NKorea threatens 'nuclear deterrence' over drills

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I think he does too, lets hope if he ever doesn't his subordinates remove him quickly.

He's always pushing things to the limit. There have been a number of minor incidents over the years that he has gotten away with. The latest one, sinking the SK ship wasn't so minor, but nothing will be done about it in order to keep the peace and he knows it. Anyone remember the tree trimming incident when two American soldiers were murdered back in 1976?

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

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He's always pushing things to the limit. There have been a number of minor incidents over the years that he has gotten away with. The latest one, sinking the SK ship wasn't so minor, but nothing will be done about it in order to keep the peace and he knows it. Anyone remember the tree trimming incident when two American soldiers were murdered back in 1976?

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

He knows no country will risk war right now.

The US has the most resources, but is tied up.

Russia won't do anything

China won't do anything

India won't do anything

The UK is tied up.

France might do something but is too weak.

Germany might do something but is too weak.

Japan would like to do something, but its constitution prevents it.

That's the top 8 militarys of the world

[spookyturtle 9,466]

right and that is why i think we would have to strike first. we would never strike though if they aren't moving arms and troops around in a way never seen before (guessing troop movements to prepare for real war would look different than a war exercise). i'm sure we can easily tell if they are preparing for war. they have to know that preparing in a big way is a mistake in and of itself.... could cause SK and the US to act prematurely.

There wouldn't be a lot of warning if the North did decide to invade the South. A large part of their army is stationed close to the DMZ. They don't need to prepare. They have been ready for decades. I seriously wonder if the US would ever strike first.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Here's a list of some of the incidents over the years.

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

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Has any country ever gone to war over a few deaths? Not trying to sound cold, just stating the facts. (Obviously World War 1 started that way, but that was an assassination of a leader.)

Edited July 24, 2010 by Sousuke

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Has any country ever gone to war over a few deaths? Not trying to sound cold, just stating the facts. (Obviously World War 1 started that way, but that was an assassination of a leader.)

Oh and Israel I suppose....

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Has any country ever gone to war over a few deaths? Not trying to sound cold, just stating the facts. (Obviously World War 1 started that way, but that was an assassination of a leader.)

Understood, and quite true. We aren't going to start a war over a few deaths or incidents. It would have to be big, and I really wonder if we would be the first side to use nuclear weapons. The ramifications would be unimaginably huge if we did, and just as huge if we didn't.

[William33 110]

There wouldn't be a lot of warning if the North did decide to invade the South. A large part of their army is stationed close to the DMZ. They don't need to prepare. They have been ready for decades. I seriously wonder if the US would ever strike first.

The US has 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, as a deterrent. This deterrent strategy has been effective since the Korean War. What has changed since then, other than idle threats?

[slim 1,533]

Wouldn't be ironic if the "conventional" Ohios were secretly carrying Tridents for a quick strike option?

Ironic, sure. Possible, yes. Probable... no. In truth, conventional weapons would probably be more effective against N. Korean targets because of the size of the penninsula. Our nukes are so big now they'd lay waste to much more than we'd want to. Even the "surgical strikes" we so often hear about would complicate things exponentially.

Those tridents were made to fly into the Soviet heartland. They'd be a little overkill on N. Korea.

Agreed. Current western thinking is that he does care.

Like most dictators, he's willing to do what he needs to do to stay in power. He likes $600 bottles of cognac and 12-year-old virgins. He won't mess that up until the very end.

I'm sure that is quite possible. Nukes would be absolutely necessary to stop NK on the Korean peninsula. It couldn't be done by conventional means. They would overrun SK in a few days.

The OPLAN basically says they have 72 hours to repel the invasion. If the South can hold for 3 days, the war will be over fairly quickly. It starts about 3 days BEFORE actual hostilities in hopes that the whole thing will stay conventional.

Pound for pound, we can scrap with the N. Koreans, we just have to make sure our TIPFID gets there in time.

He's always pushing things to the limit. There have been a number of minor incidents over the years that he has gotten away with. The latest one, sinking the SK ship wasn't so minor, but nothing will be done about it in order to keep the peace and he knows it. Anyone remember the tree trimming incident when two American soldiers were murdered back in 1976?

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

As far as I know, the stump is still there. Check out the USS Pueblo incident too.

What a lot of people don't realize is the two Koreas are still at war. They signed an armistice - a cease fire - to end the fighting but not necessarily the war.

Oh and Israel I suppose....

USS Liberty?

[Ban Hammer 14,567]

given the missiles and arms NK has on the border which is only a few miles from seoul, SK and US and whoever else would have to mount an out of this world first strike to lessen damage to seoul. the border area would have to be leveled, every inch of it, for miles inland.

only a few miles?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Random statement here (sorta) I believe Russia and Japan are technically still at war as well.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The US has 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea, as a deterrent. This deterrent strategy has been effective since the Korean War. What has changed since then, other than idle threats?

All I am saying is "if" the North decide to invade tomorrow, it would be over before it made the news. The South could not be defended by conventional means. Seoul would be gone in a day. The North has the 2nd largest army in the world sitting along the border. And you are correct, they have all been idle threats. This invasion is a hypothetical situation.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

USS Liberty?

Didn't mean that actually (obviously we never went to war) I was referring to one of the recent invasions into Lebanon. Wasn't the official reason because of a captured a soldier? I may be totally wrong.

[slim 1,533]

Random statement here (sorta) I believe Russia and Japan are technically still at war as well.

They still have disputed territory. I'm unsure if they're technically at war though.

All I am saying is "if" the North decide to invade tomorrow, it would be over before it made the news. The South could not be defended by conventional means. Seoul would be gone in a day. The North has the 2nd largest army in the world sitting along the border. And you are correct, they have all been idle threats. This invasion is a hypothetical situation.

It couldn't be over before it made the news because it would take so long to accomplish.

I seriously doubt our response would be nuclear. It really sucks, but we'd have to do Korea the old fashioned way.

Didn't mean that actually (obviously we never went to war) I was referring to one of the recent invasions into Lebanon. Wasn't the official reason because of a captured a soldier? I may be totally wrong.

A captured soldier, several dead soldiers, and the continual shelling/rockets/mortar attacks on Israeli settlements.

At least, that was their "official" story.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It couldn't be over before it made the news because it would take so long to accomplish.

I seriously doubt our response would be nuclear. It really sucks, but we'd have to do Korea the old fashioned way.

I doubt our response would be nuclear either. And I don't see it working by any other means. I base my opinions on what I have seen for several decades. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq, it's not working in Afghanistan.