Why not invade North Korea?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
human rights violations are occurring there presently, not 10 years ago! Plus we know they are workin on WMD's. 1 + 1 = 2, right?


come on bushy, at least this is something that would have been supported!


i haven't had time to do all my research, but was hoping for some cliff notes posts to fill me in partially
 
yllus

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
1) China considers NK within their sphere of influence and us invading would be very impolite.

2) We probably can't pull off an invasion that won't trigger some missiles being launches at SK.

3) There's nothing in for it for us. Let's face it, self-interest plays a role in everything.
 
Z

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: yllus
1) China considers NK within their sphere of influence and us invading would be very impolite.

2) We probably can't pull off an invasion that won't trigger some missiles being launches at SK.

3) There's nothing in for it for us. Let's face it, self-interest plays a role in everything.
Click to expand...

#3 plays a huuuuuuggeee role...
 
Colt45

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,720
1
0
there would be death like a son of a bitch.

i'm not sure if that would improve his ratings in election year.


 
K

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
why not just put out a hit on Kim Jong Il like he suggest for Hussein?

or precision bomb him? then again, china would get upset that we cleaned up "their" mess
 
M

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
I think you guys are missing the #1 point here, that NK can level SK's capital Seoul in less than a day. Seoul is within NK's artillery batteries and they have enough artillery on that border to put 3 shells per minute in every square meter of Seoul. Plus their artillery is hidden inside harden bunkers that only open when they have reloaded and are ready to fire.

So the #1 reason we don't invade NK is because they have the ability to cause a million South Korean Civilian casualties in one day's worth of shelling.
 
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Have no doubt, we could kick the hell out of North Korea with few US casualties...

But the civilian casualties to South Korea COULD be enormous. I think if they decided they had to attack North Korea, they could probably destroy most of their artillery\missle silos within the first half hour of air strikes. Shock and Awe Pt II. But anything they missed would lay on South Korea like you wouldn't believe.

Then consider just how many people are in the North Korean army... A LOT. I'm not saying that would help them win, but we would kill A LOT of people to beat them.

Plus we have nothing to gain. Plus China would be uber pissed, since NK is their communist buddy.
 
M

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
I think the only way we'd win a fight with NK with little US and SK casualties is if we launch a first strike nuclear annihilation of North Korea. All of NK. I doubt they have the technology to see it coming. And if warned by China or Russia, it'd be too late to fire off anything. But I wouldn't advocate doing something like this.
 
K

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
nuking NK is not an option as the people in NK are the reason why this question was spurned. they must be liberated, not annihilated. why start WW3? it's been too long for a sequel to WW2! no, seriously, NK will eventually get too ambitious, why let the problem grow? besides, people are not just being holocausted, but N. Korea is helping the drug trade as well as the nuclear weapons trade!
 
J

JoeKing

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,641
1
81
How old is Kim Jong? Once he dies we'll probably see a change. Same with Castro, though he's already "trying" to make up for past woes......senile bastard.
 
M

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,903
2
76
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
nuking NK is not an option as the people in NK are the reason why this question was spurned. they must be liberated, not annihilated. why start WW3? it's been too long for a sequel to WW2! no, seriously, NK will eventually get too ambitious, why let the problem grow? besides, people are not just being holocausted, but N. Korea is helping the drug trade as well as the nuclear weapons trade!
Click to expand...

But there is still the question of how would we win a war. We have 110,000 troops in Iraq, and 130,000 that just came home that are really exhausted. 50,000? in Afghanistan. 7,000? in Kosovo. NK has 1 million troops that are fresh and brainwashed to fight to the death for their "GOD" Kim. We're stretched thin and need some recuperation time. So we only have 20,000 in SK, and a lot of the SK army is made up of 18 year old draftees instead of volunteer soldiers. Not enough to win a major war there.
 
K

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
i agree, we should have gone after N Korea with a good plan, not gone after old "penny loafer cowboy" vendettas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom