Can we bomb them yet?

[Plow]

We aren't going to be able to know where -all- the artillery is in our "one fell swoop", much less any missile launcher locations. We'll get a bunch, but that means a bunch will be left. I found the Gulf War argument to be very well thought out. When it comes down to it, we still have to locate, and then shoot it down. Technology only helps so much. Seoul would be decimated by the barrage as we tried to clean up the remaining artillery, and remember that NK has a 1.1 MILLION person standing army. That's nothing to sneeze at when the nearest target is a jog away.

The gulf war argument is completely valid...

Until you realize we did the exact same thing 10 years later and eliminated *all* of the real striking capability near instantaneously this time, and have 5+ years of advancements, including one of the biggest improvements in exactly this kind of striking capability in the history of the U.S. military since that second time.

[Atreides]

The gulf war argument is completely valid...

Until you realize we did the exact same thing 10 years later and eliminated *all* of the real striking capability near instantaneously this time, and have 5+ years of advancements, including one of the biggest improvements in exactly this kind of striking capability in the history of the U.S. military since that second time.

I agree, and I don't think anyone's doubting that we could (eventually) defeat NK in a war, but there's almost no way we'd get anything but a stalemate fighting against NK AND China. I'm sure everyone's tired of hearing me say this but the U.S. won't do anything without Chinese support.

I don't get people (not you) who honestly think that the U.S. can effectively fight and win multiple simultaneous wars across the globe with little to no international support. I think the whole notion of "lets just go in there"-ism is incredibly naive, and the idea that we can just drop a bunch of nukes so we can be home in time for dinner is kinda disgusting.

The point is we're still very far from a military resolution to the situation.

[Plow]

Oh, yeah, I definitely agree it needs to be a unilateral thing.

If China says no, it's a no go (although not because we couldn't deal with that either, which is important to point out because "we can't do it" is a bad reason not to be evil, "we shouldn't be evil" is the reasoning we need to be functioning from) for sure, because regardless of the strain on us, anything we do is going to put a massive strain on them, and doing it when they're not willing and prepared to handle it would be terribly irresponsible.

[510Meeze]

The gulf war argument is completely valid...

Until you realize we did the exact same thing 10 years later and eliminated *all* of the real striking capability near instantaneously this time, and have 5+ years of advancements, including one of the biggest improvements in exactly this kind of striking capability in the history of the U.S. military since that second time.

Eh, the Gulf war had a purpose, while this 2nd war was very disorganized. Check out the documentary "No end in sight" while it was done by anti-bush, it isn't crappy journalism like Micheal Moore.

The Gulf war had decisive action being done by professionals, while this war was a bunch of cowboys looking to get rich with defense contracts.

[Plow]

Eh, the Gulf war had a purpose, while this 2nd war was very disorganized. Check out the documentary "No end in sight" while it was done by anti-bush, it isn't crappy journalism like Micheal Moore.

The Gulf war had decisive action being done by professionals, while this war was a bunch of cowboys looking to get rich with defense contracts.

The only real difference is the first Bush listened when everyone told him if you actually go to Baghdad the shit is going to be a terrible mess.

We had the same decisive action, done by professionals, in fact done exponentially better. (Just ask Israel)

We simply went far beyond that and created a huge mess afterward.

I'd even go so far as to say Al Quaeda held more worldwide power by the end of the first day of the 2nd gulf war than Iraq did.

[Beckwin]

Iraq's military was rather depleted compared to the first Gulf War, correct?

and you can shoot down SCUDs, but you can't shoot down artillery rounds. and please, stop with the "we'll hit 'em before they know what happens" because as good as our aircraft are, an air offensive that could actually do what you're talking about would inherently tip off NK that something was up, because you'd have lots of carriers sitting off the coast, etc.

[guartz]

Ah for an assumption game, you guys are being awfully uncreative. I mean, you need to realize that U.S's political status isn't set in stone. So NK's demeanor could be just to make America seem weak. I wouldn't be surprised if NK was a proxy for other powers using it to destabilize American status in the world.

say like, Russia or China.

[Vekta]

The obvious answer is to send in bad company to take out the threat.

Elite Fighting Force


(The MGS4 Parody is pretty funny too tbh)

[Athas]

Iraq's military was rather depleted compared to the first Gulf War, correct?

and you can shoot down SCUDs, but you can't shoot down artillery rounds. and please, stop with the "we'll hit 'em before they know what happens" because as good as our aircraft are, an air offensive that could actually do what you're talking about would inherently tip off NK that something was up, because you'd have lots of carriers sitting off the coast, etc.

I thought we already have a bunch of Nimitz class carriers and Aegis cruisers sitting of the coast from their last missle test.

[Furtwangler]

I thought we already have a bunch of Nimitz class carriers and Aegis cruisers sitting of the coast from their last missle test.

I think you'll need alot more. This would be a HUGE operation, not just a simple counterattack like what is currently in line on the coast.

[Athas]

I know we have more then a few bases in Japan and South Korea, I don't think we'd need many more sea based assests.

[Meian]

I don't foresee anything happening to stop this (even though China easily could). It will just be another Nazi Germany where everyone just shakes their finger at them until it is too late.

[Skjie]

Ah for an assumption game, you guys are being awfully uncreative. I mean, you need to realize that U.S's political status isn't set in stone. So NK's demeanor could be just to make America seem weak. I wouldn't be surprised if NK was a proxy for other powers using it to destabilize American status in the world.

say like, Russia or China.

Really can't imagine China would think that destabilizing the Korean peninsula would be in their best interests, even to upset America. For Russia, with new NK missiles creeping closer to Moscow, I can't imagine them doing it either. Frankly, the best solution to NK lies with China getting fed up with the Kim family's antics. A situation becoming more likely daily.

[Skjie]

I don't foresee anything happening to stop this (even though China easily could). It will just be another Nazi Germany where everyone just shakes their finger at them until it is too late.

Kim Jong-Il is nothing even close to Hitler. Not by a mile. This is only similar to Germany in the 30s regarding the failure of appeasement.

[guartz]

I will say this, it makes a lot of sense that NK would threaten total war in light of U.S threats of preemptive strike.

[Beckwin]

I know we have more then a few bases in Japan and South Korea, I don't think we'd need many more sea based assests.

But Plow, and others, are talking about a massive strike that would simultaneously destroy all artillery, missile, and ground troops within range of harming South Korea. NK has over 700,000 troops and 13,000 artillery pieces in range. You're talking a shitload of precision bombs being dropped at the exact same time.

[Athas]

I'm speaking of a strike to eliminate artillery and missile threats. As you say shells can't be shot down, the only way to prevent them doing damage would be to destroy them before they are fired.

It’s not as if every single tank, jeep and infantry man could be taken out in an instant, but troops would still need to cross the DMZ and any road or bridge not covered in landmines would likely be destroyed.

[Plow]

We have the world's biggest aircraft carrier sitting within an hour of NK, you may have heard of it, it's called Japan.


Seriously, just stop trying to argue how incapable we are. If you have an argument for what we should do, make it. What we *can* do is absolutely not an issue.

[Beckwin]

What we *can* do is absolutely not an issue.

says you. that's not what most others are saying.

I'd like to see you find at least one article supporting your zero allied civilian casualty scenario. Humor me.

[Plow]

Your strawman of me supposedly saying we're flawless and would have 0 casualties is silly.


If you want to get into a debate of the raw math on what's going to cause more, you'd have to be incredibly foolish to believe a sudden, unabated attack from NK is going to result in less civilian casualties than if the vast majority of their attack capabilities, not to mention communication, is destroyed before they know what's going on.


If you want to argue that they're not going to eventually just attack in response to sanctions etc., despite the fact that they're screaming in your face that they are, go right ahead.


But you might want to come up with some kind of idea for what we should actually do before you jump in too deep.



Oh, and before you jump on the 99% statement, you might want to recall the fact that you posted a link saying 200k the first day, the population of Seoul is 23 million, and as of right now they could pretty much bathe it in fire as well as simultaneously strike pretty much the entire rest of the country.

Let alone if they've actually figured out how to get nukes there.