(wL) Forums

if you guys wanna know how really weird it is inside of north korea i suggest watching this vice doc :

[video=youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=24R8JObNNQ4[/video]

(theres a part 2 and 3)

Yuuki <3, post: 87237, member: 8153' Wrote:DPRK has changed their game now and i can smell the reunion of Korea really close

Not sure where you get your news from.

Mr.Tea, post: 87271, member: 1006 Wrote:North Korean's baby dictator is just trying to make a name for himself. The Korea's will never unite. I have worked with many South Korean officers and they are very grateful for US support. China won't risk there economy/industry boom by siding with North Korea. Doubt the Navy will do much. Already ~1 US Heavy Division. In case you forget the shock and awe that Iraq felt in 2003 was Army/Air Force lead. It took the US 3 days to defeat the third largest military in the war. The US has planned for the North Korean attack for decades. We already have the logistics and infrastructure to re-align forces. I am hoping that North Korea pushes too hard. A nuclear strike wouldn't be necessary. US has more conventional bombs than all of North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

The invasion of Iraq was pretty impressive, but it needs to be said that the resistance wasn't that great. Quite a lot of desertion and surrender. The Iraq military obviously was no match for the US military.
And of course, the aftermath was a complete clusterfuck.


And I'm not too worried about North Korea crossing the Rubicon. Like you said, Kim Yong Un just wants the North Koreans to think he's a 'strong leader'.

George Of The Jungle, post: 87281, member: 3094 Wrote:The invasion of Iraq was pretty impressive, but it needs to be said that the resistance wasn't that great. Quite a lot of desertion and surrender. The Iraq military obviously was no match for the US military.
And of course, the aftermath was a complete clusterfuck.


And I'm not too worried about North Korea crossing the Rubicon. Like you said, Kim Yong Un just wants the North Koreans to think he's a 'strong leader'.

No initial Resistance because of the tactic.

Shock and Awe - "Further, rapid dominance will impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on . . . [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."

We didn't even unleash the full destruction of the US Joint fight. We struck their capital with air strikes; landed airborne units to the north; had SOF secure strategic points; thunder run with a division worth of armor followed by a division of air assaulting infantry securing the cities in the wake.
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]
[INDENT=1] [/INDENT]

True, trying some kind of modern blitzkrieg. But still, morale was a rock bottom even before the war started. Wasn't the most formidable opponent in general.

main event of the night.. USA VS RUSSIA.

only war worth watching...or maybe China.

i'm just grateful there's peace in majority of the world right now.

Spartacus, post: 87306, member: 1060 Wrote:main event of the night.. USA VS RUSSIA.

only war worth watching...or maybe China.

i'm just grateful there's peace in majority of the world right now.

China vs US in about 30 years seems fun.

Russia? Meh, not so much, apart from their nukes.

George Of The Jungle, post: 87307, member: 3094 Wrote:China vs US in about 30 years seems fun.

Russia? Meh, not so much, apart from their nukes.

is there any defense to nukes. its like whoever gets to use it first..wins.

Spartacus, post: 87308, member: 1060 Wrote:is there any defense to nukes. its like whoever gets to use it first..wins.

Depends which country. If we get nuked, we're royally fucked. But countries like the US and some others have a second-strike capability.

long-range nukes would be in huge missiles that are super slow and super inaccurate, they would be shot out in the sky faaaar faaaar away from their target, in this case somewhere in the middle of the pacific ocean.

However, if north korea decided to launch a nuke to south korea by one of their short range missiles, there's gonna be guarenteed lotsa of casualties on one side of the other, whichever side it blows up on

That should be the case but it's not that easy though. Some countries do have a missle defense system but it's never been tested in combat. The average long range ICBM can reach any point on the earth in about a half hour I think. It's like hitting a bullet with another bullet. It's still a bit of a question mark whether it will actually work every time (only one can make a significant number of casualties).
NATO countries in Europe should be protected by the new missile defense system but I've read a lot experts state that it could fail miserably.

You'd still want to try to disable those defense systems before launching an ICBM, and most countries don't have the capability of doing that.


Another way is to use bomber planes, protected by fighters, to drop them. That's no option for non-western powers, they're no match.

Then you have nuclear submarines, which is tricky because you don't know where those fuckers are exactly. They fire short range missiles which are hard to intercept, especially if you don't know where they come from. But only six (and possibly Israel) countries have those.

With countries like Iran and North Korea it's a purely political question. In contradiction to what a lot of hysterics say: North Korea and Iran have proven to be 'rational' actors when it comes to international politics. It's utter suicide for those regimes to try to use their (future) nuclear arsenal and they know this as well.
The US, and others don't want Iran to become a nuclear power because of the power leverage Iran would get. Because you obviously don't want to fuck around with nuclear powers, it's still risky. (Cuban crisis)