Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/25/10 12:26 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Without the U.S. , South Korea will get STOMPED.

No...not really...no.

The DPRK's air force is not all that modern. Most of their fighters are Vietnam era. SK has new F-15Ks, F-16s and even a domestic trainer that can rapidly be converted to an attack aircraft.

Furthermore, the ROK troops are better fed and better trained than the DPRK troops. Finally, they have better supplies than the North. I think they could hold their own.

Iraq's negativities set aside, the majority of the Japanese are extremely wary of entering a war proactively. Trust me, they have bought into MacArthur's pacifist vision 1million times more than he did...

At 11/25/10 05:38 AM, chlstel wrote: Iraq's negativities set aside, the majority of the Japanese are extremely wary of entering a war proactively. Trust me, they have bought into MacArthur's pacifist vision 1million times more than he did...

They can't because Japan has no offensive military. They have a defense force but they can't go offshore to North Korea to fight.

At 11/25/10 12:26 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Without the U.S. , South Korea will get STOMPED.

Again referring to my first post, while North Korea has a huge army, South Korea has the better air force, you see this in the Six Day War, Israel was outnumbered and surrounded, but with good planning they destroyed the only air threat the Egyptian air force, and quickly wiped the floor with every Arab army. Since this war has been planning on being restarted for decades I'm sure that South Korea would be able to do the same and win a quick victory.

China's now threatening the U.S for sending the USS george washington Nuclear powered war ship to Seoul, this directly resembles their actions in the first Korean war, when they warned the US and then sent wave after wave of troops after ours.

We at that time almost nuked china (we seriously should have)

They're calling for talks between Russia, America, China, N.korea and south Korea in a new conference discussing this issue.

The U.S doesn't seem to be backing down any time soon...
I still believe that China and America would not go to war.

At 11/25/10 12:26 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Without the U.S. , South Korea will get STOMPED.

As the others have mention, South Korea's military is far more advanced compared to the North Korean Army, which the only major advantage North Korea would have is numbers. Much of South Korea's weapons are modernized, whereas the NK army largely use Soviet-era weapons, which aren't really that effective in today's battlefield. Don't underestimate South Korea's military force, they're one of the best trained forces in Asia.

north korea is just trying to see how south korea reacts, and honestly, south korea dose not have any balls if its letting north korea get away with this attack.

At 11/25/10 12:02 PM, Illegal-Product wrote: north korea is just trying to see how south korea reacts, and honestly, south korea dose not have any balls if its letting north korea get away with this attack.

Not entirely true, they shelled the shit out of North Korea, there isn't any death toll because N.Korea is a little bitch and doesn't reveal anything, but surveillance reports a LOT of damage.

At 11/25/10 12:02 PM, Illegal-Product wrote: north korea is just trying to see how south korea reacts, and honestly, south korea dose not have any balls if its letting north korea get away with this attack.

1. The south did retaliate, the fire fight went on for an hour.
2. A good reason for an all out attack is because Seoul in close enough to the DMZ that it can be hit with artillery from the north, the shells can be regular, chemical, or biological, so they can't just go in guns blazing.

At 11/25/10 04:02 PM, LordJaric wrote:

.

2. A good reason for an all out attack is because Seoul in close enough to the DMZ that it can be hit with artillery from the north, the shells can be regular, chemical, or biological, so they can't just go in guns blazing.

forgot to say; a good for there not to be an all out attack

North Korea will have to be annihilated in a thermonuclear no-mans-land before you stop the hordes and hordes of humans from advancing... and even if South Korea had the ability to do that, they wouldn't.

I'd be against U.S. interference. Just another loss on the US's list of hypocritical imperialist long term failures.

The question that pops into my mind reading through this thread, is that is preemptive war at times justified? No one here, I feel comfortable saying, will argue Kim Jong is a mentally stable, peaceful leader, but would we be justified in going to war against him now, South Korea at our side, given this recent attack?

At 11/26/10 01:09 PM, Patton3 wrote: The question that pops into my mind reading through this thread, is that is preemptive war at times justified? No one here, I feel comfortable saying, will argue Kim Jong is a mentally stable, peaceful leader, but would we be justified in going to war against him now, South Korea at our side, given this recent attack?

You know, people of other nations have been captured and even tortured in areas such as North Korea, but the recent attacks on Pyonyang weren't on a military base, but on a civilian island. And for what? To prove that North Korea is powerful and to "celebrate" the power shift between Kim-Jong Il and his son Kim-Jong Un?

I can clearly see what got President Obama so pissed off. Because this shit wouldn't fly in a sentient country like America.

At 11/26/10 01:06 AM, Gunner-D wrote: North Korea will have to be annihilated in a thermonuclear no-mans-land before you stop the hordes and hordes of humans from advancing... and even if South Korea had the ability to do that, they wouldn't.

The North Koreans aren't that dumb enough to try to do something like human wave tactics, more than likely, they will attempt guerrilla style fighting against the South Korean forces. And even if NK happens to have early success against SK, South Korea will eventually get the upper hand sooner than later. Nuclear attacks are extremely unlikely on either side, because of the ramifications on whoever uses the bomb will be severe.

I'd be against U.S. interference.

South Korea is one of our biggest allies, the U.S. will get involved if NK does attack Seoul.

At 11/26/10 01:55 PM, orangebomb wrote: South Korea is one of our biggest allies, the U.S. will get involved if NK does attack Seoul.

Yet another one of the dumbass American government's entangled alliances.

At 11/27/10 12:18 AM, Gunner-D wrote: Yet another one of the dumbass American government's entangled alliances.

Perhaps if these alliances came with restrictions that make that specific country's currency extremely valuable, so they can't cheap out our labor. (I'm looking at you, Korea, Mexico, China, India, and so on...)

At 11/27/10 12:18 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 11/26/10 01:55 PM, orangebomb wrote: South Korea is one of our biggest allies, the U.S. will get involved if NK does attack Seoul.

Yet another one of the dumbass American government's entangled alliances.

So do you have any more insightful and enlightening gems to share with the rest of the class on geopolitcs?

Foreshadowing

I anticipate a draft. It seems as though we have the "Axis of Evil" surrounded. It is the only way to continually legitimize the United States in an international government power setting.

At 11/27/10 12:34 AM, Gunner-D wrote: I anticipate a draft. It seems as though we have the "Axis of Evil" surrounded. It is the only way to continually legitimize the United States in an international government power setting.

Chances are there is not going to be war between the two Koreas...unless the North invades the South. Even then, chances are they do not have the logistically reach to go further South than Seoul.

What they might use is Chemically tipped artillery to rain hell down upon Seoul, fired from just north of the DMZ. Furthermore, they would probably use biological weapons against ROK and US forces (about 28-29K).

But I don't think, conventional forces speaking, they could not really do much more than that.

Especially if their Chem/Bio attacks prove to not be all that effective...then we won't require much of a force to repel them.

If the government in Pyongyang collapses...that will be the true drain on the military. But I think we will have a multi-national force (inclusive of neutral countries) helping stabilize the humanitarian crisis.

But...in short I give it a 25% chance of the US having a draft is Korea War II kicks off...

Japan will NEVER join in because of WWII. What do you expect? They hate war now, and they will continue so.

I've been reading this thread for quite a while now and I hear people's "likely" and "less likely" predictions and what's been going on with South Korea and North Korea.

Thing is, no matter how smart we are it won't matter of what goes around out there. We say that we doubt a WW3 is going to happen, but our words won't make a difference. All we can say is whatever happens, happens and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

It's bad enough we elect the same people year after year, without getting fresh new faces. We're suppose to trust our government but we couldn't respect they're decisions after 9/11 and following years after that.

At 11/27/10 04:20 AM, joe9320 wrote: Japan will NEVER join in because of WWII. What do you expect? They hate war now, and they will continue so.

No, in fact they want to go back to the Imperialistic times the "glory days" according to some. Besides Japan has no offensive military so it can't go to war even if it wanted too, thats why the US is there.

At 11/27/10 12:18 AM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 11/26/10 01:55 PM, orangebomb wrote: South Korea is one of our biggest allies, the U.S. will get involved if NK does attack Seoul.

Yet another one of the dumbass American government's entangled alliances.

Other then South Korea being like one of the most prospering and developed nations on Earth along with it being right next to Japan.....

can war break-out if war never really ended?

At 11/27/10 12:46 AM, TheMason wrote: But...in short I give it a 25% chance of the US having a draft is Korea War II kicks off...

I like your numbers. I say it is probably less than 10% chance of U.S. involvement of a full blown Korea II. So that is about a 3% chance of a draft in this particular situation. However, when I say the U.S. needs to "legitimize" its power in the international realm, a draft looks like the best way to do it, and sooner looks better than later. Lest they wait too long, the ratings public approval (and trust) of government drop too far, then Uncle Sam may call the young men to battle, and they will calmly say "No" and stay home.

I can hear China faintly whispering in the background on this one, "Wait for it... Wait for it..."

At 11/27/10 08:45 PM, Gunner-D wrote:

At 11/27/10 12:46 AM, TheMason wrote: But...in short I give it a 25% chance of the US having a draft is Korea War II kicks off...

I like your numbers. I say it is probably less than 10% chance of U.S. involvement of a full blown Korea II. So that is about a 3% chance of a draft in this particular situation. However, when I say the U.S. needs to "legitimize" its power in the international realm, a draft looks like the best way to do it, and sooner looks better than later. Lest they wait too long, the ratings public approval (and trust) of government drop too far, then Uncle Sam may call the young men to battle, and they will calmly say "No" and stay home.

1) If there is a Korea 2...there is a 100% chance that there will be US involvment. To say there is only a 10% of US involvment shows a serious lack of understanding of history, military policy, US Korean policy and the reality of the situation on the ground. For the past 60 we have had US soldiers and airmen on the ground in Korea (there are smaller contingents of Navy & Marine personnel). Right now this number is about 28,500. From 2004-2006 I was one of those airmen. US bases will be the first to be targeted by the North in a full-blown war.

2) You do not make a clear case on how a draft will "legitimize" the US on the world stage. Right now what Europe and the rest of the world is clamoring for the US to do is get our debt under control and stabilize/strengthen the dollar. Contrary to Warren Beaty's performance in Reds, a full-blown war would be a drag on the economy and run counter to this desire. So I don't really see your point about "legitimizing" our power making any sense.

I can hear China faintly whispering in the background on this one, "Wait for it... Wait for it..."

See point 2. We have so much bond debt to China...they don't want to see us do anything that will devalue or otherwise weaken the dollar. A new military adventure in Korea would be a huge threat to both the Chinese and American treasuries. For China to instigate a war with the US would be the equivalent to a political system committing suicide.

At 11/27/10 02:35 AM, Grubby wrote: First of all, I just want to tell everyone to calm down.

I actually agree with you. The DPRK and ROK have exchanged gun fire too many times to count since the armistice. When you talk about the "Axe-murder incident" and the capture of the USS Pueblo that is actually part of what is known as the DMZ Conflict, Second Korean War or the Silent War. From 1966-69 a series of altercations occurred between the two Koreas and the DPRK & US. In fact it got so bad the Army began authorizing the Combat Action Badge (CAB) to soldiers serving w/in 50 miles of the DMZ.

Once again I reiterate, there's too much at stake for both sides for a war to occur.

Yes and no.
YES: There is too much at stake for South Korea to initiate hostilities.
NO: Depending on the political realities on the ground in Pyongyang...there may be too much at stake for North Korea NOT to go to war. If the DPRK military gets too itchy and believes too much of their propaganda...Kim Jong Un may have to go to war to prove his legitimacy as the Dear Leader's successor.

I doubt that there'll be a WW3 even if a war does occur. I doubt that Americans will be drafted, and I doubt a war would last more than one month.

I doubt that there will be a WWIII as well. I don't see the intertwining alliances that existed in 1914 that started the "Great" War (WWI). Furthermore, the DPRK is known as the 'Hermit Kingdom' for a reason: it has isolated itself from most of the world. If China came to the conclusion that Pyongyang is costing them more than having them as a buffer zone is worth...they'll let us do what needs to be done North of the border.

As for speculating how long the war would last...
Hard to say. What if China comes in on the side of Pyongyang? That will extend the war. What if they have been stockpiling fuel...and that's why we see so little vehicle traffic? They may actually have a shot at pushing deeper than Seoul...and that would lengthen the conflict.

At 11/27/10 11:04 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) If there is a Korea 2...there is a 100% chance that there will be US involvment. To say there is only a 10% of US involvment shows a serious lack of understanding of history, military policy, US Korean policy and the reality of the situation on the ground.

I apologize. I hit backspace, went back a page by accident, and tried to rewrite quickly what I meant. What I meant to say is...

There is a 10% chance of a full blown Korea II. (subtracting the U.S. involvement, seeing as you had already covered that percentage in your estimate)

2) You do not make a clear case on how a draft will "legitimize" the US on the world stage.

A whole 'nother topic. But for controversy's sake, I'll quote Tony Montana. "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. "

We already milked all of our credit lines, so we have the money. We gotta take what assets we got and grab the power (draft, imperialism, etc.). And then we get the women (the great whore of New Testament revelation).

LOL.

At 11/29/10 12:04 AM, Gunner-D wrote: I apologize. I hit backspace, went back a page by accident, and tried to rewrite quickly what I meant. What I meant to say is...

There is a 10% chance of a full blown Korea II. (subtracting the U.S. involvement, seeing as you had already covered that percentage in your estimate)

Okay...gotcha. Makes sense. As every day goes by the chance of full-blown war decreases. However, if the DPRK gets more bold about attacking civilian centers...

2) You do not make a clear case on how a draft will "legitimize" the US on the world stage.

A whole 'nother topic. But for controversy's sake, I'll quote Tony Montana. "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. "

We already milked all of our credit lines, so we have the money. We gotta take what assets we got and grab the power (draft, imperialism, etc.). And then we get the women (the great whore of New Testament revelation).

LOL.

That's actually pretty funny.

But the sad thing is we have milked our credit lines to the point where if we had to go into Korea...we could see a system crash. The government would just run out of money.