After Iraq, would you support a war on North Korea?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

wnied

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,206
0
76
Truth Be Told, We wouldnt have to attack North Korea to whip their ass in a war. A simple blockade of their country, or the garnering of support of those in the world who control the majority of food exportation and cutting it off from North Korea would produce the same result. The best thing to do against them, is to remain in our current position of ignoring them completely...

...They'll suffer more everyday we continue to do it.
~wnied~
 

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
The government is not that stupid

With what I've seen so far, the Bush government is THAT stupid. They were stupid enough to loud mouth and beat their chests before the North Korenas. Now NK called their bluff. Its really a dangerous situation because the NK government is paranoid enough to overreact to any perceived threat. And the Bush administartion is not known to have any diplomatic finesse at all. Before, they were all gung-ho about the whole Iraq thing, how they're going to make this a short war. It looks like its going to drag on for a while and the $70+ billion Bush is asking for is just good for 30 days. And he is asking for a tax-cut? Americans right now are supporting this war because we cannot do anything else. This has been forced down our throats and we have to act brave and united. But in the long term, everybody losses on this war.
 

mboy

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2001
3,309
0
0
Originally posted by: RanDum72
The government is not that stupid

With what I've seen so far, the Bush government is THAT stupid. They were stupid enough to loud mouth and beat their chests before the North Korenas. Now NK called their bluff. Its really a dangerous situation because the NK government is paranoid enough to overreact to any perceived threat. And the Bush administartion is not known to have any diplomatic finesse at all. Before, they were all gung-ho about the whole Iraq thing, how they're going to make this a short war. It looks like its going to drag on for a while and the $70+ billion Bush is asking for is just good for 30 days. And he is asking for a tax-cut? Americans right now are supporting this war because we cannot do anything else. This has been forced down our throats and we have to act brave and united. But in the long term, everybody losses on this war.

So u are in some type of situation to claim that the war will drag on? It has been 1 whole week and we are about to engage those who are protecting Bahgdad. NEVER has a military conflict in the history of modern civilization gone sooo swiftly.
Less then 50 coalition troops have lost their lives so far. That is remarkeable for the amount of troops we have there. Also the whole thing is remarkeable since we are desperately trying to prevent civilian daths, otherwise, we could just flatten the entire country in even shorter order.

As far as NK goes, I would give them a choice. either stop the nuke facilities production (varifiably), or we will let you have 1 nuke and we will deliver it by airmail!
 

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
So u are in some type of situation to claim that the war will drag on?

Read the news. Most military experts are now saying that it will last for a while, even Powell and Bush acknowledge that.
And the Iraqi's are not stupid. Don't be deceived that the coalition forces were able to cover so much ground. The Iraqi's NEVER intended to fight out in the open in the first place. They know that from experience in the first Gulf War. They will make this a dirty street fight by drawing the fight into the city(already apparent in Basra)while stretching the supply lines of the coalition forces and harrassing them. Cockiness will get you nowhere in this fight.


As far as NK goes, I would give them a choice. either stop the nuke facilities production (varifiably), or we will let you have 1 nuke and we will deliver it by airmail!

Wow, this is just the same kind of short-sightedness that gets the world into trouble. Just nuke 'em huh? Haven't you thought about how near Japan and South Korea is to North Korea? How many millions of people are there? Have you heard about the missile tests the N. Koreans conducted and it flew OVER Japan? China, athough having a free-market type economy, is still a Communist nation and will help N/ Korea.

So again, just nuke 'em huh?
 

tec699

Banned
Dec 19, 2002
6,440
0
0
Originally posted by: mboy
Originally posted by: RanDum72
The government is not that stupid

With what I've seen so far, the Bush government is THAT stupid. They were stupid enough to loud mouth and beat their chests before the North Korenas. Now NK called their bluff. Its really a dangerous situation because the NK government is paranoid enough to overreact to any perceived threat. And the Bush administartion is not known to have any diplomatic finesse at all. Before, they were all gung-ho about the whole Iraq thing, how they're going to make this a short war. It looks like its going to drag on for a while and the $70+ billion Bush is asking for is just good for 30 days. And he is asking for a tax-cut? Americans right now are supporting this war because we cannot do anything else. This has been forced down our throats and we have to act brave and united. But in the long term, everybody losses on this war.

So u are in some type of situation to claim that the war will drag on? It has been 1 whole week and we are about to engage those who are protecting Bahgdad. NEVER has a military conflict in the history of modern civilization gone sooo swiftly.
Less then 50 coalition troops have lost their lives so far. That is remarkeable for the amount of troops we have there. Also the whole thing is remarkeable since we are desperately trying to prevent civilian daths, otherwise, we could just flatten the entire country in even shorter order.

As far as NK goes, I would give them a choice. either stop the nuke facilities production (varifiably), or we will let you have 1 nuke and we will deliver it by airmail!

You totally underestimate your enemy. I can tell you that eventhough we have the technology, a North Korean war would not go nearly as smoothly as the Iraqi war. And the Americans are fining out that the Iraqis are no pushover. AND WEVE HAD 6 MONTHS TO PREPARE!



 

Kaiynne

Member
Feb 23, 2003
74
0
0
Originally posted by: mboy[/i

NEVER has a military conflict in the history of modern civilization gone sooo swiftly.

Less then 50 coalition troops have lost their lives so far. That is remarkeable for the amount of troops we have there. Also the whole thing is remarkeable since we are desperately trying to prevent civilian daths, otherwise, we could just flatten the entire country in even shorter order.

As far as NK goes, I would give them a choice. either stop the nuke facilities production (varifiably), or we will let you have 1 nuke and we will deliver it by airmail!


You actually believe what they tell you on fox news huh? This war has lasted what 7 days now, well it isn't over yet, and guess what there was this other war called wait for it the six day war. Now see the funny thing about that is it is you have to do nothing to work out how long it lasted it is right there for you in the name. It was even in the same region. If what you actually meant was that never has an attacking army traveled so far so fast, well thats fairly arbitrary, but i would say that the supply columns that are now being harrassed wouldn't be as impressed as you seem to be.

 

Aceshigh

Platinum Member
Aug 22, 2002
2,529
1
0
The U.S will not attack NK first. It would be too bloody for a pre-emptive strike. Of course, Kim Jong seems to be acting crazier and crazier lately, so who knows what will happen.
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: RanDum72
The government is not that stupid

With what I've seen so far, the Bush government is THAT stupid. They were stupid enough to loud mouth and beat their chests before the North Korenas. Now NK called their bluff. Its really a dangerous situation because the NK government is paranoid enough to overreact to any perceived threat. And the Bush administartion is not known to have any diplomatic finesse at all. Before, they were all gung-ho about the whole Iraq thing, how they're going to make this a short war. It looks like its going to drag on for a while and the $70+ billion Bush is asking for is just good for 30 days. And he is asking for a tax-cut? Americans right now are supporting this war because we cannot do anything else. This has been forced down our throats and we have to act brave and united. But in the long term, everybody losses on this war.


I agree.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/28/opinion/28KRIS.html


Secret, Scary Plans
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Some of the most secret and scariest work under way in the Pentagon these days is the planning for a possible military strike against nuclear sites in North Korea.

Officials say that so far these are no more than contingency plans. They cover a range of military options from surgical cruise missile strikes to sledgehammer bombing, and there is even talk of using tactical nuclear weapons to neutralize hardened artillery positions aimed at Seoul, the South Korean capital.

There's nothing wrong with planning, or with brandishing a stick to get Kim Jong Il's attention. But several factions in the administration are serious about a military strike if diplomacy fails, and since the White House is unwilling to try diplomacy in any meaningful way, it probably will fail. The upshot is a growing possibility that President Bush could reluctantly order such a strike this summer, risking another Korean war.

The sources of information for this column will be as mystifying as the underlying U.S. policy itself, for few will discuss these issues on the record. But it seems those interested in the military option ?consisting primarily of raptors clustered around Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and in the National Security Council ?have until recently been slapped down by President Bush himself.

Recently Mr. Bush seems to have become more hawkish. He is said to have been furious when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (one of the few senior Bush aides who know anything about Korea) told Congress that the U.S. would have to talk to North Korea.

So the White House has hardened its position further, swatting away its old willingness to engage North Korea bilaterally within a multilateral setting. Now the administration has dropped the bilateral reference and is willing to talk to North Korea only in a multilateral framework that doesn't exist. The old approach had a snowball's chance in purgatory; now it's less than that.

"We haven't exhausted diplomacy," one senior player noted. "We haven't begun diplomacy. . . . We could have a slippery slope to a Korean war. I don't think that's too alarmist at all."

Other experts I respect are less worried. James Lilley, an old Korea hand and former ambassador to Seoul and Beijing, says my concerns are "much too alarmist." He says the State Department controls Korea policy and realizes that "the military option is almost nonexistent."

Maybe. But meanwhile, North Korea is cranking out provocations and plutonium. This week it started up a small reactor in Yongbyon. More worrying, America's spooks detected on-and-off activity at a steam plant at Yongbyon, which may mean that the North is preparing to start up a neighboring reprocessing plant capable of turning out enough plutonium for five nuclear weapons by summer. Look for reprocessing to begin soon, perhaps the day bombs first fall on Iraq.

Dick Cheney and his camp worry, not unreasonably, that the greatest risk of all would be to allow North Korea to churn out nuclear warheads like hotcakes off a griddle. In a few years North Korea will be able to produce about 60 nuclear weapons annually, and fissile material is so compact that it could easily be sold and smuggled to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and Al Qaeda.

The hawk faction believes that the U.S. as a last resort could make a surgical strike, even without South Korean consent, and that Kim Jong Il would not commit suicide by retaliating. The hawks may well be right.

Then again, they may be wrong. And if they're wrong, it would be quite a mistake.

The North has 13,000 artillery pieces and could fire some 400,000 shells in the first hour of an attack, many with sarin and anthrax, on the 21 million people in the "kill box" ?as some in the U.S. military describe the Seoul metropolitan area. The Pentagon has calculated that another Korean war could kill a million people.

So if the military option is too scary to contemplate, and if allowing North Korea to proliferate is absolutely unacceptable, what's left? Precisely the option that every country in the region is pressing on us: negotiating with North Korea.

Ironically, the gravity of the situation isn't yet fully understood in either South Korea or Japan, partly because they do not think this administration would be crazy enough to consider a military strike against North Korea. They're wrong.

 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
And I think N. Korea will threaten us not by aiming their 13,000 artillery pieces toward S. Korea, but by aimng toward Japan, the world second largest economic country. (Maybe both)
Isn't it scarry? The great depression!!! :Q

 

AdmiralTiger

Member
Feb 17, 2003
119
0
0
It isn't worth it to go to war with N. Korea unless they attack us in some form or invade South Korea... but if that happens, we won't have to worry about bringing military there - China would take care of them easily (that is if they do intervene somewhere along the way). N. Korea recently walked out of the Korean War agreement placed after the war to prevent things like this from happening again... but this loony bin of a leader in North is trying to piss everyone off by kicking dirt on it, asking for war and that it was our fault for making them produce some nukes. That's the way I see it anyway.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,908
6,789
126
The need fear nothing al long as their peanut oil stocks remain low and Kem Chee doesn't become a favorite hors d'oeuvres at Republican fund raisers.
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
I think that it will cost more than economic troubles.

People around the world in general will be greatly disturbed. Imo, one of the reasons why so many people sympathized with September 11th was because they saw the commercial centre in one of the world's largest cities (if not the largest one) crumble into rubbles. I wonder how people would react when they see footages of a city full of high-rise buildings gets ruthlessly bombarded by hundreds or thousands of North Korean artillery.

Not to mention that the political situation in that region is far more likely to provoke a world-scale war, although I do not intend to underestimate the Middle East.
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: ub4me
And I think N. Korea will threaten us not by aiming their 13,000 artillery pieces toward S. Korea, but by aimng toward Japan, the world second largest economic country. (Maybe both)
Isn't it scarry? The great depression!!! :Q

Much of those 400,000 artillery shots will be dumped in Seoul.

Say good-bye to Hyundai, Samsung, LG, Daewoo, etc etc.

I am not sure if their range is far enough to reach the key cities in Japan.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,853
6,391
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
NK hasn't given good enough reason for us to go to war with them unlike Iraq.

I find this statement rather rich.
rolleye.gif


That said, starting a war with NK would be suicide, especially for SK.
 

BAMAVOO

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,087
41
91
Who WANTS war? If it happens it happens. Protesting and bitching and whining about helps nothing. Stupid peace protestors cause more problems than anything. Get behind the troops in whatever it is they have to do and be AMERICANS or go to some other country and see how their lives are lived. We have it way too easy here. We worry about what our next pc, car, house purchase will be. Don't think a thing about dropping money to watch a movie or grab something to eat. BE GLAD THAT WE HAVE OUR FREEDOM. BE PROUD OF THOSE THAT BRING THAT FREEDOM TO YOU!!! If we do go from country to country I for one don't see a problem. Hell the rest of the world wants us to be World Police, now we are just enforcing the laws.
 

Apotherix

Senior member
Mar 6, 2003
229
0
0
Originally posted by: joohang
I personally think that it will be deadly to attack North Korea.

If an attack is planned and launched against North Korea, would you support it? I sure hope not.


I personally think it would be more deadly to not attack North Korea.
 

Apotherix

Senior member
Mar 6, 2003
229
0
0
Actually, I don't think the bush administration or any others for a while after will go around picking fights with countries for much longer, if popular support for this war is bad, just think about the next...

Oh and by the way, although the media makes you want to think that everyone in the world is against Bush, most people actually support this war partially, if not fully...
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Going to war with North Korea would be suicide, it would be the begining of a World War most likely. We would win but not without huge wounds. Not to mention Seoul would be in complete ruins.
 

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
I am for the Iraqi war, but NK would be suicide for the troops and the Political existence of the UN and the US.
 

arynn

Senior member
Feb 16, 2001
234
0
0
I don't expect the situation with North Korea to come to a military solution for a while. Bush and the rest of the administration have stressed that it is a diplomatic solution. Currently, they are trying to involve other countries since the last bilateral negotiations didn't go too well. Eventually the US will sit down with North Korea bilaterally, if necessary (if China, Russia, South Korea et al refuse to get involved). There may be some people in the administration in favor of militay action, but the potential results are too catastrophic to start a war. In the case of North Korea, we'd almost certainly wait for an initial strike and retaliate as required.
 

Spyro

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2001
3,366
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Going to war with North Korea would be suicide, it would be the begining of a World War most likely. We would win but not without huge wounds. Not to mention Seoul would be in complete ruins.

Ouch, yeah that is true, but I voted yes anyway, since I think thats what is going to happen.........
 

DanTMWTMP

Lifer
Oct 7, 2001
15,908
19
81
Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Originally posted by: Tabb
Going to war with North Korea would be suicide, it would be the begining of a World War most likely. We would win but not without huge wounds. Not to mention Seoul would be in complete ruins.

Ouch, yeah that is true, but I voted yes anyway, since I think thats what is going to happen.........

my family lives there :(

and samsung RAM..i need them badly....

hyundai cars...i was thinking about getting one.....

interests in SK is super high....japan is near.....it'll cause a rather large economic chaos in the world if seoul goes to ruins...unless US drops nukes all across the northern peninsula, and evacuate most poeple from SK..........i don't see victory w/o losing seoul and/or parts of japanese cities.....and of course, relations w/ china will sour....

another option for attack maybe to wait until US biulds like a million of those laser guns that intercept artilery shells....and use millions of MOAB's across the DMZ all the way up to pyonyang so every square inch of military soil in NK is flattened....

yes i agree, a war w/ NK is suicide for SK...
 

joohang

Lifer
Oct 22, 2000
12,340
1
0
Originally posted by: Apotherix
Originally posted by: joohang
I personally think that it will be deadly to attack North Korea.

If an attack is planned and launched against North Korea, would you support it? I sure hope not.


I personally think it would be more deadly to not attack North Korea.

How so?

Not that I have a better solution to offer. Just wanted to hear more about what you have in mind.