north korea launching missle

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Seoul is a short distance from the North Korean border. If a North Korean missile attack on Seoul took place, it would result in a metropolitan city of 11-12 million people in flames. Many of the missiles would not work properly because of age and state of disrepair, but there is supposedly an astounding number of them, so it could potentially be a holocaust on a scale like Dresden or a nuclear attack.

It has been a 60 year ceasefire, but the number of weapons built up over that period are considerable, making it a "powderkeg" if war resumes. Mexican stand-off might be an apt metaphor. An attack by either side would prompt an outcome of millions of deaths on both sides.
 
Last edited:

AUS-WA

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Posts
68
Media
15
Likes
6
Points
93
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I am amazed that the history books in your country do not cover lets see...WWI..AND WWII....both well before my time and way before yours..I shall not waste the readers time here to remind you HITLERS attack on europe...japans attempt to conquer the world...and many other declared and undeclared where AMERICA gave freedom to all who asked for our help....Yes we may be pushy in our quest...but i see very little help from ASIA to defend freedom against the RED COMMUNIST BASTARDS and the ever creeping control of RUSSIA.

The U.S was asked for help, they wouldn't give it until they were attacked by the Japanese during WW2. And I'm sure the Japanese would have surrendered once the Soviets attacked them. In your country's quest for "freedom", you've ended up killing innocent civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), o, and lets not forget Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and a majorit of places your country forces itself when it's convenient for it to do so.)

And what may I ask is wrong with Russia?
 

CALAMBO

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Posts
1,962
Media
20
Likes
96
Points
133
Location
OHIO
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
aus-wa....i will keep a cool head here....and just say this....i have been to russia/moscow....also to the eastern bloc of europe and seen the depressed economy ravaged by USSR....have talked with the folks who survived the decades of harsh winters, starving children and the cruel kremlin spys who take men from thier familys in the nite never to see them again...i hope i do not live to see that happen in your country....my question....to you...WHAT IS RIGHT WITH RUSSIA.........
 

AUS-WA

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Posts
68
Media
15
Likes
6
Points
93
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
aus-wa....i will keep a cool head here....and just say this....i have been to russia/moscow....also to the eastern bloc of europe and seen the depressed economy ravaged by USSR....have talked with the folks who survived the decades of harsh winters, starving children and the cruel kremlin spys who take men from thier familys in the nite never to see them again...i hope i do not live to see that happen in your country....my question....to you...WHAT IS RIGHT WITH RUSSIA.........

Yes, depressed economies ravaged by the USSR which no longer exists. How does it make it Russia's fault?
 
2

2322

Guest
There is also the danger that if the rocket does fail as in previous tests the claim from the north will be that it was shot down regardless.

The big question is do the north korean military believe their own propaganda that they could destroy the south? In reality they are convinced they are strong and there is the thought that the country is is such a state they have nothing to loose by launching an attack.

There is no doubt that they would ultimately fail, however with the forces and tactics they are likely to adopt it would make recent conflicts look like tea parties. I doubt for one minuite the american people and international community would be able to accept deaths in the 10's or even 100 thousands.

The DPRK news service reported the first launch as a bright success, even broadcasting Sputnik-like signals over North Korean radio to prove to the people that the country had launched a peaceful satellite despite the fact it appears to have broken-up just after it passed over northern Japan.

There are no failures in North Korea. No matter what happens to the missile, even if it explodes on the launch pad, it will be touted as a triumph of the Dear Leader Kim.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Seoul is a short distance from the North Korean border. If a North Korean missile attack on Seoul took place, it would result in a metropolitan city of 11-12 million people in flames. Many of the missiles would not work properly because of age and state of disrepair, but there is supposedly an astounding number of them, so it could potentially be a holocaust on a scale like Dresden or a nuclear attack.

.

it is not just rockets that are the problem, it is artillery shells, which are even more dangerous

Without moving any of its more than 12,000 artillery pieces, "Pyongyang could sustain up to 500,000 rounds per hour against Combined Forces Command defenses and Seoul for several hours" Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz said in testimony in March 2001 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Schwartz heads the United Nations and ROK-US Combined Forces Commands and US Forces Korea.


Granted they only have a certain ammount of artillery and rocket pieces that have metropolitan Seoul in range (estimated at 500 artillery pieces without moving more into range) but the artillery barrage would be devastating to a city with a metropolitan area of roughly 22 million...that is hoping that the North would not use chemical weapons either.

The South Koreans are more than capable of repelling the North, and especially considering we would be involved in the counter attack, the North would likely have no success...

but the casualties to civilians and military personnel would be horrible.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The U.S was asked for help, they wouldn't give it until they were attacked by the Japanese during WW2.

that is completely untrue. we did not commit troops in WW2 until we were attacked by the Japanese.

but American airmen flew in the Battle of Britain, ships protected supply convoys and have you ever heard of the lend/lease act?
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'll let you all in on a little secret...

Nobody is chomping on the bit to reunify Korea and particularly not the Koreans themselves. This isn't remotely like Germany. North Korea doesn't even use the same calendar.

Korea faces trillions of dollars in spending to re-unify the country should the government of the north collapse. East Germany was poor compared to West Germany, but Korea faces reunification costs on a scale never before encountered.

More concerning to Koreans themselves is the state of the North Koreans. Unlike East Germany, North Koreans have been kept in a hothouse isolation environment where most technology has stopped in the early 1960s. North Koreans do not know what a computer is, save for a handful of top scientists, nor do they have exposure to the outside world. Their radios receive just one state-run radio station. They do not have TV outside of Pyongyang, the capital, where the elite live. If you know your geography, here's a night pic of the lights of North Korea.

North Korea has about 40 death camps, a constant surveillance society, and a whole lot of people who have never had contact with anyone from outside North Korea. North Korean experts, including people who have had what limited contact is possible, believe that outside of Pyongyang, the average North Korean believes what is told to him or her by the state propaganda machine. There is literally no other media in the country. Things do not leak out or in save through some cross Korean-Chinese contact made by North Koreans living in China who have fled across the Yalu River and attempted the very dangerous return to North Korea to rescue relatives.

The South Koreans are very aware, and quite afraid, of their northern neighbors. While every South Korean professes an idealistic desire for reunification, South Koreans are privately more reticent to admit what they already know: unification will require massive amounts of money, humanitarian aid, cultural and practical education, occupational therapy, medical aid, infrastructure improvement, and environmental clean-up.

China is certainly not eager to see a reunited Korea as that would place a US ally right at China's border, and frankly neither is Japan. While everyone, including the Chinese, would like a more docile leadership, the fact is the Kim boys have done one hell of a job brainwashing their population and maintaining such tight control of the society, that Kim-worship is the closest thing to religion the country has.

There's a good 3-part article about Korean unification here, but if you have a real interest in North Korea, read Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty by Bradley Martin. It's long but exhaustive and very thoroughly examines the true origins of Kim il Sung and the Korean conflict through to the current day. A fantastic book for those wondering what it is to live in North Korea, at least as a foreigner in the relatively cosmopolitan Pyongyang, is Michael Harrold's, Comrades and Strangers: Behind the Closed Doors of North Korea. Yes, I own and have read both and recommend them highly.

If you're of a certain age and have a nostalgia for good old fashion Stalinist propaganda, take a look at the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK. What you read as news on that page is what the North Koreans themselves receive as news. It's pretty grim.

well stated Jas...

NK is a very sad, very dark place...both literally and figuratively...every documentary i have seen is frightening to the extreme. i know there are many people there who have an inkling about what is on the outside and many who are underground fighting to bring some light...but the hope is so slim...it is a place of nearly unimaginable despair and darkness.

I cannot imagine the kind of confusion and dissonance the people might encounter if they were ever fortunate enough to gain freedom...they would probably be stunned...
 

tonsilwrecker

1st Like
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Posts
31
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
151
Location
Midlothian, VA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
A unified Korea is worth considering, but all of the pollution, imploded infrastructure including agriculture, and starving millions would be a bit much for South Korea to handle by themselves.

The NK military is relative strong - hardened for years. They have the best of 1960's technology readily available (except for China's support, which is about in the 1970's era themselves).

On the other side, I don't think China would let it happen (a unified Korea). Then again, NK is like China's misbehaving child - scold 'em a bit to get them compliant again.

A complicated mess, for sure.

Overall, I agree with Flashy & Jason on this.
 
Last edited:

AUS-WA

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Posts
68
Media
15
Likes
6
Points
93
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
that is completely untrue. we did not commit troops in WW2 until we were attacked by the Japanese.

but American airmen flew in the Battle of Britain, ships protected supply convoys and have you ever heard of the lend/lease act?

I have heard of it, but it definitely wasn't that much of a contribution. The U.S would have let the Allies rot until the Japanese attacked them.
 
2

2322

Guest
I have heard of it, but it definitely wasn't that much of a contribution. The U.S would have let the Allies rot until the Japanese attacked them.

That's not so. The US spent the late 30s preparing for war on an unprecedented scale. We knew war was coming, knew we'd be battling Japan and very likely Germany and Italy too. What we did not have was a population willing to go to war nor the industrial complex to do so. Forgive Americans who went to war in 1917 Europe for being reticent to send their freshly whelped sons off to fight yet another war on European soil.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I have heard of it, but it definitely wasn't that much of a contribution. The U.S would have let the Allies rot until the Japanese attacked them.

The lend lease act "wasn't that much of a contribution"?

how about the "destroyers for bases agreement"?

would have let the allies rot? how exactly would we have "let the allies rot" when despite our proclamation of "neutrality" we provided

-via lend lease $50 billion in aid to the allies, over (30 billion to Britain alone) which is the equivalent in today's terms of 700 billion US dollars....that money went for critical supplies, food, ammunition, materiel, jeeps, trucks, landing craft, c47 cargo aircraft,


Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US


how about destroyers for bases? we gave 50 US Navy destroyers to England in exchange for land rights to certain bases.

Guess those 50 Navy destroyers did not help much in the Battle of the Atlantic, huh?

i guess also that when the US Navy was protecting British convoys over half the Atlantic, before we were even at war, we were not helping at all, huh? Even when we were doing so in violation of our neutrality? we were effectively involved in undeclared war vs the Germans in the NOrth Atlantic several months before we were attacked by Japan?



you need to do a little more research, son.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
107
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
"... The launch has become a test of American power, according to one of the most senior foreign policy advisers in China. The US and Japan “will be bankrupt in reputation and dignity” if the missile violates Japanese sovereignty and is not destroyed, said Professor Zhang Lian-gui, of the Central Party school.

His comments, in an official journal, showed how keenly Chinese leaders were watching Obama’s performance under pressure. Obama will have his first summit with President Hu Jintao in London this week. ..."

North Korean missile is challenge to Obama - Times Online


Perhaps Obama will send a greeting of love and holiday wishes, as he did with Iran ...
 
Last edited:

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Re your prediction:I think that is what the South Koreans both desire, and yet fear. Economically, they will have to assume a huge burden to support a massive increase in population that is years behind in prosperity, and indoctrinated in an entirely different mindset.

The Chinese may have territorial ambitions over some North Korean territory if North Korea falls. There have been some Chinese "academic" studies that try to establish historical claims to some Korean territory in some long ago era. Koreans were outraged at the time this came to be published and protested vehemently. Given the Chinese attitude of their inherent right to re-establish the Motherland to its historical expanses, I don't see Korean re-unification being a simple or smooth transition.

As the kingdom of Korea was tributary to the Ching dynasty, their claims are slightly less faint than their historical claim to rule Tibet.
 
Last edited:

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
As the kingdom of Korea was tributary to the Ching dynasty, their claims are slightly less faint than their historical claim to rule Tibet.

There is a fierce nationalistic dispute about an earlier period, The Koguryo/Gaogouli (37BC-AD668), where Korea can claim control of a good portion of the northeastern provinces of China as a part of that kingdom, and Chinese historical scholars claiming the opposite, that the Han were the powers there. There seems to be a case for contemporary recognition that a significant portion of the population there today has an ethnic relationship to Korea.

My wife is Korean, and she tells me the modern name Korea is derived from Koguryo.

The Korea-China Textbook War--What's It All About?

How far back does a nation go to press a claim? How selective is the frame of reference? How is any of this relevant today?
 
Last edited:

AUS-WA

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Posts
68
Media
15
Likes
6
Points
93
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That's not so. The US spent the late 30s preparing for war on an unprecedented scale. We knew war was coming, knew we'd be battling Japan and very likely Germany and Italy too. What we did not have was a population willing to go to war nor the industrial complex to do so. Forgive Americans who went to war in 1917 Europe for being reticent to send their freshly whelped sons off to fight yet another war on European soil.

So, in your thinking, just because the population of the U.S wanted neutrality, that the populations of Australia, Canada, Britain, Spain, France, Poland, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the rest of the countries involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan should have had the right to stand up to the U.S and said "Piss off, fight your own wars."?

The lend lease act "wasn't that much of a contribution"?

how about the "destroyers for bases agreement"?

would have let the allies rot? how exactly would we have "let the allies rot" when despite our proclamation of "neutrality" we provided

-via lend lease $50 billion in aid to the allies, over (30 billion to Britain alone) which is the equivalent in today's terms of 700 billion US dollars....that money went for critical supplies, food, ammunition, materiel, jeeps, trucks, landing craft, c47 cargo aircraft,


Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the US into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program and its significance in aiding the Allied war effort when he declared war on the US


how about destroyers for bases? we gave 50 US Navy destroyers to England in exchange for land rights to certain bases.

Guess those 50 Navy destroyers did not help much in the Battle of the Atlantic, huh?

i guess also that when the US Navy was protecting British convoys over half the Atlantic, before we were even at war, we were not helping at all, huh? Even when we were doing so in violation of our neutrality? we were effectively involved in undeclared war vs the Germans in the NOrth Atlantic several months before we were attacked by Japan?



you need to do a little more research, son.

The contribution obviously wasn't that helpful, most of Europe fell to Germany and Italy, Japan was on Australian soil (Papua and New Guinea). It's funny that the U.S didn't bother truly caring until Pearl Harbour got fucked up.

Let me ask you something, how do you justify the deaths of all the innocent citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those nukes were just an excuse for revenge. And you targeted the easiest targets, civilians. Why didn't the U.S blow the shit out of a military base? Or the Emperor's Palace?
 
2

2322

Guest
So, in your thinking, just because the population of the U.S wanted neutrality, that the populations of Australia, Canada, Britain, Spain, France, Poland, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the rest of the countries involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan should have had the right to stand up to the U.S and said "Piss off, fight your own wars."?

You're drawing a wildly false conclusion. Vietnam, Korea, etc. were not issues in late 1930s America. You wondered why the US was late into the war and I answered. What that has to do with more recent conflicts is absolutely nothing.

The contribution obviously wasn't that helpful, most of Europe fell to Germany and Italy, Japan was on Australian soil (Papua and New Guinea). It's funny that the U.S didn't bother truly caring until Pearl Harbour got fucked up.

You know better than Winston Churchill?

"Then came the majestic policy of the President and Congress of the United States in passing the Lease-Lend Bill, under which, in two successive enactments, about £3,000,000,000 was dedicated to the cause of world freedom, without -- mark this, because it is unique -- without the setting up of any account in money. Never again let us hear the taunt that money is the ruling power in the hearts and thoughts of the American democracy. The Lease-Lend Bill must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history."

"At about that same time he devised the extraordinary measure of assistance called Lend-Lease, which will stand forth as the most unselfish and unsordid financial act of any country in all history." -Winston Churchill
Let me ask you something, how do you justify the deaths of all the innocent citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those nukes were just an excuse for revenge. And you targeted the easiest targets, civilians. Why didn't the U.S blow the shit out of a military base? Or the Emperor's Palace?

Easy stuff out of the way first:

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were major war industry centers. Both cities were major steel and warship production centers. This is why they were chosen. You will also note that the US dropped leaflets on the cities telling people to get out before the bombs were dropped. You will also note that both target cities were outside the area of allied bombing ability.

It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value. -Los Alamos Target Committee
As to why bombs were dropped rather than an invasion, it was estimated that at least half a million Americans would need to be involved with many of those killed. To paraphrase Patton, the goal isn't to die for your country but to get the other poor sucker to die for his. Truman saw it as his duty to preserve as many American lives as possible and end the war as soon as possible.

If you want to be a prig then fine, be a prig. But do not spout off with ridiculous anti-American bullshit you haven't even bothered to verify on your own because you paint yourself as a fool for doing so. You really have a chip on your shoulder and an unfortunate lack of education in 20th century history. The two don't compliment each other because they make you look ignorant, reactionary, and woefully misinformed.