Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    29 Mar '13 21:45
    Thats the US Army estimate. Is it enough?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/u-wargames-north-korean-regime-collapse-invasion-secure-154307513--abc-news-topstories.html
  2. 29 Mar '13 22:43
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thats the US Army estimate. Is it enough?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/u-wargames-north-korean-regime-collapse-invasion-secure-154307513--abc-news-topstories.html
    The alleged premise of this scenario is a regime collapse, which probably means a less than effective, and less than complete deployment and loyalty of N. Korean troops.

    The estimate is probably right, in that circumstance, and if known N. Korean capabilities are correct. Remember the overwhelming advantage of US military assets is not manpower, or even superior firepower, but communications and intelligence.

    The estimate would no doubt be higher if the scenario were repelling a N. Korean invasion of South Korea, with the regime intact, and the military united and intact.

    Would that include deployment of nukes, in response to N. Korean use of them?
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    29 Mar '13 23:08
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thats the US Army estimate. Is it enough?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/u-wargames-north-korean-regime-collapse-invasion-secure-154307513--abc-news-topstories.html
    The scenario is wrong. I don't know who sits around thinking this stuff up. (Actually, I do know a couple of them, and I disagree with them).

    US-led surprise attack on NK intermediate missile installations (China gets informed and is involved in the planning). Heavy defenses at the DMZ. Complete annihilation of Pyongyang. Totally flattened. Conventional weapons, because you need the seat of Pyongyang in order to respect North Koreans.

    This isn't rocket science.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    29 Mar '13 23:27
    Lotsa caves n bunkers n stuff up in Brown Country
  5. 30 Mar '13 00:10
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thats the US Army estimate. Is it enough?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/u-wargames-north-korean-regime-collapse-invasion-secure-154307513--abc-news-topstories.html
    If you nuke them then you wouldn't have to send anybody in.
  6. 30 Mar '13 00:22
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    If you nuke them then you wouldn't have to send anybody in.
    Nuking N. Korea would poison S. Korea and Japan with fallout. Do you think that the US has the cajones to nuke anyone, even as a last resort?
  7. 30 Mar '13 00:29
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Nuking N. Korea would poison S. Korea and Japan with fallout. Do you think that the US has the cajones to nuke anyone, even as a last resort?
    It didn't bother them in 1945.
  8. 30 Mar '13 00:43
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    It didn't bother them in 1945.
    It isn't 1945 anymore.
  9. 30 Mar '13 03:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thats the US Army estimate. Is it enough?

    http://gma.yahoo.com/u-wargames-north-korean-regime-collapse-invasion-secure-154307513--abc-news-topstories.html
    So they are confident China would sit this one out eh?
  10. 30 Mar '13 04:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    So they are confident China would sit this one out eh?
    i would play nk like a chess game if i could - i would get a new nuclear treaty where the US and Russia and China , yes china sign up - and china gets x of them, not new, existing ones from russia or the US , rented , a significant capacity but also eclipsed by the other two, the point being showing we respect a gigantic asian nation and would not pick a fight with them. but a tiny one trying to make pathetic hopelessly out of date weapon system is stupid and i would hope they could just argue with the chinese govt after that. You could then try and get the russians to beat iran with same stick - just stop wasting your time these weapons are old.

    Its silly that the Ukraine has had quite a problem with old unwanted nuclear waepons whilst iran and nk break there own back to make just 1. its amazing how a totalitarian countries can live in such a state of delusion.
  11. 30 Mar '13 17:13 / 7 edits
    just to elaborate- i think china, being so big, should have the nuclear capacity to take out a rogue nation like nk or iran.

    What would be the best situation is in the MAD thinking of these weapons - china would be given in a treaty the first responisibilty of dealing with an nk nuclear attack on anyone, whilst they also send them food parcels. This would give nk an opponent they can understand.

    I think the US policy is making nk skittish and irrational , it must be quite scary dealing with an angry US. Getting through to the nk govt that almost all countries don't like them, but no one wants to invade them, we just want them to have a country thats nice. and even china would have to do something if they got to carried away - seems a good plan.

    Also I'm not saying i trust the chinese govt on this at all - the nukes argument stems from the fact they have a few anyway. I find it highly suspect that the chinese govt are all to happy to interfere with tibet ( a place the westerners like) but do not interfere with the tyranical nk, which we don't like. I think they keep nk like a very black political joke. But even they must see its no good. Maybe am way to optimistic but thats how i see it.

    I think the US have every right to plan attacks on nk and should because nk is being so stupid. But making them really skittish might not be the best way.
  12. 30 Mar '13 18:46
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Nuking N. Korea would poison S. Korea and Japan with fallout. Do you think that the US has the cajones to nuke anyone, even as a last resort?
    It would only take one nuclear weapon in the 200kt range placed over their capital, modern nukes that size are very clean, and a single airburst would produce very little radiation, it certainly wouldn't bother South Korea or Japan, contrary to the horror stories we're told.

    But with modern smart bombs we wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons at all, I would guess several dozen at just the right points to take out their military and political command and control would do the trick.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    30 Mar '13 20:34
    Firebombing cities full of civilians is a good way to give terrorists access to nukes
  14. 30 Mar '13 21:43
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Firebombing cities full of civilians is a good way to give terrorists access to nukes
    I don't see how the two are connected.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    30 Mar '13 23:29
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    I don't see how the two are connected.
    When a fighter kills civilians he loses the hearts and minds of the populace. The scenario the Army was running was how to secure Nork nukes so terrorists dont get them. Killing civilians creates terrorists and in NK there are nukes we dont control...at least not without 100k troops and two months followed by 200k more troops for nation building according to the Army. Anyway Un is almost certainly in a blast proof bunker.