North Korea

Re: North Korea

by ryan3434 » Sun Apr 16, 2017 12:15 pm

oo DAWG oo wrote:Too much?



No.. Just awesome
I'd be unstoppable if not for law enforcement and physics!

Feminazis.. Not better women just crappy men.
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 10092
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:09 am

Re: North Korea

by canadianfootballfan » Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:30 pm

BigJoeM wrote:Here is a good graphic for North Koreas military . Worth a gander they may look good on paper who knows if the have been properly maintained .

Only a quick decisive blow at every part would lower the casualties . This is total war not a huge ground offensive .

Here's a peak :

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/graph ... ional-arms


I speak from experience, being a former military man, and can tell you that most of the weapons NK has would be next to useless against modern ones.

Let's use tanks as an example... NK has about 3500 of them, but they would all be useless against what the US has (Abrams), and also the tanks Canada has (Leopard 2). Those NK tanks could fire all day at an Abrams or Leopard and not harm it, but one shot from our tank would destroy anything they have.

Lets go back about 25 years in history to the Gulf War in 1991. The US had about 1000 Abrams tanks vs. well over 4000 Iraqi T-72 tanks, which by the way are more modern than 80% of NK's tanks. Long story short... the Abrams tanks mopped the desert with T-72 parts.

Like I said earlier in this thread, they really aren't a threat to any of us. If they did fire a couple nukes at anyone they would then be swiftly blown off the globe by most of the militarized world.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 8:52 pm

Re: North Korea

by canadianfootballfan » Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:49 pm

Another thing to think about... Russian weapons have always been about quantity over quality.

Other than the AK-47 and the T-90, I have never really been impressed with any Russian weapons. I only like the AK-47 because it's so reliable, but as for being a good shooting gun, there are much better ones in NATO.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 8:52 pm

Re: North Korea

by PTBO Dave » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:43 pm

canadianfootballfan wrote:
BigJoeM wrote:Here is a good graphic for North Koreas military . Worth a gander they may look good on paper who knows if the have been properly maintained .

Only a quick decisive blow at every part would lower the casualties . This is total war not a huge ground offensive .

Here's a peak :

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/graph ... ional-arms


I speak from experience, being a former military man, and can tell you that most of the weapons NK has would be next to useless against modern ones.

Let's use tanks as an example... NK has about 3500 of them, but they would all be useless against what the US has (Abrams), and also the tanks Canada has (Leopard 2). Those NK tanks could fire all day at an Abrams or Leopard and not harm it, but one shot from our tank would destroy anything they have.

Lets go back about 25 years in history to the Gulf War in 1991. The US had about 1000 Abrams tanks vs. well over 4000 Iraqi T-72 tanks, which by the way are more modern than 80% of NK's tanks. Long story short... the Abrams tanks mopped the desert with T-72 parts.

Like I said earlier in this thread, they really aren't a threat to any of us. If they did fire a couple nukes at anyone they would then be swiftly blown off the globe by most of the militarized world.


I get your point and hope any war would end swiftly in defeat for NK, but if you have family in Seoul like I do, you feel the threat.
What all men speak well of, look critically into; what all men condemn, examine first before you decide.
-Confucius

When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:17 am

Re: North Korea

by KevinRiley2 » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:47 pm

PTBO Dave wrote:I get your point and hope any war would end swiftly in defeat for NK, but if you have family in Seoul like I do, you feel the threat.

This is it in a nutshell. North America will not be touched, but millions of South Koreans could die. To them, it won't be worth it.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Re: North Korea

by canadianfootballfan » Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:18 pm

PTBO Dave wrote:
canadianfootballfan wrote:
BigJoeM wrote:Here is a good graphic for North Koreas military . Worth a gander they may look good on paper who knows if the have been properly maintained .

Only a quick decisive blow at every part would lower the casualties . This is total war not a huge ground offensive .

Here's a peak :

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/graph ... ional-arms


I speak from experience, being a former military man, and can tell you that most of the weapons NK has would be next to useless against modern ones.

Let's use tanks as an example... NK has about 3500 of them, but they would all be useless against what the US has (Abrams), and also the tanks Canada has (Leopard 2). Those NK tanks could fire all day at an Abrams or Leopard and not harm it, but one shot from our tank would destroy anything they have.

Lets go back about 25 years in history to the Gulf War in 1991. The US had about 1000 Abrams tanks vs. well over 4000 Iraqi T-72 tanks, which by the way are more modern than 80% of NK's tanks. Long story short... the Abrams tanks mopped the desert with T-72 parts.

Like I said earlier in this thread, they really aren't a threat to any of us. If they did fire a couple nukes at anyone they would then be swiftly blown off the globe by most of the militarized world.


I get your point and hope any war would end swiftly in defeat for NK, but if you have family in Seoul like I do, you feel the threat.


South Korea has quite a large and modern military. Plus all the American bases in Korea, Japan, and elsewhere in the area. Don't worry.

I honestly think the best option is to invade and take control of NK before they can ever fire any of their sketchy nukes.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 8:52 pm

Re: North Korea

by jamie » Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:24 pm

Hahaha...ya what's to worry?
US has not been on the winning side in a war since WWII
All-Star
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:34 pm

Re: North Korea

by Liquor Kitty » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:11 am

jamie wrote:Hahaha...ya what's to worry?
US has not been on the winning side in a war since WWII


Even then they "arrived late" compared to the Commonwealth.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:47 am

Re: North Korea

by ryan3434 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:30 am

You two have a weird version of winning.
I'd be unstoppable if not for law enforcement and physics!

Feminazis.. Not better women just crappy men.
Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 10092
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:09 am

Re: North Korea

by oo DAWG oo » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:05 pm

Oh no.. I'm super mighty scared now
Guess I'll cash in all my savings and live it up while I wait till the end...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/20/north-korea-super-mighty-pre-emptive-strike-will-reduce-us-to-ashes.html

Nah...think I'll just get ready for something that might actually hit us hurricane season
All-Star
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:44 am

Re: North Korea

by beaglehound » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:16 pm

"I honestly think the best option is to invade and take control of NK before they can ever fire any of their sketchy nukes."...by Canadianfootballfan

I hope you were not being serious! Countries like China and Russia may have something to say if that were to happen. And I don't mean having a chat. And contrary to Trump believing that China would do any of the dirty work in attempting to overthrow the present Korean government, I personally do not see that happening.

Is a US first-strike the solution to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions? The U.S. is playing Russian roulette if that option is on the table. [no pun intended] American foreign policy and its ideology that it has to "police" the globe had been a de-stabalizing policy that needs to change. I thought Trump final got it.

During the election campaign Trump spoke of America's foreign policy. At the very least it is a provocative foreign policy that needs to be re-evaluated, in his opinion, and yet it appears that little has changed in terms of U.S. ideology and practice since Trump became president.

According to VP Pence, "the era of strategic patience is over"[re: North Korea]. I like VP Pence but on this subject I strongly disagree. VP Pence and President Trump would do well to read about the Sunshine Policy established in 1998 that spoke of reunification of North and South Korea. North Korea was in agreement and progress was being made. About 10 years later the plan collapsed. Why? To answer that question one needs to look at former President George W. Bush and his policies at the time. He apparently had different ideas.

Bottom line? I do not believe there needs to be a pre-emptive strike or so called kinetic military action to bring stability to the Korean peninsula. History has shown that this U.S. muscle flexing has done more de-stabilizing than stabilizing in the world. History also shows since the Korean War that stabilizing in this area of the world is possible without military intervention.

The U.S. needs to be very careful with its course of action especially given the kind of unstable dictator that is running the country at the present time. Some would argue: all the more reason to get rid of the guy and his government. True, but how to go about this is equally important. The end does not always justify the means.
"Peace is not the absence of conflict in life but the ability to cope with it."
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 4897
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: North Korea

by canadianfootballfan » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:05 pm

I honestly think that when it comes right down to it, that Russia and China would either side with the US, or at least just get out of the way.

Russia isn't communist anymore, so they don't really have a dog in that fight.

Russia will be more malleable than China.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 8:52 pm

Re: North Korea

by oo DAWG oo » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:41 pm

Considering we are the subject of north korea's threats its not a matter of "policing the world"
All-Star
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:44 am

Re: North Korea

by beaglehound » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:53 pm

canadianfootballfan wrote:I honestly think that when it comes right down to it, that Russia and China would either side with the US, or at least just get out of the way.

Russia isn't communist anymore, so they don't really have a dog in that fight.

Russia will be more malleable than China.


Canadianfootballfan,

A quote from Putin, " “I was not, as you know, a party member by necessity,” he said. “I liked Communist and socialist ideas very much and I like them still.” Who knows where Russia will be in 10 years or even 5 years.

Regardless,

I was not thinking in terms of communism vs capitalist democracy ideaologies such as the Vietnam war days. The fact is North Korea has very few allies but they do have one powerful ally in Russia. Russia has a vested interest in North Korea and so does China. It is one thing to hope that either or both of these nations would just step aside and allow the U.S. to do its thing. However the U.S. has a vest interest in South Korea and who knows what havoc North Korea would wreak on South Korea. At the present time the U.S. has around 30 000 troops stationed in South Korea.

As far as kinetic military action in North Korea is concerned?

Time Magazine put it this way, [i]“Taking out North Korea’s two major nuclear sites with air strikes would be dangerous but probably not too difficult, U.S. officials say. The possibility of North Korean retaliation against Seoul, South Korea’s capital of 10 million and only 35 miles from North Korea, would be a complicating factor, they concede.”[/i

So just how much of a nuclear threat does North Korea pose to the world or to the U.S. for that matter? The following is a worthwhile read if you’re interested:

http://apjjf.org/-Selig-S.-Harrison/2112/article.html

The author Selig Harrison was an expert on the region. He passed away 4 months ago.
"Peace is not the absence of conflict in life but the ability to cope with it."
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 4897
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:41 pm

Re: North Korea

by ArgoT » Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:44 pm

Very complicated issue as NK is so close to it's neighbours which makes any military intervention by Donald extremely difficult.
All it takes is one nuke to get away towards SK and Japan and millions could die.
That's why there either has to be a military coup of some sort or a covert type hit on this nut job.
Which is eerie similar to what is facing the west with Iran?
All-Star
 
Posts: 4449
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:14 pm

PreviousNext

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests