Internationally Confirmed: NK Torpedo sank the SK Navy ship.

[SphinxnihpS]

It's time to destroy North Korea. They really don't do anything but stir up trouble and piss off other, more powerful nations. The entire country is filled with brainwashed fools anyway, so it would make little sense to "liberate" them. It's better to just erase them all from existence, and let South Korea have the land. Everyone knows this.

History. You don't know this.

 

[ayabe]

Just wanted to share this for a laugh, I think we all need it.

NK News Random Insult Generator - http://www.nk-news.net/extras/insult_generator.php

"You bourgeois hooligan, we will transform your country into a sea of fire!"

This just combines some great tidbits from past NK propaganda releases.

 

[OCGuy]

Won't happen guys, we're not going to war and instituting a draft to protect SK, 0% chance. China won't be lending us money to kill their three-legged dog.

Hitchens wrote a piece today on this whole deal, it's well worth the time and has a plausible explanation on why we can't do anything right now, mainly because we don't want to provoke even worse behavior.

http://www.slate.com/id/2254826/

So we are going to do what exactly, when Seoul is crushed and we lose 10,000+ troops in 48 hours?

 

[ayabe]

So we are going to do what exactly, when Seoul is crushed and we lose 10,000+ troops in 48 hours?

China won't let it happen so there's no need to ponder the what-if's. China cannot deal with the refugees and the rep hit it will take because they will have the support the North in the event of war - otherwise they (the North) won't have the resources to wage war.

 

[Genx87]

So we are going to do what exactly, when Seoul is crushed and we lose 10,000+ troops in 48 hours?

I dont want to sound overly optimistic. But if Saddams army couldnt inflict more than a few hundred casualties over two wars. What makes you believe NK's forces will be able to wipe out 1/3rd of our forces on the Korean peninsula within 2 days?

 

[irishScott]

I dont want to sound overly optimistic. But if Saddams army couldnt inflict more than a few hundred casualties over two wars. What makes you believe NK's forces will be able to wipe out 1/3rd of our forces on the Korean peninsula within 2 days?

We had around 500k troops in Iraq during the Gulf and still had overwhelming force the second time around. If it comes down to it we'll have to count on the SK military, which is perfectly fine IMO. They know what they're doing, just saying our guys on the ground won't be much of a deciding factor.

Any advance northward also brings the troops into range of shitloads of dug-in artillery. Add the fact that the NK military is arguably as brainwashed as its populace (wasn't an issue in Iraq), yeah completely different tactical situation.

 

[yllus]

Screw em - let's starve them into making a move and finish them off. Especially with the line of succession still in doubt.

Canada to North Korea: You’re not welcome here

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a statement on Victoria Day that Canada is joining sides with South Korea in countering North Korea's apparent act of aggression on March 26 that involved the sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan, killing 46.

"Canada is now committed to a coordinated international response, including through the UN Security Council, as a result of this act," Mr. Harper declared in a written press release. Canada will "move to suspend high-level visits to Canada by North Korean officials," Mr. Harper said in response to statements made Sunday by Republic of Korea's President Lee Myung-bak.

"I solemnly urge the authorities of North Korea . . . to apologize immediately to the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the international community," Myung-bak said in a nationally televised address. His government banned all trade, investment and visits with North Korea, Reuters reported.

Harper's statements on Monday follow closely with South Korea's desires: "The Government of Canada will take steps to impose enhanced restrictions on trade, investment and other bilateral relations with North Korea, including the addition of North Korea to the Area Control List.

 

[OCGuy]

I dont want to sound overly optimistic. But if Saddams army couldnt inflict more than a few hundred casualties over two wars. What makes you believe NK's forces will be able to wipe out 1/3rd of our forces on the Korean peninsula within 2 days?

NK has the higest concentration of artillery in the world and over 1 million men ready at the DMZ.

Seoul would be flattened.

 

[Patranus]

NK has the higest concentration of artillery in the world and over 1 million men ready at the DMZ.

Seoul would be flattened.

Pre-emptive strike their bitch ass.

 

[palehorse]

Pre-emptive strike their bitch ass.

At this point, wouldn't it be more "retaliatory" in nature than "preemptive"?

The final decision is for the SK people to make. Whether or not we (the U.S.) aid their efforts is our own decision to make; but, I'm pretty sure we'll continue to stand right next to them in whatever conflict they find themselves in.

 

[al981]

Pre-emptive strike their bitch ass.

you first, noob.

 

[irishScott]

Pre-emptive strike their bitch ass.

Like I said earlier, you'd probably need something on the order of mass tactical nukes to be truly effective.

 

[EagleKeeper]

NK has the highest concentration of artillery in the world and over 1 million men ready at the DMZ.

Seoul would be flattened.

Pre-emptive strike their bitch ass.

That works when their weapons are out in the open; parked or on the move. When the guns are on tracks sunk into hillsides; you can not get at them using conventional weaponry.

A cruise missile might; but we do not have enough.

Also; the whole issue is to avoid escalating the conflict in the military sense.

While NK could be hurt; Seoul and the surrounding military (US & SK) would take a serious beating in casualties.

 

[K1052]

That works when their weapons are out in the open; parked or on the move. When the guns are on tracks sunk into hillsides; you can not get at them using conventional weaponry.

A cruise missile might; but we do not have enough.

Also; the whole issue is to avoid escalating the conflict in the military sense.

While NK could be hurt; Seoul and the surrounding military (US & SK) would take a serious beating in casualties.

To quote Patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity"

We probably know where all the fixed gun locations are. We don't even have to destroy the guns, just collapse the portals so they can't be run out.

The biggest problem would be their mobile rocket launchers which both have the range to hit Seoul and would be more difficult to eliminate quickly.

 

[irishScott]

To quote Patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity"

We probably know where all the fixed gun locations are. We don't even have to destroy the guns, just collapse the portals so they can't be run out.

The biggest problem would be their mobile rocket launchers which both have the range to hit Seoul and would be more difficult to eliminate quickly.

Lol. Yes Patton, please tell use how to simultaneously take out 10,000 separate artillery emplacements by collapsing the unique and individual portholes on each one.

 

[Macabre215]

People have been dying everyday on the 38th parallel for a long time now since there was never actual peace, just a cease fire. I doubt this incident will cause any large scale conflict, even with Kim Jong's insane ass.

 

[OCGuy]

People have been dying everyday on the 38th parallel for a long time now since there was never actual peace, just a cease fire. I doubt this incident will cause any large scale conflict, even with Kim Jong's insane ass.

Links to people dying everyday from hostile fire?

 

[EagleKeeper]

That works when their weapons are out in the open; parked or on the move. When the guns are on tracks sunk into hillsides; you can not get at them using conventional weaponry.

A cruise missile might; but we do not have enough.

Also; the whole issue is to avoid escalating the conflict in the military sense.

While NK could be hurt; Seoul and the surrounding military (US & SK) would take a serious beating in casualties.

To quote Patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity"

We probably know where all the fixed gun locations are. We don't even have to destroy the guns, just collapse the portals so they can't be run out.

The biggest problem would be their mobile rocket launchers which both have the range to hit Seoul and would be more difficult to eliminate quickly.

When the guns are out in the open; then they are easy to attack.

As the Allies discovered; Naval guns at Malta and along the Channel/North Sea coast were entirely different. Because those guns could be pulled back into caves that were protected by cliffs; bombing could not destroy them. Because of the cliffs; it was very difficult to try to seal off the cave mouth.

The same situation exists in NK. They either built caves into cliffs or they expanded caves. They have tunnels with multiple exits. Knowing that the caves could be targeted; they are re-enforced and also designed to be difficult to get a direct line of sight from airborne ordnance.

One can not target 1000 locations within a single strike. And our doctrine will not allow for a preemptive strike as it is. So every gun will get at least one shell on the way to Seoul before anything is returned.

 

[ayabe]

NK could also bust or open a multitude of dams and flood a large portion of the south if and when they want to.

War is just a non-starter guys. If it was our ship, I would be singing a different tune but I would still have the exact same concerns, it would be a bloodbath for us and them.

 

[OCGuy]

Not to mention they probably have a couple Nukes around the yield of Nagasaki/Hiroshima.

None of this is good news.

 

[Kirby]

Links to people dying everyday from hostile fire?

I was just there around Christmas. I was like Hilary Clinton dodging sniper fire. :hmm:

 

[yllus]

South Korea's response

In his televised address on Monday, Mr Lee talked tough, referring to North Korea as the “most belligerent regime in the world”. Shortly after Mr Lee's address, his ministers of unification, foreign affairs and defence laid out practical responses that South Korea will now take.

Their retaliatory measures are to go further than many expected. In addition to referring the matter to the UN Security Council, South Korea will ban North Korean vessels from its waters and cease all economic ties—save for those at Kaesong, a jointly run industrial complex.

The South also plans to take part in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a multinational naval operation aimed at blocking the spread of nuclear materials. The North has always been especially wary of the PSI and until now the South had dithered on committing to it.

To add insult to these injuries, Mr Lee's government announced plans to resume the "psychological warfare" it had stopped in 2004. This consists mainly of spreading anti-Communist propaganda in the form of leaflets and radio broadcasts aimed across the border.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Links to people dying everyday from hostile fire?

Not everyday, but still happens:

Link

 

[nonlnear]

South Korea's response

Oh goody. *grabs popcorn*

 

[werepossum]

I used to follow this pretty closely, and from what I understand there are literally thousands of prepared artillery positions in tunnels positioned to shell Seoul. The South Koreans know of thousands, and there are doubtless more, so a gun can be moved to one position, fire off a mission, then retreat to pop out somewhere else. We literally don't have enough precision munitions or bunker busters to take them all out, nor do the South Koreans. They'd mostly be firing at maximum range though, with smaller warheads and not much chance of hitting a particular area. There are missile defense systems there, used to be HAWKs (I think they are now Patriots) to take out cruise or ballistic missiles, so those likely wouldn't be much problem. There are also MLRS systems and cargo shell artillery with ICM rounds that would make any conventional assault extremely bloody for North Korea, and of course they would be meeting the forces most feared by the North Vietnamese. The North Koreans are numerous, but the South Koreans are good. Quantity does have a quality of its own, but a serious assault by North Korea would leave it effectively disarmed.

I think Obama has done pretty well during this crisis. I also don't think Red China would allow a war because of the loss of face, as North Korea is still widely seen as their vassal state. I'm guessing that the situation will return to what it was a decade ago, with North Korea aggressing by the odd kidnapping or small raid plus some sub and torpedo boat attacks and probably not much else.