Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Woke up to it all over the news channels out here. Looks like it could be on, that North Korea guy is mental.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Japan versus N.Korea
- Thread starter Danishfurniturelover
- Start date
awesome dawson
Mitchell Thomas
N Korea have been doing this for years though. South Korea are the only ones who take them seriously enough but yeah Japan are within range. It would be a suicide mission to fire one directly at either country though. Shame because its only a few (or one main idiot) that is going to get the whole lot of them killed.
metalgear
Luka Modric
Yanks want the attack, they can't wait to get involved in another scuffle. When everything is over they present the bill to both countries they fought for and against.
Sent from my SM-T819Y using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Sent from my SM-T819Y using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
We'd see a build-up prior to that happening. USPACFLT upping its deployment cycle, shifting its active BMD assets (at the time, likely to be 10 or so Tico and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers out of the 20 assigned to the Pacific Fleet) into the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, air buildups in Okinawa, Misawa, Kadena and the South Korean airbases in Osan and Kunsan, forward deployed Army and Marine assets, Patriot and THAAD batteries being hustled into Japan and SoKo as fast as they can be sent across and the Ronald Reagan (among other carriers) shifting from restricted availability into deployment.
The KPA will see it coming. So will we. And the problem with launching a pre-emptive strike on North Korea is that calling their bluff is a very dangerous move - and not for the United States, since no North Korean missile will ever successfully cross the Sea of Japan/Hokkaido/Central Pacific (covered by COBRA DANE and other sea/land radar systems in Alaska and the Aleutians)/Hawaii gauntlet of BMD and radar systems to actually reach the East Coast. U.S BMD and early warning systems were built to track the threat of the *Soviet Union* launching many thousands of missiles across the Pacific - it can handle ten or so North Korean missiles, if they ever get off the ground.
No, the danger will be for Japan (which could be hit by North Korean ballistic missiles), and *especially* South Korea - because the outbreak of war will see Seoul and other major urban agglomerations within a certain range of the DMZ bombarded by thousands upon thousands of static artillery pieces firing conventional and chemical rounds. There will be thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of civilian casualties within the first hour of any conflict.
That's the problem - a pre-emptive strike *cannot* neutralize all the many thousands of artillery guns and MBRLs stationed on the border with the express intent of targeting SoKo cities upon the outbreak of any war. That's the problem with Seoul, Ch'unch'on and Sokch'o (among others) being so far north - they are permanently within range of North Korean artillery purposefully placed to open fire on them. That is as much (if not more) of a deterrent to any pre-emptive strike than the actual nukes are (and the nukes aren't *that* much of a deterrent - they are few enough that they can probably be located, suppressed or otherwise negated using EW before they get far into the air).
A rational South Korean government wouldn't agree to a pre-emptive strike unless it was prepared to suffer the initial, heavy civilian and economic cost of crossing the DMZ. The U.S wouldn't push SoKo to do so, unless it wanted to risk losing SoKo to Chinese influence (since Beijing would counter by offering to pressure Pyongyang into ceding South Korean political aims *without* the need for a war, or at least a war on SoKo's part).
Of course, we have Donny in power so all bets are off. So you may well be right, despite all the rationales I've offered above as to why it's unlikely.
Well, at least if we're going to see the senseless loss of thousands of American, Japanese and Korean lives (both North and South) because some orange imbecile decided it would be a good idea to ignore the intricacies of Asian geopolitics entirely...at least we'll get some good music out of it, if Vietnam was anything to go by.
Last edited:
awesome dawson
Mitchell Thomas
We'd see a build-up prior to that happening. USPACFLT upping its deployment cycle, shifting its active BMD assets (at the time, likely to be 10 or so Tico and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers out of the 20 assigned to the Pacific Fleet) into the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, air buildups in Okinawa, Misawa, Kadena and the South Korean airbases in Osan and Kunsan, forward deployed Army and Marine assets, Patriot and THAAD batteries being hustled into Japan and SoKo as fast as they can be sent across and the Ronald Reagan (among other carriers) shifting from restricted availability into deployment.
The KPA will see it coming. So will we. And the problem with launching a pre-emptive strike on North Korea is that calling their bluff is a very dangerous move - and not for the United States, since no North Korean missile will ever successfully cross the Sea of Japan/Hokkaido/Central Pacific (covered by COBRA DANE and other sea/land radar systems in Alaska and the Aleutians)/Hawaii gauntlet of BMD and radar systems to actually reach the East Coast. U.S BMD and early warning systems were built to track the threat of the *Soviet Union* launching many thousands of missiles across the Pacific - it can handle ten or so North Korean missiles, if they ever get off the ground.
No, the danger will be for Japan (which could be hit by North Korean ballistic missiles), and *especially* South Korea - because the outbreak of war will see Seoul and other major urban agglomerations within a certain range of the DMZ bombarded by thousands upon thousands of static artillery pieces firing conventional and chemical rounds. There will be thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of civilian casualties within the first hour of any conflict.
That's the problem - a pre-emptive strike *cannot* neutralize all the many thousands of artillery guns and MBRLs stationed on the border with the express intent of targeting SoKo cities upon the outbreak of any war. That's the problem with Seoul, Ch'unch'on and Sokch'o (among others) being so far north - they are permanently within range of North Korean artillery purposefully placed to open fire on them. That is as much (if not more) of a deterrent to any pre-emptive strike than the actual nukes are (and the nukes aren't *that* much of a deterrent - they are few enough that they can probably be located, suppressed or otherwise negated using EW before they get far into the air).
A rational South Korean government wouldn't agree to a pre-emptive strike unless it was prepared to suffer the initial, heavy civilian and economic cost of crossing the DMZ. The U.S wouldn't push SoKo to do so, unless it wanted to risk losing SoKo to Chinese influence (since Beijing would counter by offering to pressure Pyongyang into ceding South Korean political aims *without* the need for a war, or at least a war on SoKo's part).
Of course, we have Donny in power so all bets are off. So you may well be right, despite all the rationales I've offered above as to why it's unlikely.
Well, at least if we're going to see the senseless loss of thousands of American, Japanese and Korean lives (both North and South) because some orange imbecile decided it would be a good idea to ignore the intricacies of Asian geopolitics entirely...at least we'll get some good music out of it, if Vietnam was anything to go by.
Good post. Sound logic. Only problem is not only is Agent Orange (POTUS) a class 1 imbecile but Kim Jong-Un isn't exactly mentally stable it appears. Mix those two factors and you've got a highly volatile situation.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/778963/kim-jong-un-north-korea-attack-usa-war-south-korea
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Partly true, but I'd like to think Kim Jong-Un values his regime's continued survival over an ultimately doomed pre-emptive war. The Korean War only happened because North Korea was armed and trained by Stalin's Soviet Union (to a better standard than the anemic armed forces of the South), and because Mao had indicated to Kim Il-Sung that the PRC (fresh from its successful war against the Kuomintang for control of mainland China) would intervene in the DPRK's favor if things went awry.
Such guarantees no longer exist. Russia does not have the influence, military-industrial capacity or geopolitical need to supply the KPA with weaponry sufficient to launch their constantly-threatened invasion of the South - to invade the ROK today, they would need relatively modern, top-of-the-line gear (S-400 SAM systems, T-90 derivatives, Iskanders, Su-30 heavy multirole fighters - the lot, basically) plus training programs and supplies to maintain them, all of which Russia won't (and in many cases can't) supply in large quantities. Additionally, the PRC absolutely will *not* back the DPRK up in any invasion of the South - they have their own concerns about an American presence in South Korea threatening their capital and core coastal areas, and those concerns would only intensify as the U.S deploys waves of air, land and naval assets to counteract a North Korean invasion. Worse still, Beijing hopes to lure South Korea into the PRC's sphere of influence (playing on their ability to get North Korea to acquiesce to Seoul's demands and their mutual animosity towards Japan, among other things), and helping the North invade the South again would only ensure that said prospect would vanish forever, alongside drawing them into a huge military conflict they *definitely* don't want right now.
So, the DPRK would be utterly on its own in any pre-emptive conflict - in fact, I'd wager that when things inevitably go t*ts up for them (as they surely will when you realize just how much of an advantage the South has over the North, even without U.S/Japanese reinforcements), you'll actually see the PRC send troops in from the North to secure P'yongyang before the U.S/Japanese/South Korean combine does, just so they can maintain North Korea as a puppet state while removing the Kim family and its associated regime. So Kim Jong-Un would be f*cked either way.
Hopefully, he's not *that* crazy that he's willing to throw his own comfort, iron rule and unbreakable control over North Korea away just to fight a doomed war. Dictators rarely are - they'll threaten and boast, but rarely do they actually take the plunge when their own survival is at stake.
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
It is going to be North Korea versus someone by the time the year is out.
