62 replies to this topic

[jworks]

I think the western world is doing the right thing by doing everything they can to avoid conflict. It does seems ridiculous that North Korea is getting away with such blatant threats and weapon programs, but actually engaging them has the potential to cause so much more damage than just ridding ourselves of North Korea.

History comes in handy here, look at World War I. The entire war was essentially caused because an unimportant prince was assassinated by a radical individual. But because of the ridiculous network of secret alliances among Europe, suddenly the whole modern world was at war. So you have one of history's deadliest conflicts, 37 million casualties, because of a single, relatively unimportant event.

So I believe it has been wise not to use force with them yet. We of course have the power to stop them if comes to it, but none of us can begin to predict what the end effect would be.

@Kamina-yoshi Don't take such an arrogant tone when you haven't the knowledge to back it up. You are blaming the military for not accomplishing something they were never attempting to.

[Gravenimage]

Newest update on the situation - http://news.yahoo.co...-062418562.html

Video report - http://news.yahoo.co...-080000455.html

They're only trying to intimidate the US.

[Evil Potato]

Even if we can wipe this pitiful country off the face of the Earth, how many thousands of U.S and SK soldiers will die before our retaliation? I don't think that Kim Jong will successfully set off and nuke and devastate a civilian population, but I do think he could inflict heavy casualties on ours and SK's soldiers.

I hope NK comes to its senses. I hope Kim Jong will start to think about his people.

[Kamina-Yoshi]

You are aware that before Desert Storm Iraq had the third largest standing army in the world, and we were able to beat them in less than 100 hours right?

And you are aware that the United States had the backing of their "allies" in a concerted effort by several other regional powers to do so, right? I hope you're not forgetting that it and "Iraqi Freedom" were basically one-versus-all, and the campaign being basically one guy being jumped on with no provocation by a group of hooligans with guns, looking for a bomb that they well knew didn't exist. It's not a testament to military might, it's a testament to cowardice and overwhelming a smaller, under-developed nation with overwhelming forces.

You are confusing guerrilla groups with a standing army, guerrilla gropes use hit and run tactics while an actual military force has to stand and fight.

You're right in the sense that those are two distinct classes of an army. However, they also have the distinction of being the embodiment of military tactics that an army can use. There's no reason that a large army cannot go into hiding (much like how North Korea's army could go from standing-to-guerilla), and on the same level it could not change back. It's all a matter of tactics, rather than an organisational structure that is followed to the book. Otherwise, the Iraq War would've ended in an American victory, instead of American defeat.

Take Vietnam for example, the NVA (North Vietnam Army) was a total joke, they were slaughtered every time they fought U.S. and NATO forces, the real threat was the Viet Cong, because they would pop up out of the Jungle fire a few rounds and run away, and every time they stood and fought us they were slaughter, you can ask any Vietnam vet who was involved in the Tet Offensive and they will tell you that it was a tactical failure for the VC who lost almost all of their men in the attack, while U.S. and NATO forces lost very few.

A tactical failure supplemented by a strategic victory. They judged that the American nation was weak-willed, that it lacked the back-bone, the will, and the ideological centricity to be able to conduct a war on its own against a foe that was far away and well supplied by captured French arms as well as Soviet-Chinese arms. They took advantage of this with either with these goals in mind or just in the mind of the generals who may have suggested it, and it turns out that their hypothesis was correct. It shows that you don't need just tactics to defeat an enemy nation, you also need a strategy (namely, attacking the army to attack the home-nation, even if it is hundreds of miles away). Cities have capitulated in the past without a single shot fired within its walls because local armies have been defeated, so it stands to reason that it doesn't matter how many are lost as long as the enemy is defeated. War isn't about "scores", it's about win-or-lose. Who retreats, and who claims the bounties of war and completes their objectives. So, unless the American goal was to kill as many Vietnamese men as possible, they overwhelmingly lost.

What prolonged the War so much was that the Johnson Administration insisted that we fallow UN guidelines, every time we got the NVA and the VC on the ropes, the North Vietnamese would agree to peace talks and use this time to resupply their forces and once they were properly supplied they would break off the peace talks and resume fighting, they did this because the Johnson Administration wouldn't allow are forces to attack, but once Nixon took office he stopped that and due to the way Nixon ran the war North Vietnam actually sent a message to one of out carriers asking what the terms of surrender were, the only problem was that about an hour before that the peace treaty was signed in Paris.

I would like a source on that last part, please; it sounds too "We Shouldn't Have Pulled Out" to be reality. Also, you are correct on the beginning and middle. However, Nixon also stretched the lines too thin by initiating campaigns in other parts of Indochina. He did it more out of desperation than any over-arching victory-strategy; it's plainly clear by his time that the war was lost, the generals could not handle it, and the soldiers and civilians were too asinine to continue on a renewed campaign.

And as for the War of Terror, the problem is again the way were are fighting, while this may not be politically correct, what we should've done is do the same thing we did with the American Indians and the Japanese, we should've made it clear to the Arabs that if they wanted to continue to exist as a race they needed to throw down their arms and give up the ones who won't.

Firstly, they're Native Americans, not Indians. Sorry, but that's a pet-peeve of mind. They're clearly not from India, so they do not deserve the term "Indian", no matter of it's from the phrase los indios as used by the Spaniards. It's a wrong translation from "indios" to "Indian".

But anyways, you're talking in the sense that everyone would go along with this notion that you would be able to kill every Arabian man who would defy you in those areas, or that the situation allows for that kind of tactic. Don't get me wrong, it's a sound strategy and would actually work as well as "hearts and minds". However, the problem is is that America has no basis of understanding the concept of real whole-sale slaughter or suppression campaigns. They've lived in the blissful world of Pax Britannica, hiding behind the Atlantic Ocean and contending to industrialise, to wage war on itself, and to wage war on those who are weaker than them (namely the natives and the Spaniard-Mexicans). It's not just a matter of "being able to do it", it's a matter of having the "reflexes" (so to speak), the know-how to do it. There would be people who would riot at the mere suggestion of a genocide of that size (namely Constitutional conservative and politically liberal), and there would be people who would support it (Nationally/politically conservative and certain liberals who may have conservative/reactionary leanings, or simply the mind to accept losses or to embrace murder (this does not imply that liberals are murderers, it's merely a break-down of the points-of-view of this proposed hypothetical suppression campaign). The question remains is whether there would be more who support it, more against it, and more importantly if you realistically expect that it would be able to pass even the House legislature.

If this were to happen, this suppression campaign, there is no guarantee it would succeed. In fact, it would more likely fail than anything. Americans have had no experience in suppressing an entire nation from start-to-finish, with only having experience in jumping in on the British Empire's and the Republic of China's successes/holding of the Japanese forces near the end of the war but still gaining the foothold of establishing a puppet regime in the Empire of Japan (that may well continue to this very day under a shadow-propaganda issue). Otherwise, there's no evidence to suggest that Americans would be able to suppress a nation of peoples, especially in modern times whereas it has dug itself in a hole that claims "We will not slaughter those who slaughter us in return. Rather, we will be complacent, do nothing, cry, then leave because that is our way of moral upbringing". It would be a crisis of morals that would most likely end up in the favour of those who are against it. So, even if the campaign were to be suggested, there would be no chance of it being implemented, and have no chance of it being successful due to lack of first-hand experience.

I am a history buff myself, as well as a military buff, and have read countless articles in books and online and watch the History channel almost religiously, as well as talking to people who in Vietnam and with my dad who also a history buff and talked with people who were in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

I am also a military "buff" and history "buff", but there's a distinct difference between reading the articles and actually comprehending them. Sun Tzu's The Art of War needs to be understood, not just read on a passing-by. As well, the History Channel should not really be trusted. It tries its hardest to present the facts, but it's clearly obvious that they're construed in a biased American ideological stand-point (whereas the stereotypes are Hitler is the definition of evil and had never been kind in his life, Americans are always victorious and never wrong or defeated, and we'll throw as many old people and pay-roll scientists at you as we possibly can). Something as massive as a war cannot be contained in an hour-long segment filled with non-stop commercials and an over-shadowing narrator to guide the viewer from beginning to end. It must be analyzed from every point of view, from the true facts of the nature of the situation. I used to love the History Channel myself, but recently I find that the only pleasure I draw from it is Ancient Aliens as it provides a true scope as to what it has become: an entertainment and self-assurance channel. Don't get me wrong, you seem like an astute individual, it's just that I personally believe you've been led astray a bit by some unsavoury situations.



In conclusion, I'll wrap this post up with an over-all connection to the topic at hand. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has a good chance of obtaining "victory" in a coming conflict due to the following reasons:

*It is bordered by the People's Republic of China, a nominal enemy of the United States of America and an ideological cousin of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This would mean that at some point in time food and supplies would readily be resumed to the nation in question, and a guerilla campaign would not only be feasible, but entirely victorious if handled correctly. Plus, the United States would not dare attack the People's Republic of China in fear of riling the wrath of the Russian Federation, who would more likely join the side of the People's Republic of China on the basis of "moral outrage" against a warring nation.

*It can define victory as the death of even one invading enemy soldier, with the required subsequent retreat of enemy forces from the nation. This means that the Americans invade, they get bogged down, and they leave. An overwhelming victory, in the sense of a concrete tactical and strategic victory, is the routing of the American and South Korean armed forces and the reunification of the Korean peninsula. This is unlikely due to the obvious technological modernity of the enemy forces in question.

*The South Koreans and Americans would be forced, by their own "moral code", to clothe and feed the North Korean populace as per their "obligations" as "liberators". So, if the North Korean army were to meld back into the crowd and preform guerrilla warfare against their invaders, they could use enemy supplies to supplement their own. On a larger stand-point, an invasion would mean the unilateral end of sanctions and the assumption of mass-aide to the north of the Korean peninsula, which has all likelyhood of back-firing like it has done in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq (namely, guerrillas seize the supplies or they are provided to the guerrillas by a local supporting population of citizens that sympathise with them).



On the same level, the Americans are overwhelmingly likely to obtain a tactical victory due to their superiority in arms. There's no denying the power of a few battleships and fifty-thousand armed soldiers hiding behind five-hundred thousand South Korean soldiers. However, this is an enemy that doesn't rely on international trade in the traditional sense that they would starve to death if it were to be cut off; it's been cut off for the entirety of its existence. There are plenty of places to hide for the North Koreans, and many of them are out-of-reach of even the most advanced technology that would prove useless in their conditions. Rather, the Americans are trying to be something they're not: a highly-trained, highly-technological force on a flat-plains with all three-million North Korean soldiers splayed out all at once. This is due to a lack of actual military understanding by the American military itself; they have clearly not learned from past examples in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the fact that they don't want to; they're incapable of analyzing the events before them. There has never been a Moltke, an Alexander the Great of a Suleiman the Magnificent for the United States simply because it's a country with no real basis for existing beyond rebellion against a mother-country. The country itself was born from British settlers, and has since swelled due to immigration from other countries, but it has not established a firm military tradition within its country like that in the kingdoms and empires of France that allowed its republics to continue to be Great Powers, or like how the Germans are prestigious for military might on the basis of its military in the past (namely the Wehrmact and the Imperial Germany Army). These countries are born from their own culture and from the ability of their individual culture to form into a nation without outside intervention. The German Empire didn't form because the British and Russians came in to save it from the French Empire, it formed because the German culture was a hegemonuous idea that had be born from centuries of existence beforehand, and was eventually brought together by an intense military tradition within the Junker aristrocracy and the Prussian military. American generals, on the other hand, are basically office-temps with bad hair-do's in comparison. They can't truly analyze a situation because "genetically", so to speak, it's not their way of doing it. West Point has only been around for a few decades, and has constantly had to address "modernisation" and the intense intrusion by the civilian populace into its affairs through political bureaucracy. It is a newborn in chains with a textbook with ninety per cent of the words bloated out. So, in the end, they simply set up committees to analyze it then implement a few "reforms" here and there, and bing-bang-boom they launch more air-strikes at areas and continue to lose as per the status quo. That's how actually goes within the American military because that's its background: tip-toeing so it doesn't get snared by an outraged, ignorant and cowardly public, and trying to stay ahead of the game by developing new toys for troops that have only the basic ideas of how to be a soldier and only the basic of orders to follow with complex consequences for not obeying. I'm afraid to say, and people's lives are spent in the process of a huge enemy sending thousands of troops armed with a blank cheque and no restraint into a situation where they are expected to behave as well as win. It's a matter of history, of cultural and political "genetics".

Sorry for "too long; didn't read" here, but they're my thoughts and I have been mulling on them for the past few hours before responding. I truly believe that this is the truth, due to my years of analyzing and comparing history and the present situation of the world. I have every reason to believe it, and I have tried to word it as straight-forward and non-confrontation ally as possible. It just so happens that, perhaps, there will be some segments that will be taken to as an offence to some people within this forum; I don't mean to offend you. In fact, if I had more time, I could write an even longer post, or even PM you my reasons and some evidence as to why I put forward these theories and analysations. I do not mean to personally offend you, but these are my academic opinions.

Edited by Kamina-Yoshi, 04 April 2013 - 06:09 PM.

[Sakamaki Izayoi]

*It is bordered by the People's Republic of China, a nominal enemy of the United States of America and an ideological cousin of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This would mean that at some point in time food and supplies would readily be resumed to the nation in question, and a guerilla campaign would not only be feasible, but entirely victorious if handled correctly. Plus, the United States would not dare attack the People's Republic of China in fear of riling the wrath of the Russian Federation, who would more likely join the side of the People's Republic of China on the basis of "moral outrage" against a warring nation.

*It can define victory as the death of even one invading enemy soldier, with the required subsequent retreat of enemy forces from the nation. This means that the Americans invade, they get bogged down, and they leave. An overwhelming victory, in the sense of a concrete tactical and strategic victory, is the routing of the American and South Korean armed forces and the reunification of the Korean peninsula. This is unlikely due to the obvious technological modernity of the enemy forces in question.

*The South Koreans and Americans would be forced, by their own "moral code", to clothe and feed the North Korean populace as per their "obligations" as "liberators". So, if the North Korean army were to meld back into the crowd and preform guerrilla warfare against their invaders, they could use enemy supplies to supplement their own. On a larger stand-point, an invasion would mean the unilateral end of sanctions and the assumption of mass-aide to the north of the Korean peninsula, which has all likelyhood of back-firing like it has done in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq (namely, guerrillas seize the supplies or they are provided to the guerrillas by a local supporting population of citizens that sympathise with them).

Sorry but.
it's not a matter of ideology it's a matter of money, China would lose uncomparable amounts of money if they wage war agaisnt U.S because you know that the U.S may be the richest nation of the world but it's also the biggest Nation on terms of debts, the U.S has a lots of debts to other nations.
You do not wage wars against nations declares war against countries that are creditors or debtors, or some kind of relationship.
If China declares war against the U.S, the U.S does not need to pay large ammount of cash in form of interest to China, and aswell all the U.S debt will be zero.
China will suffer embargoes, and by the laws will lose all their investment on western countries and will lose their source of resources on Africa aswell.
CHina will lose so many cash, that makes the question here?
Why China would lose billions and billions of dollars to defend a country like North Korea who has 0 resources to her and even the own population it's not auto-sufficent.
China nowadays is distancing from North Korea and North Korea get more isolated every day.

CHina's strategy nowadays is to buy more and more land on Africa and secure more resources every day, they dont give a kitten abou North Korea is not even on their plans.

Edited by Dαrkrєrsŧ, 04 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[mm123]

I feel like there are a number of misconceptions floating around that need to be cleared up.

1. North Korea,China and the U.S.
The "friendship" between these two nations is less about actually liking each other and more about China not wanting another U.S. ally in the region. Meanwhile the U.S. and China are major trade partners. All debts aside this means more than anything, China and the U.S. both benefit massively from the relationship they have now and there is no way in hell that China would risk economic growth just to protect North Korea. If the U.S. were to go to war with N.K. China would more than likely stay out of direct combat and instead opt to participate more in the post war nation building where they could secure themselves a new ally.

2. The North Korean Military.
While North Korea does technically have a very large military, it wouldn't be able to stand up to South Korean forces, let alone the full backing of the United States. The North Korean military is laughably behind in terms of technology, and would be fighting a purely ground war within a day. Not only that but the nation has very low oil reserves and would run out within a week. This means that there tanks, artillery and troop transports would be completely useless. Desertions in the North Korean military have recently hit an all time high, while the general public in N.K. has been starving for quite some time it is only recently that their army has felt the effects of the shortages. Long story short, if the North Koreans soldiers didn't lay down their arms at the sight of a well fed enemy, they would be quickly crushed by the better trained, better equipt and better informed enemy.

3.The North Korean people are -not- brainwashed.
To an extent this is true, but not as much as people seem to believe. Like I said in point 2, military desertions are at an all time high, civilians are constantly trying to flee into China. All we see is their propaganda which makes it seem like the people are truly buying into it. Free enterprise is strictly banned in North Korea, yet almost all citizens practice it to an extent, they know what they have doesn't work but the won't do anything about it because they're scared. Anyone who says anything slightly negative about the government gets themselves and their families thrown in what essentially amounts to concentration camps.

4. Nuclear War.
The only thing the U.S. has to fear from the North Korean nuclear program is that they might sell it to someone like the Taliban, who in turn, could use a suitcase nuke in a major population or economic center, such as New York City. North Korea's bombs are smaller than what the U.S. dropped back in 1945 and they don't have the missile program to hit anything in the United States. Not only that but the use of nuclear weapons on anyone they actually could hit (Japan or South Korea) would more than likely result in the North Korean leadership being declared war criminals and put to death as a result, which brings me to my next point.

5. North Korea's leadership is crazy.
No, they aren't, they want to hold on to their power. North Korea is starving and for the last decade or so has received a great deal of food and medical aid in exchange for not advancing their nuclear or weapons programs. Since they let down their end of the deal by continuing nuclear testing the aid has slowed down and they have been hit with more trade sanctions. This means that North Korea is starving even more than usual, and as successfully as they have oppressed their people, if this keeps up they won't be able to maintain control for a whole lot longer. They know this too, so what they are doing is threatening to go to war with everyone around them in the hopes that they can make a deal to get the sanctions lifted and the aid flowing back in if they agree to back off again.

6. The United States economy.
The American economy can absolutely handle another war, because war doesn't break the economy nation-building does. The Iraq War didn't hurt us, the 10 year occupation did. And since, as I've already pointed out, China would want to take the lead on the rebuilding of North Korea this shouldn't be an issue.

Wrapping this up: The only real fear that I have about a war with North Korea would be if they where to plant bombs in their own country as a sort of nuclear IED to kill tens of thousands of American, South Korean or U.N. forces, as well as their potential to sell nuclear secrets to terrorist organizations. I'm very anti-war but if there is any nation that needs to have its government deposed by force it's North Korea, not just for the good of the world but for the good of all those trapped inside that hellhole. BUT having said all of this I can safely say that war with North Korea has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of happening because Kimmy and his bros in Pyongyang know that it is a fight they can't win and they aren't willing to risk their power or their lives over all this.

[Sakamaki Izayoi]

I feel like there are a number of misconceptions floating around that need to be cleared up.

1. North Korea,China and the U.S.
The "friendship" between these two nations is less about actually liking each other and more about China not wanting another U.S. ally in the region. Meanwhile the U.S. and China are major trade partners. All debts aside this means more than anything, China and the U.S. both benefit massively from the relationship they have now and there is no way in hell that China would risk economic growth just to protect North Korea. If the U.S. were to go to war with N.K. China would more than likely stay out of direct combat and instead opt to participate more in the post war nation building where they could secure themselves a new ally.

2. The North Korean Military.
While North Korea does technically have a very large military, it wouldn't be able to stand up to South Korean forces, let alone the full backing of the United States. The North Korean military is laughably behind in terms of technology, and would be fighting a purely ground war within a day. Not only that but the nation has very low oil reserves and would run out within a week. This means that there tanks, artillery and troop transports would be completely useless. Desertions in the North Korean military have recently hit an all time high, while the general public in N.K. has been starving for quite some time it is only recently that their army has felt the effects of the shortages. Long story short, if the North Koreans soldiers didn't lay down their arms at the sight of a well fed enemy, they would be quickly crushed by the better trained, better equipt and better informed enemy.

3.The North Korean people are -not- brainwashed.
To an extent this is true, but not as much as people seem to believe. Like I said in point 2, military desertions are at an all time high, civilians are constantly trying to flee into China. All we see is their propaganda which makes it seem like the people are truly buying into it. Free enterprise is strictly banned in North Korea, yet almost all citizens practice it to an extent, they know what they have doesn't work but the won't do anything about it because they're scared. Anyone who says anything slightly negative about the government gets themselves and their families thrown in what essentially amounts to concentration camps.

4. Nuclear War.
The only thing the U.S. has to fear from the North Korean nuclear program is that they might sell it to someone like the Taliban, who in turn, could use a suitcase nuke in a major population or economic center, such as New York City. North Korea's bombs are smaller than what the U.S. dropped back in 1945 and they don't have the missile program to hit anything in the United States. Not only that but the use of nuclear weapons on anyone they actually could hit (Japan or South Korea) would more than likely result in the North Korean leadership being declared war criminals and put to death as a result, which brings me to my next point.

5. North Korea's leadership is crazy.
No, they aren't, they want to hold on to their power. North Korea is starving and for the last decade or so has received a great deal of food and medical aid in exchange for not advancing their nuclear or weapons programs. Since they let down their end of the deal by continuing nuclear testing the aid has slowed down and they have been hit with more trade sanctions. This means that North Korea is starving even more than usual, and as successfully as they have oppressed their people, if this keeps up they won't be able to maintain control for a whole lot longer. They know this too, so what they are doing is threatening to go to war with everyone around them in the hopes that they can make a deal to get the sanctions lifted and the aid flowing back in if they agree to back off again.

6. The United States economy.
The American economy can absolutely handle another war, because war doesn't break the economy nation-building does. The Iraq War didn't hurt us, the 10 year occupation did. And since, as I've already pointed out, China would want to take the lead on the rebuilding of North Korea this shouldn't be an issue.

Wrapping this up: The only real fear that I have about a war with North Korea would be if they where to plant bombs in their own country as a sort of nuclear IED to kill tens of thousands of American, South Korean or U.N. forces, as well as their potential to sell nuclear secrets to terrorist organizations. I'm very anti-war but if there is any nation that needs to have its government deposed by force it's North Korea, not just for the good of the world but for the good of all those trapped inside that hellhole. BUT having said all of this I can safely say that war with North Korea has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of happening because Kimmy and his bros in Pyongyang know that it is a fight they can't win and they aren't willing to risk their power or their lives over all this.

10 year of occupation implying that Bush didnt sold the oil resources of Iraq to pay off U.S debts, the U.S leave Iraq with a good amount of money not with debts.
The same thing would be with Iran, while Iran nuclear program is amadour this country still has huge amount of oil, if the U.S waged another war against Iran would pay off all the U.S debt.

[mm123]

10 year of occupation implying that Bush didnt sold the oil resources of Iraq to pay off U.S debts, the U.S leave Iraq with a good amount of money not with debts.
The same thing would be with Iran, while Iran nuclear program is amadour this country still has huge amount of oil, if the U.S waged another war against Iran would pay off all the U.S debt.

The U.S. didn't get oil out of Iraq, and either way, nation building costs much more than oil can pay for.
http://www.time.com/...1948787,00.html

[Kamina-Yoshi]

10 year of occupation implying that Bush didnt sold the oil resources of Iraq to pay off U.S debts, the U.S leave Iraq with a good amount of money not with debts.
The same thing would be with Iran, while Iran nuclear program is amadour this country still has huge amount of oil, if the U.S waged another war against Iran would pay off all the U.S debt.

Meanwhile, in reality.

[shadow_Uzumaki]

On a lighter note,

[Sakamaki Izayoi]

Meanwhile, in reality.

>public debt

It would be worse without that war unless you belive they went there to just overthrow the dictator and ignore the amount of american oil extractor companies on Iraq.
There will be always debt is inevitable.

The U.S. didn't get oil out of Iraq, and either way, nation building costs much more than oil can pay for.
http://www.time.com/...1948787,00.html

He can sell oil rigs or fields in exchange for a part of the debt no one was really against U.S waging war against Iraq because they had to choose U.S broken and not be able to pay the debt or Iraq.

War is money if there's no money in there then there's no war.

Edited by Dαrkrєrsŧ, 04 April 2013 - 09:14 PM.

[Jwolf0]

Such a fascinating topic, because the rhetoric is nothing new yet the man spouting it is.

While I agree with mm123's points, I have to correct something regarding North Korea's military. They do have a lot of numbers and they have a small amount of food/fuel marked for their military. As a matter of fact, the military is where the majority of those resources go. If war were to resume, it's very likely that the US/ROK forces would get driven back south at first due to the numbers and N. Korea having initiative (since they'd be the ones to commence hostilities). However, the superior US/ROK resources and firepower (plus N. Korea probably having about a month's worth of fighting supplies) would later allow us to retake and push past the 38th Parallel. The question them becomes, "What next?"

I do believe that if it comes to that the ruling party must be taken down. We've played a game of chicken with them for so long it would be lunacy to allow them to return the Korean Peninsula to this game of, "Is the loony serious or not this time?" So who replaces them?

I don't believe China gets involved directly or even sends more than token support in any conflict - their comments on N. Korea's actions have been the harshest they've been in a long time. (Granted it's not very harsh by our standards, but still.) For a country that aspires to be a major superpower they know which side holds sway in the court of world opinion and having a staunch Communist presence isn't the necessity it once was for China and Russia. However, it would be fascinating to see how much of a say they want in any post-war governance - or if they would oppose the Koreas reuniting.

What WOULD worry me about the North Koreans attacking?

(Besides me and my family being there if it happens.)

The biggest thing to me is Kim Jong-Un's mindset. Does he really believe he can win? What would he do and how far would he go if N. Korea is losing? Would he go all scorched earth on N. Korean soil? Would he use up whatever Nuclear arsenal they have as an FU? We know that he talks a good fight, wanting to make himself into a big shot leader. How much of the hype he spouts does he actually believe?

Preview EDUT: About incurring debt due to war - it's a known phenomenon that war is a boon for the US economy. However unlike the economic mess that was the post-Iraq war, we would probably not be the primary financier for reconstruction in a post-war North Korea. We would not be single-handedly tasked with rebuilding the infrastructure or maintaining security while it is being rebuilt - South Korea would drive that bus. Also unlike Iraq, we are not removing a balance to another nation hostile to the US (Iran) and inheriting a new set of problems, much less having a group like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda present.

[Gravenimage]

On a lighter note,

Lol that's exactly how I see things with NK and the US.

[Inferno180]

One big difference between US and NK,

there are more guns pointing at NK, its not just the US people think would get into war, theres japan, many pacific nations, even Austrailia all the way down south, china and russia keep trying to push NK into common sense and just back off again, but NK leadership is just acting like a spoiled brat.

I basically feel this is why the NK leadership is doing this:

Not best quality also, from south park so you know what bad stuff to expect



Anyways yeah, bottom line is, if NK wants to fire a missile, they better be dam sure, because one action, one event, in an instant can condemn their entire country and in a worst case scenario reduce it to a smoldering glass pit covered in ashes

Yeah that sounds bad but basically, if Un fires a missile, he is condemning his own people and country. Yes they have a large military but when it comes to the U.S., China, Russia, NATO and so on, in these situations, they cannot last compared to everything which is being set up, they are surrounded all over, only South Korea is in the immediate threat, but they pull the trigger, only a matter of time before NK gets overun in nothing but fire from many other countries.

Ultimately, is there any person in this world even as evil as him who could commit an act of firing a nuke killing millions and not feel bothered from it? Could anyone in this world ever stand to have the blood of millions killed in an instant on their hands? If they cannot then are really demons who truly do deserve to die. No one should be ready to commit an act like firing a nuke without being prepped to have that type of blood on them forever in the archives of history. History repeats itself and those who commit similar mass murder events are always going to end up in some form of hell one way or another.

But yeah NK is insane, Un should just go suck on his baby bottle before trying to demand other nations respect his sh*th*le of a country. I'm not worried, I live in New England, far out of the range but that's just me.

Edited by Sakura Blossoms, 04 April 2013 - 10:51 PM.
Cursing

[Sakura Blossoms]

On a lighter note,

Not gonna lie, this amused me :3

[Jake]

And you are aware that the United States had the backing of their "allies" in a concerted effort by several other regional powers to do so, right? I hope you're not forgetting that it and "Iraqi Freedom" were basically one-versus-all, and the campaign being basically one guy being jumped on with no provocation by a group of hooligans with guns, looking for a bomb that they well knew didn't exist. It's not a testament to military might, it's a testament to cowardice and overwhelming a smaller, under-developed nation with overwhelming forces.

You are aware that the about 90% of the fighting force in Desert Storm was comprised of U.S. Military Personnel?

You're right in the sense that those are two distinct classes of an army. However, they also have the distinction of being the embodiment of military tactics that an army can use. There's no reason that a large army cannot go into hiding (much like how North Korea's army could go from standing-to-guerilla), and on the same level it could not change back. It's all a matter of tactics, rather than an organisational structure that is followed to the book. Otherwise, the Iraq War would've ended in an American victory, instead of American defeat.

First of all it's the War on Terror, the "Iraq War" and "War in Afghanistan" were both the War on Terror, sorry just a pet peeve of mine.

The Iraqi army surrendered within days of the start of Iraqi Freedom, and while some did join the Taliban and Al-Qeada, but a large portion of them are in the new iraqi army, they had decided quickly that they would rather be with the U.S. than against them.

A tactical failure supplemented by a strategic victory. They judged that the American nation was weak-willed, that it lacked the back-bone, the will, and the ideological centricity to be able to conduct a war on its own against a foe that was far away and well supplied by captured French arms as well as Soviet-Chinese arms. They took advantage of this with either with these goals in mind or just in the mind of the generals who may have suggested it, and it turns out that their hypothesis was correct. It shows that you don't need just tactics to defeat an enemy nation, you also need a strategy (namely, attacking the army to attack the home-nation, even if it is hundreds of miles away). Cities have capitulated in the past without a single shot fired within its walls because local armies have been defeated, so it stands to reason that it doesn't matter how many are lost as long as the enemy is defeated. War isn't about "scores", it's about win-or-lose. Who retreats, and who claims the bounties of war and completes their objectives. So, unless the American goal was to kill as many Vietnamese men as possible, they overwhelmingly lost.

It wasn't that the Americans were weak-willed, it was that the American people were being misinformed of what was happening, by a media that was of the mind set of everything is America's fault, but this hardly supports your initial argument that the U.S. military is pretty bad.

I would like a source on that last part, please; it sounds too "We Shouldn't Have Pulled Out" to be reality. Also, you are correct on the beginning and middle. However, Nixon also stretched the lines too thin by initiating campaigns in other parts of Indochina. He did it more out of desperation than any over-arching victory-strategy; it's plainly clear by his time that the war was lost, the generals could not handle it, and the soldiers and civilians were too asinine to continue on a renewed campaign.

My source, the radio man who actually received the transmission.

And I wouldn't call Nixon's strategy an act of desperation, after all this was the same strategy Eisenhower used to end the Korean War just 16 years earlier, and the reason Nixon started bombing Cambodia and Laos was because most of the Ho-Chi-Minh Trail, (the Viet Cong's supply) was in Cambodia and Laos, he was sending troops into the area because that's where the enemy was.

Firstly, they're Native Americans, not Indians. Sorry, but that's a pet-peeve of mind. They're clearly not from India, so they do not deserve the term "Indian", no matter of it's from the phrase los indios as used by the Spaniards. It's a wrong translation from "indios" to "Indian".

I refuse to comply with Political Correctness, I see it as a restriction of my First Amendment Right to Free Speech, I call them American Indians so that no one confuses them with the people of India.

But anyways, you're talking in the sense that everyone would go along with this notion that you would be able to kill every Arabian man who would defy you in those areas, or that the situation allows for that kind of tactic. Don't get me wrong, it's a sound strategy and would actually work as well as "hearts and minds". However, the problem is is that America has no basis of understanding the concept of real whole-sale slaughter or suppression campaigns. They've lived in the blissful world of Pax Britannica, hiding behind the Atlantic Ocean and contending to industrialise, to wage war on itself, and to wage war on those who are weaker than them (namely the natives and the Spaniard-Mexicans). It's not just a matter of "being able to do it", it's a matter of having the "reflexes" (so to speak), the know-how to do it. There would be people who would riot at the mere suggestion of a genocide of that size (na mely Constitutional conservative and politically liberal), and there would be people who would support it (Nationally/politically conservative and certain liberals who may have conservative/reactionary leanings, or simply the mind to accept losses or to embrace murder (this does not imply that liberals are murderers, it's merely a break-down of the points-of-view of this proposed hypothetical suppression campaign). The question remains is whether there would be more who support it, more against it, and more importantly if you realistically expect that it would be able to pass even the House legislature.

I never said that people would like it, but it is a strategy that the U.S. has employed before, and it is the only way to deal with a grope who are waging a holy war. And this strategy could've been employed if Bush had went before congress on Sept. 12th 2001 and asked for a formal declaration of war, that would've given the Military leaders certain liberties while also slightly restricting the Freedom of the Press on matter concerning the war.

If this were to happen, this suppression campaign, there is no guarantee it would succeed. In fact, it would more likely fail than anything. Americans have had no experience in suppressing an entire nation from start-to-finish, with only having experience in jumping in on the British Empire's and the Republic of China's successes/holding of the Japanese forces near the end of the war but still gaining the foothold of establishing a puppet regime in the Empire of Japan (that may well continue to this very day under a shadow-propaganda issue). Otherwise, there's no evidence to suggest that Americans would be able to suppress a nation of peoples, especially in modern times whereas it has dug itself in a hole that claims "We will not slaughter those who slaughter us in return. Rather, we will be complacent, do nothing, cry, then leave because that is our way of moral upbringing". It would be a crisis of morals that would most likely end up in the favour of those who are against it. So, even if the campaign were to be suggested, there would be no chance of it being implemented, and have no chance of it being successful due to lack of first-hand experience.

The British and the Chinese were largely unsuccessful at combating the Japanese, until the the U.S. started supplying them with our equipment (and military advisers and mercenaries in China's case), Secondly the British mainly fought in the East Indies and around India, while the Chinese were doing their all just to hold off the Japanese forces, what allowed the Chinese to gain back ground was shear amount of man power being used to combat our forces in the Pacific. Also continuing about what I said above, under a full declaration of war the Pentagon would make the decision it would not be voted on by congress.

I am also a military "buff" and history "buff", but there's a distinct difference between reading the articles and actually comprehending them. Sun Tzu's The Art of War needs to be understood, not just read on a passing-by. As well, the History Channel should not really be trusted. It tries its hardest to present the facts, but it's clearly obvious that they're construed in a biased American ideological stand-point (whereas the stereotypes are Hitler is the definition of evil and had never been kind in his life, Americans are always victorious and never wrong or defeated, and we'll throw as many old people and pay-roll scientists at you as we possibly can). Something as massive as a war cannot be contained in an hour-long segment filled with non-stop commercials and an over-shadowing narrator to guide the viewer from beginning to end. It must be analyzed from every point of view, from the true facts of the nature of the situation. I used to love the History Channel myself, but recently I find that the only pleasure I draw from it is Ancient Aliens as it provides a true scope as to what it has become: an entertainment and self-assurance channel. Don't get me wrong, you seem like an astute individual, it's just that I personally believe you've been led astray a bit by some unsavoury situations.

First I do understand the Sun Tzu's The Are of War military strategy is one of my favorite things to study.
Second, the shows on History Channel that I watched religiously were Mail Call, Shootout!, Dogfights and Lock and Load, (i.e. shows that specialize in military tech and strategy), when it comes to military history I use multiple sources ranging form books and documentaries and people's first had accounts.

In conclusion, I'll wrap this post up with an over-all connection to the topic at hand. the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has a good chance of obtaining "victory" in a coming conflict due to the following reasons:

*It is bordered by the People's Republic of China, a nominal enemy of the United States of America and an ideological cousin of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This would mean that at some point in time food and supplies would readily be resumed to the nation in question, and a guerilla campaign would not only be feasible, but entirely victorious if handled correctly. Plus, the United States would not dare attack the People's Republic of China in fear of riling the wrath of the Russian Federation, who would more likely join the side of the People's Republic of China on the basis of "moral outrage" against a warring nation.

China is not going to help the North Koreans, the Chinese can't feed their own people, they are not going to supply the North Koreans with food, and Russia is the same way, because while the U.S. economy is in bad condition, the Russian Federation's is in even worse condition, plus both China and Russia know that their military have no chance against the U.S. Neither nation's forces can go into guerrilla warfare tactics because that would entail them thinking for themselves at some point something that is prohibited in both Nations, and most likely in North Korea as well, and the U.S. has already been shown capable of taking out large military forces.

*The South Koreans and Americans would be forced, by their own "moral code", to clothe and feed the North Korean populace as per their "obligations" as "liberators". So, if the North Korean army were to meld back into the crowd and preform guerrilla warfare against their invaders, they could use enemy supplies to supplement their own. On a larger stand-point, an invasion would mean the unilateral end of sanctions and the assumption of mass-aide to the north of the Korean peninsula, which has all likelyhood of back-firing like it has done in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq (namely, guerrillas seize the supplies or they are provided to the guerrillas by a local supporting population of citizens that sympathise with them).

The South Koreans are not bound by the same "moral code" as the U.S. and could take a more heavy handed approach to dealing with guerrilla fighters, most notably that they are fully willing to subject Northern sympathizers to torture for information on their base's location.

On the same level, the Americans are overwhelmingly likely to obtain a tactical victory due to their superiority in arms. There's no denying the power of a few battleships and fifty-thousand armed soldiers hiding behind five-hundred thousand South Korean soldiers. However, this is an enemy that doesn't rely on international trade in the traditional sense that they would starve to death if it were to be cut off; it's been cut off for the entirety of its existence. There are plenty of places to hide for the North Koreans, and many of them are out-of-reach of even the most advanced technology that would prove useless in their conditions. Rather, the Americans are trying to be something they're not: a highly-trained, highly-technological force on a flat-plains with all three-million North Korean soldiers splayed out all at once. This is due to a lack of actual military understanding by the American military itself; they have clearly not learned from past examples in Iraq and Afghanistan due to the fact that they don't want to; they're incapable of analyzing the events before them. There has never been a Moltke, an Alexander the Great of a Suleiman the Magnificent for the United States simply because it's a country with no real basis for existing beyond rebellion against a mother-country. The country itself was born from British settlers, and has since swelled due to immigration from other countries, but it has not established a firm military tradition within its country like that in the kingdoms and empires of France that allowed its republics to continue to be Great Powers, or like how the Germans are prestigious for military might on the basis of its military in the past (namely the Wehrmact and the Imperial Germany Army). These countries are born from their own culture and from the ability of their individual culture to form into a nation without outside intervention. The German Empire didn't form because the British and Russians came in to save it from the French Empire, it formed because the German culture was a hegemonuous idea that had be born from centuries of existence beforehand, and was eventually brought together by an intense military tradition within the Junker aristrocracy and the Prussian military. American generals, on the other hand, are basically office-temps with bad hair-do's in comparison. They can't truly analyze a situation because "genetically", so to speak, it's not their way of doing it. West Point has only been around for a few decades, and has constantly had to address "modernisation" and the intense intrusion by the civilian populace into its affairs through political bureaucracy. It is a newborn in chains with a textbook with ninety per cent of the words bloated out. So, in the end, they simply set up committees to analyze it then implement a few "reforms" here and there, and bing-bang-boom they launch more air-strikes at areas and continue to lose as per the status quo. That's how actually goes within the American military because that's its background: tip-toeing so it doesn't get snared by an outraged, ignorant and cowardly public, and trying to stay ahead of the game by developing new toys for troops that have only the basic ideas of how to be a soldier and only the basic of orders to follow with complex consequences for not obeying. I'm afraid to say, and people's lives are spent in the process of a huge enemy sending thousands of troops armed with a blank cheque and no restraint into a situation where they are expected to behave as well as win. It's a matter of history, of cultural and political "genetics".

The U.S. has had great military minds like Alexander the Great and Suieiman, people like Robert E. Lee, William Halsey, Chester Nimitz, Dauglas MacArthur and of course George S. Patton. Patton's strategies are to this day studied at military academies throughout the world.

[Strangelove]

On a lighter note,

I wonder what he is saying in the last panel.

Can I get a hug?


Edit: Dammit I can't believe I missed this

http://www.inquisitr...ctually-flying/

Edited by Strangelove, 05 April 2013 - 02:41 AM.

[rikakim94]

I wonder what he is saying in the last panel.

Can I get a hug?

I think this is what he is saying why no you eggprodde!? or u mad bro?

[Sakura Blossoms]

I wonder what he is saying in the last panel.

Can I get a hug?

I immediately thought of him saying in the most obnoxious way ever, "What!"

:3

[shadow_Uzumaki]

I wonder what he is saying in the last panel.

Can I get a hug?


Edit: Dammit I can't believe I missed this

http://www.inquisitr...ctually-flying/

Yeah, definitely a "U mad, bro?" gesture, like Shauna-sama and rikakim above me said.