North Korea Reportedly Fires Artillery Near South

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="pspdseagle"]

You mean the US will mind their own for once?

Espada12

Not likely, thank God. We have approx 30,000 troops stationed in S. Korea. Are you advocating we pull them out and sit back and watch the NorKs overrun South Korea, one of our best and most loyal allies? A country that we have committed ourselves to defending for over 50 years. Really?

And then when the Kims go after Japan, should we just sit back and allow that as well?

Is it really so hard to understand that the US has a vital national interest in keeping the NorKs contained until their broken society crashes in on itself.

N korea cannot beat the south in full scale war. The south is too well equipped/trained.

Maybe. Maybe not. The NorKs have nukes. I agree that the South is hard core and won't go down without one helluva fight. But without US help, its a toss up who would win a conventional battle. The south is well equipped and trained, but the north has many many more soldiers in uniform and their leadership puts no value on their lives and will sacrifice them as necessary to win.

Besides, we are obligated by treaty to help defend the south. We should live up to our committments.

Well there goes the SK world cup 2022 bid. :lol:

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Not likely, thank God. We have approx 30,000 troops stationed in S. Korea. Are you advocating we pull them out and sit back and watch the NorKs overrun South Korea, one of our best and most loyal allies? A country that we have committed ourselves to defending for over 50 years. Really?

And then when the Kims go after Japan, should we just sit back and allow that as well?

Is it really so hard to understand that the US has a vital national interest in keeping the NorKs contained until their broken society crashes in on itself.

collegeboy64

N korea cannot beat the south in full scale war. The south is too well equipped/trained.

Maybe. Maybe not. The NorKs have nukes. I agree that the South is hard core and won't go down without one helluva fight. But without US help, its a toss up who would win a conventional battle. The south is well equipped and trained, but the north has many many more soldiers in uniform and their leadership puts no value on their lives and will sacrifice them as necessary to win.

Besides, we are obligated by treaty to help defend the south. We should live up to our committments.

Maybe. Maybe not. The NorKs have nukes. I agree that the South is hard core and won't go down without one helluva fight. But without US help, its a toss up who would win a conventional battle. The south is well equipped and trained, but the north has many many more soldiers in uniform and their leadership puts no value on their lives and will sacrifice them as necessary to win.

Besides, we are obligated by treaty to help defend the south. We should live up to our committments.

collegeboy64

The South does mandatory conscription, almost everyone has military training so S korea could boost their numbers rather easily. Also the North will lose tons and tons of soldiers if they try using overwhelming numbers, without the training and tech to back them up. The ratio would almost be 20-1 like the US war in iraq.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Not likely, thank God. We have approx 30,000 troops stationed in S. Korea. Are you advocating we pull them out and sit back and watch the NorKs overrun South Korea, one of our best and most loyal allies? A country that we have committed ourselves to defending for over 50 years. Really?

And then when the Kims go after Japan, should we just sit back and allow that as well?

Is it really so hard to understand that the US has a vital national interest in keeping the NorKs contained until their broken society crashes in on itself.

collegeboy64

N korea cannot beat the south in full scale war. The south is too well equipped/trained.

Maybe. Maybe not. The NorKs have nukes. I agree that the South is hard core and won't go down without one helluva fight. But without US help, its a toss up who would win a conventional battle. The south is well equipped and trained, but the north has many many more soldiers in uniform and their leadership puts no value on their lives and will sacrifice them as necessary to win.

Besides, we are obligated by treaty to help defend the south. We should live up to our committments.

It's not a toss up at all. The north is still using 1950's era soviet tanks (T-55) as their main armoured vehicles. Remember how easily the U.S. destroyed the Iraqi military formations in desert storm? It would be like that all over again. The only thing the north has going for it militarily is the massive amount of artillery pieces and the fact that they can hit Souel.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

N korea cannot beat the south in full scale war. The south is too well equipped/trained.

redstorm72

Maybe. Maybe not. The NorKs have nukes. I agree that the South is hard core and won't go down without one helluva fight. But without US help, its a toss up who would win a conventional battle. The south is well equipped and trained, but the north has many many more soldiers in uniform and their leadership puts no value on their lives and will sacrifice them as necessary to win.

Besides, we are obligated by treaty to help defend the south. We should live up to our committments.

It's not a toss up at all. The north is still using 1950's era soviet tanks (T-55) as their main armoured vehicles. Remember how easily the U.S. destroyed the Iraqi military formations in desert storm? It would be like that all over again. The only thing the north has going for it militarily is the massive amount of artillery pieces and the fact that they can hit Souel.

I wish I could be as certain about it as you. I just know if I was a ROK soldier, I'd sure like to have my buddy Uncle Sam in the foxhole with me.

Besides, as I have stated before, we are obligated to help defend the ROK by treaty. Shouldn't we be willing to live up to our committment? Or is the US just a fair weather friend that can't be counted on when the chips are down?

Oh boy North Korea sure loves to get in trouble.

I doubt much more is going to happen.

I wish I could be as certain about it as you. I just know if I was a ROK soldier, I'd sure like to have my buddy Uncle Sam in the foxhole with me.

Besides, as I have stated before, we are obligated to help defend the ROK by treaty. Shouldn't we be willing to live up to our committment? Or is the US just a fair weather friend that can't be counted on when the chips are down?

collegeboy64

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

Just to bring an update and end a debate here, Robert Gibbs have just told in a brief pressconferance in the White house that "The US is obligated to defend it's ally, South Korea and ensure there is peace and stability in the region."

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I wish I could be as certain about it as you. I just know if I was a ROK soldier, I'd sure like to have my buddy Uncle Sam in the foxhole with me.

Besides, as I have stated before, we are obligated to help defend the ROK by treaty. Shouldn't we be willing to live up to our committment? Or is the US just a fair weather friend that can't be counted on when the chips are down?

Espada12

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

If we are ultimately going to step in to keep the north from winning, wouldn't it be in all our best interests to take action early and put a stop to it as soon as possible? It seems foolish to allow the situation to degrade and then try to step in and turn it around. Better to hit em hard and hit em fast and knock em out early.

Besides, we have 30,000 troops already in country. Do you suggest we pull them out now and then suffer all the losses that would accompany trying to re-enter the country with the north having the upper hand? I'm no military expert, but seems counter-intuitive to me.

Knowing Obama, I wouldnt be surprised if he ordered the american troops to get involved in this South Korea and North Korea mess and then the crap will hit the fan

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I wish I could be as certain about it as you. I just know if I was a ROK soldier, I'd sure like to have my buddy Uncle Sam in the foxhole with me.

Besides, as I have stated before, we are obligated to help defend the ROK by treaty. Shouldn't we be willing to live up to our committment? Or is the US just a fair weather friend that can't be counted on when the chips are down?

collegeboy64

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

If we are ultimately going to step in to keep the north from winning, wouldn't it be in all our best interests to take action early and put a stop to it as soon as possible? It seems foolish to allow the situation to degrade and then try to step in and turn it around. Better to hit em hard and hit em fast and knock em out early.

Besides, we have 30,000 troops already in country. Do you suggest we pull them out now and then suffer all the losses that would accompany trying to re-enter the country with the north having the upper hand? I'm no military expert, but seems counter-intuitive to me.

You don't need to pull them out, you can use them to defend while the S koreans attack. Remember although you are allies, America is fighting a war on two fronts ATM, 3 fronts would just be crazy.

I find it funny that North Korea starts this crap, as if they have ANY CHANCE at winning a war against South Korea.

At this point most of the world hates North Korea and if they start trying anything truely serious they are going to see a bunch of other countries going and supporting the South while they will have.....maybe Russia support them, just because the Russians are a bunch of rebels in this regard:P

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I wish I could be as certain about it as you. I just know if I was a ROK soldier, I'd sure like to have my buddy Uncle Sam in the foxhole with me.

Besides, as I have stated before, we are obligated to help defend the ROK by treaty. Shouldn't we be willing to live up to our committment? Or is the US just a fair weather friend that can't be counted on when the chips are down?

collegeboy64

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

Easy to say what We should do when your not the one that is going to die fighting or lose a child for that goal.

We need to send Dethklok over there. They would secure peace for sure.

N. Korea vastly overestimates its strength and combat capabilities. They can't keep picking fights like this forever. One of these days, all their 60s-era Soviet tanks and jets and crappy AK-knockoffs will be put to the test...and they won't win.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

Espada12

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

If we are ultimately going to step in to keep the north from winning, wouldn't it be in all our best interests to take action early and put a stop to it as soon as possible? It seems foolish to allow the situation to degrade and then try to step in and turn it around. Better to hit em hard and hit em fast and knock em out early.

Besides, we have 30,000 troops already in country. Do you suggest we pull them out now and then suffer all the losses that would accompany trying to re-enter the country with the north having the upper hand? I'm no military expert, but seems counter-intuitive to me.

You don't need to pull them out, you can use them to defend while the S koreans attack. Remember although you are allies, America is fighting a war on two fronts ATM, 3 fronts would just be crazy.

S. Korea is a very small country and there is no way we can "hide" our troops from the fighting if they are in country. Besides, if you don't want our troops fighting unless absolutely necessary to keep the north from winning, what exactly are we defending?

We have plenty of assets in the region. 30,000 troops on the ground. At least one carrier battle group in the area, probably two. Troops stationed in Okinawa and Guam. Air force units as well. Crazy or not, its in our best interests all around to stand with our ally and take the fight to the enemy.

Hopefully this will all settle back down and we can go back to waiting for the north to implode.

Gotta go for now.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

redstorm72

Easy to say what We should do when your not the one that is going to die fighting or lose a child for that goal.

You have no idea what I might personally have at stake in this. Nice try, troll.

N. Korea vastly overestimates its strength and combat capabilities. They can't keep picking fights like this forever. One of these days, all their 60s-era Soviet tanks and jets and crappy AK-knockoffs will be put to the test...and they won't win.

Verge_6

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

N. Korea vastly overestimates its strength and combat capabilities. They can't keep picking fights like this forever. One of these days, all their 60s-era Soviet tanks and jets and crappy AK-knockoffs will be put to the test...and they won't win.

krazy-blazer

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

N. Korea vastly overestimates its strength and combat capabilities. They can't keep picking fights like this forever. One of these days, all their 60s-era Soviet tanks and jets and crappy AK-knockoffs will be put to the test...and they won't win.

Verge_6

The only real threat North Korea poses is their ability to bombard South Korean cities. It makes the risk of full blown war too great. Its not a matter of whether or not South Korea can defeat the North Korean Army as much as it is a matter of how much damage will be done to South Korea by North Korean artillery before North Korea gets over run.

This is suicide for N. Korea. Doubly so if they pop off a nuke (because then we could respond with any number of our own).

This is suicide for N. Korea. Doubly so if they pop off a nuke (because then we could respond with any number of our own).

xerxes5678

yes but now your talking nuc war.. mutually assured destruction.

one nation drops a nuke.. the rest follow in a big long chain.

and it becomes a flip of a coin over which one of us is left after that.

britain, USA, china, russia, n. korea, etc.

your talking about nuclear armaggeddon.

dont throw that around so loosely in this situation and topic.

the second one does it the rest will to and then its ALL over.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

N korea cannot beat the south in full scale war. The south is too well equipped/trained.

Engrish_Major

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

You could say the US has many of those but, I don't see the need for US troops to get involved unless by some miracle the N koreans start winning.

redstorm72

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

Easy to say what We should do when your not the one that is going to die fighting or lose a child for that goal.

Well I really don't think we have the man power for 3 wars so we may need to start up the draft again.

Why does the world give a **** anymore. This isn't the first time north and south korea have exchanged fire since the Korean war, and judging from the article, casualties were very minimal, mostly injuries, no deaths. Those saying America's gonna get involved don't know squat.

Someone should just assassinate Kim Jong Il already, Jeez. He is a thorn in the side to both his allies and enemies. Where is CIA when you need them. :\

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I hope your viewpoint is not the winning one in the White House. South Korea is a good and loyal ally and we should live up to our committment to them.

Pixel-Pirate

Easy to say what We should do when your not the one that is going to die fighting or lose a child for that goal.

Well I really don't think we have the man power for 3 wars so we may need to start up the draft again.

This crap never goes anywhere. They have been picking eachother off little by little for years. Do they want to have a war, by just killing a few people here and then over the span of a century? Or is someone gonna straight up declare a WAR?!

IronBeaver

Someone should just assassinate Kim Jong Il already, Jeez. He is a thorn in the side to both his allies and enemies. Where is CIA when you need them. :\

tonberry007

This is suicide for N. Korea. Doubly so if they pop off a nuke (because then we could respond with any number of our own).

xerxes5678

Wouldn't the fallout hit S.Korea?

You know, WWII is what got us out of the great depression. Maybe this is exactly what the economy needs! :PHead_of_games

This seems like an awfully bad idea for North Korea, considering that South Korea's national sport is waging tactical warfare.

GabuEx

But can the South hope to withstand a Zerg rush from the North?

Someone should just assassinate Kim Jong Il already, Jeez. He is a thorn in the side to both his allies and enemies. Where is CIA when you need them. :

tonberry007

It was probably the CIA that sank the Cheonan, using a captured North Korean torpedo. :|

[QUOTE="Head_of_games"]You know, WWII is what got us out of the great depression. Maybe this is exactly what the economy needs! :Pdanjammer69

The difference would be the lack of nukes in the world in WW2.

If WW3 starts I can garuntee no WW4 will ever happen.

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

N. Korea vastly overestimates its strength and combat capabilities. They can't keep picking fights like this forever. One of these days, all their 60s-era Soviet tanks and jets and crappy AK-knockoffs will be put to the test...and they won't win.

Verge_6

Why do people keep bringing up WWIII? A World War is not going to occur over an irrelevant country like N. Korea.

[QUOTE="danjammer69"][QUOTE="Head_of_games"]You know, WWII is what got us out of the great depression. Maybe this is exactly what the economy needs! :PPixel-Pirate

The difference would be the lack of nukes in the world in WW2.

If WW3 starts I can garuntee no WW4 will ever happen.

Oh, good. I was worrying about being drafted....I wouldn't have to if everyone was blown up by nukes :P

North Korea should thank their lucky stars that one of those Marines killed wasn't American, otherwise they would be in a serious **** storm.

[QUOTE="tonberry007"]

Someone should just assassinate Kim Jong Il already, Jeez. He is a thorn in the side to both his allies and enemies. Where is CIA when you need them. :\

l4dak47

I don't know about that...

Why do people keep bringing up WWIII? A World War is not going to occur over an irrelevant country like N. Korea.

Pirate700

S. Korea is a very small country and there is no way we can "hide" our troops from the fighting if they are in country. Besides, if you don't want our troops fighting unless absolutely necessary to keep the north from winning, what exactly are we defending?

We have plenty of assets in the region. 30,000 troops on the ground. At least one carrier battle group in the area, probably two. Troops stationed in Okinawa and Guam. Air force units as well. Crazy or not, its in our best interests all around to stand with our ally and take the fight to the enemy.

Hopefully this will all settle back down and we can go back to waiting for the north to implode.

Gotta go for now.

collegeboy64

I never said hide the troops, I said defend. You do realise when you are attacking a nation it's smart to put bases and lines of defense everytime you advance so you can cover retreats and supply forward forces if need be right? Or else you will just end up like Napolean/Hitler did when they attacked russia.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Why do people keep bringing up WWIII? A World War is not going to occur over an irrelevant country like N. Korea.

revolution2k6

World War 1 started because allies of hostile nations declared war on each other, pretty much the same for WW2.

Why do people keep bringing up WWIII? A World War is not going to occur over an irrelevant country like N. Korea.

Pirate700