why are we wasting time in iraq

you could fire nukes and wipe out NK very easily, but i think the fallout (no pun) would be extremely bad for you, i think you would loose a lot of international respect for resorting ot nuclear weapons, as a lot of other coutnries are not as afraid of the potential in NK as you are.
no offense, thanks for those stats but do you have more up to date ones, 1997 is very out of date! ;)
do you really thing that if push came ot shove that the USA would invade NK on its own? and would it matter? i mean, its not like the UN is going to do anything, they once had a chance of being a great org, but now they are faded and almost irrelevant.
i think more countires would voice opinions (both for and against) than did when the coallition invaded Iraq the second time and there would be a lot of back room deals, like if you invade with us we will do this for you, or if you dont, say good by to that export contract
 
I think you're honing in on the part where I said we'd win and ignoring the part where I said that that's the last thing we'd want to do. We would have to exhaust every diplomatic means first and even then it would require a serious threat or act such as firing missles into South Korea or Japan. I only mentioned nukes as retaliatory and that I'm sure Kim knows we vastly outnumber his. That was my point.
 
yeah sorry my bad.
and i highly respect you for pointing out that it is a last resort many people do not do so and with some people it is not assumed that they think it is a last resort (i hope that comes out right, not feeling great so my mind is loco)

the number of warheads doesn't necessarily matter, though, its the power in them, you only need one if it is strong enough
 
Well let's see about that.

North Korea is 120,540 sq km in size

United States is 9,629,091 sq km in size

That means you could fit 80 North Koreas into one United States. In otherwords, they are a much smaller target and thus they'd need a nuke larger than any exists on earth whereas a single 500 megaton nuke has a radiation radius of appx. 150 km. Wouldn't take that many dropped on North Korea to take them out.
 
THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000


Apart from that do you remember what happened in Vietnam?, what makes you feel so sure that the same thing wouldn't happen to the US in N.Korea
 
RankIt said:
The US is scared of North Korea. Their picking on the countries they are sure they can defeat.
Click to expand...

:shock: :lol: Are you kinding us man you actually thing a country like North Korea can defeat the only superpower in the world!?!?! But bavk on subject, the only reason we went to Iraq is for the oil! That is it thats the only reason. You know why Japan attacked America back in WW2? Its because of the oil we cut off their oil supply and the effect was death. Heh tells yea something dont it?
 
Xion said:
THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000


Apart from that do you remember what happened in Vietnam?, what makes you feel so sure that the same thing wouldn't happen to the US in N.Korea
Click to expand...

Numbers have nothing to do with it. It all depends on training and technology. Which America has both.
 
Someone in the above posts were speaking of N.Korea as a very weak nation with a small military force, I wanted to point out how thats not the case.
And numbers do matter, 900 thousand ppl defending such a small area as North Korea is a potent force against any invading armies.
America has the technology that others do not, but it doesn't mean that others are not well trained

Remember Vietnam?
 
Since you keep citing Vietnam, Xion, you should be aware that military doctrine has changed just a tad since then. There will be no short sorties, no re-taking hills, no limited engagements and any other political limitations. We don't fight that way anymore and haven't in 30 years.

So North Korea has twice as many troops. I'll cite you another war America fought. Remember WWII? We started the war 17th in the world for war powers. Right behind Portugal. Just a scant 100,000 or so troops. It didn't take long though before our force numbered in the millions. If called up in a grave emergency we could do the same again. And you can bet they'd be well trained and packing the latest technology.

We have the means to bomb them into oblivion if it came to that, and nobody hopes it does. I'm not saber rattling, I'm talking known facts. War with the North Koreans is, as I've already said more than one, the last thing we want to do. The costs would be extremely high and there are many things politically to try before we come to that and again as I said, even then it would take a serious threat from them such as a missle attack for us to go to war. But if war comes, never doubt our resolve to win it and with a comprehensive plan to do so. There will be no more Vietnams.
 
If we invaded NK China would most likely send troops into NK to help their felloe commies. And numbers do not matter, America has the most potent Air Force in the world, we coulld bomb Kim Jong Il without him knowing it ever happened, we could destroy ant MBT they could throw at us with the Apache. We could defaet NK with reletave ease, much like we did Iraq, and Iraq again, and Bosnia. The only real reson we lost in Vietnam is we were outmauvered politically. We won almost every battle, but still lost. And, although I wasn't there ther to witness that war, (being born 2 days before Iraq invaded Kuwait) I have talked to several Vietnam veterans, one of whom, fought in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Shield. They have all said that we could've won if it had not been for the Politics in it. :rambo:
 
OK, some of you seem to be missing a few points here:

1. The US could start a war with North Korea and win, but the cost may well be more than anyone is willing to pay unless we have no other choice. The fight could go nuclear as North Korea most likely has (or soon will have) nuclear weapons, which Iran and Syria do not have. Not yet anyway. Even a conventional fight would cause many casualties in South and North Korea and could spread to Japan and China. That's why the US government is working with South Korea, Japan, China and others to defuze this before it blows up and we have to fight it out. No one outside of North Korea's"Government" wants to start WW III, Locke.

2. The Iranian and Syrian Armed Forces are much smaller and nowhere near as dug in as North Korea (trust me on this, I have reason to know), but no military conflict is a sure thing and no sane person starts a fight if they have viable alternatives. Another relevant quote by Karl von Clausewitz "...War is the province of chance. In no other sphere of human activity must such a margin be left for this intruder. It increases the uncertainty of every circumstance and deranges the course of events....". So while I understand 7.62's bravdo, nothing is certain and North Korea is far from an easy target. As to Vietnam and politics, 7.62, I refer you back to my first quote from Clausewitz and Charge 7's discussion (I was trying to get them to Read it dude, but thanks for the support :D )

3. Locke, North Korea has considerable natural resources (anthracite, iron ore, magnesite, lead, zinc, tungsten, mercury, copper, phosphate, gold, silver, sulfur and manganese), but NO OIL! A quote from a US Department of Energy Study: "... North Korea lacks domestic petroleum reserves, but the West Korea Bay may contain hydrocarbon reserves, as it is considered to be a geological extension of China's Bohai Bay. Offshore exploration concessions previously held by Sweden's Taurus Petroleum, Britain's Soco, and Australia's Beach Petroleum have been allowed to lapse, having failed to find oil in commercial quantities...." (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nkorea.html). Note that none of these companies are US controlled, so let's just dump the War for Oil nonsense right now Xm 8 :roll:.

And if the US did go to war with Iraq for oil, why is the price so high and why is the money generated by selling Iraqi oil going to the IRAQI Government :?: You've been listening to Air America too much Xm 8, as you have bought the liberal anti-war, anti-Bush baloney :shock:
 
Gunner13 said:
North Korea has considerable natural resources (anthracite, iron ore, magnesite, lead, zinc, tungsten, mercury, copper, phosphate, gold, silver, sulfur and manganese), but NO OIL! A quote from a US Department of Energy Study: "... North Korea lacks domestic petroleum reserves, but the West Korea Bay may contain hydrocarbon reserves, as it is considered to be a geological extension of China's Bohai Bay. Offshore exploration concessions previously held by Sweden's Taurus Petroleum, Britain's Soco, and Australia's Beach Petroleum have been allowed to lapse, having failed to find oil in commercial quantities...." (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nkorea.html).
Click to expand...

thanks for that, very informative, i never knew that
 
Xion said:
Someone in the above posts were speaking of N.Korea as a very weak nation with a small military force, I wanted to point out how thats not the case.
And numbers do matter, 900 thousand ppl defending such a small area as North Korea is a potent force against any invading armies.
America has the technology that others do not, but it doesn't mean that others are not well trained

Remember Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Vietnam is not North Korea.

The reason why the NVA and the Vietcong was able to elude Technological Superior American Forces is because they were fully aware of their enviroment and taken every oppurtunity to turn the jungles of Vietnam into a deadly weapon. Plus unconvetional and radical ideals of conducting warfare often surprise armies that are primarily trained for Convetional means. As a result, militaries that are not fully prepared to counter the new threat would often fail in acheiving their goals.

Which leads to my final statement here, the North Korean Army is primarily trained for Conventional Warfare. If they continue to upheave the out-dated Soviet Doctrine, there is not doubt that so-called "Vietnam War" senerio would not be repeated. Unfortunetly, the very same senerio is being surfaced ominiously in Iraq.
 
Xion said:
Someone in the above posts were speaking of N.Korea as a very weak nation with a small military force, I wanted to point out how thats not the case.
And numbers do matter, 900 thousand ppl defending such a small area as North Korea is a potent force against any invading armies.
America has the technology that others do not, but it doesn't mean that others are not well trained

Remember Vietnam?
Click to expand...

Back then we had to equip some of our troops with M-1s. Also, the M-16A1, although it might have been considered "superior", it was no match for an AK-47 in the dust and grime of jungle fighting.

And as a last note, the Vietcong knew there enviroment, and according to the teachings of Sun Zu the enviroment you know may be your greatest advantage.
 
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
 
7.62 said:
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
Click to expand...

lol he was useing sarcasm.
 
7.62 said:
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. The media wants you to think we are there for Oil and our "Empire". The Iraqi People have wanted these days for 20+ years.
Click to expand...

To Liberate people from foreign nations at the expense of American lives seems too unnatuaral for Washington to agree upon. Startling more high insurgency activity rates in the Middle East is not Washington's goals as well. Speaking of logic, Washington is not fully concerned with the people of Iraq. They are more concerned about US interests and its security situation within that region which would have likely convinced the US to invade Iraq.

I am quite definite about the US's infentions while occupying Iraq for the time being in the first place. It was surely a miscalculation and a misunderstanding.
 
No, redneck, that is NOT the reason we are in Iraq, we are in Iraq to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein
Click to expand...

^ BBB, Brainwashed By Bush

The mullahs use the same technique to train suicide bombers into believing in their cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top