War? South & North Korea fire artillery shells, houses ablaze

[sgreger1]

It would be the US, the only one that's ever done it.

False. All the world powers were trying to make nukes at the time, including germany. Any of them would have used it as soon as they could, but the US figured it out first and struck while th Iron was still hot.

Since then we've been preaching this nuclear proliferation BS to everyone. I hope we secretly have entire factories that churn these things out, just in case.

[tom502]

If anyone uses nukes, it will be the batshit crazies in the White House.

[truthwolf1]

Welfare check from whom? No one other than perhaps China has an interest in helping DPRK.

We do send aid but there was a lapse with recent sanctions with the nuclear testing but they always negotiate something out of it. My theory on why they always get their way is because they are a considerable military threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/wo....14095303.html


Since 1995, the U.S. has provided over $1 billion in foreign assistance to the
Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK, also known as North Korea),
about 60% of which has taken the form of food aid, and about 40% in the form of
energy assistance channeled through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization (KEDO). Additionally, there has been discussion of offering North
Korea broader economic development assistance in exchange for Pyongyang
verifiably dismantling its nuclear program and cooperating on other security-related
issues. U.S. aid to North Korea has been controversial since its inception, and the
controversy has been intimately linked to the larger debate over the most effective
strategy for dealing with the DPRK.

Food aid has been provided to help North Korea alleviate chronic, massive food
shortages that began in the early 1990s and that led to severe famine in the mid-1990s
that killed an estimated 1-2 million North Koreans. Food aid to North Korea has
come under criticism because the DPRK government restricts the ability of donor
agencies to operate in the country, particularly with regard to monitoring food
shipments, making it difficult to assess how much of each donation actually reaches
its intended recipients. There have been anecdotal reports that food aid is diverted
to the North Korean elite, who reportedly either consume it themselves or resell it for
profit on the black market. There are also reports that international food assistance
has been diverted to the North Korean military.

Since 1995, the United States has provided over $400 million in energy
assistance to North Korea under the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which
the DPRK agreed to halt its existing nuclear program in exchange for energy aid from
the United States and other countries. Aid to KEDO, the multilateral organization
that administers the Agreed Framework, has been dramatically curtailed since
October 2002, when North Korea reportedly admitted that it has a secret uranium
enrichment nuclear program. In response, North Korea has demanded new
negotiations with the United States and has restarted a number of nuclear facilities
that were mothballed under the Agreed Framework, creating a major foreign policy
problem for the United States and the DPRK’s neighbors.
The Bush
Administration’s FY2004 budget request does not include any money for KEDO.

This report describes and assesses U.S. aid programs to North Korea, including
the controversies surrounding the programs, their relationship to the larger debate
over strategy and objectives toward the DPRK, and policy options confronting the
Bush Administration and Congress. The role of China, South Korea, and Japan in
providing assistance to North Korea is discussed, highlighting the likelihood that any
dramatic decrease in U.S. aid to North Korea have only marginal effects without the
cooperation of these countries. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.

[sgreger1]

If anyone uses nukes, it will be the batshit crazies in the White House.

We have been involved in 4 major conflicts since WWII, the most recent one has lasted almost 10 years, and still we have never used nukes again, just like we promised.

I doubt some weak country like the DPRK is going to force our hand. It would be like using a shotgun against an infant.






NKorea's military command vows 'merciless' military strike against SKorea...
Fires artillery onto island...
South denies seeking redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons...
Returns Fire...
May strike NKorea's missile base...
'Intentional, planned attack'...
Japan prepares for 'any eventuality'...
CHINA WATCHES... WHITE HOUSE CONDEMNS...
Russia Sees 'Colossal Danger'...
FLASHBACK: UK fears NKorean attack on Seoul G20 summit...

[truthwolf1]

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1227.html

Kim's forces will hunker down for a long war of attrition. His army is well equipped with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. North Korea has a large number of anti-ship cruise missiles. At least 30% - if not more - of Kim's dug-in military is likely to survive US nuclear attacks and be alive to repel the invading forces. North Korea has over 2 million well-armed militia tasked to defend their towns and villages in support of the regular armed forces.

After Kim's initial missile and artillery attacks, several thousand suicide squads would spring into action at the same time and attack targets in Japan and in the United States. Kim's air force and navy will be tasked to transport the kamikaze squads to their destinations. It is possible that many of them are already in place. The suicide squads are trained to attack nuclear facilities, dams, chemical plants and storage tanks, oil depots, power stations, gas pipelines, bridges, tunnels and so on. Their mission is to cause as many casualties among the civilian populace. A dozen or so suicide terrorists were responsible for the 9.11 that killed 3,000 or so people - now imagine 100,000 suicide terrorists attacking several thousand targets at the same time!

[tom502]

In todays world with US world oppression, you almost have to have a nuke.

[sgreger1]

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1227.html

Kim's forces will hunker down for a long war of attrition. His army is well equipped with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. North Korea has a large number of anti-ship cruise missiles. At least 30% - if not more - of Kim's dug-in military is likely to survive US nuclear attacks and be alive to repel the invading forces. North Korea has over 2 million well-armed militia tasked to defend their towns and villages in support of the regular armed forces.

After Kim's initial missile and artillery attacks, several thousand suicide squads would spring into action at the same time and attack targets in Japan and in the United States. Kim's air force and navy will be tasked to transport the kamikaze squads to their destinations. It is possible that many of them are already in place. The suicide squads are trained to attack nuclear facilities, dams, chemical plants and storage tanks, oil depots, power stations, gas pipelines, bridges, tunnels and so on. Their mission is to cause as many casualties among the civilian populace. A dozen or so suicide terrorists were responsible for the 9.11 that killed 3,000 or so people - now imagine 100,000 suicide terrorists attacking several thousand targets at the same time!

1) 9-11 was successfull because it was out of nowhere. It could no be pulled off during a time of war when the enemy is expecting it
2) Artillery isn't worth shit, they can't get far with artillery and no means of transporting it via air.
3) The US rules the skies everywhere. N Korea would suffer cripling strikes to it's airforce right off the bat, and then once in the air they wouldn't be able to get too far out of their little airspace. This is always the first thing the US does it take air superiority.
4) Suicide bombers can't get to nuclear facilities, you can't exactly just walk in. (You think the airport's bad? Try getting into a nuke facility with a bomb)



You guys are way overstating the DPRK's military power. They have a bunch of hungry peons working for them, not real soldiers. Armed militias in a city of starving commonfolk are worthless.
Additionally, our special forces teams would go in and take out most of their anti-air equipment, immediately giving us air superiority.

Once we have air superiority it's over. We easily have naval superiority over N Korea in a BIG way.

I don't think you understand, the US is a lot stronger than the news makes it. We are not good at winning the hearts and minds of the people, but what we do have is an immense force of high tech weaponry, and our soldiers have been getting combat experience for almost 10 years now, with many soldiers deploying 4 or 5 times which is unheard of.

We could not lose to N Korea, it's impossible. It all depends on how hard we wanted to hit. We need to treat war as war and not as a humanitarian mission. If the objective was to destroy, the resistance would be little.

[lxskllr]

I think DPRK could kick some serious ass for a little while, but they don't have the resources for a sustained conflict. They're limping along as it is, and a sustained war would do them in.

[SnusoMatic]

my dad was in the Korean conflict (aka. Korean war). I grew up being told about North Korea and how bad it is. Through my teens i just figured he felt that way because he was in the war. it would be hard not to think bad of folks who tried to kill you everyday. But as i outgrew the I know more than my daddy years I started looking at the news, studying a little and reflecting back on things my dad used to tell me. Everything he ever told me seems to be true. One thing he always said and still does really is, boy you just watch,,,, we will be back at war with them one day. It is true that what happened today has happened before but if you kind of plot things out on a time line these sorts of things are getting closer together. i used to think he was nuts and maybe he brain washed me but N Korean looks a lot like daddy used to say it was haha. i dont see how anyone can take their side on anything

I think DPRK could kick some serious ass for a little while, but they don't have the resources for a sustained conflict. They're limping along as it is, and a sustained war would do them in.

I agree! Back in the 50s they almost kicked us right out of korea. It took us throwing everything we could muster at the time to hang on and push back up to the 38th and then notice we stopped. Don't under estimate those people even a little bit. I can't tell you how many stories my dad told me how hard they fight and what they are willing to give up to win. if you have to, surrender to Chinese. but fight to the death if it's Koreans because they will kill you anyway, after they torture you.... is what he says.

another thing that comes to mind he always tells. he said the North would take like 50 of their men and line them up. the one in front would have a rifle. he would shoot until he got killed and the guy behind him would pick up his rifle and fight until he got killed and the one behind him would pick it up, etc, etc, etc. i use to think he was making that up until later i read it in history books.

[Mykislt]

If push actually came to shove, maybe the Iranians would join in in a few years, and maybe Vietnam too (largest army by no of people). I'm skeptical about China

[sgreger1]

I think DPRK could kick some serious ass for a little while, but they don't have the resources for a sustained conflict. They're limping along as it is, and a sustained war would do them in.

This is exactly what i'm saying. The DPRK could put up a decent fight for a while, like any military force, but at the end of the day we know that America is ready, trained, willing & capable of getting into sustained/drawn out conflicts. We are here for the long haul, our defense contracts lust after sustained war. We would keep pumping fake money into it forever untill they lost, there is no way they could ever emerge victorious over the united states. Never in a million years.

[truthwolf1]

This is exactly what i'm saying. The DPRK could put up a decent fight for a while, like any military force, but at the end of the day we know that America is ready, trained, willing & capable of getting into sustained/drawn out conflicts. We are here for the long haul, our defense contracts lust after sustained war. We would keep pumping fake money into it forever untill they lost, there is no way they could ever emerge victorious over the united states. Never in a million years.

Of course we can beat any country in the conventional way! I am sure we spend more money then almost all the countries combined on our military. The military industrial complex has hit it's peak in sales and conflicts!

However, these new conflicts are adapting to how to fight a superpower such as ourselves. If you are clever enough you could probably in the working mind of a terrorist, figure a way in how to tumble such a moralistic country as ours. Let's put it in another way, big armies don't mean much when you are talking bio-warfare or small scale nukes.

[sgreger1]

another thing that comes to mind he always tells. he said the North would take like 50 of their men and line them up. the one in front would have a rifle. he would shoot until he got killed and the guy behind him would pick up his rifle and fight until he got killed and the one behind him would pick it up, etc, etc, etc. i use to think he was making that up until later i read it in history books.

Yah, they have the manpower and a will to win like no American could ever have. They have been opressed for decades, require no luxories, and would eat coal for all their meals and still march to victory.

But it doesn't make up for the fact that they're not soldiers. They round up some guys, line em up and share the 1 gun because resurces are too precious to waste on issuing them each a gun. Here in the united states, we spend $1 million dollars to train a soldier for a year, then deploy him with all of the latest in high tech soldiering equipment, give him the support of the worlds leading tank, helicopter, and fighter jet divisions, and then finance the whole thing with an endless budget.

The koreans have 10 guys sharing one lever action rifle, while the American GI has his own rifle with grenade launcher, full ballistic body armor, radios and advanced gps/navigation systems (blue force tracker),the best medics etc etc.

1 american GI is prepared like 1,000 koreans could never be. But they do have the advantage that they are fighting for food and survival, whereas Americans are willing to do it for the money.

[sgreger1]

Of course we can beat any country in the conventional way! I am sure we spend more money then almost all the countries combined on our military. The military industrial complex has hit it's peak in sales and conflicts!

However, these new conflicts are adapting to how to fight a superpower such as ourselves. If you are clever enough you could probably in the working mind of a terrorist, figure a way in how to tumble such a moralistic country as ours. Let's put it in another way, big armies don't mean much when you are talking bio-warfare or small scale nukes.

No, because the N Korean's have no way of deploying any type of nuclear and/or biological/chemical warheads to our shores. Unless they sent some guy in by foot (which is possible), I don't see that happening. They are restricted to their little area, that's the beauty of it. Their old diesel subs don't have the range to get close enough to us, their airplanes would never get anywhere near our borders, and their indirect fire support assets are not advanced enough to reach us. Secondly, they are not Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been refining it's techniques in fighting off large occupations for decades, they are trained and ready and have already found sources of funding and recruitment. The N Koreas will try to brute force us using their numbers, which will fail. They are not trained in coutner insurgency, and have little actual wartime experience.


I am telling you, there is no way we could lose. Like in Iraq/Aftghanistan, we are "losing" in that we havn't figured out what we wanted, but as far as "winning" the war and destroying their entire military, that was done in a matter of months early on in the war. N Korea would fall in 6 months at best. If we were smart we would just wait untill dead leader dies and then let the military overtake his son via a military coup.

[tom502]

If the DPRK has a usable nuke, then if they are attacked, their best tactic would be to sink Japan, and roast S.Korea. Militarily of course the US with it's billions of war funds and 1000's of stockpiled nukes would "beat them", just as a Brock Lesner would beat Paris Hilton in a fight. But is it fair? I think it's cheating, but that's how the US won all it's battles. A smaller nation having a nuke makes a superpower world bully less inclined to agitate it too much.