North Korea threatens full scale war if rocket is intercepted

a1ex2001 · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:22

Balddog said:
SK has almost as many dudes and they are way beyond the NKs in every aspect..They have also spent 60 years training for this exact scenario. The south will wipe the floor with the north. American troops wont be needed and china wont be as miffed if its SK troops taking pyeongyang. American support + SK on the ground and its game over for lil kim.

This war won't happen but if it did happen as you suggest you do realise that Seoul is within artillary range of North Korea and has 10 million inhabitants in the main city and 24.5 million if you add the outer areas? The South Koreans may win the war but the potential civilian casualties and the mass destuction of the city which is vital to the economy will prevent them doing anything.

Speedy · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:26

Revolutionary armed forces? These are just some naked guys with a bow and arrow (and some nukes)

rsatd · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:28

Speedy said:
Revolutionary armed forces? These are just some naked guys with a bow and arrow (and some nukes)

Heard they recently got their hand son some AA stones too :eek:

.

wordy · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:30

Why do people seem to relish the thought of a war that could potenially see 100,000's of casualties?

magick · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:33

wordy said:
Why do people seem to relish the thought of a war that could potenially see 100,000's of casualties?

Because they will never have to fight in such a war and will be safely sat behind there keyboards.

Amp34 · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:33

Strife212 said:
All guerilla wars though. In a standard millitary campaign the NK army would be ruined totally within a month.

And how many of them started as Guerilla wars? You are making the same mistake the US and UK governments seem to make every time, that once the conventional forces are damaged the war would be over, or not as history points out.

Von Smallhausen said:
I can't agree with you there.

Tactical strikes on key NK installations by aircraft the NK's cannot even see on radar would render them like a duck with one leg before they have even started. That is before you take into account ECM, radar jamming and cruise missile strikes from submarines and warships.

NK could be rendered almost impotent before ground troops were even considered.

I notice that you give Isandlwana as an example as numbers winning. Was it not the day before that just over 100 British soldiers defeated over 4000 Zulus ?

That is the advantage the NK have, they are largely a numbers force, you could remove their radar, but that is not going to stop the millions of AK47's. It didn't work in Vietnam (probably the most pertinent modern war to compare it to, even though it didn't start of conventionally) or Iraq, or Afghanistan.

I assume you are thinking of Rorkes drift, which was the day after, and yes it did go a bit like that, but the previous day shows it can go either way, and Rorkes drift wouldn't have finished like it did if the british army didn't have defences to defend them (much like an attacking army).

Welshy · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:34

wordy said:
Why do people seem to relish the thought of a war that could potenially see 100,000's of casualties?

I was about to make that post myself, there are so many war-mongerers in this thread.

I seriously doubt anyone would throw nukes around willy-nilly, it just wouldn't happen.

a1ex2001 · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:40

wordy said:
Why do people seem to relish the thought of a war that could potenially see 100,000's of casualties?

My money says this would be a very different thread if it was British cities that were at risk and we were facing mass conscription.

meghatronic · 10 Mar 2009 at 11:51

a1ex2001 said:
My money says this would be a very different thread if it was British cities that were at risk and we were facing mass conscription.

I disagree. Never underestimate the stupidity of anon!

meghatronic · 10 Mar 2009 at 12:00

LeJosh said:
I watched that film, pretty decent. I can't recall much of the story but we're talking USA and a lot of other countries not just south korea? Fill me in on the gaps.

It's the Korean War. So US/South vs. North. They push the North (Battle of Incheon) all the way back past the 38th Parallel (UN Offensive 1950). The DAY after, Mao orders the mobilisation of 750,000 Chinese troops,. These charge over the hill, literally, about a month later and the UN are stuffed. The Chinese troops - thousands of them - were almost invisible due to their tactics. Not to mention the Soviets sent air support that restricted UN plans heavily.

1min25 here:

scorza · 10 Mar 2009 at 12:22

meghatronic said:
It's the Korean War. So US/South vs. North. They push the North (Battle of Incheon) all the way back past the 38th Parallel (UN Offensive 1950). The DAY after, Mao orders the mobilisation of 750,000 Chinese troops,. These charge over the hill, literally, about a month later and the UN are stuffed. The Chinese troops - thousands of them - were almost invisible due to their tactics. Not to mention the Soviets sent air support that restricted UN plans heavily.

1min25 here:

Wasn't just the US and the South, Commonwealth forces were still a major power in the area at that time and were heavily involved (backed by a UN resolution after NK invaded the South).

The Battle of Imjin River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Imjin_River) was a particularly brutal one for British troops and the "Glorious Glosters".

meghatronic · 10 Mar 2009 at 12:29

scorza said:
Wasn't just the US and the South, Commonwealth forces were still a major power in the area at that time and were heavily involved (backed by a UN resolution after NK invaded the South).

I said UN offensive

But you're right, I could've been clearer.

snowdog · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:09

Why are the Chinese defending those retards in North-Korea anyways ? Stupid commies what has North Korea ever done for them ?

int · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:10

Am I right in thinking that the entirety of the NK army is currently confined within the heavily armed borders of NK just like any other citizen?

If so, quick action from any country against them would heavily hinder their attempts at a war, could kill a fair few soldiers if they're within the Pyongyang city limits...

[ASSE]Hinchy · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:29

Kemik said:
Aren't NK banned from launching any form of ballistics by the UN?

Sankari · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:55

Can you imagine living in country where this sort of thing is commonplace?

"When provoking a war of aggression, we will hit back, beginning with the US!"

"Let's drive the US imperialists out and reunite the fatherland!"

"Death to US imperialists, our sworn enemy!"

theleg · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:57

scorza said:
I think the stupidity was all on China's part for if they hadn't have intervened in the Korean War then North Korea would not exist today and the world would almost certainly be better off.

If they hadnt INTERVENED

how do you think the korean war got started mate? Power games between good old US of A and Russia...if they hadnt of messed everything up, there wouldnt have been a NK in the first place..

mrk · 10 Mar 2009 at 13:58

I like how Kim hates the US but has a stash of Hollywood movies and is a big fan of them...

theleg · 10 Mar 2009 at 14:00

a1ex2001 said:
This war won't happen but if it did happen as you suggest you do realise that Seoul is within artillary range of North Korea and has 10 million inhabitants in the main city and 24.5 million if you add the outer areas? The South Koreans may win the war but the potential civilian casualties and the mass destuction of the city which is vital to the economy will prevent them doing anything.

Yes I had noticed...Take a gander at my location.

Energize · 10 Mar 2009 at 14:15

wordy said:
Why do people seem to relish the thought of a war that could potenially see 100,000's of casualties?

Because it would remove the north korean threat and annoyance once and for all.