Attacking North Korea and option?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-08-05 11:37pm

Howedar wrote:You keep repeating that like its fact, in spite of the fact that it is contrary to all US military experience.

I know the military would never opt for killing a world leader, as it is illegal. I would actually prefer a massive stealth strike against their WMD bases and a have massive B-52, A-10, and F-18 strikes against foward positions, while forces are landed north of the NK capital. Then we can force them to come to us on our own terms, with massive naval and air support.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-06 12:00am

I was responding to Hasler.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-08-06 12:06am

Howedar wrote:I was responding to Hasler.

Sorry Howedar.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-06 12:07am

Hasler wrote: Here is the thing it is called the Air Tasking Order i am mearly stateing that if need be it is possible to knock out most of the gun emplacements if they put them as a high priority on it. The Artillary peices wernt that high of a priority due to the fact that wernt in hardend emplacements and would be destroyed by counter battery fire soon after engageing. Why task aircraft to hunt down doomed Artillery when they can hit more moble forces such as tanks.

Wrong. One of the primary objectives in the air campaign was to destroy 50% of deployed Iraqi armor and artillery. The goal was not achieved.

If you go back to my first post i was only stateing that the projected military casualties shouldnt be very high unless it went unconventional.

Yes, you keep arguing that if the conflict you propose runs contrary to its most likely scenarios losses will be light. That's a fucking stupid argument.

Hasler · Post by **Hasler** » 2003-08-06 12:09am

I was stateing it is possible to target fixed artillary sites if need be instead of other targets. Over 600 targets were engaged and destroyed in the first day of the gulf war. Instead of hitting targets such as Bridges powerstations Hqs and other infrastructure and logistical targets the ATO could prioritize Hitting the guns. Every Sortie and target is on the ATO and is hit in order. Targets not destroyed are retasked to the next avalible flight untill it is destroyed. If the generals want the guns gone they set up target list and ATO to reflect that need.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-06 12:10am

Admiral Johnason wrote:
Howedar wrote:I was responding to Hasler.
Sorry Howedar.

No worries. When I started typing my reply, you had not yet posted that thing. My goof.

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-08-06 12:38am

Vympel wrote:
EmperorMing wrote: And I would not trust China or Russia in this mix at all. Too damn close.
I doubt either would get involved to the detriment of the United States.

What american deterant you mean?
If so, there is no way Russia and china would NOT get into this, just like if America was going to attack Iran,

its never going to happen, it would piss of china, or russia too much.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-08-06 12:43am

Omega-13 wrote:
What american deterant you mean?

No, detriment. They wouldn't hurt US interests in this matter.

If so, there is no way Russia and china would NOT get into this, just like if America was going to attack Iran, its never going to happen, it would piss of china, or russia too much.

Russia is certainly not going to lift a finger to aid that crackpot shit hole. They'd probably fire off a few cruise missiles themselves just to test them out. As to China, they'd put troops on the border to turn the refugees back, probably.

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-08-06 01:35am

Russia has billions of dollars coming in from Iran, they are one of the biggest arms buyers along with India,
Iran is also paying them for those nuclear reactors

Omega-13 · Post by **Omega-13** » 2003-08-06 01:36am

what the hell am i talkinga bout, nevermind thinking of IRAn!