels of the military we won't dare risk it.

A military overthrow of n. korea is not something any civilian or military leadership would be willing to gamble on trying to sell to the public like Iraq. And no one would try to sell it. For all intents and purposes we are still at war with them.
My guess? Thousands would already be dead on both sides by the time the news could even react.
It would be explained as "South Korea decided to... and as allies we supported them".


Defense: Iraq as a calkwalk --

Gulf War 1 (first 24 hours): Battle of 73 Easting. 27 allied tanks took out about 85 tanks and 40 armored personnel vehicles, and numerous anti-air vehicles. They were outnumbered more than 4:1 and didn't suffer a single loss (tank). In total 600+ Iraqis were killed with an allied loss of 12 soldiers (with an additional 57 wounded). The Battle of 73 Easting left Republican Guard defenseless to an allied armored advance deeper into Iraq. In the battle, a whole lot of anti air was taken out as well giving allied forces unmolested air superiority over the Iraqi skies.

Gulf War 1: Highway 80 (north of Kuwait) - The Highway of Death: Allied forces destroyed over 2000 fleeing Republican Guard vehicles over a period of about 7 hours. There were no allied losses in this assault! The use of force was so disproportionate that it created a huge controversy. Some would say that PR damage-control was the reason we pulled out of Iraq without 'accomplishing the mission'. Many attribute this PR damage as one of the factors that George Bush lost the presidential election to Bill Clinton.

Iraq 2003: Allied forces toppled the regime of ****** ******* in 21 days. Yes, there still remains pocket defense, civil unrest, and terrorist activity in Iraq. But 21 days!

Conclusion: In my opinion, Iraq was a cakewalk (militarily). Socially, building a brighter future, stabilizing the region... that is a whole other story. I intend my comment to refer to our forces clashing against their forces.

Topic of battling North Korea: The only way we would pinpoint all of their artillery is by seeing where they are firing from. Mobile artillery + camo == us missing some (if not many -- imo we would miss way too many) of it on our first pass. Getting in position and attacking those targets after they begin their bombardment of South Korea would be devastating to our forces morale and I truly believe such an provocation would be condemned by the international community.

And if they have nukes, they could hit South Korea, Japan, and Malaysia easily. If their missile tech is better than we know, California and Alaska could be targets as well...

Alias Forgotten
Posted - 2010.08.17 18:01:00 - [40]
 

OMG! the name of the Iraqi dictator that was overthrown in 2003 was censored by the forum...

Maybe we aren't allowed to talk about politics, history, socioeconomic issues, and military struggles on these forums...

Alias Forgotten
Posted - 2010.08.17 18:18:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
About the 13,000+ North Korean artillery guns pointed at Seoul...

Yeah, not so much. This guy has painstakingly assembled sat-footage of the Norks' artillery emplacements, and while they DO have tens of thousands, only a few are capable of hitting Seoul with sustained fire. The others are limited by their arcs of fire, or simply don't point at Seoul at all.

Additionally, there's the fact that if they started shooting, they'd have far more important military targets rather than a densely populated civillian city. There's nothing gained by wrecking it, except a 100% assured retaliation in kind.


Wow, amazing work done by that individual.

Why North Korea would attack Seoul while other military targets are present: I will quote that wonderful article you linked...

Quote:
From my viewpoint North Korea’s chemical and nuclear threat is more in the vein of **** vengeance weapons built in response to losing the conventional battle. They are intended to provide a massive if inaccurate retribution on South Korea and her (perceived) allies with the basic aim of putting the cost of winning a war beyond the “ideologically weak” tolerances of the “capitalist imperialists”.


Sums it up quite nicely. I would add that the artillery thread to Seoul falls under the same reasoning. If they are attacked, they are gonna make the first few hours so costly that they force their enemies to reconsider other options.

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.17 18:42:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Viktor Fyretracker on 17/08/2010 18:43:05
they want to make the cost of being attacked beyond what the west is willing to pay knowing that the western response to shelling Seoul would be also politically unfriendly.

The issue is today is even though we all love to see them as an option, Nukes would only hurt the Civilians while the NK leadership is safe deep underground cowering in a bunker. Heck even a fully conventional war you know Kim will likely go cower in a bunker.

Arianhod
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation
space weaponry and trade
Posted - 2010.08.17 23:38:00 - [43]
 

Frankly I want to know who's bright idea it was to have Seoul as the Capital, as I understand it most of Korea was built from scratch after the Japanese occupation and one of the Southern Cities could have been selected by the Allies as the focus for reconstruction.

Seems to me North (best) Korea will not fall. There is no reason for it to and as long as they have Artillery trained on Seoul they survive. As long as they know that the world will hold them to their crimes, the upper ranks will make the new recruits commit war crimes, torture, **** etc to get their hands dirty and continue the chain.

If we don't feed them, they start taking potshots at suburbs and we give in. If we attempt an overt evacuation of Seoul they do the same.

All we can do is wait for a Gorbachev like character to emerge that will start the stumbling path to modernization, and I think we only get one set of Gorbachev/Reagan/Thatcher once a century or three Sad

jason hill
Caldari
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2010.08.18 02:34:00 - [44]
 

an army essentially marches on its stomach ... seeings how 99% of the populace are essentialy near starvation point i really cannot see this happening rhetoric and chest beating is one thing but putting and committing a half starved/malnutricioned army in to the front line is certainly another thing indeed

i will elaborate later in the day


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only