Would you guys support a real war?

I don't think it's about support, it's about necessity. If the North stops posturing and decides to attack the South with as much might as it can muster the US would have to respond due to its interests in the region, whether it has our support or not. A nation that has significant interests in the region and has troops on the soil being attacked is going to respond no matter what and that goes for any nation that has the power to dictate on that scale. But lets be realistic a full scale war between those nations isn't going to be good for anyone no matter the result. Even if the North is toppled upwards of a million people (it's estimated) will have died in the process and that's not even taking into account what happens if China gets involved, or if it goes nuclear. And thoughts of creating a unified Korea (as I'm sure people are bound to do) aren't too productive either, given the complete polar opposites the two societies currently operate under and the generations of propaganda thrown back and forth. The South I would posit, probably don't even want to unify, it has a good thing going in its current situation taking on board another few million people is going to create havoc for its infrastructure.


At least someone who understands power and interest.
Documents on WikiLeaks show that China doesn't have a problem with a reunified Korea even if it's the south that wins.
And I believe WMD have nothing to do with it. WMD are for deterrence only, if anyone will ever use them they will be blown to bits by the rest, especially if that one is NK.
Like I said in another topic, I think this is just some muscle flexing to smooth the transition of power in NK. Read Machiavelli's Il Principe everyone. :p
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
We tried a "real war" with North Korea once before.We won't try it again I bet.There may be some skirmishes initiated by the North for their own internal reasons but the powers behind the two Korea's the USA and China have no desire to relive the experience of the early 50's.
Never underestimate the collossal stupidity of the chinese government.

You don't think China would act if that happened?

Thats a big down side!!!!!!:eek:
This thread doesn't ask if china joined in, it concerns SK + any allies Vs NK.

I LOVE how this threat of "what if they get nukes" is cause for war. Those episodes of G.I. Joe really conditioned us well.

With that in mind... maybe would mix Ike Stain's DNA with Vodkazvictim's DNA to create a super poster who would sit around for 24 hrs posting worthless threads...
Talking about worthless posts, you do know NK is already nuclear, yes mr genius?

At least someone who understands power and interest.
Documents on WikiLeaks show that China doesn't have a problem with a reunified Korea even if it's the south that wins.
And I believe WMD have nothing to do with it. WMD are for deterrence only, if anyone will ever use them they will be blown to bits by the rest, especially if that one is NK.
Like I said in another topic, I think this is just some muscle flexing to smooth the transition of power in NK. Read Machiavelli's Il Principe everyone. :p
I'd appreciate a link to those docs if u dont mind.
One of the reasons I support this war is because NK already have nukes and we genuinely know they're scum.
 
United States and South Korea Vs. North Korea

I think many people would love to take out North Korea at this point. If only we didn't have the debt.

You mean real war as in military vs. military not like the wars we are fighting now where we are fighting terrorists?
 
From a US standpoint, why would another Korean war be a "real" war?
 

roronoa3000

Banned
The Allies did not stated WWII.

Why would USA start this war against north korea. Do you guys need really need to be at war all the time, alla over the globe.

After the real Viet-Nam, then Irak and Afghanistan, do you really need a 4th Viet-Nam ?

Since when does Iraq have a "k" in it?
[ . .what happens if China gets involved . . ]
What do Grandma's plates have to do with this?
 
But we like to choose our wars as ones that are what some might call fake so as not to have them get out of hand or be too unpopular at home.
Afghanistan war clearly slip out of US hands
Iraq war has became very un popular at home.

Problem is : US don't want to be involved in real wars but real wars are wars they know how to win. US don't know how to win"fake" wars.

Us are the best when the war is about destroying the enmy's infrastructures, bombing his battleship from the sky even before they get ou of the harbour, etc...

But when it's about fighting to to toe in a city in wich there's a muddjaidin an RPG-7, a guy with a Stinger on every building roof and every male kid of 10+ carries his own AK-47, US don't know how to win.
 
ROK soldiers are itching to kick NK's ass. NK is a flimsy house of cards waiting to implode.
 
I'd appreciate a link to those docs if u dont mind.
One of the reasons I support this war is because NK already have nukes and we genuinely know they're scum.

Links:
From the BBC news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11872191
(but multiple news sources are available)
And if you don't believe the media:
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10SEOUL272.html
Directly from wikileaks, the original document.

Also, about the deterrence-only use of nukes:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
Ofcourse from the famous Kenneth Waltz.
 

L3ggy

Special Operations FOX-HOUND
War Is Ugly, There's Nothing Glamorous About It.
 

Facetious

Moderated
Quote:
Credit the united nations and bogus rules of engagement on that one.

You mean silly little rules like don't kill civilians, don't use artillery in urban areas?
No, Mr.Mig, I mean . . .


Gov't Promises Tougher Rules of Engagement

The Defense Ministry on Tuesday laid out new military rules of engagement before a National Assembly standing committee that will allow troops to respond more forcefully in case of another North Korean attack. The announcement comes after criticism that the response to last week's North Korean artillery attack was inadequate led to the resignation of the defense minister.

The existing rules of engagement require troops to respond to an attack with the same kind of weapons and the same amount of firepower as the enemy.
. . cont'd


This is good news . . no? :hatsoff:
 
United States and South Korea Vs. North Korea

I think many people would love to take out North Korea at this point. If only we didn't have the debt.

The Debt doesn't matter, the missiles, tanks, bombs, bullets, beans and supplies are already paid for and waiting.

I think the U.S. is expecting a regime collapse after the current leader passes away. I wouldn't be surprised if China wants to prolong that regime as long as possible as it seeks to edge the U.S. out as the most indefensible country in Asian geopolitics. China controls a large portion of the DPRK's food supply and is it's number 1 trading partner by far. It shares a large land border and supplies it with raw materials.

If China wanted reunification between the two Koreas now, it could probably get it. If it wanted to open up the DPRK regime to normalize relations with the outside world, it could do that too.
 

Spleen

Banned?
The Allies did not stated WWII.

Exactly. It was a "real" war. You're the one that missed the point, not me.

Why would USA start this war against north korea. Do you guys need really need to be at war all the time, alla over the globe.

Because they started a war against South Korea, OUR ALLIES.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Links:
From the BBC news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11872191
(but multiple news sources are available)
And if you don't believe the media:
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10SEOUL272.html
Directly from wikileaks, the original document.

Also, about the deterrence-only use of nukes:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
Ofcourse from the famous Kenneth Waltz.
Thanks for the info, quicker than searching for it myself.

Quote:
Credit the united nations and bogus rules of engagement on that one.

No, Mr.Mig, I mean . . .


. . cont'd


This is good news . . no? :hatsoff:
Nowt wrong with liking MiGs... From the preemptory glance I gave it this does indeed look like good news tho.

The Debt doesn't matter, the missiles, tanks, bombs, bullets, beans and supplies are already paid for and waiting..
^^This

Because they started a war against South Korea, OUR ALLIES.
Not only that, but defending south korea against north korea is a worthy cause.
 
If we do go to war against the NK's again, China will definetely get involved again, but at least that'll give us an excuse not to pay our debt to them ha-ha. North Korea is a buffer for them. They would not like to have American troops or South Korean troops right on their border, heck, they would not like to have a prosperous capitalist nation on their border so China is what I'd be more concerned about than the NK people. I doubt the NK people will form some kind of insurgency, maybe just the people in Pyongyang, as that is where the most privileged class lives, but a lot of provinces have become more independent from the central government and, believe me, the "Dear" leader is not so dear in those areas. Maybe a better idea would be to just send them weapons and let them retake their own country and if they do run into trouble provide them some air cover.

Now, about a prosperous Korea after reunification. The people in North Korea for generations have lived under a totalitarian dictatorship which has provided their rations for everything, that is when they have enough to give out, so the concern I got is that they will not know how to make an honest living if reunified with the south. The South Koreans, from some reports I've read, are also concerned that the northerners when reunified will just be looking for their usual handouts, sort of what happened when Germany was reunified and the easterners expected their new capitalist democratic government to support them.

But the question is, can America fight in another front? Well, since we're expecting combat troops to leave Afghanistan soon and, from what I've heard, they have already left Iraq, it's not really fighting on another front then.
 
A real war?? How many fucked up conflicts bringing back coffin after coffin do the USA want before they see the light.
 
Top