PDA

View Full Version : North Korea on war footing as South cuts trade



poiuytrewq0987
05-25-2010, 01:31 PM
Made you look but we're definitely getting there!
North Korea on war footing as South cuts trade

REUTERS - North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has reportedly ordered his military to be on combat alert as tensions rise sharply on the peninsula after the South accused its neighbour of sinking a warship.
The report by the South’s Yonhap news agency immediately hit already nervous Seoul financial markets, with the main share index dropping more than three percent.

Yonhap quoted a local group of North Korea watchers as saying their sources there had told them Kim’s command had been broadcast by a top military official.

There was no reference to the order on North Korean media seen outside the reclusive state nor any immediate comment from South Korean officials.

Seoul on Monday announced it would ban all trade with the North and stop its commercial ships using South Korean waters, moves likely to further squeeze the already ruined North Korean economy.

Both sides have stepped up their angry rhetoric after international investigators late last week blamed the North for torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War.

The United States, which has 28,000 troops on the peninsula, threw its full support behind South Korea and said it was working hard to stop the escalation fury getting out of hand.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100525-korea-north-war-footing-south-trade-sanctions-un-security-council

The Lawspeaker
05-25-2010, 01:40 PM
The tensions are running high though but I think that if the US would send some more combat troops there the North Koreans will shrink to their former level of patheticness. And have no illusions, the Chinese would simply let the Koreans and Americans roll them up as they are sick and tired of them too.

Saruman
05-25-2010, 02:06 PM
Well who would lead North's armies I wonder, their only Marshal Ri Ul Sol is 89 years old, ViceMarshal Ri Yong Mu 87. Some "younger" ones in 70-is.:D Their officers really have loooong careers, and they also seem to have Brezhnev's medal fetish.:eek:
With those medals I don't think they require bullet proof vests!!:D

http://www2.vietbao.vn/images/vivavietnam_vne/the_gioi/10989877_Kim2.jpg

Radojica
05-25-2010, 02:19 PM
I think that South Korean housewives will be the happiest in the end "Atomic bomb during the breakfast solves all problems about the lunch" :swl :swl

poiuytrewq0987
05-25-2010, 07:02 PM
North Korea to sever all ties with South

North Korea announced Tuesday it was cutting all ties with its southern neighbour and expelling all South Korean personnel from a jointly-run industrial estate after it was accused of sinking one of the South's warships in March.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100525-north-korea-cuts-all-ties-with-south-korea-warship-sinkingDo you think North Korea did it or do you think it was a black op to intended to incite conflict between both countries?

The Lawspeaker
05-25-2010, 08:10 PM
Do you think North Korea did it or do you think it was a black op to intended to incite conflict between both countries?
Taking into account that the South Koreans denied the North's involvement for a long time I doubt that it is a black op.

Fortis in Arduis
05-25-2010, 08:29 PM
I think that for most of us, this illustrates the fruitless conflict between capitalism and communism.

If NK were to institute similar economic reforms to those China has then that conflict would be lessened.

If NK were to turn fully NS, fascist or just co-operative economic, then union with the South would be a more serious possibility.

The American administration would, of course, immediately react to that by bombing the country with an pre-emptive strike, but with the NK nuke, maybe not.

I see NK as a golden opportunity for a communist regime to switch from shared to distributed ownership, and there is no way that I believe that NK is as bad as the corporate media would have us think. It must be bad, but not quite so bad.

Loki
05-26-2010, 12:38 AM
North Korea 'severs all ties' with Seoul (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10156834.stm)



Amid the rising tensions, Seoul announced on Sunday it was ending trade relations with the North in response to the sinking of the Cheonan.

South Korea has also said it will drop propaganda leaflets into the North to tell people about the sinking, as well as setting up giant electronic billboards to flash messages.

It has resumed propaganda broadcasts to the North, playing radio programmes that will soon be broadcast via border loudspeakers.

The US, which has thousands of troops based in South Korea, has backed Seoul, condemning the incident and confirming late on Monday that it will hold joint anti-submarine naval exercises with South Korean forces.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US and China must work together to "fashion an effective response" to the sinking of the Cheonan.


This is ridiculous, and possibly yet another international stunt orchestrated by the US in order to stir war, diplomatic jostling etc abroad. There is no evidence that NK sunk that ship. The US is abusing this situation (and perhaps even created it?) to further its global agenda for dominance.

Ulf
05-26-2010, 12:59 AM
Less talk more war, let's get this shit started. We're gonna free the shit out of those Koreans. We need to finish what was started.

Cato
05-26-2010, 02:09 AM
North Korea 'severs all ties' with Seoul (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10156834.stm)



This is ridiculous, and possibly yet another international stunt orchestrated by the US in order to stir war, diplomatic jostling etc abroad. There is no evidence that NK sunk that ship. The US is abusing this situation (and perhaps even created it?) to further its global agenda for dominance.

Respects to you Loki as the forum's boss, but do you actually believe that statement? These days, the U.S. doesn't have the will to conquer a sandbox much less take out some pathetic nation like NKorea.

Austin
05-26-2010, 05:51 AM
China's historical perspective and or view of the situation must be taken into account to understand their hesitance.

China lost a million soldiers in the Korean War fighting alongside North Korea. If a country losses a million soldiers in a vital regional neighborhood war, don't you think that country (China) will be and has been reluctant to just watch North Korea be destroyed after having lost a million troops defending it?

"Chinese battlefield losses were appalling. It was reported that Mao Tse-Tung's own son, Mao An-Ying, was killed in the fighting there; how many others died has never been revealed. Exact figures on Chinese losses are still a state secret, but even the most conservative estimates are that the CCF and the North Korean People's Army or NKPA combined lost a minimum of one-half million soldiers killed in combat and suffered at least another one million wounded in action." http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/Chinese-Korean-War.htm

China has blood invested in North Korea. It doesn't want to look like it is selling it's old Communist brother out after having lost a million of it's conscripts defending it.

Cato
05-26-2010, 03:10 PM
China was a vastly different nation in the 1950s than it is today, when it was a much, much less secure and respected nation. Do you think that the China of today would readily send troops to the defense of NKorea like it did over fifty years ago? That's something that I doubt. Chinese foreign policy is pragmatic (i.e. if it doesn't benefit China, then forget it) and has a minimum of saber-rattling.

Murphy
05-26-2010, 05:20 PM
Well who would lead North's armies I wonder, their only Marshal Ri Ul Sol is 89 years old, ViceMarshal Ri Yong Mu 87. Some "younger" ones in 70-is.:D Their officers really have loooong careers, and they also seem to have Brezhnev's medal fetish.:eek:
With those medals I don't think they require bullet proof vests!!:D

http://www2.vietbao.vn/images/vivavietnam_vne/the_gioi/10989877_Kim2.jpg

Just because they are old doesn't mean that they don't know their shit. They probably know that North Korea will be bitch slapped. But they're all so old that they're crazy enough to not give a fuck. That's a dangerous enemy.

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 05:23 PM
http://www2.vietbao.vn/images/vivavietnam_vne/the_gioi/10989877_Kim2.jpgIs our Kimmy trying to give the Roman salute? :P

http://a2.powerset.com/assets/orig/300px/Benito_Mussolini_Roman_Salute.jpg

Cato
05-26-2010, 05:52 PM
The Chinese seem to barely tolerate NKorea at times, which is basically just riding on China's coattails. I really, really wonder if China itself might someday decide to do away with the short fool in Pyongyang and put a more moderate puppet in power. The Chinese would be doing the world a serious favor if they just decided to invade the north, shook the dink in charge there, and put someone else in charge.

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 06:00 PM
The Chinese seem to barely tolerate NKorea at times, which is basically just riding on China's coattails. I really, really wonder if China itself might someday decide to do away with the short fool in Pyongyang and put a more moderate puppet in power. The Chinese would be doing the world a serious favor if they just decided to invade the north, shook the dink in charge there, and put someone else in charge.

China could also support NK's 5 million man army (by funding the army to buy new military hardware) to extend Communism all over the Korean peninsula (and could result in total subjugation of the peninsula and further China's geopolitical influence by having a puppet state on the peninsula). China has a lot to benefit if they grant NK full support which would ultimately weaken America's influence on global politics and Asia. I'm pretty sure China is aware of such option, and they're seriously considering it as one of the options

Murphy
05-26-2010, 06:00 PM
But can we really say that China wants North Korea dealt with? I think if North Korea was such a problem to China, then North Korea wouldn't exist right now.

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:04 PM
China could also support NK's 5 million man army (by funding the army to buy new military hardware) to extend Communism all over the Korean peninsula (and could result in total subjugation of the peninsula and further China's geopolitical influence by having a puppet state on the peninsula). China has a lot to benefit if they grant NK full support which would ultimately weaken America's influence on global politics and Asia. I'm pretty sure China is aware of such option, and they're seriously considering it as one of the options

The Chinese can try this trick, which the Russians used during the Soviet era, and fail in an epic fashion because such a move wouldn't agree with Chinese foreign policy or the image that the Chinese try to project to the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China's_peaceful_rise

"In addition, this doctrine seeks to avoid unnecessary confrontation with the United States."

As lame as the U.S. is, it still has vast military capabilities over that of the Chinese in terms of global force projection.

In the above scenario, a result would be, at the very least, Japan aligned closer with the U.S., possible Japanese rearmament, if China begins to push for the spread of communist doctrines around East Asia.

The Lawspeaker
05-26-2010, 06:06 PM
China could also support NK's 5 million man army (by funding the army to buy new military hardware) to extend Communism all over the Korean peninsula (and could result in total subjugation of the peninsula and further China's geopolitical influence by having a puppet state on the peninsula). China has a lot to benefit if they grant NK full support which would ultimately weaken America's influence on global politics and Asia. I'm pretty sure China is aware of such option, and they're seriously considering it as one of the options
The problem for China is that they would bring them in a state of war with the Unites States and even if there would not be shot fired it would seriously weaken China's standing as it would crash it's economy. I read an article somewhere (I need to look it up) that the Chinese government merely has it's mandate because of economic growth and if China would not make 8 percent a year the economy will falter and her government will collapse.
So I think that the Chinese will be pragmatic and let the South Koreans roll up the North but you have a chance that they will insist on the U.S withdrawing afterwards so a re-united Korea will in effect be neutral.

Korea will be so busy rebuilding the country (mainly the North) that China will not be worried about them and let's look at Korea: they are a midget compared to China.

Fortis in Arduis
05-26-2010, 06:08 PM
But can we really say that China wants North Korea dealt with? I think if North Korea was such a problem to China, then North Korea wouldn't exist right now.

NK is a buffer zone for China, against the myopic you-know-whos. :rolleyes:

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:09 PM
NK is a buffer zone for China, against the myopic you-know-whos. :rolleyes:

OORAH!

Murphy
05-26-2010, 06:10 PM
And what are the chances that the North Koreans would stand against US/South Korean military might?

In reality, all the North Koreans would really need to do is prolong the war for as long as possible.

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:12 PM
And what are the chances that the North Koreans would stand against US/South Korean military might?

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z102/JanColdwater/freedom_bombs.gif

Especially against freedom bombs? :thumb001:

The age of Teddy Roosevelt is over and gunboat diplomacy isn't so effective these days, especially considering that the U.S. military, while massive in terms of arsenal and whatnot, would be faced with lots of handicaps at home (politicians, rather than generals, setting military objectives) and abroad (the Chinese et al. aren't exactly bare-assed natives with spears and clubs).

Smaland
05-26-2010, 06:12 PM
Some pertinent questions:

1) How many nukes does NK have,
2) what are their yields,
3) what delivery systems do they have, and
4) what is the predicted amount of destruction and fallout if they are actually used?

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 06:39 PM
The problem for China is that they would bring them in a state of war with the Unites States and even if there would not be shot fired it would seriously weaken China's standing as it would crash it's economy. I read an article somewhere (I need to look it up) that the Chinese government merely has it's mandate because of economic growth and if China would not make 8 percent a year the economy will falter and her government will collapse.
So I think that the Chinese will be pragmatic and let the South Koreans roll up the North but you have a chance that they will insist on the U.S withdrawing afterwards so a re-united Korea will in effect be neutral.

Korea will be so busy rebuilding the country (mainly the North) that China will not be worried about them and let's look at Korea: they are a midget compared to China.

I disagree. China essentially holds the US at their throats right now because China holds most of the US debt. China can theoretically make US default on its debt by demanding payment. Presently the US owes $810 billion, and with a budget deficit of $310 billion, it cannot even hope to pay back all of its debt immediately.

It's not very likely the US will sacrifice large amounts of American investment in China to back SK because in doing so would further the recession in the US. It's more likely that the US will let China do whatever in its backyard.

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 06:42 PM
And what are the chances that the North Koreans would stand against US/South Korean military might?

In reality, all the North Koreans would really need to do is prolong the war for as long as possible.

What military might? The 28,500 American troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea) in SK right now? :dielaughing:It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and if we're counting paramilitary then they'd have a total combined arms of 6 million... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

anonymaus
05-26-2010, 06:46 PM
What military might? The 28,500 American troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea) in SK right now? :dielaughing:It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and another 5 million paramilitary troops so they'd be going up against 10 million men at arms... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

The only motivation those soldiers have to fight is to loot the MREs out of enemy packs; any NoKo prop-bot so unlucky as to not get one will collapse after marching a few miles across the DMZ.

More likely, they'll run to freedom and hope their insane fat midget fuck of a leader doesn't add a healthy green glow to the entire peninsula in the meantime.

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:47 PM
What military might? The 28,500 American troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea) in SK right now? :dielaughing:It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and another 5 million paramilitary troops so they'd be going up against 10 million men at arms... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

NKorea could have 5 million or 50 million, but if it can't mobilize, feed, equip, etc. those hordes, what good are they? 28,500 well-trained, well-provisioned, well-equipped U.S. troops beats a half-starved, ill-equipped horde of dog-munchers by a longshot- especially considering that the U.S. can actually move them around and can call on, oh, the USAF, Pacific Fleet, etc. This is the overwhelming strength of the U.S., not the number of pairs of boots on the ground, but the logistical ability, the power of the U.S. Navy, USAF, etc. In sheer numbers, the U.S. has less troops, but in terms of naval tonnage, the U.S. has more ships than the next 10 or 15 nations combined and the USAF is second-to-none.

Fighting the U.S. wouldn't be like what happened with that vessel from SKorea, when the commies came upon the target via submarine stealth (sneak-thievery) and put a torpedo into its hull.

anonymaus
05-26-2010, 06:48 PM
What military might? The 28,500 American troops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea) in SK right now? :dielaughing:It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and if we're counting paramilitary then they'd have a total combined arms of 6 million... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

Also, while we're on the subject, the USFK's primary objective in the event of war is to DIE SLOWLY while reinforcements are mobilized. That is very literally their prime directive.

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 06:48 PM
The only motivation those soldiers have to fight is to loot the MREs out of enemy packs; any NoKo prop-bot so unlucky as to not get one will collapse after marching a few miles across the DMZ.

More likely, they'll run to freedom and hope their insane fat midget fuck of a leader doesn't add a healthy green glow to the entire peninsula in the meantime.

Well considering how they're totally cut off from the world, and massive propaganda that gives cause for North Koreans to believe their leader is a demi-god... I think they are pretty motivated in annexing South Korea via war if it ever comes to that.

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:53 PM
Ahhh, an example of what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Aircraft_carriers_in_service

Aircraft carriers are generally the largest ships operated by navies. A total of 22 aircraft carriers in active service are maintained by nine navies.

United States (11)

Half of the world's aircraft carriers are operated by the U.S. Navy. Some rickety gook gunboat isn't much by comparison.

Cato
05-26-2010, 06:54 PM
Also, while we're on the subject, the USFK's primary objective in the event of war is to DIE SLOWLY while reinforcements are mobilized. That is very literally their prime directive.

Is this how they're decked out?

http://the-adventurers-club.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/star_trek_red_shirt_must_die.jpg

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 06:55 PM
Ahhh, an example of what I mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Aircraft_carriers_in_service

Aircraft carriers are generally the largest ships operated by navies. A total of 22 aircraft carriers in active service are maintained by nine navies.

United States (11)

Half of the world's aircraft carriers are operated by the U.S. Navy. Some rickety gook gunboat isn't much by comparison.

Who cares about the US military strength. If the US mobilized all of its forces to go to war with NK, then yes, by all means, the US would win. But that's not the case here. The US isn't going to mobilize to help SK because the US is more concerned about Afghanistan. Even so, getting the public support of Americans to play the world police by getting involved with another war in another theater would be even more difficult.

Cato
05-26-2010, 07:00 PM
Who cares about the US military strength. If the US mobilized all of its forces to go to war with NK, then yes, by all means, the US would win. But that's not the case here. The US isn't going to mobilize to help SK because the US is more concerned about Afghanistan. Even so, getting the public support of Americans to play the world police by getting involved with another war in another theater would be even more difficult.

Because, you posted:

What military might? The 28,500 American troops in SK right now? It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and if we're counting paramilitary then they'd have a total combined arms of 6 million... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

You're the one that brought up the awesome military might of NKorea, 5 or 6 million men, as if they'd be able to put all of these soldiers into battle against SKorea or the U.S. 5 or 6 million gook soldiers that can't be transported or mobilized (hint: do you know why bridges, rail lines, and roads were such a target during the World Wars?) are less useful than 28,500 soldiers that can be mobilized- especially by air, which is where air cavalry, transport planes like the C130 come in.

The U.S. can just fly or float troops in from just about anywhere on Earth. What can the NKoreans do, put all those millions on bicycles?

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 07:10 PM
Because, you posted:

What military might? The 28,500 American troops in SK right now? It doesn't stand a chance in hell against an army of 5 million regular troops, and if we're counting paramilitary then they'd have a total combined arms of 6 million... yeah, they'll need luck, and a lot of it.

You're the one that brought up the awesome military might of NKorea, 5 or 6 million men, as if they'd be able to put all of these soldiers into battle against SKorea or the U.S. 5 or 6 million gook soldiers that can't be transported or mobilized (hint: do you know why bridges, rail lines, and roads were such a target during the World Wars?) are less useful than 28,500 soldiers that can be mobilized- especially by air, which is where air cavalry, transport planes like the C130 come in.

The U.S. can just fly or float troops in from just about anywhere on Earth. What can the NKoreans do, put all those millions on bicycles?

Don't kid yourself, the US isn't going to just roll over NK like they did to Serbia or Iraq. They have millions of men, thousands of vehicles, plenty of artillery and possibly, nuclear missiles. And as of today, they have over 1,200 domestically produced T72 knock-offs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%27%C5%8Fnma-ho).

Taking towns won't be a walk in a park.


The Worker-Peasant Red Guard is the largest civilian defense force in the DPRK with a strength of approximately 3.5 million. The militia is organised on a provincial/ town/ village level, and structured on a brigade, battalion, company, and platoon basis. The militia maintains infantry small arms, with some mortars and anti-aircraft guns, although some units are unarmed.Divisions:



As of 1996, major combat units consisted of 153 divisions and brigades, including 60 infantry divisions/brigades, 25 mechanized infantry brigades, 13 tank brigades, 25 Special Operation Force (SOF) brigades and 30 artillery brigades.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-8"></sup>North Korea deployed ten corps including sixty divisions and brigades in the forward area south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line.
North Korea is definitely prepared for a possible renewal of the Korean War.

Cato
05-26-2010, 07:14 PM
Firepower, firepower. It's always about who has the bigger woody than who can use what he's got to the best advantage.

In which case:

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~yang/NuclearBomb.jpg

There, my appeal to atomic authority can't be trumped.

poiuytrewq0987
05-26-2010, 07:18 PM
Firepower, firepower. It's always about who has the bigger woody than who can use what he's got to the best advantage.

In which case:



There, my appeal to atomic authority can't be trumped.



In Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) possesses larger forces than Iraq, and they are already deployed along South Korea's border. A war could explode after a warning of only a few hours or days, not weeks. Unlike in the Persian Gulf, this attack would be prosecuted along a narrow peninsula on mountainous terrain. It would probably be accompanied by massed artillery fire, commando raids, and chemical weapons. Initially, the primary battlefield would be only about 125 kilometers wide and 100 kilometers deep. The DPRK attack would be conducted against well-prepared ROK forces in fortified positions and against larger U.S. forces than in the Persian Gulf. Most probably, the DPRK attack would aim at seizing nearby Seoul by advancing down the Kaesong-Munsan, Kumwa, and Chorwon corridors. If successful, North Korean forces might also try to conquer the entire peninsula before large U.S. reinforcements arrive.

North Korea has deployed more than 55 percent of its key forces in forward bases near the border. North Korea's short-term blitzkrieg strategy envisions a successful surprise attack in the early phase of the war to occupy South Korea before the arrival of US reinforcements on the Korean Peninsula. North Korean ground forces, totaling some 1 million soldiers, are composed of some 170 divisions and brigades including infantry, artillery, tank, mechanized and special operation forces. Of the total, about 60 divisions and brigades are deployed south of the Pyongyang-Wonsan line. This means a surprise attack on South Korea is possible at any time without a prior redeployment of its units. North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. The North Korean navy has also deployed 430 surface combatants and about 60 percent of some 90 submarine combat vessels near the front line in forward bases. With about 40 percent of its 790 fighter planes deployed near the front line, the North Korean air force could launch a surprise attack on any part of South Korea within a short period of time.

The basic goal of a North Korean southern offensive is destruction of allied defenses either before South Korea can fully mobilize its national power or before significant reinforcement from the United States arrives and be deployed. The primary objective of North Korea's military strategy is to reunify the Korean Peninsula under North Korean control within 30 days of beginning hostilities. A secondary objective is the defense of North Korea against a potential counter-offensive.

To accomplish these objectives, North Korea envisions fighting a two-front war. The first front, consisting of conventional forces, is tasked with breaking through defending forces along the DMZ, destroying defending ROK forces, and advancing rapidly down the entire peninsula. This operation will be coordinated closely with the opening of a second front consisting of SOF units conducting raids and disruptive attacks in ROK's rear.

In developing the force to fulfill this two-front strategy, North Korea's leaders realized that they could never reach technological parity with the United States or U.S.-supplied South Korea. Instead, they focused on speed, and overwhelming quantities of troops and firepower coupled with a well-trained SOF.

The operational objective of DPRK forces in the offense is the destruction of ROK forces in a short duration, high intensity campaign employing maneuver warfare. To achieve these objectives, the DPRK has developed a mobile ground force emphasizing the utilization of overwhelming firepower. The latest evolution in force structure and doctrine, begun in the late 1970s, has resulted in two distinct force organizations: a large, mobile active force (including SOF) organized, trained, and deployed to carry out offensive operations against the ROK, and an extensive, well trained reserve force to defend the DPRK.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/813021/posts

Smaland
05-26-2010, 08:26 PM
If it comes to war, it should be remembered that SK & US forces are not limited to defense or a frontal assault across the DMZ.

The turning point of the initial phase of the Korean War was the amphibious landing at Inchon in September, 1950. If necessary, Allied forces today could make a similar assault somewhere along the North Korean coast. NK forces could be outflanked and possibly surrounded.

Naturally, NK nuclear forces would somehow have to be dealt with in advance. Assuming that 1) NK has only a few warheads, and 2) they were reliably located by SK/US intelligence, perhaps a commando raid would succeed in disabling them. Afterwards, an amphibious landing could proceed.

Link to Wikipedia article about the Battle of Inchon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon)

RoyBatty
05-26-2010, 08:41 PM
I think that for most of us, this illustrates the fruitless conflict between capitalism and communism.


Imo this isn't really an ideological battle of "Communism vs Capitalism". Rather, it's part of the USA's global enslavement by proxy (in this case playing SK and Japan against NK) program.

I can't think of a single reason why it's necessary to agitate the NK's since they're not going anywhere, they're not going to be a threat to SK unless they're being provoked and they're not really capable of causing serious disruptions in their region (unless provoked).

The best strategy with them is usually just to leave them alone.

It's possible that NK sank the SK ship but even if they did, so what?

Proving it is for all intents and purposes impossible. An "international commission" investigating the sinking comprised of NATO countries cannot be considered to be objective and neutral either. As for the evidence, it proves nothing. Anybody could have planted it. Who'd know the difference?

Naval skirmishes between NK and SK are hardly unusual, quite often SK fares better than NK. You don't see the USA and its "International Community" of b.i.tches crying about this and demanding sanctions and UN meetings every time it happens. Why now the big hubaloo?

This issue is a non-event which is deliberately being stoked up by the USA and its South Korean b.i.t.c.h for reasons best known to themselves. It's not unlike 9/11 where the USA attacked the WTC and then blamed it on some elaborate fairytale "Islamic Plot" against "Freedom", "Success", "Affluence" and "Hatred of The West".

NK isn't going anywhere. What does the USA want? A war? A war which will probably kill millions of Koreans from all sides?

In whose interests would this be? The Koreans? Come on.... get real. The only people who'll benefit from this are the same US based ZioNazis and white trash who orchestrated 9/11.

Smaland
05-26-2010, 08:44 PM
SEOUL, May 26 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's military was tracking four North Korean submarines which disappeared from their east coast base after conducting naval training in the East Sea earlier this week, a military official in Seoul said Wednesday.

Complete article (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/05/26/0301000000AEN20100526001200315.HTML)

RoyBatty
05-26-2010, 09:06 PM
Why is it that Yankz always start fapping vigorously whenever an opportunity is engineered to attack and maim some little broken down country which did nothing to threaten them.

Is it some kind of inferiority complex that you need to feel good about yourselves, proving how tough you are by taking on the might of Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, Granada and so forth? USA USA USA blah blah blah?

Stop being such a bunch of idiots by getting sucked into US Govt / Military propaganda and brainwashing.

The NK's didn't force multiculturalism on you.
The NK's didn't threaten your jobs, homes or white wimminz.
The NK's didn't steal your money, bankrupt your country and then forced you into bailing out and paying for those who did.

Just who exactly is the real enemy? Why are you lot so convinced it is North Korea?

Bizarre......

Agrippa
05-26-2010, 10:33 PM
As for China: China didnt intervene full scale in the old Korean war neither until the Allied forces came close to the Yalu river.

The Chinese might accept many things, but I doubt they can just stay aside and watch foreign troops crushing their ally and marching to the river. It is not about whether they love North Korea, thats just their sphere of interest and that could really end their tolerance...

Smaland
05-26-2010, 10:43 PM
Why is it that Yankz always start fapping vigorously whenever an opportunity is engineered to attack and maim some little broken down country which did nothing to threaten them.

Is it some kind of inferiority complex that you need to feel good about yourselves, proving how tough you are by taking on the might of Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, Granada and so forth? USA USA USA blah blah blah?

Stop being such a bunch of idiots by getting sucked into US Govt / Military propaganda and brainwashing.

The NK's didn't force multiculturalism on you.
The NK's didn't threaten your jobs, homes or white wimminz.
The NK's didn't steal your money, bankrupt your country and then forced you into bailing out and paying for those who did.

Just who exactly is the real enemy? Why are you lot so convinced it is North Korea?

Bizarre......

I can speak only for myself, but I am not advocating a war with North Korea. In my previous posts, I was making observations and "thinking out loud."

Having said that, it appears to me that the NK leadership is unstable and dangerous. Without provocation, they attacked and sank a South Korean warship, and killed 46 SK sailors. Yes, there may not be ironclad proof that NK sank the ship, but who else would do it? Not even national leaders always have perfect information in these matters.

This isn't the first time that NK has something of this nature. In 1968, without provocation, NK seized the intelligence ship U.S.S. Pueblo, which was operating in international waters at the time. The crew was held captive for 11 months, and they were starved and regularly tortured during that period.

I do not want war, and I would be content to let things remain as they are, if only the North Koreans would control themselves.

Austin
05-26-2010, 11:26 PM
I don't believe any of this speculation matters as North Korea is on a time clock and it's generals know it. When Kim dies the country will go into a political free fall which is why I believe the generals who really control the country on a day to day basis want a conflict of some sort with the South so as to decide the fate of the country, they would rather fight the end all be all battle rather than allow Kim to die and the country to fall into complete chaos which I believe they are afraid of, in a sense a conflict gives them purpose and a way out, no conflict+Kim dying means a big bad question mark for North Korea....

The generals don't want it to get that far as I see it, the whole country is a powder keg of hero-worship and idolatry, if the idol-god dies I believe they wouldn't know what to do almost and would fight amongst themselves without their headmaster, they want a conflict over that scenario.

Murphy
05-26-2010, 11:28 PM
That idol-god also has sons.

Austin
05-26-2010, 11:29 PM
That idol-god also has sons.

Yes but his son that is being groomed is even weaker and pathetic than his father, few have even seen him.

Agrippa
05-26-2010, 11:30 PM
Let me be blunt that I don't like the North Korean regime. They made many mistakes, are corrupt and cruel to the own people. But as many bad things as happened and still happen there, its really close to madness, they have something like sovereignty, national pride and population policy and a real gemeinschaft and many of the bad things which happened to them were caused the downfall of the Soviet Union and its other allies, because their whole economy was based on "the Communist exchange".

How many other states, especially in the West, can say the good things I mentioned about their current system? Gemeinschaft/collective? Never. National and even racial pride, sovereignty and independence? All are menials of the Plutocratic Oligarchy and betrayed by the financial system fraud.

And in the end, as much as I dislike the North Korean system for its totalitarian and partly inhumane character, its corruption and sheer madness, I don't like Liberalcapitalism that much more, nor do I think that the Western "political correctness", Cultural Marxism and economic Liberalism are more sane.

They just look - right now, still preferable to the individual, for the collective they aren't and for the individuals I don't know soon...

Austin
05-26-2010, 11:38 PM
This video is one of a series showing a scumbag who goes and leeches off the Korean people for being a lapdog to Kim. Can you imagine what the generals would do to this guy, whom are in on the take and know that this guy is leeching off them, if Kim died? CmRIta75c_o

North Korea is not even closely comparable to the U.S. or any other Liberal system. Comparing it to such is simply absurd...

Here is another video for anybody who thinks North Korea actually qualifies as an even remotely normal country on any ideological level.yFvO2BKhWqg

Cato
05-27-2010, 02:37 AM
Why is it that Yankz always start fapping vigorously whenever an opportunity is engineered to attack and maim some little broken down country which did nothing to threaten them.

Is it some kind of inferiority complex that you need to feel good about yourselves, proving how tough you are by taking on the might of Panama, Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, Granada and so forth? USA USA USA blah blah blah?

Stop being such a bunch of idiots by getting sucked into US Govt / Military propaganda and brainwashing.

The NK's didn't force multiculturalism on you.
The NK's didn't threaten your jobs, homes or white wimminz.
The NK's didn't steal your money, bankrupt your country and then forced you into bailing out and paying for those who did.

Just who exactly is the real enemy? Why are you lot so convinced it is North Korea?

Bizarre......

We're continuing the trend of our British/English forebearers of centuries past Roy! :)

http://worldroundup.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/british_empire_1920s.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

Europeans, who began the tend of global piracy and imperialism round the globe, smashing wogs and coolies and chinks, spreading the Gospel and looting the natives, now criticize the Americans for upstaging them at the very game they loved to engage in in the days of yore = PRICELESS.


Anyone with any knowledge of the march of history will know that the American Empire was doomed from the moment of its birth. No sense to point a mocking, disdainful finger point at us and say 'YUO BAD IMPEERIALIST MANZ' when, a century or two or three ago, you were the very same sorts of citizens, boasting about how the sun never sat on the Empire and how you'd Christianize the poor savages, the white man's burden of Kipling, etc.

:D

(I'm only being sarcastic to emphasize a point that I deplore (empire-building, global meddling, etc., games which never changes regardless of the century in which they're played and which bear a poisoned fruit in the end), not to mock you Roy- you're a good chap :)).

Murphy
05-27-2010, 03:15 AM
Yes but his son that is being groomed is even weaker and pathetic than his father, few have even seen him.

The dude has a rather strong grasp on the North Korean population.. hardly weak and pathetic. Seems like a load of talk on your part.

Austin
05-27-2010, 05:55 AM
The dude has a rather strong grasp on the North Korean population.. hardly weak and pathetic. Seems like a load of talk on your part.

Umm no he doesn't..... He sits in a palace all day playing golf in pajamas and giving the green light on his father propaganda whilst his country starves to death in the countryside.

Also yeah, you Brits are hilarious heh, all this anti-imperialism nonsense coming from Brits.....You guys didn't "see the light" either in regard to your empire, you lost several wars trying not to lose it.

Groenewolf
05-27-2010, 05:55 AM
There, my appeal to atomic authority can't be trumped.

And how big is the change that such an appeal would be approved by S-Korea or Japan, who would probably receive a big part of the fall-out, let alone the USA major moneylender China. If the US does use nukes in this case they might win the battle but lose the war.

However I do think that America is capable of beating N-Korea in a more conventional war but conquering the North is doubtful because it is unlikely that China would allow such a violation of their regional influence.

Murphy
05-27-2010, 06:08 AM
Umm no he doesn't..... He sits in a palace all day playing golf in pajamas and giving the green light on his father propaganda whilst his country starves to death in the countryside.

I was actually referring to the father whom I also thought you were referring to.


Also yeah, you Brits are hilarious heh, all this anti-imperialism nonsense coming from Brits.....You guys didn't "see the light" either in regard to your empire, you lost several wars trying not to lose it.

You seem confused. I am not a Brit, I have never supported the British state nor British imperial history.

Austin
05-27-2010, 08:26 AM
I was actually referring to the father whom I also thought you were referring to.



You seem confused. I am not a Brit, I have never supported the British state nor British imperial history.

Not you the actual Brits previously lol!

Oh and no I know the father knows his stuff!:D Can't imagine how many kidnapped Japanese/SK girls that lil guy has pillaged behind closed doors.

SwordoftheVistula
05-27-2010, 09:48 AM
Why is it that Yankz...

Why is it that assorted tards are elevated to heroes just because they manage to arise the ire of the USA? Kim Il Shit, Saddamn, Osama/Obama, etc.

These guys aren't any serious threat to the USA, nor are they any sort of heroes, just retards. The wars do cost the USA a large expense, but unlike other wasteful expenses (national health care, section 8, food stamps, beekeeping museum in Iowa, etc) they at least provide entertaining TV.

Cato
05-27-2010, 02:17 PM
And how big is the change that such an appeal would be approved by S-Korea or Japan, who would probably receive a big part of the fall-out, let alone the USA major moneylender China. If the US does use nukes in this case they might win the battle but lose the war.

However I do think that America is capable of beating N-Korea in a more conventional war but conquering the North is doubtful because it is unlikely that China would allow such a violation of their regional influence.

I was just being sarcastic because threads like this usually become "my stick is bigger than yours" and all kinds of fap-fapping about numbers of troops, big guns, huge bombs, and the like.

I don't want to see the U.S. meddling in the issue in Korea, but, since the troops're already there, it's kind of obvious that the U.S.'ll get drawn into any conflict between SKorea and the north. :grumpy: Which is just grand, as if the ailing republic needed yet another conflict/police action to get involved in. The military isolationism of Ron Paul is becoming more and more appealing to me as time goes by.

SwordoftheVistula
05-27-2010, 07:54 PM
Looks like the incident has something to do with Kim Jong Il being in poor health

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100527/ap_on_an/as_skorea_ship_sinks_analysis

Young, inexperienced and virtually unknown even at home, Kim Jong Un needs at least a few political victories under his belt if he is to succeed his father as leader of communist North Korea.

The sinking of a South Korean warship may well have provided Kim Jong Il's 20-something son and rumored heir with a victory that would bolster his support within the communist country's military, a million-man force in need of a boost after a November sea battle left one North Korean sailor dead.

North Korea has vehemently denied involvement in the torpedo attack that sank the Cheonan near the Koreas' sea border in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the boldest attacks on the South since the Korean War of the 1950s.

The timing might seem inexplicable: After a year of intransigence, North Korea seemed willing and ready to return to nuclear disarmament talks.

But North Korea has never seen violence and negotiation as incompatible, and domestic issues — a succession movement and military discontent — may be more urgent than foreign policy.

North Korea's leaders tightly control information and thrive on myths and lies. However, they cannot hide that the nation is in turmoil, struggling to build its shattered economy and to feed its 24 million people. The number of defectors is rising, and the encroachment of the outside world, through videos and films smuggled from China, has shown citizens what lies beyond the so-called Hermit Kingdom's borders.

Kim Jong Il, now 68, is ailing. North Korea has never confirmed that he suffered a stroke in 2008, but his sudden weight loss last year and the persistent paralysis that has left him with a slight limp was visible during his rare trip to China last month.

None of his three sons has had the benefit of the more than a decade of grooming Kim had by the time he took over after his father Kim Il Sung's death in 1994, and the regime says it is determined to usher in a "stronger, prosperous" era in 2012, the centenary of the patriarch's birth.

Any change in leadership has the potential to be traumatic and tumultuous. A bold attack would be a quick way to muster support and favor in a country where one in 20 citizens is in the military.

North Korea has attacked the South a number of times, despite the 1953 truce that ended the devastating Korean War. South Korea has never retaliated militarily, mindful of the toll another war would have on the Korean peninsula.

The North's deadliest attack was a bomb smuggled aboard a Korean Air flight, which was decimated over the Andaman Sea in 1987, killing 115 people on board.

A North Korean agent captured in connection with that plot said the mastermind was Kim Jong Il, then a few years shy of taking over as leader.

Pyongyang has never admitted to any of the post-truce attacks and may have counted on little proof being uncovered when it sent a submarine loaded with a torpedo into the choppy Yellow Sea on March 26.

But the distinctively North Korean script scrawled on the inside of a torpedo fragment found during the investigation, among other evidence, was a damning fingerprint.

The Cheonan was a symbolic target: The 1,200-ton frigate was involved in a 1999 skirmish between the two Koreas that the South claims killed as many as 30 North Koreans.

North Korea disputes the western sea border drawn by U.N. at the close of the Korean War, and those waters have been the site of two other bloody battles since 1999: a firefight in 2002 that killed six South Koreans, and a clash just last November that Seoul says killed a North Korean sailor.

The North Korean navy was ripe for revenge. And defectors say it may have needed a boost, since even relatively well-fed military leaders in a regime built around a "military-first" policy had been going hungry in recent years.

Not long after the November skirmish, the regime enacted sweeping currency reforms. North Koreans were ordered to exchange a limited amount of bills for a new currency, and to turn the rest over to the government — a move that effectively wiped out any personal savings.

The reforms were a disaster. There were reports of riots and unrest — previously a rarity in totalitarian North Korea. If it was a move to showcase the young, Swiss-educated son's economic acumen, it was a miscalculation.

The submarine attack, however, was a stealth move. North Korea's outdated arsenal cannot match South Korea's state-of-the-art systems, but the slow-moving sub somehow went undetected by Seoul's sophisticated radars.

Regardless of who ordered the attack, credit for it may have been circulated among top military commanders to build support for the fledging heir apparent, already reportedly dubbed the "Brilliant Comrade."

To the broader public, the North characterizes blame for the attack as a smear campaign instigated by the South.

And that suits the regime's purposes just fine. There's nothing like a mortal enemy to rally the masses in North Korea, a reclusive state built on the philosophy of "juche," or self-reliance.

Washington and Seoul are leading the effort to haul Pyongyang back before the U.N. Security Council for more sanctions or, at the very least, censure. Even that may play right into the Brilliant Comrade's political plans.

In the past, the North has used its position as the bad boy of the nuclear world to behave even more badly. Missile tests in 2006 were followed by a nuclear test, its first. And last year, Security Council condemnation was followed just a month later by the regime's second atomic test.

International criticism could provide the North with the opening to carry out a third test that would move the regime closer to its goal of perfecting an atomic bomb small enough to mount on a long-range missile. It would be another accomplishment for North Koreans to celebrate, and another achievement for the son to claim.

It remains to be seen if and when Kim Jong Il will present his youngest son, a figure so enigmatic that his birthday, age and even his face remain a mystery, to the public as his heir-apparent.

The annual gathering of North Korea's rubber-stamp parliament came and went in April without any sign of either the elder Kim, known as the Dear Leader, or the Brilliant Comrade. A rare extraordinary session has been scheduled for June 7.

If the precocious prodigal son did indeed plot the attack that plunged inter-Korean relations to their lowest point in a decade and sent world leaders into a huddle on how to avert war, he may finally have a reason to make his political debut.

Cato
05-28-2010, 12:31 AM
Kim Jong Dogeater Jr. is treading on thin ice for a political coup then cause he's risking a war that his pissy little country can't possibly win.

SwordoftheVistula
05-28-2010, 03:24 AM
I doubt it. The positions of the military rely on the cult of emperor worship around the Kims. If they overthrow him, the whole system will collapse, and they'll likely end up in front of a firing squad.

poiuytrewq0987
05-28-2010, 07:42 PM
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea's most powerful state organ said Friday that South Korea faked the sinking of one of its own warships and warned that the Korean peninsula was edging ever closer to war.

Pyongyang has made similar statements through state media since a multinational probe said last week that a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine downed the vessel, killing 46 sailors in the worst attack on the South Korean military since the Korean War.

This time, though, the comments were delivered at an extremely rare press conference in the North Korean capital presided over by a uniformed official with the secretive country's National Defense Commission, which is headed by leader Kim Jong Il.

North Korea has denied any responsibility and warned that retaliation or punishment for the sinking would mean armed conflict. So far, it has issued various threats, including one to cut off South Korean access to a joint industrial zone in the North and wage "all-out war."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/north-korea-were-heading-_n_593550.html

The Lawspeaker
05-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Kim Jong- Ill in the head:
Bring it on, bitch !

SwordoftheVistula
05-28-2010, 08:59 PM
Looks like North Korea needs to hire Baghdad Bob

http://www.internetweekly.org/images/bat_boy_baghdad_bob.jpg

The Lawspeaker
05-28-2010, 09:11 PM
http://users.wfu.edu/ellwjd5/images/Atomic%20Bomb.gif

Tomorrow's weather forecast for Pyongyang, North Korea:

Temperature:
3000F

Weather type:
Hot, Windy and Dry.

UV Index:
Right off the scale

Dew Point:
0

Humidity:
0%

Visibility:
None

Barometer:
crushing atmopsherical pressure.