-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NBC News: U.S. May Launch Strike If North Korea Reaches For Nuclear Trigger
- Thread starter iMax
- Start date
- Status
MrCunningham
Member
I can't disagree with that. Their parade went off without a hitch.
It would not be pretty. They are a fanatical military nation and would cause major damage before they fell.
mercenar1e
Member
It would not be pretty. They are a fanatical military nation and would cause major damage before they fell.
i believe the chart is wrong on the estimated nukes. NK tested several over the years.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Time to grant some freedom and liberty?
Yeah, it may be old. They probably are even more prepared. Anyone who thinks that we are just going to strike them and sail away are in for a rude awakening.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
You can't do much against a bunch of old tech. That's a fact. NK could spend everything on artillery and scatter it all over the place, all aimed at main SK cities. No need for troops other than to man the artillery, no need for tanks or navy. If they got attacked, their response would be annihilate SK before they're taken out. Just that insures they would never be attacked. If they were even attacked a little bit, they could response with a large number of artillery strikes as a warning.
MrCunningham
Member
.... oh the stream is over.
That was interesting to say the least. Watching that live stream was like taking a trip to an alternative timeline to the past.
That was interesting to say the least. Watching that live stream was like taking a trip to an alternative timeline to the past.
Picture says 2011. Was probably accurate 6 years ago.
Yeah, I did not see that. So I am sure you can add even more to their capabilities.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
It would not be pretty. They are a fanatical military nation and would cause major damage before they fell.
This graphic seems rather silly considering the numbers are nowhere near 1:1 in comparison, so offering them up in this way is quite misleading
They're probably mock ups, I wouldn't worry. Besides, it's not like they haven't been testing them for a while. No way to know if they actually work until they launch one.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
It's obvious they would inevitably lose. The point is that they would destroy a lot of things in the process.
Which is the only point I was making. It's not like picking a fight with a country like Iraq. They have a huge military.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
I mean...yeah, the artillery stationed within range of Seoul could wreak some havoc, but the rest of the stuff is probably so outdated and incapable I doubt it's much of a threat. I bet their initial capability to inflict harm on the south is rather substantial, but once it is neutralized they're pretty much done. Unless they can really launch nukes...
It's actually somewhat comparable to what Iraq had (other than the Nukes) at the start of the Gulf War.
The Gulf War was the prime demonstration of what differences in military technology can accomplish..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Look at the causalities/losses , it's insane.
nephilimdj
Member
Not really same as invading a country though, USA blew up a bunch of bases Iraq has only just taken 1 month earlier.
The original post implied a military response from a targeted strike at Un, which would mean repelling a military invasion and not necessarily an invasion of a country.
You could certainly make the argument that a NK invasion of SK would be far more fanatical and bloody than what Iraq did, i was just pointing out what the difference in military technology can do, and also that Iraq didn't exactly have some tiny army (they were the 4th largest in the world at the start of the Gulf War).
Daffy Duck
Member
Just seen on BBC1 this morning a broadcast from inside North Korea, crazy scenes.
Video of Jong-Un, his parade the whole nine yards. Had no idea they would do that! Obviously has something to show.
I don't think anything will happen though.
Video of Jong-Un, his parade the whole nine yards. Had no idea they would do that! Obviously has something to show.
I don't think anything will happen though.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Their artillery won't last long if they choose to employ it in militarily useless strikes on population centres. Shells raining down on border cities isn't going to "annihilate South Korea" and firing at civilian centres, while scary to the people living in them, means they're not firing at South Korean or American military positions, meaning they have cart blanche
to counter-barrage with artillery and lob cruise missiles at the North Koreans. It would hasten their defeat by a very significant degree.
theignoramus
Member
That parade looked like a cult of death.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
So NK didn't test any missiles right? did Kim fold and listen to Donald?
There's really no way to know, it was speculated that they had a test planned for today though.
Emperor Bohe
Member
Dude grew up in Europe, I'm sure he knows. He's probably just playing along to get free cheese
jakonovski
Member
The one way North Korea's stance makes sense is that they don't want war but are paranoid of it and thus attempt to make any war scenario as ugly as possible, as a deterrent. And American propaganda supports their view when it tries to justify an invasion of North Korea.
FullMetaltech
Member
I thought the same thing yestrday. I dont beleieve theyve seen combat and how would they react when theyve actually been put in that situation.
That's why they're holding a gun to South Korea's head. If North Korea is ever gonna be dealt with categorically, it will come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives in the south and the complete destruction of one of the biggest capitals in the world.
Maybe. But we won't find out for a long time if there was a deal or if something happened.
They would loose anyway, so their best card is the deterrent value of being able to cause enormous death and destruction to Seoul before they go down.
The Salt Life
Banned
The fact that south Korea has had to live in fear of the North for this long is a problem in itself.
They might have lived in fear, but they have nevertheless lived. Taking NK off the table would be a good result in the long term for the sake of global peace but I'm not quite sure SK could afford the cost of doing so. It would fall upon the rest of the world to clean up the mess on the entire peninsula.
The real key to dealing with NK swiftly is getting China on board, which ideologically speaking would be incredibly difficult. If Kim saw SK and the US coming at him from the south, and China down from the north, he would have no choice but to capitulate, unless of course he decides to go full tyrannical psycho and launch nukes in every direction just out of spite.
They know any war would see them lose anyway. That's why they use Seoul as a deterrence.
Considering they have dug in their Artillery into the mountains and enforced them with concrete barriers conventional artillery shells and cruise missiles wouldn't be enough to destroy their artillery. You'd need either bunker buster bombs or bunker buster fitted cruise missiles.
There is no scenario where NK wins a war with SK and the US so deterrence is their best option. That's why they want ICBMs. Any military action will come at the price of massive lost lives in SK and possibly Japan. That's why there won't be any military action if sane people keep Trump under control.
Because it's nothing new really. It's just Trump and the american media smell a war which is good news for both of them. NK rhetoric hasn't really changed and most of the escalation comes from the US.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
It is very unlikely that we will see the complete destruction of Seoul.
http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/
Of course that is only an estimation, but less than 90,000 casualties from an artillery attack on Seoul in a week.
It really is funny seeing the responces of those who live outside Korea, not one single person I spoke to today was worried at all here in Seoul..
oneofthose
Banned
Seeing people think its fine to bomb the hell out of NK and that if NK ends up attacking SK in the process thats fine the people there can live through it, it must be nice living in US never have to worry about bombs raining through skies and seeing their families lost straight in front of their eyes. Yeah they can live through years of rebuilding.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
At the end of the day, allowing the North to have a nuke that could destroy Seoul is a lot scarier than what is at risk now. I would rather not have to live through boms raining down on me, but I would rather not have a nuke wipeout everyone I know and love.
Obviously, the best solution is a peaceful one through diplomacy with China on board, but sadly I don't think we will ever see that with US troops stationed here.
jakonovski
Member
Only 90,000 casualties, why is anyone worried? That's only like thirty 9/11s.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
No, but I have read many comments around the internet of people saying Seoul would be destroyed and million would die. It is just very unlikely.
I am one of the potential casulaties, but people need to calm down on the hyperbole.
They already have nukes though which puts seoul in the direct nuke area on a potential military action.
The only reason americans drum the wardrums now is because NK might be able to have ICBMs reach the west coast in the next 1-10 years.
jakonovski
Member
It's not hyperbolic unless we're debating something incredibly cynical like acceptable civilian wastage.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked