N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Shokan · 08-08-2003, 12:00 PM

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ry=north+korea

N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum

By GEOFFREY YORK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Beijing — A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.

Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war.

Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year — an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack.

The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum."

Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns.

Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea.

The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney.

"We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy."

Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime."

They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border.

But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said.

They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote.

Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war — perhaps as early as this year.

Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post.

He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war."

Conclamo Ludus · 08-08-2003, 12:33 PM

We should send some inspectors in. It will be settled in about fifteen years.

The_Dude · 08-08-2003, 01:14 PM

i doubt this.

north korea will not be the kinda push over that iraq/afghanistan was.

there will be lots more casualties as the n.korean army is very well trained and disciplined and are very unlikely to desert their posts.

i doubt US will attack n.korea.

james t kirk · 08-08-2003, 02:03 PM

dude is correct.

The North Koreans would kick up a real fight. If one could racially stereotype, the asians seem to be maniacle in fighting wars. You can see it in the Japanese in WW2, The Chinese in Korea, and the Vietnamese.

Arabs don't tend to be well disciplined fighters like that.

Zeld2.0 · 08-08-2003, 03:07 PM

30 to 60 days is laughable unless we nuke the shit out of them or throw our entire military at them

the N. Korean military in size is the 4th largest in the world - and they don't have different sects (like the shiites vs. suni in iraq) and are under Koreans anyways

Not to mention they had a ton of equipment from the former Soviet Union and China.

Oh and the terrain in North Korea is hardly what I would call a nice place to fight - its full of hills and mountains (aka death for assaults) and so you can't just mass armored divisions and move straight in a'la Iraq (open desert).

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-08-2003, 04:02 PM

I don't know how quick they would be to defend the regime though. But N. Korea is way different then Iraq, Iraq was the U.S. sending a message to the Arabs... We are trying to get other people involved with the Korean situation.

TheKak · 08-08-2003, 05:36 PM

Korea is definatly a different beast than Iraq. A ground attack staged from S Korea would definatly be out of the question, we would get murdered. If things got close, they might get crazy and decide to use one of their newfound nukes in S Korea as a last resort. Should definatly try to work this out diplomatically, our military resources are already thin as is.

Phaenx · 08-08-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
30 to 60 days is laughable unless we nuke the shit out of them or throw our entire military at them

the N. Korean military in size is the 4th largest in the world - and they don't have different sects (like the shiites vs. suni in iraq) and are under Koreans anyways

Not to mention they had a ton of equipment from the former Soviet Union and China.

Oh and the terrain in North Korea is hardly what I would call a nice place to fight - its full of hills and mountains (aka death for assaults) and so you can't just mass armored divisions and move straight in a'la Iraq (open desert).

Ha!!

I'm interested now that I've read this; what are your qualifications for making this sort of statement? I think I've got a pretty good idea but I'm just curious.

Zeld2.0 · 08-08-2003, 11:49 PM

I can't say im super qualified but having been to the area firsthand along with family members who fought in the war and their comrades (no not the other side) - their descriptions of the fighting in N.korea (yeah you cant exactly just walk in there so N.Korea is kinda off limits) - and the knowledge of the current U.S. armed forces - would IMO not be sufficient for a 30 to 60 day campaign.

The question is, what do YOU know the military is going to do?

Or do you think N. Korea is another pushover 3rd world country with a standing army with only a few hundred thousand soldiers and way outdated (1960's - 70's) equipment...

hobo · 08-09-2003, 12:50 AM

The thing is, North Korea has an army. Iraq didn't. Sure they did on paper, but none of those people actually fought. They just took off their uniforms and went home when the US military moved in. There was almost no resistance at all. On top of that, Iraq had horrible equipment and most of it was damaged or destroyed already in 1991. The sanctions prevented them from rearming, so Iraq's military was still how it was when Gulf War 1 was ended. Korea has been rearming since the Korean war was ceasefired (technically war not over), and it's military will fight, not just go home and wait for it all to be over. Plus from what has been said about NK's artillery, they can flatten Soeul in under 30 minutes, and that city has millions of people. Unless the USAF can destroy 11 000 artillery peaces in under 30 minutes, the kill count will reach a million on day 1 of the war.

Nad Adam · 08-09-2003, 02:21 AM

Good luck.

I mean it. I belive that NK needs to have a change in leadership about 1000 times more than Iraq ever did. But I also belive that this time around the US will find even less allies because of the fuckups in thaeir diplomacy before, during and after the second Iraqi campain. And as stated before, NK hasn't been under 12y of sanctions etc.

If this is started then we will see no improvement in the economy in the US and Bush won't get elected for a second term (horray).

prb · 08-09-2003, 05:49 AM

Where does anybody here get off on questioning U. S. intelligence if it believes that we can take out North Korea in 30-60 days? I mean, were they wrong about Iraq?

james t kirk · 08-09-2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by prb
Where does anybody here get off on questioning U. S. intelligence if it believes that we can take out North Korea in 30-60 days? I mean, were they wrong about Iraq?

Ummm, maybe.

Did they anticipate this quagmire of soldiers getting picked off 2 and 3 at a time until the end of time?

More soldiers have died in small guerilla attacks than fighting the war.

I know one thing, if i was a 20 year old considering joining the military because it was a good career move, i would seriously consider the possibility that you just might have to go and fight and die.

For many many years the military was the military yes, but odds are you would never see combat. Now, it's a different story.

I wonder if alot of kids are thinking the same thing and the numbers of recruits dwindle to the point where they have to reconsider using the draft?

The_Dude · 08-09-2003, 09:41 AM

if they start the draft, bush's popularity drain would go deep down the drain. i dont think he or any other president (or congress) would resort to the draft anytime soon unless the threat is really *imminent*

2wolves · 08-09-2003, 09:55 AM

North Korea has lots of cannon fodder but little air or armor. Given their TOTAL dependence on imported fuel any stockpiles which survived the initial air campaign would soon be exhausted.

What does make military action there prohibitive is the nuke factor. They've demostrated that they have a theatre delivery system and given the prevailing wind patterns the P.R.C. would not be pleased to have major population centers contaminated. Japan will not allow it to reach the point where Kim will use the bomb as he just might lob it their way.

The 38th will not be the jumping off point as there are mine fields in multi-kilometer depth with tunnels etc. etc..

Bush can not afford, given the present state of the economy, to piss off the P.R.C. or Japan.

So..... we'll do the talk / talk thing until Kim get's about 90% of what he wants and George will then declare victory.

..after he apoligizes of course.

2Wolves

Phaenx · 08-09-2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
I can't say im super qualified but having been to the area firsthand along with family members who fought in the war and their comrades (no not the other side) - their descriptions of the fighting in N.korea (yeah you cant exactly just walk in there so N.Korea is kinda off limits) - and the knowledge of the current U.S. armed forces - would IMO not be sufficient for a 30 to 60 day campaign.

The question is, what do YOU know the military is going to do?

Or do you think N. Korea is another pushover 3rd world country with a standing army with only a few hundred thousand soldiers and way outdated (1960's - 70's) equipment...

I know the word of a senior pentagon official regarding a military invasion is worth more then a random liberal from California. These guys would know, I'll take their word for it.

Willy · 08-09-2003, 11:31 AM

N. Korea's people are starving to pay for it's army. Despite the numbers, they don't have the money to actually fight a war that their troop numbers suggest. They would certainly be more formidable than Iraq though.

That's not to say that I think we should invade N. Korea anytime soon. We need to get Iraq finished up, and make sure all diplomatic options have been exhausted and that we have at least the blessing if not the assistance of a considerable coalition.

Zeld2.0 · 08-09-2003, 02:27 PM

Thanks I'm just now some random liberal from CA. Gee wow take the word for them when you don't even know what my own background is (or what i decide to and not hand out.)

Yes please take their word for it, i'l ltake my own experience and shove it and let the bureaucrats sitting back there create plans that end up being fucked up despite the hype.

No thanks, I'd rather not have similar people hype up a war Iraq style and fall short.

p.s. You probably wouldn't label me as such if i was acutally in say Kansas?

Arc101 · 08-09-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Where does anybody here get off on questioning U. S. intelligence if it believes that we can take out North Korea in 30-60 days? I mean, were they wrong about Iraq?

erm what about the loads of weapons of mass destruction, you know the biolgical, nuclear stuff that they said was there. Also the intelligence people said that they would welcome with open arms the Americans as liberators. I haven't seen too many celebrations, but I have seen a lot of body bags.

Anyay N Korea really has weapons of mass destruction and because of this there is no way America will attack.

HarmlessRabbit · 08-09-2003, 04:20 PM

here's an interesting report on north korea:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/

lots of good info, but i found this article on a possible strategy interesting:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...k/doctrine.htm

regarding the original article, i don't think the world will allow another "pre-emptive" strike on another country, although i do believe north korea is a danger. i also don't think china would stand for a "bomb korea until everything is flattened" strategy. The fact is that we can't do anything in north korea without china's approval.

JumpinJesus · 08-09-2003, 04:51 PM

Attack N. Korea? Are you kidding? They might actually fight back. Bush is not going to induce a military action against a nation that cannot be won within a two-month time frame.

If it gets too hairy, he won't have a carrier to land on and claim victory.

yes, this is an oversimplification, or as Bush might say, undersimpled.

Zeld2.0 · 08-09-2003, 09:15 PM

The key to N. Korea lies in its neighbors - China, South Korea, Japan and to an extent Russia.

Which side the neighbors are on will defenitely determine a lot of the outcome of whether or not there will ever be a settlement. No South korean help then we'll have our issues - a hostile China will only be bad.

Stare At The Sun · 08-09-2003, 09:29 PM

No way this will happen. Asia is a totally different issue than the middle east. Not nearly as many americans will support this war, and there will be a lot of casulties..

Phaenx · 08-09-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Thanks I'm just now some random liberal from CA. Gee wow take the word for them when you don't even know what my own background is (or what i decide to and not hand out.)

Yes please take their word for it, i'l ltake my own experience and shove it and let the bureaucrats sitting back there create plans that end up being fucked up despite the hype.

No thanks, I'd rather not have similar people hype up a war Iraq style and fall short.

p.s. You probably wouldn't label me as such if i was acutally in say Kansas?

Are you playing the Kansas card on me!?

dragon2fire · 08-10-2003, 03:17 AM

bad idea attacking nk

and no chance 30 to 60 days

you do relise that we would not just be fighting north korea if we did that right?

china whold send troops and that would be bad lots of people would die

did not we try this b4

Trilidon · 08-10-2003, 07:53 AM

30-60 days my ass

Saying that is just just there way of winning over public support.

N. Korea alone is no push over, and adding in the fact that its China's backyard...

Macheath · 08-10-2003, 08:45 AM

Let's ignore China, liberate North Korea, set up US bases there and see how many minutes it takes for World War Three to begin...

Zeld2.0 · 08-10-2003, 11:13 AM

I'd say the actual way we should begin with is this road:

actually end the friggin Korean War.

You all do realize that the war was never truly ended - the first step if anything we should try to end it so the animosity and tensions can go down a lot more.

Phaenx · 08-10-2003, 12:25 PM

I agree, lets trample those mother fuckers into the Earth and end the Korean War for good.

The_Dude · 08-10-2003, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Let's ignore China, liberate North Korea, set up US bases there and see how many minutes it takes for World War Three to begin...

wouldnt take very long.

MrSmashy · 08-10-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
I know the word of a senior pentagon official regarding a military invasion is worth more then a random liberal from California. These guys would know, I'll take their word for it.

While a general may have more info, its dangerous to 'take their word for it.' Not only are they capable of mistakes - often based on intelligence - but their personal biases can lead to a maniuplation of information to press their own agendas.

MrSmashy · 08-10-2003, 09:21 PM

also, North Korea is a far more realistic threat to the US than Iraq ever was. They should have been the target, not Iraq, if you want to stop a terrorist state.

Still, it will be costly. If there is an invasion, I just hope it won't do longterm damage to the US economy via massive debts...at least no more than Iraq will probably cause.

CaesarI · 08-10-2003, 09:37 PM

Defeating N. Korea would be difficult? Hmm... not according to my analysis. Care to divulge your reasons for thinking it'd be a tough nut to crack?

As far as China... well China is a tough nut to figure out, but they like it that way.

But in all honesty debating these things with only declassified information is a largely academic exercise. Why bother?

What can be said is that Clinton should've never started shipping'em food and oil in '94. It would have irritated'em, and perhaps caused a minor skirmish, but the reality is that it's a classic military technique: siege. Yet Bill decided to give food and oil to our enemies? What sorta weed was he smoking (though not inhaling)?

Well he wasn't smoking weed.... he was just being a politician. Provoking such a conflict (when the risks were lower than they are now) would have been political suicide, even if it was best for the country. Blair by contrast cares more about what's good for England than what's good for his career.

But that's just my unedumacated opinion.

neoinoakleys · 08-11-2003, 01:06 PM

I found this to be quite interesting...

Take a look at the night time satellite photo of north Korea and South Korea. You can see that South Korea is all lit up, and North Korea is just about in the dark ages. Kinda makes you wonder what the people there would think of their country if they could see this picture. I mean there is just about no evidence of any industry in North Korea, "What has your government done for you??" This is the quetion I think North Koreans need to ask themselves...

Link

Zeld2.0 · 08-11-2003, 04:22 PM

now whats really scary is how lit up japan is at night - the entire friggin island (chain) is one giant light

Phaenx · 08-11-2003, 05:17 PM

I would put money on them saying something along the lines of: "This is the work of a foriegn devil, it is obviously doctored."

XenuHubbard · 08-11-2003, 10:41 PM

"Our Great Nation has succeeded in building a giant dome over our country, so that the Imperialist spy satellites can't see what we're doing."

Hell, I met some North Koreans in China. They were hilarious.
My South Korean friend brought some beer and went to talk to them. He left after one hour, furious. The North Koreans were brainwashed to infinity and back.

The problem is that South Korea would hate the US for an eternity as well, if there's a war. But hey, they hate the US already.

neoinoakleys · 08-12-2003, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
now whats really scary is how lit up japan is at night - the entire friggin island (chain) is one giant light

That IS interesting...

auswegian · 08-17-2003, 07:00 AM

The US would win, probably not within that time frame but I think victory would be assured. The results?

- yet another country to rebuild. Friggin' Afghanistan hasn't barely been rebuilt yet, Karzai was just plonked there and everyone buggered off. Same will happen to Iraq if the US attacks NK. This will encourage the perfectly legitimate idea that the US stomps around the world removing those oppressive regimes it doesn't happen to like, and leaving uncontrollable anarchies behind.

- Many dead South Koreans, maybe even dead Japanese. Oh, and a bigger body count of US servicemen than the last two 'police actions' combined. Wow, everyone in East Asia suddenly becomes as hostile as the Middle East, whoops.

- Terrorist attacks. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there were NK deep cover agents in the US as we speak, ready to cause havoc in the event of a war. Plus, it would give al-Qaeda a chance to regroup.

- China joining the Franco-Russo-German bloc in the Security Council, and making a huge fuss. And increasing their defense budget.

- An even larger deficit. Damn, this Pax Americana of yours is gonna be one expensive flirtation with imperialism. Oh, I'm sure a tax cut to the rich would be in order.

All in all, more trouble than its worth. Why attack North Korea at all? Idiotic. NK isn't the threat everyone thinks it is. The only reason they're acting so crazy is a survival strategy. I think of North Korea as somewhat akin to a frill-necked lizard. By raising itself up and trying to appear as big and scary as possible, NK is trying to discourage the US from trying their luck on an invasion, and on the off side to force the US to send more precious supplies. Doesn't seem all that insidious to me, really.

BigGov · 08-17-2003, 11:23 AM

Why attack North Korea at all? It's idiotic? Yea, what are we thinking, nukes and the means to deliever to the US West Coast. Nothing to worry about. I never liked California anyway.

08-08-2003, 12:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
Shokan Addict Location: Canada	N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ry=north+korea N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum By GEOFFREY YORK From Thursday's Globe and Mail Beijing — A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities. Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war. Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year — an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack. The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum." Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns. Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea. The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney. "We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy." Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime." They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border. But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said. They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote. Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war — perhaps as early as this year. Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post. He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war." __________________ Legalize it.

08-08-2003, 12:33 PM	#2 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	We should send some inspectors in. It will be settled in about fifteen years. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

08-08-2003, 01:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i doubt this. north korea will not be the kinda push over that iraq/afghanistan was. there will be lots more casualties as the n.korean army is very well trained and disciplined and are very unlikely to desert their posts. i doubt US will attack n.korea. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal Last edited by The_Dude; 08-08-2003 at 02:14 PM..

08-08-2003, 04:02 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I don't know how quick they would be to defend the regime though. But N. Korea is way different then Iraq, Iraq was the U.S. sending a message to the Arabs... We are trying to get other people involved with the Korean situation. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-08-2003, 05:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	Korea is definatly a different beast than Iraq. A ground attack staged from S Korea would definatly be out of the question, we would get murdered. If things got close, they might get crazy and decide to use one of their newfound nukes in S Korea as a last resort. Should definatly try to work this out diplomatically, our military resources are already thin as is. __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

08-08-2003, 02:03 PM	#4 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	dude is correct. The North Koreans would kick up a real fight. If one could racially stereotype, the asians seem to be maniacle in fighting wars. You can see it in the Japanese in WW2, The Chinese in Korea, and the Vietnamese. Arabs don't tend to be well disciplined fighters like that.

08-08-2003, 03:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	30 to 60 days is laughable unless we nuke the shit out of them or throw our entire military at them the N. Korean military in size is the 4th largest in the world - and they don't have different sects (like the shiites vs. suni in iraq) and are under Koreans anyways Not to mention they had a ton of equipment from the former Soviet Union and China. Oh and the terrain in North Korea is hardly what I would call a nice place to fight - its full of hills and mountains (aka death for assaults) and so you can't just mass armored divisions and move straight in a'la Iraq (open desert).

08-08-2003, 11:49 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I can't say im super qualified but having been to the area firsthand along with family members who fought in the war and their comrades (no not the other side) - their descriptions of the fighting in N.korea (yeah you cant exactly just walk in there so N.Korea is kinda off limits) - and the knowledge of the current U.S. armed forces - would IMO not be sufficient for a 30 to 60 day campaign. The question is, what do YOU know the military is going to do? Or do you think N. Korea is another pushover 3rd world country with a standing army with only a few hundred thousand soldiers and way outdated (1960's - 70's) equipment...

08-09-2003, 12:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
hobo Archangel of Change	The thing is, North Korea has an army. Iraq didn't. Sure they did on paper, but none of those people actually fought. They just took off their uniforms and went home when the US military moved in. There was almost no resistance at all. On top of that, Iraq had horrible equipment and most of it was damaged or destroyed already in 1991. The sanctions prevented them from rearming, so Iraq's military was still how it was when Gulf War 1 was ended. Korea has been rearming since the Korean war was ceasefired (technically war not over), and it's military will fight, not just go home and wait for it all to be over. Plus from what has been said about NK's artillery, they can flatten Soeul in under 30 minutes, and that city has millions of people. Unless the USAF can destroy 11 000 artillery peaces in under 30 minutes, the kill count will reach a million on day 1 of the war.

08-09-2003, 02:21 AM	#11 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	Good luck. I mean it. I belive that NK needs to have a change in leadership about 1000 times more than Iraq ever did. But I also belive that this time around the US will find even less allies because of the fuckups in thaeir diplomacy before, during and after the second Iraqi campain. And as stated before, NK hasn't been under 12y of sanctions etc. If this is started then we will see no improvement in the economy in the US and Bush won't get elected for a second term (horray). __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

08-09-2003, 05:49 AM	#12 (permalink)
prb Psycho	Where does anybody here get off on questioning U. S. intelligence if it believes that we can take out North Korea in 30-60 days? I mean, were they wrong about Iraq?

08-09-2003, 09:41 AM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	if they start the draft, bush's popularity drain would go deep down the drain. i dont think he or any other president (or congress) would resort to the draft anytime soon unless the threat is really imminent __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-09-2003, 09:55 AM	#15 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	North Korea has lots of cannon fodder but little air or armor. Given their TOTAL dependence on imported fuel any stockpiles which survived the initial air campaign would soon be exhausted. What does make military action there prohibitive is the nuke factor. They've demostrated that they have a theatre delivery system and given the prevailing wind patterns the P.R.C. would not be pleased to have major population centers contaminated. Japan will not allow it to reach the point where Kim will use the bomb as he just might lob it their way. The 38th will not be the jumping off point as there are mine fields in multi-kilometer depth with tunnels etc. etc.. Bush can not afford, given the present state of the economy, to piss off the P.R.C. or Japan. So..... we'll do the talk / talk thing until Kim get's about 90% of what he wants and George will then declare victory. ..after he apoligizes of course. 2Wolves

08-09-2003, 11:31 AM	#17 (permalink)
Willy Insane	N. Korea's people are starving to pay for it's army. Despite the numbers, they don't have the money to actually fight a war that their troop numbers suggest. They would certainly be more formidable than Iraq though. That's not to say that I think we should invade N. Korea anytime soon. We need to get Iraq finished up, and make sure all diplomatic options have been exhausted and that we have at least the blessing if not the assistance of a considerable coalition.

08-09-2003, 02:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Thanks I'm just now some random liberal from CA. Gee wow take the word for them when you don't even know what my own background is (or what i decide to and not hand out.) Yes please take their word for it, i'l ltake my own experience and shove it and let the bureaucrats sitting back there create plans that end up being fucked up despite the hype. No thanks, I'd rather not have similar people hype up a war Iraq style and fall short. p.s. You probably wouldn't label me as such if i was acutally in say Kansas?

08-09-2003, 04:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	here's an interesting report on north korea: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/ lots of good info, but i found this article on a possible strategy interesting: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...k/doctrine.htm regarding the original article, i don't think the world will allow another "pre-emptive" strike on another country, although i do believe north korea is a danger. i also don't think china would stand for a "bomb korea until everything is flattened" strategy. The fact is that we can't do anything in north korea without china's approval.

08-09-2003, 04:51 PM	#21 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	Attack N. Korea? Are you kidding? They might actually fight back. Bush is not going to induce a military action against a nation that cannot be won within a two-month time frame. If it gets too hairy, he won't have a carrier to land on and claim victory. yes, this is an oversimplification, or as Bush might say, undersimpled. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

08-09-2003, 09:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	The key to N. Korea lies in its neighbors - China, South Korea, Japan and to an extent Russia. Which side the neighbors are on will defenitely determine a lot of the outcome of whether or not there will ever be a settlement. No South korean help then we'll have our issues - a hostile China will only be bad.

08-09-2003, 09:29 PM	#23 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	No way this will happen. Asia is a totally different issue than the middle east. Not nearly as many americans will support this war, and there will be a lot of casulties..

08-10-2003, 03:17 AM	#25 (permalink)
dragon2fire Junkie	bad idea attacking nk and no chance 30 to 60 days you do relise that we would not just be fighting north korea if we did that right? china whold send troops and that would be bad lots of people would die did not we try this b4

08-10-2003, 07:53 AM	#26 (permalink)
Trilidon Tilted	30-60 days my ass Saying that is just just there way of winning over public support. N. Korea alone is no push over, and adding in the fact that its China's backyard...

08-10-2003, 08:45 AM	#27 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Let's ignore China, liberate North Korea, set up US bases there and see how many minutes it takes for World War Three to begin...

08-10-2003, 11:13 AM	#28 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I'd say the actual way we should begin with is this road: actually end the friggin Korean War. You all do realize that the war was never truly ended - the first step if anything we should try to end it so the animosity and tensions can go down a lot more.

08-10-2003, 12:25 PM	#29 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I agree, lets trample those mother fuckers into the Earth and end the Korean War for good. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-10-2003, 09:21 PM	#32 (permalink)
MrSmashy Crazy Location: Soviet Canukistan	also, North Korea is a far more realistic threat to the US than Iraq ever was. They should have been the target, not Iraq, if you want to stop a terrorist state. Still, it will be costly. If there is an invasion, I just hope it won't do longterm damage to the US economy via massive debts...at least no more than Iraq will probably cause.

08-10-2003, 09:37 PM	#33 (permalink)
CaesarI Upright Location: WA, CO	Defeating N. Korea would be difficult? Hmm... not according to my analysis. Care to divulge your reasons for thinking it'd be a tough nut to crack? As far as China... well China is a tough nut to figure out, but they like it that way. But in all honesty debating these things with only declassified information is a largely academic exercise. Why bother? What can be said is that Clinton should've never started shipping'em food and oil in '94. It would have irritated'em, and perhaps caused a minor skirmish, but the reality is that it's a classic military technique: siege. Yet Bill decided to give food and oil to our enemies? What sorta weed was he smoking (though not inhaling)? Well he wasn't smoking weed.... he was just being a politician. Provoking such a conflict (when the risks were lower than they are now) would have been political suicide, even if it was best for the country. Blair by contrast cares more about what's good for England than what's good for his career. But that's just my unedumacated opinion.

08-11-2003, 01:06 PM	#34 (permalink)
neoinoakleys Psycho Location: Michigan	I found this to be quite interesting... Take a look at the night time satellite photo of north Korea and South Korea. You can see that South Korea is all lit up, and North Korea is just about in the dark ages. Kinda makes you wonder what the people there would think of their country if they could see this picture. I mean there is just about no evidence of any industry in North Korea, "What has your government done for you??" This is the quetion I think North Koreans need to ask themselves... Link __________________ It's My Duty to Please That Booty!!

08-11-2003, 04:22 PM	#35 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	now whats really scary is how lit up japan is at night - the entire friggin island (chain) is one giant light

08-11-2003, 05:17 PM	#36 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I would put money on them saying something along the lines of: "This is the work of a foriegn devil, it is obviously doctored." __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-11-2003, 10:41 PM	#37 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	"Our Great Nation has succeeded in building a giant dome over our country, so that the Imperialist spy satellites can't see what we're doing." Hell, I met some North Koreans in China. They were hilarious. My South Korean friend brought some beer and went to talk to them. He left after one hour, furious. The North Koreans were brainwashed to infinity and back. The problem is that South Korea would hate the US for an eternity as well, if there's a war. But hey, they hate the US already. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

08-17-2003, 07:00 AM	#39 (permalink)
auswegian Crazy Location: Perth, Australia	The US would win, probably not within that time frame but I think victory would be assured. The results? - yet another country to rebuild. Friggin' Afghanistan hasn't barely been rebuilt yet, Karzai was just plonked there and everyone buggered off. Same will happen to Iraq if the US attacks NK. This will encourage the perfectly legitimate idea that the US stomps around the world removing those oppressive regimes it doesn't happen to like, and leaving uncontrollable anarchies behind. - Many dead South Koreans, maybe even dead Japanese. Oh, and a bigger body count of US servicemen than the last two 'police actions' combined. Wow, everyone in East Asia suddenly becomes as hostile as the Middle East, whoops. - Terrorist attacks. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there were NK deep cover agents in the US as we speak, ready to cause havoc in the event of a war. Plus, it would give al-Qaeda a chance to regroup. - China joining the Franco-Russo-German bloc in the Security Council, and making a huge fuss. And increasing their defense budget. - An even larger deficit. Damn, this Pax Americana of yours is gonna be one expensive flirtation with imperialism. Oh, I'm sure a tax cut to the rich would be in order. All in all, more trouble than its worth. Why attack North Korea at all? Idiotic. NK isn't the threat everyone thinks it is. The only reason they're acting so crazy is a survival strategy. I think of North Korea as somewhat akin to a frill-necked lizard. By raising itself up and trying to appear as big and scary as possible, NK is trying to discourage the US from trying their luck on an invasion, and on the off side to force the US to send more precious supplies. Doesn't seem all that insidious to me, really. __________________ "Look, I'm pretty relaxed for a guy who just lost money on a rave. And who's currently speeding down the highway drunk off my tits. And I'm being chased by someone in a blue Corolla. Woohoo! I just ran a red light!"

08-17-2003, 11:23 AM	#40 (permalink)
BigGov WoW or Class... Location: UWW	Why attack North Korea at all? It's idiotic? Yea, what are we thinking, nukes and the means to deliever to the US West Coast. Nothing to worry about. I never liked California anyway. __________________ One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"