N. Korea next to hear U.S. war drum

[Sea Skimmer]

Seeing how SK seems to regular piss and moan about American military presence on their soil, I'm all for them to spend a few years under NKs military presence

"You don't know what you got till its gone"- Cinderella

Funny how all those protests stopped around the time North Korea admitted to having an active nuclear program.

[aerius]

I'm still hung up on 'A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days'.

Did he come up with it in his spare time, or what...?

Go read Rogue Warrior followed by the other books in the series. The short answer is some dipshit deskjockey pulled it out of his ass.

[jezrianna]

Thrawn, if the South Koreans can 'bitch slap' the North, why are they pissing their pants at the thought of a confrontation?

[Sea Skimmer]

Thrawn, if the South Koreans can 'bitch slap' the North, why are they pissing their pants at the thought of a confrontation?

Because even an easy victory could bring tens of thousands of dead

[jezrianna]

Sorry dude, I'm an historian. The thought of a few thousand dead doesn't phase me at all. That many people die every day in the U.S. from their own stupidity, let alone North Korean agression. A few thousand dead is a small price to pay to overthrow the NK dictatorship.

[RedImperator]

Sorry dude, I'm an historian. The thought of a few thousand dead doesn't phase me at all. That many people die every day in the U.S. from their own stupidity, let alone North Korean agression. A few thousand dead is a small price to pay to overthrow the NK dictatorship.

Again, you have a way of deliberately ignoring others' points. He did not say a few thousand, he said tens of thousands. And while you're not troubled by the thought of tens of thousands of dead South Korean civilians, the South Koreans themselves might have something to say about that.

And while we're on the subject, Mr. Historian, did you consider the worldwide economic impact of a few thousand chemical shells and possibly a nuclear tipped SRBM hitting Seoul?

Small price indeed to overthrow a regime that could collapse on its own at practically any moment and represents a minor threat at best to its neighbors--unless it does the things it's guaranteed to do anyway if we invade them. Historian my ass.

[jezrianna]

Small price indeed to overthrow a regime that could collapse on its own at practically any moment and represents a minor threat at best to its neighbors--unless it does the things it's guaranteed to do anyway if we invade them. Historian my ass.

Let's see. North Korea has been about to collapse for years, but hasn't, in no small part because we keep sending them food and oil every time they rattle their sabres. And you say 'could collapse'. Not 'will collapse'? The regime WILL collapse if we invade. And how many North Koreans die every day from Kim's stupidity/cruelty? Did you consider them? As for the North nuking Seoul, depending on the yield of the bomb, we could be looking at a million casaulties. Of course we could evacuate the city, but even if we didn't, rudimentary protective measures would greatly reduce casaulties. And if we took the nuke/chemicals out before the NK's used them (do the words 'counter-force first strike' mean anything to you?) there wouldn't be any civilian casaulties. Still, sacrifice a million to free nineteen million? If you're one of those people who thinks all human lives are equally valuable, then hell yes. It would be cheap at twice the price. Economic consequences? In a few years you wouldn't even know it had happened (see Germany and Japan). So, while you've been looking at the short term, I've been looking at the long term, and the big picture. I'd say that makes me an historian.

[RadiO]

Let's see. North Korea has been about to collapse for years, but hasn't, in no small part because we keep sending them food and oil every time they rattle their sabres. And you say 'could collapse'. Not 'will collapse'? The regime WILL collapse if we invade.

Well, yeah, that's one way of looking at it.

And how many North Koreans die every day from Kim's stupidity/cruelty? Did you consider them?

You're right. Let's save the Korean peninsula and everybody in it by launching a costly invasion of an unstable, WMD-armed state.

As for the North nuking Seoul, depending on the yield of the bomb, we could be looking at a million casaulties. Of course we could evacuate the city, but even if we didn't, rudimentary protective measures would greatly reduce casaulties.

Am I the only one humming "Duck... and cover! Duck... and cover!" at this point? Even with protective measures a combined nuclear and chemical strike on a city will kill thousands. To most countries, that would be unaccepable.

And if we took the nuke/chemicals out before the NK's used them (do the words 'counter-force first strike' mean anything to you?) there wouldn't be any civilian casaulties.

Bull and shit. How are you going to simultaniously take out several thousand emplaced artillery pieces, plus road-mobile missiles that are probably damned well hidden? Magic?
No wait, we've got stealth, and satellites and stuff. What am I thinking?

Still, sacrifice a million to free nineteen million? If you're one of those people who thinks all human lives are equally valuable, then hell yes. It would be cheap at twice the price.

There's a contradiction there somewhere, but I can't quite see...

Economic consequences? In a few years you wouldn't even know it had happened (see Germany and Japan).

Wow, Korea would face just a few years of political crisis, accompanied by mass poverty, famine and probably cannibalism? That sounds great, where do we sign up?

So, while you've been looking at the short term, I've been looking at the long term, and the big picture. I'd say that makes me an historian.

A war that would cost tens of thousands of civilian and military lives, and the welfare of an entire nation, to bring down a two-bit state that's already on the brink of collapse? In the big picture, it sucks ass. Sorry.

[jezrianna]

Bull and shit. How are you going to simultaniously take out several thousand emplaced artillery pieces, plus road-mobile missiles that are probably damned well hidden? Magic?

Nope. Neutron bombs. Tactical nukes. To hit Seoul, the NK artillery has to be crammed into a fairly small area close to the DMZ. When the NK's come out of their caves to shoot, our artillery lobs over a few dozen nukes. Road mobile missiles? Ever hear of J-STARS? If those missiles are so well hidden we can't find them, they probably can't shoot (see the recent war) and if they do come out to shoot, we take them out. If they launch before we kill them, Patriot SAM's can knock them down (nuke armed Patriots, to ensure we kill the inbounds). And where do you get the idea that the whole pennisula will collapse into anarchy? You seriously overestimate the amount and effect of social disruption war causes. I think I know why too: You just don't want to take Kim out, so you dream up nightmare scenarios to justify your opposition. Try taking a cold, hard look at the facts instead.

[RedImperator]

Let's see. North Korea has been about to collapse for years, but hasn't, in no small part because we keep sending them food and oil every time they rattle their sabres.

Marvelous. So tell me, how do we get from "don't coddle the North Koreans" to "invade them, and damn the consequences"?

And you say 'could collapse'. Not 'will collapse'? The regime WILL collapse if we invade.

Sure it will. After they kill hundreds of thousands or millions of S. Korean civilians, not to mention God knows how many on the northern side. The north's collapse is inevitable. A state simply cannot function at North Korea's level forever, and unless Kim reforms the state, they will never recover from this economic crisis. We take my way, we put up with Pyongyang's antics for a while, until finally the N. Korean peasantry get tired of eating bark and decide to eat their own leaders. We take your way, hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians die and the world economy goes into a tailspin.

And how many North Koreans die every day from Kim's stupidity/cruelty? Did you consider them?

Did you? How many do you think die in an invasion--especially if we're forced to launch a nuclear counterattack against Pyongyang in response to 20kt going of in downtown Seoul.

As for the North nuking Seoul, depending on the yield of the bomb, we could be looking at a million casaulties. Of course we could evacuate the city,

I can't wait to see your plan to evacuate 12 million people without alerting Pyongyang that we plan to attack them. I promise you they can launch a nuclear tipped SCUD faster than we can get everybody out of range.

but even if we didn't, rudimentary protective measures would greatly reduce casaulties.

Seoul is a very large, very densely populated city, of which very few of its structures will provide more than minimal protection against a blast wave, and many of the city's residential districts are begging for a conflagration once the houses have been knocked down and the cooking fires overturned (think Tokyo in 1923). And even if nobody was killed (impossible), there will be untold economic damage. And none of this takes the thousands of gas shells the N. Koreans can launch before we take all their artillery pieces out into account.

And if we took the nuke/chemicals out before the NK's used them (do the words 'counter-force first strike' mean anything to you?) there wouldn't be any civilian casaulties.

It means quite a bit to me, seeing as they taught us that in International Relations 101. They also taught us that they're mostly a pipe dream for technowankers like yourself. The N. Korean long range artillery on the DMZ is carefully protected by bunkers and emplacements hewn out of the surrounding rock. They can be fired, conservatively, thirty minutes after recieving an order from Pyongyang, considerably less if the crews have been kept on any kind of alert. It will take a direct hit from a ground penetrating weapon to knock one of these emplacements out--your laughable idea to use nuclear weapons in this situation will do nothing if you use airbursts and generate thousands of tons of fallout, to be blown over the Sea of Japan and directly onto Japanese cities, if you use groundbursts. You need bombers to drop the ground-penetrating conventional bombs required to knock those emplacements out, and while I'm led to believe the North Korean air defense system is in sorry shape, there's no way they won't notice the massive buildup that could have only one purpose.

You can't remove Pyongyang's strategic deterrent in anything less than days, more than enough time to cover all of Seoul with a cloud of mustard and nerve gases--and turn a Hiroshima sized part of it into a firestorm.

Still, sacrifice a million to free nineteen million? If you're one of those people who thinks all human lives are equally valuable, then hell yes. It would be cheap at twice the price.

I'm hoping you're just making a bad argument here, and you really do understand the difference between living in a totalitarian regime and being dead.

Economic consequences? In a few years you wouldn't even know it had happened (see Germany and Japan). So, while you've been looking at the short term, I've been looking at the long term, and the big picture.

Your understanding of economics is clearly as deep and well-developed as your understanding of history, warfare, and political science. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild Seoul alone, on top of the cost of fighting the war itself and rebuilding the north if the Communists contest every inch of it, which they likely will. And I'm not just talking about the impact on Korea itself--I said a war on the Korean peninsula would cause a worldwide economic disaster, especially if Seoul, a lynchpin in the Asian economy, took a nuclear strike. It would take a decade to recover and effect six billion people. Since you seem to think killing two million people is an acceptable price to free nineteen million, why isn't it acceptable to keep 19 million oppressed to protect the welfare and livelyhood of six billion?

I'd say that makes me an historian.

I was unaware Barnum and Bailey Clown College had a department of history.

[jezrianna]

The north's collapse is inevitable. A state simply cannot function at North Korea's level forever, and unless Kim reforms the state, they will never recover from this economic crisis.

It seems to me that Kim has had plenty of time to reform the state, and hasn't. You see, he doesn't give a damn whether his people live or die. All he cares about is clinging to power.

We take my way, we put up with Pyongyang's antics for a while, until finally the N. Korean peasantry get tired of eating bark and decide to eat their own leaders.

I can't wait to see how hungry, malnourished unarmed people are going to face down the NK army. Does the word 'bloodbath' mean anything to you?

We take your way, hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians die and the world economy goes into a tailspin.

Or few could die, without an economic tailspin. You keep saying it will happen, without offering any proof. While the global economy would certainly notice the destruction of Seoul, I don't think it would cause economic chaos. People said attacking Iraq would have the same effect. It hasn't.

How many do you think die in an invasion--especially if we're forced to launch a nuclear counterattack against Pyongyang in response to 20kt going of in downtown Seoul.

Lots of soldiers would die (mostly NK soldiers) but since we don't make a point of deliberately pounding cities to rubble, few civilians (see Iraq). And who says we'd necessarily hit Pyongyang in retaliation for Seoul? I'd retaliate against a military target myself.

I can't wait to see your plan to evacuate 12 million people without alerting Pyongyang that we plan to attack them. I promise you they can launch a nuclear tipped SCUD faster than we can get everybody out of range.

And we can knock it down with the airborne laser or a nuke tipped patriot. Remember, we're going on the offence here, so we don't have to wait for them to act to preposition our forces.

Seoul is a very large, very densely populated city, of which very few of its structures will provide more than minimal protection against a blast wave, and many of the city's residential districts are begging for a conflagration once the houses have been knocked down and the cooking fires overturned (think Tokyo in 1923).

Good point. I hadn't considered that.

The N. Korean long range artillery on the DMZ is carefully protected by bunkers and emplacements hewn out of the surrounding rock. They can be fired, conservatively, thirty minutes after recieving an order from Pyongyang, considerably less if the crews have been kept on any kind of alert. It will take a direct hit from a ground penetrating weapon to knock one of these emplacements out--your laughable idea to use nuclear weapons in this situation will do nothing if you use airbursts.

The guns have to come out to shoot, and when they do, airbursts will work quite nicely. I'll accept a few hundred gas shells on Seoul to prevent several score thousand.

You can't remove Pyongyang's strategic deterrent in anything less than days.

Sure I can.

Your understanding of economics is clearly as deep and well-developed as your understanding of history, warfare, and political science. It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild Seoul alone, on top of the cost of fighting the war itself and rebuilding the north if the Communists contest every inch of it, which they likely will.

Unlike you, I remember the first Korean War. I seem to recall the communists collapsed like a pricked balloon when MacAurther counter-attacked them. I also understand that NK soldiers aren't taught to think for themselves. The NK army is modelled on Soviet lines, and I expect they'd behave like Soviet soldiers did throughout World War Two: fight well while all is going to plan, and fall apart when the plan goes to shit. I also recall that after WW2 we poured billions into rebuilding Europe, and the result was an economic miricle.

And I'm not just talking about the impact on Korea itself--I said a war on the Korean peninsula would cause a worldwide economic disaster, especially if Seoul, a lynchpin in the Asian economy, took a nuclear strike. It would take a decade to recover and effect six billion people.

I think you're being extremely pessimistic. The global economy is more resiliant than you think. And while South Korea is an economic power, there are others that could take up the slack in manufacturing almost immediately. South Korea's GDP is about $1 trillion. If the whole country vanished into thin air this tomorrow, I doub't very much that a worldwide catastrophe would follow. After all, when Indonesia's economy went to hell in the nineties people were preaching doom and gloom, and the rest of the world barely noticed. When the bottom fell out of the dotcom bubble, the worldwhile economy didn't collapse. So don't be alarmist.

Since you seem to think killing two million people is an acceptable price to free nineteen million, why isn't it acceptable to keep 19 million oppressed to protect the welfare and livelyhood of six billion?

That's a spurious argument because the effects wouldn't be that widespread or catastrophic, but we'll assume your worst case scenario true. In the short term we lose a million people and suffer a worldwide economic downturn. In the long term we gain some portion of 19 million free, productive, prosperous people and greater economic opportunities for everyone. In any case, I don't see how you can call yourself a libretarian if you are willing to leave people in bondage to save yourself a few bucks.[/quote]

[phongn]

Bull and shit. How are you going to simultaniously take out several thousand emplaced artillery pieces, plus road-mobile missiles that are probably damned well hidden? Magic?

Nope. Neutron bombs.

Enhanced radiation warhead have not been in the US arsenal for some time.

Tactical nukes.

I was not aware that we had a good number of B-52s and B-2s staging around there ready to launch a nuclear strike.

To hit Seoul, the NK artillery has to be crammed into a fairly small area close to the DMZ.

Of which there are several hundred pieces prepositioned to do so and can fire within a very short period of time.

When the NK's come out of their caves to shoot, our artillery lobs over a few dozen nukes.

The US does not have nuclear artillery shells.

Road mobile missiles? Ever hear of J-STARS? If those missiles are so well hidden we can't find them, they probably can't shoot (see the recent war) and if they do come out to shoot, we take them out.

I suggest you look at Serbia and the methods they used to spoof JSTARS. North Korea isn't a huge, featureless desert like Iraq. For that matter, the two prototype E-8s that were on station in Desert Storm didn't do that great a job finding all those SCUD TELs either.

If they launch before we kill them, Patriot SAM's can knock them down (nuke armed Patriots, to ensure we kill the inbounds).

PAC-2 has a proximity conventional warhead. PAC-3 has a conventional kinetic-kill warhead. NHK-2 has an enormous proximity-fused conventional warheads.

And where do you get the idea that the whole pennisula will collapse into anarchy? You seriously overestimate the amount and effect of social disruption war causes.

Look at Germany in 1945 and tell me that social disruption doesn't happen. Hell, look at Iraq 2003.

I think I know why too: You just don't want to take Kim out, so you dream up nightmare scenarios to justify your opposition. Try taking a cold, hard look at the facts instead.

Bullshit. No-one here likes Kim Jong-Il, but the costs of taking him out do not warrant a war.

[Knife]

So, a war, where tens of thousands of people die and nukes are probably invovled and chemical weapons used is alright for you just to shave a couple years off the eventual collapse of NK?

WTF

[phongn]

How many do you think die in an invasion--especially if we're forced to launch a nuclear counterattack against Pyongyang in response to 20kt going of in downtown Seoul.

Lots of soldiers would die (mostly NK soldiers) but since we don't make a point of deliberately pounding cities to rubble, few civilians (see Iraq). And who says we'd necessarily hit Pyongyang in retaliation for Seoul? I'd retaliate against a military target myself.

Retaliation against Pyongyang would likely be a nice, clean airburst. A military target would almost certainly be a groundburst with all the resulting fallout mess.

I can't wait to see your plan to evacuate 12 million people without alerting Pyongyang that we plan to attack them. I promise you they can launch a nuclear tipped SCUD faster than we can get everybody out of range.

And we can knock it down with the airborne laser or a nuke tipped patriot. Remember, we're going on the offence here, so we don't have to wait for them to act to preposition our forces.

YAL-1A hasn't even fired her first test-shot yet, nevermind being moved to combat operations. PAC-3 and likely NHK-2 could knock down SCUDs, but it's not a risk I'd like to take. The DPRK has lots of them to fire.

The guns have to come out to shoot, and when they do, airbursts will work quite nicely. I'll accept a few hundred gas shells on Seoul to prevent several score thousand.

And you can monitor them with such certainty that you'll have a B-52 or B-2 strike dropping nukes on them in time?

You can't remove Pyongyang's strategic deterrent in anything less than days.

Sure I can.

Do tell.

Unlike you, I remember the first Korean War. I seem to recall the communists collapsed like a pricked balloon when MacAurther counter-attacked them.

Yes, the ROK can defeat the DPRK (US help or no US help). We just don't consider the cost worth it.

I also recall that after WW2 we poured billions into rebuilding Europe, and the result was an economic miricle.

Estimates of building up the North run in the trillions USD. That's a lot of cash.

I think you're being extremely pessimistic. The global economy is more resiliant than you think. And while South Korea is an economic power, there are others that could take up the slack in manufacturing almost immediately. South Korea's GDP is about $1 trillion. If the whole country vanished into thin air this tomorrow, I doub't very much that a worldwide catastrophe would follow.

Perhaps not an utter catastrophe, but major shockwaves in an already weakened world economy. Furthermore, the ROK exports a good amount of electronics (including semiconductors - look where you RAM is probably made). That will have an effect.

After all, when Indonesia's economy went to hell in the nineties people were preaching doom and gloom, and the rest of the world barely noticed. When the bottom fell out of the dotcom bubble, the worldwhile economy didn't collapse. So don't be alarmist.

There is a difference between the dotcom bubble collapsing and taking out $1 trillion USD from the world economy. Certainly, I didn't see the US economy contracting a whole trillion after the bubble burst.

[RedImperator]

It seems to me that Kim has had plenty of time to reform the state, and hasn't. You see, he doesn't give a damn whether his people live or die. All he cares about is clinging to power.

I understand that, which brings us to option 2: North Korea falls apart on its own.

I can't wait to see how hungry, malnourished unarmed people are going to face down the NK army. Does the word 'bloodbath' mean anything to you?

Why don't you ask for Ceausescu's opinion on that matter? At a certain point, the army sides with the people. There are already cracks showing, like N. Korean infiltration teams in the south where the officers must shoot their own enlisted men because the enlisted men refuse to commit suicide when capture becomes inevitable.

Or few could die, without an economic tailspin. You keep saying it will happen, without offering any proof. While the global economy would certainly notice the destruction of Seoul, I don't think it would cause economic chaos. People said attacking Iraq would have the same effect. It hasn't.

Iraq was not one of the most important economic centers in the world, and it was not attacked with nuclear weapons.

Lots of soldiers would die (mostly NK soldiers) but since we don't make a point of deliberately pounding cities to rubble, few civilians (see Iraq). And who says we'd necessarily hit Pyongyang in retaliation for Seoul? I'd retaliate against a military target myself.

Thousands of Iraqi civilians died, and Iraq is not nearly as densely populated as as North Korea. Nor did their army try to contest every acre of ground (do you honestly believe the North Korean army will evaporate the way the Iraqi army did as soon as the allies arrive at Pyongyang?)

And we can knock it down with the airborne laser or a nuke tipped patriot. Remember, we're going on the offence here, so we don't have to wait for them to act to preposition our forces.

How many operational airborne anti-ballistic missile lasers do we have again? Remind me, how many kills did they score in Iraq? And there are no nuclear tipped Patriot batteries.

The guns have to come out to shoot, and when they do, airbursts will work quite nicely. I'll accept a few hundred gas shells on Seoul to prevent several score thousand.

I presume you'll have bombers in the air 24 hours a day ready to destroy all the pieces (including the multiple launch rocket batteries that will drop a few hundreds shells on Seoul by themselves), without somehow alerting Pyongyang ahead of time that we're moving the bombers in.

Sure I can.

Yes, if you have weapons that don't exist, hundreds of bombers in the air at all times, and a North Korean intelligence apparatus that catches a bad case of the stupids at exactly the right moment.

Unlike you, I remember the first Korean War. I seem to recall the communists collapsed like a pricked balloon when MacAurther counter-attacked them.

Well gee-whiz, when you get behind an overextended enemy's lines with overwhelming firepower and the whole operation is a complete surprise, the enemy is likely to collapse. I seem to remember reading about another bunch of Communists that almost pushed MacArthur into the sea. Of course, since I don't directly remember the Korean War, I'm obviously not qualified to contradict you.

I also understand that NK soldiers aren't taught to think for themselves. The NK army is modelled on Soviet lines, and I expect they'd behave like Soviet soldiers did throughout World War Two: fight well while all is going to plan, and fall apart when the plan goes to shit.

Think Imperial Japanese Army and you'll be closer to the truth. They weren't trained to think for themselves either. The docterine and organization of the DPRK army may be modeled on the Soviets, but if you think Koreans are going to behave exactly like Russians in battle, you're sadly mistaken. And yes, I know I did suggest earlier that the army itself would have a roll to play in the downfall of the regime, but that's without a million foreigners invading their homeland unprovoked.

I also recall that after WW2 we poured billions into rebuilding Europe, and the result was an economic miricle.

Broken window fallacy. What would have happened had that money been spent on expanding the economy, rather than bringing Western Europe back to pre-war levels? And at any rate, the global economy was not as tightly integrated then as it is now.

I think you're being extremely pessimistic. The global economy is more resiliant than you think. And while South Korea is an economic power, there are others that could take up the slack in manufacturing almost immediately. South Korea's GDP is about $1 trillion. If the whole country vanished into thin air this tomorrow, I doub't very much that a worldwide catastrophe would follow. After all, when Indonesia's economy went to hell in the nineties people were preaching doom and gloom, and the rest of the world barely noticed. When the bottom fell out of the dotcom bubble, the worldwhile economy didn't collapse. So don't be alarmist.

Phongn has already addressed this; I feel no need to repeat what he said.

That's a spurious argument because the effects wouldn't be that widespread or catastrophic, but we'll assume your worst case scenario true. In the short term we lose a million people and suffer a worldwide economic downturn. In the long term we gain some portion of 19 million free, productive, prosperous people and greater economic opportunities for everyone. In any case, I don't see how you can call yourself a libretarian if you are willing to leave people in bondage to save yourself a few bucks.

Worldwide economic downturn, a trillion-dollar reconstruction project in North Korea, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Seoul alone, crippling shortages in critical industrial sectors, and millions of dead civilians. What the hell kind of libertarian volunteers the lives of millions of people to satisfy a technowank fantasy? And I'm glad to see you haven't even bothered considering what the South Koreans might think of all this, being as its their citizens and their cities that are going to suffer, not you.

[Sea Skimmer]

quote] Nope. Neutron bombs. Tactical nukes.

Great Idea, use one weapon we don't have in combination with another one, which will cause vast amounts of fallout, which will drift over South Korean and Japan.

To hit Seoul, the NK artillery has to be crammed into a fairly small area close to the DMZ. When the NK's come out of their caves to shoot, our artillery lobs over a few dozen nukes. Road mobile missiles? Ever hear of J-STARS?

Ever hear about how the great SCUD hunt which included the E-8's destroyed about two mobile launchers?

If those missiles are so well hidden we can't find them, they probably can't shoot (see the recent war) and if they do come out to shoot, we take them out.

Not before they fire. Know how many people 2000 pounds of VX can kill?

If they launch before we kill them, Patriot SAM's can knock them down (nuke armed Patriots, to ensure we kill the inbounds).

Once again you base your plan off a non-existent weapon. PAC-1 and PAC-2 can't hope to destroy the warheads while there aren't enough PAC-3's in the whole world to defeat more then about 20% of the North's arsenal. Course bursting a chemical or biological warhead at high altitude isn't a very good idea anyway.

Try taking a cold, hard look at the facts instead.

Says the person planning their war with imaginary weapons.

[Sea Skimmer]

It seems to me that Kim has had plenty of time to reform the state, and hasn't. You see, he doesn't give a damn whether his people live or die. All he cares about is clinging to power.

And he has a large chemical and biological arsenal along with a possibul nuclear stockpile. In case you don't understand, a person armed with such weapons and nothing to lose in using them is NOT some one you go to war with.

I can't wait to see how hungry, malnourished unarmed people are going to face down the NK army. Does the word 'bloodbath' mean anything to you?

Does the word you an idiot mean anything? Most of the North's army is starving as well, they'll take care of there own leaders in time. In the meantime lets not fuck around with the few well-fed brainwashed minions manning the Sarin stockpiles.

Or few could die, without an economic tailspin.

Or none at all could die via not going to war.

The guns have to come out to shoot, and when they do, airbursts will work quite nicely. I'll accept a few hundred gas shells on Seoul to prevent several score thousand.

You'll accept? You've accepted thousands of deaths and massive contamination to bring down a regime a few years earlier. Do you under stand the fact that after a chemical attack large areas of the South and North will be uninhabitable for years?

And airbursts will not work aginst a hardened artillery site that's firing, you see that's why they have a gun shield and protective suits.

Sure I can.

Then explain how since you've completely failed to do so. And try to accomplish it without irradiating the area... to bad that's impossible.

[jezrianna]

The US does not have nuclear artillery shells.

I'lll bet you really believe that too.

[jezrianna]

Retaliation against Pyongyang would likely be a nice, clean airburst. A military target would almost certainly be a groundburst with all the resulting fallout mess.

Only if you're an idiot. An airburst over a nice brigade, regiment or battalion would suit me fine, in addition to the political capital.[/quote]

[jezrianna]

Look at Germany in 1945 and tell me that social disruption doesn't happen. Hell, look at Iraq 2003.

And was that catistrophic, worldwide, devastating economic disruption? I don't think so.

[RedImperator]

The US does not have nuclear artillery shells.

I'lll bet you really believe that too.

Three different people write extended rebuttals to your last argument, and your response is a series of one-line nitpicks? Concession accepted.

Oh, and by the way...

All nuclear artillery projectiles and short-range missile warheads will be withdrawn from overseas bases. These weapons, along with those stored in the United States, will be destroyed-a total of 1,300 155-millimeter and 8-inch artillery projectiles and 850 Lance missile warheads.

-27 Sept. 1991

Link

[jezrianna]

[quote]Worldwide economic downturn, a trillion-dollar reconstruction project in North Korea, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Seoul alone, crippling shortages in critical industrial sectors, and millions of dead civilians. What the hell kind of libertarian volunteers the lives of millions of people to satisfy a technowank fantasy? And I'm glad to see you haven't even bothered considering what the South Koreans might think of all this, being as its their citizens and their cities that are going to suffer, not you.[/quote]
Gee, I thought there was going to be a world-wide economic catastrophy that would make me suffer? I suppose you'd have us pull our troops out of SK (saving you and I a lot of money), and leave them to their fate if the North attacked? And what about the hit to your precious 'global economy' if Kim Jong Il took over SK? I'll tell you what. You, sir, are a coward, nothing less. Content to leave others as slaves to spare you any inconvience.

[RedImperator]

Worldwide economic downturn, a trillion-dollar reconstruction project in North Korea, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to Seoul alone, crippling shortages in critical industrial sectors, and millions of dead civilians. What the hell kind of libertarian volunteers the lives of millions of people to satisfy a technowank fantasy? And I'm glad to see you haven't even bothered considering what the South Koreans might think of all this, being as its their citizens and their cities that are going to suffer, not you.

Gee, I thought there was going to be a world-wide economic catastrophy that would make me suffer? I suppose you'd have us pull our troops out of SK (saving you and I a lot of money), and leave them to their fate if the North attacked? And what about the hit to your precious 'global economy' if Kim Jong Il took over SK? I'll tell you what. You, sir, are a coward, nothing less. Content to leave others as slaves to spare you any inconvience.

So many fallacies, so little time. I'm not going to waste my time with you until you compose a rebuttal that actually addresses any of the points made during your ass-raping. In the meantime, you've got a hell of a lot of nerve calling me a coward while you sit here and volunteer the lives of millions of people in a pointless war you'd watch on CNN.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'lll bet you really believe that too.

We live in a land called reality so yes

Only if you're an idiot. An airburst over a nice brigade, regiment or battalion would suit me fine, in addition to the political capital.

What suits a delusional moron who plans pointless wars with destroyed and completely fictional weapons isn't necessary relative to the requirements of the real world. Wiping out a few thousand worthless infantrymen in exchange for ten of thousands of dead civilians is NOT sufficient.

And was that catistrophic, worldwide, devastating economic disruption? I don't think so.

The world economy was not nearly as integrated as it is today in 1945 and there was massive economic distruption and the near collapse of several allied powers because of it, amoung them Britian and the Soivet Union.

And since you have failed to address 90% of the above posts, concession accepted on all counts.

[Bob McDob]

If only we could perfect those tiny robot flies and simultaniously take out the entire North Korean chain of command.