Invade North-Korea?

Oddity · Post by **Oddity** » 2003-02-05 05:54am

Iraq do nasty things.
North-Korea do nasty things.
Invade North-Korea after Iraq is finished?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-05 06:01am

No, that would be a stupid idea, unless someone happens to have a list of how many nuclear weapons they have and where there located. Until then Strategic paralysis is locked in and nothing is going to happen militarily.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-02-05 06:04am

Bad Korea can wait until they actually do something worth invading them for.

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2003-02-05 06:31am

Bad Idea ALARM!! Iraq "might" and "probablyh"has usuable WMD. N. Korea DOES have WMD and would use them. Another reason, Saddam is a "known" quantity, we have a general idea on what he might do. N. Korea leadership, on the other hand, is a almost total unknown entity. We have no idea what they might do in an invasion scenerio.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-05 07:06am

I'd hate to see Tokyo and Seoul become uninhabitable for the next millenia, so let's leave them be for now, they can fight back y'see.

Hopefully they will die out or control themselves much like Pakistan, India and China are doing now and hopefully for a long time after.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-05 07:12am

Do you have a map? Because we could use a map.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-05 07:19am

HemlockGrey wrote:Do you have a map? Because we could use a map.

Yes, I have a map.

*Hands Hemlock a map of the Trafford centre shopping mall*

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-02-05 10:04am

Crazy Ivan wrote:Iraq do nasty things.
North-Korea do nasty things.
Invade North-Korea after Iraq is finished?

Hopefully we won't have to. The threat of economic sanctions against Korea should push China to hopefully deal with the situation. They have the most to lose from a war on the Korean pennensula, especially one where the US plays a major role.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-02-05 10:11am

THe difference between North Korea and Iraq is that North Korea doesn't have very much support in any shape or form, unlike Iraq who is getting support on the sole grounds they are an Arabic nation (there are other ways they draw support also but that is a big one) plus general hatred towards the US. North Korea can be dealt more politically with because they can't bring any powerful or oil-rich allies to bear.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-05 10:16am

No, We would have our rears handed to us in any Ground Invasion and China would not like all the Nuclear Fallout when we are forced to respond in kind and turn the Korean penicula into Nuclear Hellfire

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-02-05 10:32am

Look, there is NO WAY we are going to take militray action against NK. Seoul is within range of NK artillery at the DMZ and as such will be reduced to rubble, killing millions. We have 35,000 troops at the DMZ, they have about a million. They have Na Dong ballistic missiles which can reach Japan, armed with WMD. We KNOW they have nukes and their leadership is Darkstgar like in its insanity. There are even some experts that say with the right modifications, the NaDong could even reach Hawaii!! You tell me whether we're going to invade.

There is a MASSIVE difference between Iraq and NK. Iraq is relatively isolated and can really do very little damage to theri neighbors at this point. NK can wipe out alot of SK in a matter of days and even reach out and strike our allies like Japan.

NK is an object lesson. This is what Iraq COULD become. Do we really want to see ourselves in the same kind of paralysis we're experiencing with Kim Jong Il with Sadaam???

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-05 10:33am

The South Korean government, quite reasonably I think, doesn't want to see Seoul wiped off the map with a bombardment from the thousands of North Korean artillery pieces within range of the city. Never mind nukes--no matter how badly North Korea loses a conventional war (and the South Koreans could crush them all by themselves), Seoul is going to be turned into Dresden: The Sequel in a war with the north.

Add nuclear tipped-missiles into the equation, and you can kiss Tokyo goodbye. The Japanese, also quite reasonably, don't wish to become the only nation in history to have three cities destroyed by nuclear weapons (I understand they're still irritated at being the only nation in history to lose ANY cities to atomic bombs).

Unless the North invades the South, I doubt there will be a war to remove the North Korean government. The preferred method by us and our allies is to wait for the North to go the way of Romania. The Chinese, however, don't want to see this happen because they don't want to deal with 20 million starving North Korean refugees, so they're propping up the government there and seem to be prepared to continue doing so indefinitely. So we're stuck. What we SHOULD have done is prevent them from getting nuclear weapons in the first place, but that's not an option anymore (and may never have been). We could just level North Korea's plutonium reactor with cruise missiles, but we really have no idea how Pyongyang would react, and the longhairs would shit a brick if we did that, never mind Beijing. I say if we discover with dead-on certainty where the North is storing its nuclear weapons, then we go ahead and destroy them along with the reactor and their missile facilities and let the Chinese go piss up a rope if they don't like it, but that's not the sort of thing you do without cast-iron intelligence, and the Commies might go ahead and level Seoul anyway just for spite.

By the way, we're falling all over ourselves trying to start a war with Iraq precisely to prevent this same situation from happening in the Middle East. All this leftist blather about imperialism and blood for oil ignores that inconvenient little fact.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-02-05 11:03am

Crazy Ivan wrote:Iraq do nasty things.
North-Korea do nasty things.
Invade North-Korea after Iraq is finished?

No, NK will implode and resolve itself without any war while Iraq will not.

meNNis · Post by **meNNis** » 2003-02-05 11:45am

RedImperator wrote:The South Korean government, quite reasonably I think, doesn't want to see Seoul wiped off the map with a bombardment from the thousands of North Korean artillery pieces within range of the city. Never mind nukes--no matter how badly North Korea loses a conventional war (and the South Koreans could crush them all by themselves), Seoul is going to be turned into Dresden: The Sequel in a war with the north.

Add nuclear tipped-missiles into the equation, and you can kiss Tokyo goodbye. The Japanese, also quite reasonably, don't wish to become the only nation in history to have three cities destroyed by nuclear weapons (I understand they're still irritated at being the only nation in history to lose ANY cities to atomic bombs).

Unless the North invades the South, I doubt there will be a war to remove the North Korean government. The preferred method by us and our allies is to wait for the North to go the way of Romania. The Chinese, however, don't want to see this happen because they don't want to deal with 20 million starving North Korean refugees, so they're propping up the government there and seem to be prepared to continue doing so indefinitely. So we're stuck. What we SHOULD have done is prevent them from getting nuclear weapons in the first place, but that's not an option anymore (and may never have been). We could just level North Korea's plutonium reactor with cruise missiles, but we really have no idea how Pyongyang would react, and the longhairs would shit a brick if we did that, never mind Beijing. I say if we discover with dead-on certainty where the North is storing its nuclear weapons, then we go ahead and destroy them along with the reactor and their missile facilities and let the Chinese go piss up a rope if they don't like it, but that's not the sort of thing you do without cast-iron intelligence, and the Commies might go ahead and level Seoul anyway just for spite.

By the way, we're falling all over ourselves trying to start a war with Iraq precisely to prevent this same situation from happening in the Middle East. All this leftist blather about imperialism and blood for oil ignores that inconvenient little fact.

major ditto's

Post by **Zaia** » 2003-02-05 12:00pm

Hell no. No more war.

Which 6 people voted 'yes'? Why didn't they post explaining why they support more war?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-05 12:03pm

My opinion:

Not now, but something will have to be done about NK once everything in Iraq boils over. Eventually.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-05 12:05pm

No...deploy sanctions...because honestly if China feels heat...they will take of NK without really much of our interference.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-05 12:47pm

I feel the NK's are a greater threat, Im worried about them selling a WMD for cash, a war would be terribly destructive in terms of life and property. So I do not think an invasion of the North would be a good idea. It violates my personal no attack first rule anyway. S Korea, Japan, and China are all critical trading partners, a war would hurt all of them in some way. I do not want to see that.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-02-05 02:04pm

We essentialy need to twist China's arm into taking care of the problem in NK. The idea of a renewed war in Korea is out of the question , the risks to both SK and Japan are just to damn high. Both nations industries are key to the Pacific, American and European economies. The worry is not so much that NK would nuke a city as EMP the whole region. This would destroy every electrical device in most of the region and knock them all back into the 1850's technologicaly and cause a global economic catastrophe that would make the Crash of '29 look like childs play......

I think were just going to have to wait ol'Kim Il Jong out, or poision his next shipment of Courvosier Congac (He's their biggest customer apparently ordering the stuff like it was Pepsi).

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-02-05 02:14pm

The bix X-factor in the North Korean situation is China, unlike in the Iraq situation. North Korea is basically their backyard, and the Chinese would have a big problem with an increased US armed presence on the Korean Peninsual. They could decide to intervene on behalf of NK like they did in the Korean War, or do all sorts of subversive cloak and dagger shit (like selling lots and lots of missiles to NK). While I'm sure Bush would love to turn the US army loose in NK, I imagine he's not too eager to piss the Chinese off anymore than necessary.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-02-05 06:48pm

I say no. If there is an invasion, there's a chance they'll use their WMDs on surrounding nations, killing millions. I belive that if anything is done to punish them, they might decide to use them. I say try solving it diplomatically.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-02-05 06:58pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'd hate to see Tokyo and Seoul become uninhabitable for the next millenia

Uh, I don't think Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as "uninhabitable"; why would Tokyo and Seoul be any different?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-05 07:00pm

I say no, but only because I do not wish to see Seoul ashed.

Malecoda · Post by **Malecoda** » 2003-02-05 07:05pm

Good Lord, no! We're running out of places to honeymoon!

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-02-05 07:09pm

Anyone see the 60 Minutes piece on NK? From that, it looks like it's worse there than Nazi Germany.

So, does the place deserve to be attacked? Definitely. But we don't have the ability to do that now without saying gg to planetary economy after Tokyo is glassed.

Maybe some time in the future when were able to take out the entire place with extreme precision from space. Untill then, it should be avoided. Hopefully they'll self destruct.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS