I've been reading through the last few pages with interest and thought I might just add my own input here.

 

South Korea probably wouldn't be able to defend its self from any attack from NK, due to a variety of reasons. As Danq said, it would be selfish and immoral for America, a country with massive amounts of military power, to stand by and watch one democratic country filled with people with their own opinions (I say this because NK citizens are essentially brainwashed) be overtaken by communism. After all, isn't one of the things that America holds dear the concept of democracy? I would have thought that the American government and American people would like to stem the spread of communism wherever posswible. Any opposition that invading North Koreans encounter will just be disposed of (whether that be physical or political opposition). How can one possibly see this as a good thing, and how can one not agree with defending an ally from this attack which will end up with millions of people being denied their freedom of speech and expression?

 

I would say that Ring_World's argument about China is pretty much invalid now. Granted they used to be a lot more on NKs side, but that has changed quite a bit now.

 

Like TTanT, I don't really have enough knowledge about this to really get into a massive debate, just thought I would share my thoughts.

 

Also with the capital being near the north, Russia didn't fall to Napoleon when Moscow was taken.

 

If I am correct, the Capital of Russia in Napoleonic war was Saint Pertersburg. It was the Russian Empires Capital from 1730-1917.

 

In fact, when Napoleon came into Moscow, the Russians burned the city and took everything with them as part of there Scorched Earth Policy. In return, Napoleons march back to Prussia was a disaster with him losing 300,000 men for nothing.

 

----

 

Back on topic...

 

The situation will always be the same, NK will attack a SK target, the US and SK will get angry and hold war games.

 

The point is, NK will keep doing these attacks if they aren't having to suffer a punishment. Economic sanctions to a country like NK aren't going to work since its government doesn't care.

 

If they want to stop this attacks, they need to take a more direct approach with Korea, effectively killing there economy with a full UN resolution to stop any and all trade with the North.

 

China is showing that they can't handle the situation, its time the rest of the UN body took over from China's mistake and failures to stop NK.

Revised simile:

 

You, robocop, walk in to see two cops fighting. One is a normal cop in strength, the other one has Down Syndrome, is a cripple, and only became a cop because he's the mayor's son.*

 

Meanwhile, a terminator is lounging off in the side, not really caring. However, it might intervene just for the hell of it if you do.

 

So, do you risk it and save the mayor's son, or no?

 

*I'm not making any political implications with the mayor's son bit, I swear.

A better question would be whether or not the South wants US intervention.

Revised simile:

 

You, robocop, walk in to see two cops fighting. One is a normal cop in strength, the other one has Down Syndrome, is a cripple, and only became a cop because he's the mayor's son.*

 

Meanwhile, a terminator is lounging off in the side, not really caring. However, it might intervene just for the hell of it if you do.

 

So, do you risk it and save the mayor's son, or no?

 

*I'm not making any political implications with the mayor's son bit, I swear.

Post of the thread :thumbup:

So you think it would look better for the states if they just caused NK to be wiped off the map, rather then did it themselves?

 

Interesting infographic about NK vs SK armies: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1011/north-korea/transparency.jpg

A better question would be whether or not the South wants US intervention.

Option 1: Probably be annexed by NK

Option 2: Don't be annexed by NK

 

hmmm...

A better question would be whether or not the South wants US intervention.

 

Given that South Korea asked for thousands of American troops to be stationed in the country, It's safe to say that they do.

So you think it would look better for the states if they just caused NK to be wiped off the map, rather then did it themselves?

 

Interesting infographic about NK vs SK armies: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1011/north-korea/transparency.jpg

 

1 million troops isnt nearly enough to quell a well motivated and armed civilian population, especially after fighting S koreas military of 500k and since SK has more aircrafts you can assume they would win the air war and make a land invasion of SK very costly on NK and if given proper weapons they could decimate the civilian populations of NK and/or attack the leadership of NK. Or otherwise devote their airforce to bombing the NK invasion force.

 

If either side uses Nuclear weapons the aftermath would affect all of asia, likely China would attack either side that used the weapons.

 

That's an awful lot of extrapolation from very little evidence, and there's really not much in the way of precedent to draw on.

 

As long as the US stands behind the South, they will not be invaded. As long as they intimidate and isolate NK, we will have a state keeping the world on the precipice of disaster.

And another reason I say we dont need direct military support there is because all we have to do is give SK stealth bombers and those bombs that can break bunkers (the same ones Obama doesnt want to give Israel) and you can effectively kill the leadership of NK and cut the head off the snake so to speak.

 

B-2 Stealth Bombers. Gets the job done, quickly with 50K pounds of payload, and quietly. All you see is a big black triangle dropping 80 500lb bombs over you and your done.

 

So you think it would look better for the states if they just caused NK to be wiped off the map, rather then did it themselves?

 

Interesting infographic about NK vs SK armies: http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1011/north-korea/transparency.jpg

 

1 million troops isnt nearly enough to quell a well motivated and armed civilian population, especially after fighting S koreas military of 500k and since SK has more aircrafts you can assume they would win the air war and make a land invasion of SK very costly on NK and if given proper weapons they could decimate the civilian populations of NK and/or attack the leadership of NK. Or otherwise devote their airforce to bombing the NK invasion force.

 

If either side uses Nuclear weapons the aftermath would affect all of asia, likely China would attack either side that used the weapons.

 

If the North launches one nuclear weapon, the UN will be on there ass so fast, you couldn't say Good Fight North Korea.

 

And for that matter, The NK have limited combat abilities to fight 3 Nimitz class carriers, each launching sorties of F/A-18 Hornets pummeling the NK missile bases, military compounds, and infrastructure. The ability to mobilize a strong fighting force would collapse within days, if not hours of war due to a joint US-SK air superiority. The other fact is the North can't stop a B-52 heavy bomber over head dropping 70,000 POUNDS of bombs and a B-2 Spirit dropping 50,000 POUNDS of bombs (can be up to 16 tactical nuclear warheads being carpet bombed).

 

In other words, the USAF's 2000 fighters verses NK's 300 fighters would mean little loses for the Americans as the NK air force is compromised of outdated cold war weaponry, with VERY FEW modern air crafts (about 30 MiG-29).

 

Lets not forget that the US pretty much has naval fleets docked at Okinawa, Japan, and the Guam. Those regions are within hours of North Korea, and can launch heavy bombers from each region. Guam is known to hold the B-2 Spirits to my understanding, which means NK wouldn't even know they just lost 5 missile silos to bombing runs (B-2 stealth capabilities would make it in and out runs, only visual targeting would work).

 

If the North launches one nuclear weapon, the UN will be on there ass so fast, you couldn't say Good Fight North Korea.

 

The UN? I hope you mean the US - the UN has no practical power to do anything, and even if they could, it certainly wouldn't be fast.

 

 

And for that matter, The NK have limited combat abilities to fight 3 Nimitz class carriers, each launching sorties of F/A-18 Hornets pummeling the NK missile bases, military compounds, and infrastructure. The ability to mobilize a strong fighting force would collapse within days, if not hours of war due to a joint US-SK air superiority. The other fact is the North can't stop a B-52 heavy bomber over head dropping 70,000 POUNDS of bombs and a B-2 Spirit dropping 50,000 POUNDS of bombs (can be up to 16 tactical nuclear warheads being carpet bombed).

 

In other words, the USAF's 2000 fighters verses NK's 300 fighters would mean little loses for the Americans as the NK air force is compromised of outdated cold war weaponry, with VERY FEW modern air crafts (about 30 MiG-29).

 

Lets not forget that the US pretty much has naval fleets docked at Okinawa, Japan, and the Guam. Those regions are within hours of North Korea, and can launch heavy bombers from each region. Guam is known to hold the B-2 Spirits to my understanding, which means NK wouldn't even know they just lost 5 missile silos to bombing runs (B-2 stealth capabilities would make it in and out runs, only visual targeting would work).

 

NK's army is pretty weak for its size - a war with the states + SK would undoubtedly be won - the main issue here is whether SK would be able to do it themselves. They should be able to, but casualties would be pretty high.

It's pretty much been established that NK would loose any war against SK+US, which raises the question why do they mortar an island? Some kind of attempt at showing their 'superiority'?

It's pretty much been established that NK would loose any war against SK+US, which raises the question why do they mortar an island? Some kind of attempt at showing their 'superiority'?

No, it's an attempt to get attention, and it works. The more they posture, the more concessions/aid the states makes.