North Korea fires series of missiles

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nkorea_missile

Well they tried and failed and had the guts to threaten us. Maybe they shouldve sent a plane:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nkorea_missile

Well they tried and failed and had the guts to threaten us. Maybe they shouldve sent a plane:laugh4:

---

Quote:

---

A defiant North Korea test-fired a long-range missile Wednesday that may be capable of reaching America, but it failed seconds after launch and fell into the Sea of Japan, U.S. officials said. The White House called the exercise "a provocation."

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm glad it was worth it.

Hmmm.Interesting. Hmmmm. Not really.

Like I said in the should we attack North Korea thread... their weapons systems are HOPELESS, for the moment. The time to attack is now.

I definitely had a good chuckle over the little Korean maniac's failure, but it's pretty sobering when you think about what would've happened had it succeeded. We could've had a missle with an unknown payload splashing down on or near American soil. A very provocative move indeed....

Quote:

---

adding that economic sanctions were a possibility.

---

Oh no, not economic sanctions! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Like I said in the should we attack North Korea thread... their weapons systems are HOPELESS, for the moment. The time to attack is now.

---

Their long range ones are hopeless. Don't forget they did manage launch a missile over Japan. I'm not anti- attack North Korea, quite the opposite, but to say their systems are "hopeless" isn't to smart.

If South Korea would grow a backbone, I think a massive lead US air bombardment with South Korean Ground Forces would most likely tackle North Korea.

you first......so...enlisted yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Like I said in the should we attack North Korea thread... their weapons systems are HOPELESS, for the moment. The time to attack is now.

---

Two points:

1. As to success, it is appropriate to remember the great successes of the American space program in the late 1950's and early 1960's -- and just how many missile failures happened prior to the Saturn series. Failure now does not prevent success in the next few years.

2. The destruction of the current regime in North Korea is doable, through any number of strategems, but I would prefer something more parallel to Germany than to Iraq -- we in the USA seem to have a few things to "bone up" on in the "What do you do once it's broken" phase.

The central concern regarding military action in North Korea is not Pyong Yang, but a city West of there just a bit.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Their long range ones are hopeless. Don't forget they did manage launch a missile over Japan. I'm not anti- attack North Korea, quite the opposite, but to say their systems are "hopeless" isn't to smart.

If South Korea would grow a backbone, I think a massive lead US air bombardment with South Korean Ground Forces would most likely tackle North Korea.

---

Have you ever been along the DMZ?


Rest assured the South Koreans have a pretty damn good backbone - they also understand what will happen a lot better then the US if the Korean War becomes hot once again.

You might want to remember that the South Korean government was not a signing party to the United Nations Cease Fire agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

If South Korea would grow a backbone, I think a massive lead US air bombardment with South Korean Ground Forces would most likely tackle North Korea.

---

Easy for you to say... try going to South Korea and then push for attack, when you're in range of their nukes.

:juggle2:

The South Koreans may be the only sane people in this whole fiasco. I think they are generally prepared to fight a war if needed. But I also believe that they are growing more and more certain that North Korea will fail on its own. It's a gamble, but it might be the most sane one. The people of North Korea are slowly waking up to the reality of the outside world. Modern technology is seeping in and giving them a glimpse outside the NK "paradise" which they've been told all their lives is so superior.

If you can catch the CNN "Special Presentation" show about this very thing (it just ran again tonight), you'll be rather amazed. There is growing dissidence in North Korea. That is one source of the Kim Il-Jong bluster. He doesn't have the complete support of the military and government which his father enjoyed. He's teetering. The question is how much collateral damage will the North Korean collapse create? The people most able to pick up the pieces afterwards are the South Koreans; not us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Have you ever been along the DMZ?


Rest assured the South Koreans have a pretty damn good backbone - they also understand what will happen a lot better then the US if the Korean War becomes hot once again.

You might want to remember that the South Korean government was not a signing party to the United Nations Cease Fire agreement.

---

I should have been more clear. I was refering the the increasing trend of South Koreans saying they would side with South Korea if the US attacked NK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I should have been more clear. I was refering the the increasing trend of South Koreans saying they would side with South Korea if the US attacked NK.

---

I'm suspecting someone is still not clear... :inquisitive: :laugh4:
Otherwise we're seeing a clear trend of normalisation. :book:

Oh, and I would be quite pissed off myself is someone started a war and did let me take about 95% of the shit, without having my country's consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Their long range ones are hopeless. Don't forget they did manage launch a missile over Japan. I'm not anti- attack North Korea, quite the opposite, but to say their systems are "hopeless" isn't to smart.

If South Korea would grow a backbone, I think a massive lead US air bombardment with South Korean Ground Forces would most likely tackle North Korea.

---

Soeul is in range of probably thousands of heavy artillery pieces. So, unless most are disabled without firing the civilian casualties are going to be immense, and that's assuming conventional shells.

Is it another "America provides the highflying air cover, and someone else bleeds" excersise? Yes, South Korea is the neighbour, but it appears that suddenly there is a problem when America might possibly be in range.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

If South Korea would grow a backbone, I think a massive lead US air bombardment with South Korean Ground Forces would most likely tackle North Korea.

---

Just the old classic tactics then? Flatten the lot from the air and let the local rebels/militia/rival/terrorists do all the bloody work? Lessens the amount of US casualties considerably. Then spend the next ten years or so trying to quash the new rebels and terrorists... but that doesn't need media coverage, the POTUS can just pretend it's all over, referring to choice excerpts occasionally as part of the whole "War on Terror" thing... :coffeenews:

any chance the missile failures were intentional and n. korea is sending another mixed diplomatic message? i.e. 'we'll thumb our noses at you and launch 'em if you tell us not to, but we'll make sure they don't go anywhere so please don't bomb us."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

any chance the missile failures were intentional and n. korea is sending another mixed diplomatic message? i.e. 'we'll thumb our noses at you and launch 'em if you tell us not to, but we'll make sure they don't go anywhere so please don't bomb us."

---

It's been suggested here. Now the world knows they have missiles capable of doing serious damage to the US/Japan. Every sensible strategy concerning NK should take this into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

you first......so...enlisted yet?

---

I've served my time on the front line. It might not be the most pleasant job, but if a job is there to be done it must be done.

The plan of attack wouldn't involve ground troops for a very long time anyway. It'd just begin with an enourmous bombardment of all North Korea's strategic facilities and special forces incursions to destroy difficult targets. By the end of the first day's attack, North Korea wouldn't have any tactical weapons left. After a week, any conventional forces that weren't well hidden would be gone. Provided the attack was done with a minimum of messing around before hand, North Korea's response would be minimal. They simply don't have the infrastructure to launch an immediate and effective retaliation. Maybe some conventional bombardment of South Korea, but that would be minimal.

Then send in the ground troops to eliminate residual forces and depose any remaining government - though I expect the people would probably have taken care of most of them before hand. Once the oppressive grip of their army is gone we'll see where their loyalties lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

IThe plan of attack wouldn't involve ground troops for a very long time anyway. It'd just begin with an enourmous bombardment of all North Korea's strategic facilities and special forces incursions to destroy difficult targets. By the end of the first day's attack, North Korea wouldn't have any tactical weapons left. After a week, any conventional forces that weren't well hidden would be gone. Provided the attack was done with a minimum of messing around before hand, North Korea's response would be minimal. They simply don't have the infrastructure to launch an immediate and effective retaliation. Maybe some conventional bombardment of South Korea, but that would be minimal.

Then send in the ground troops to eliminate residual forces and depose any remaining government - though I expect the people would probably have taken care of most of them before hand. Once the oppressive grip of their army is gone we'll see where their loyalties lie.

---

Apart from the country names, isn't that pretty much word-for-word the battle plan for Iraq? Including the lack of an exit strategy?

~:rolleyes:

What movie does this remind me of?

Hans Blix:Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you ... and we will write you a letter ... telling you how angry we are.

The situation in North Korea is nothing like the situation in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

The situation in North Korea is nothing like the situation in Iraq.

---

Agreed. So why is your solution exactly the same? :inquisitive:

Becuase the solution to the Iraq problem was wrong.

A dangerous move the the North Koreans that should be condemned in the UN.

No good solution to the mess in North Korea.

Rory: One of the targets would be their artillery pieces on the boarder. I'm almost certain we can knock most of them out, minimizing the damage done.

Chezi: I'm not saying let the local rebels/militia deal with it, I'm saying let the South Korean Army deal with it. There is a bit of a difference between letting the locals do the work and letting the neighboring, developing country's army do the work.

Is it just me or does this plan sound eeriely similar to the British one at the battle of the Somme?

By the way, Ice, about the SKs dealing with invasion, I'll just link you to DA's post.

By the way, how is the destruction of a nuclear weapon be a solution? Destruction involves heat, which will lead to nuclear reactions, leading to a chain reaction, leading to a nuclear explosion...

Quote:

---

By the way, how is the destruction of a nuclear weapon be a solution? Destruction involves heat, which will lead to nuclear reactions, leading to a chain reaction, leading to a nuclear explosion...

---

Nuclear bombs don't work that way. The detonation must be very precise or else the reaction will not work correctly. You may get a lot of radiation, but no vast mushroom-cloud type explosion.
The US air-force has a wide range of weapons designed during the cold-war and afterwards specifically to destroy and disarm nuclear warheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Is it just me or does this plan sound eeriely similar to the British one at the battle of the Somme?

---

The Somme used artillery, not aircraft. I also think we have better equipment today then the British did during World War I.~;)

Quote:

---

By the way, Ice, about the SKs dealing with invasion, I'll just link you to DA's post.

---

As I state previously, I think North Korea's army is overrated. After a heavy aieral bombardment, I'd like to see how much is still intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

The Somme used artillery, not aircraft. I also think we have better equipment today then the British did during World War I.~;)

---

The NKs have better defences as well ~;)

Quote:

---

As I state previously, I think North Korea's army is overrated. After a heavy aieral bombardment, I'd like to see how much is still intact.

---

America's army might be overrated as well.

Also, note Al Khalifah saying that NK has an extensive underground system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

Nuclear bombs don't work that way. The detonation must be very precise or else the reaction will not work correctly. You may get a lot of radiation, but no vast mushroom-cloud type explosion.
The US air-force has a wide range of weapons designed during the cold-war and afterwards specifically to destroy and disarm nuclear warheads.

---

Ah. But it still isn't the nicest solution I suppose... what about simply capturing them and then destroying them?