You're trolling right? 
NK has no way to win this war, but it can still bomb Seoul into ashes in the process.
NK has no way to win this war, but it can still bomb Seoul into ashes in the process.
Buy on AliExpress.com
'Murica! (174 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
I disagree with THAAD last statement of yours
Buy on AliExpress.com
Fair enough.
Btw, thanks for linking that theatlantic article above. T-62M on the top banner which the site owners coded to occupy the better half of my screen was very scary and intimidating, only 50 years between them and South Korean K2 Black Panther MBTs. Furthermore, the Scud missiles mentioned in the article as anti-SK weapon have truly proven themselves against PATRIOT, this is why all countries involved in military conflicts give up at the sight of scuds and the Israelis have surrendered their land to Hamas.... Most people can't comprehend how much of a stone age NK lives in but media outlets need a story to sell, so there we go.
Btw, thanks for linking that theatlantic article above. T-62M on the top banner which the site owners coded to occupy the better half of my screen was very scary and intimidating, only 50 years between them and South Korean K2 Black Panther MBTs. Furthermore, the Scud missiles mentioned in the article as anti-SK weapon have truly proven themselves against PATRIOT, this is why all countries involved in military conflicts give up at the sight of scuds and the Israelis have surrendered their land to Hamas.... Most people can't comprehend how much of a stone age NK lives in but media outlets need a story to sell, so there we go.
I doubt. The US has been to many wars, so the consequences are obvious. Still going to war with others is something American politicians promise to get votes. The we are the boss mentality is pretty strong. The US government is the most likely government to use nuclear weapons, yet American people are the most vocal about who should or should not be eligible to have such weapons.
Well I'm very much open to changing my mind about that topic, but you have to do better than a few fancy terms.
Like, I really don't know much about military technology, but just about everything I found on the topic doesn't seem as optimistic as you, no matter if they're from sources I generally find reliable or garbage like the Huffington Post.
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/south-koreas-new-missile-defense-tech-isnt-cure-north-korea/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphj...el-a-rogue-north-korean-missile/#4a7d718b2d79
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/can-ballistic-missile-defense-shield-guam-north-korea
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05...e-defense-system-us-just-deployed-south-korea
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/the-unbearable-sadness-of_b_11051426.html
https://www.quora.com/How-effective-is-THAAD-in-protecting-South-Korea-from-North-Korean-missiles
In fact, the only guy I found disagreeing with all that is, surprise surprise, from Lockheed Martin, who built THAAD
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...-worst-nightmare-everything-else-21498?page=2
And this is only about missiles, afaik that doesn't cover the conventional artillery NK got on Seoul mentioned in the Atlantic article and one or two of the sources above. Genuine question, are there defensive mechanisms protecting the city (and other parts of SK) from this threat as well, and how reliable are they?
Like seriously, I'm not trying to win an argument here, I'd like the opposite of what I'm saying very much to be true, but so far almost everything I've seen points to one conclusion, while the other is supported mainly by a random guy on an Internet forum, no offense.
- - - Updated - - -
You could argue that a lot of Americans have no idea about what war really means despite them being virtually constantly engaged in one because they take place thousands of miles away and neither they nor their immediate ancestors have seen war on US soil.
Not that Europeans are that much better, though here the memories of WWII & other stuff such as the Yugoslavian wars are still much closer, which probably has a part in the military not being as glorified as in the US.
This Forbes article from 2013 (even though it's outdated) is pretty interesting too, looking at the Bomb issue more from a northkorean perspective:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/12/04/why-north-korea-needs-nukes/#221cb8747d7b
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1076f6d6152_story.html?utm_term=.284a472acd00
Numbers don't even matter if technology levels are so far apart. You could spawn a K2 platoon in a North Korean military base and they would have to shell their own stuff with 240mm arty shells cos it would be the only way to crack them. Ironically, artillery is their only real threat to South Korea but out of 12k pieces only 500 or so have the range for Seoul, now calculate the accuracy, detonation failures and the time left before the allies bomb their exposed positions. People would die north of Seoul and in the outskirts but the statement I was arguing against is 'North Korea could destroy South Korea'. Also in my opinion the threat of a potential attack is Kim Jong Un's real weapon that he won't give up on, especially not on a lame ass artillery strike that maybe would kill 10 thousand people and get him wiped out in return.
This is why I say you have to explain to them what it means. Because they think it means this:
It's not about dropping a few bombs and then go in rambo style.
It'll be dropping bombs, running a severe risk of having bombs coming your own way in return, having big parts of not only North Korea, but also South Korea and Japan destroyed, deploying ground forces who will encounter a guerilla style opponent, suffering a significant amount of casualties and then, when it's all over, having to administer justice and peace in North Korea for quite some time to come, losing trillions in the process.
I am confident that if people would realise that this is what it would be like, the vast majority would say no.
It's not about dropping a few bombs and then go in rambo style.
It'll be dropping bombs, running a severe risk of having bombs coming your own way in return, having big parts of not only North Korea, but also South Korea and Japan destroyed, deploying ground forces who will encounter a guerilla style opponent, suffering a significant amount of casualties and then, when it's all over, having to administer justice and peace in North Korea for quite some time to come, losing trillions in the process.
I am confident that if people would realise that this is what it would be like, the vast majority would say no.
In this whole debacle I am only worried about the innocent people of SK, NK and Japan who will bear the brunt of the the lunatics as Putin, Trump, the one with the crazy haircut and the Chinese guy with the crazy eyes.What a despicable bunch of human beings.If the ordinary people were really smart they would never shed their blood or the blood of others for any of these morons.
such insight
- - - Updated - - -
What he wrote is beyond stupid. Starts by acknowledging that the [everyday] north koreans aren't to blame; proceeds to be indifferent to their situation.
- - - Updated - - -
What's interesting in this scenario is China. China aren't supporters of Kim Jong Un per se, but they want a North Korea they can "control" ie. not an american ally as a neighbour.
Besides that Kim Jong Un's actions are by most military analylists looked upon as rather rationel. A war would be a catastrophe for US, China, Japan, South Korea and the entire region. The price is too high to pay; only an irrational like Trump would ever entertain the thought of a War against North Korea.
China is the solution to the situation. Meanwhile Kim Jong Un have opened up for a slight move towards a market economy and there's a growing middle class in North Korea - Something worth to be taking note of: Kim Jong Un wants to secure the country from the inside (improved living conditions) and secure the country from the outisde (nukes) - Irrational? My ass..
- - - Updated - - -
What he wrote is beyond stupid. Starts by acknowledging that the [everyday] north koreans aren't to blame; proceeds to be indifferent to their situation.
- - - Updated - - -
What's interesting in this scenario is China. China aren't supporters of Kim Jong Un per se, but they want a North Korea they can "control" ie. not an american ally as a neighbour.
Besides that Kim Jong Un's actions are by most military analylists looked upon as rather rationel. A war would be a catastrophe for US, China, Japan, South Korea and the entire region. The price is too high to pay; only an irrational like Trump would ever entertain the thought of a War against North Korea.
China is the solution to the situation. Meanwhile Kim Jong Un have opened up for a slight move towards a market economy and there's a growing middle class in North Korea - Something worth to be taking note of: Kim Jong Un wants to secure the country from the inside (improved living conditions) and secure the country from the outisde (nukes) - Irrational? My ass..
Any solution that would require NK to give up their nukes is not going to happen. After seeing Saddam and Gadhafi give up their WMDs and subsequently wiped off from the earth he is no fool to entertain such an idea. In fact with US' likely departure from Iran deal I can see Un telling his advisors I told you so.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
