North Korea "North Korea Can Engage the US in Total War" 119 replies

Please wait...

GenRommel

WTF and IS Mod Dev

50 XP

6th May 2006

0 Uploads

331 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

My friend found this, I found it quite entertaining. Apparently the guy who wrote it (according to the article is Han Ho Suk) thinks that North Korea can defeat the United States quite easily. Here is the article.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Not gonna lie. Even I am not cool for a total war with North Korea. But I'd sure as hell love to land my amtrack on their beach.




Antilles VIP Member

The Imaginative

114,272 XP

17th July 2006

0 Uploads

9,726 Posts

1 Threads

#3 9 years ago

Since when does NK have Nukes? all they are doing is experimenting with them.....


Garruscopy.png



GenRommel

WTF and IS Mod Dev

50 XP

6th May 2006

0 Uploads

331 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Well, it's not like their T62 or 64s are going to beat the M1A2 if T72 didn't. Just pointing out the inaccuracy of it, I'm pretty sure it's propaganda.




Suleyman_Eisenhower

Ottoman Janissary

50 XP

3rd May 2006

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago

I love talking about North Korea since it's such a pathetic little country that just wants attention. It's like they're waving out to the world and saying, "Hey! We're still relevant! Don't forget we exist, since we have [insert North Korean propaganda]." It makes me feel proud to be an American.




kais246

Once known as Member 167465.

50 XP

21st February 2007

0 Uploads

465 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago

I didnt know it was posible to be proud to be American. Anyway..... What i dont think people realise is nothing good could POSSIBLY come from launching nukes. It isnt a instant effect, it takes time for the missle to travel. In that time it can be detected, shot down, estimated area of efect if they know its destination and the reciever can counter launch there nuke. Even from games like Defcon you can see how it turns from how many of them you can kill to how many of them you can kill whilst keep your own losses out of the billians.




Sheepeep VIP Member

weirdal = new ptaq()

31,600 XP

2nd September 2003

0 Uploads

2,948 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago
...thinks that North Korea can defeat the United States quite easily.

He's probably right.

No, really.

"Defeat the United States" is not the same as "Survive the repercussions". If you fire 50 nuclear missiles at the United States (Assume the planet can survive this, I don't know how many missiles it'd take to kill all life on Earth and neither do you), you're going to cause some damage - Probably enough damage to wipe out civilisation there as you know it. The US will be reduced to whatever foreign bases and submarines it has left, which might no longer be recognised as sovereign territory by the countries whose borders they are within. If your country no longer exists in a meaningful way, does your base? It's not a question I have an answer to, but some countries might be willing to seize the moment and claim the base as their own, further reducing the United States' retaliatory potential.

The reaction to this might be that the remaining "US" military might have to go along with it or die. Given that propaganda occurs in the US on a much wider scale than any other country in the world, plus the fact that if someone's destroyed your home, you'll probably be a little upset about it, most will pick the "die" option. They'll defend those bases, perhaps applying either a scorched-earth policy, or a guerilla war - They need a new home, where can they fit in? Probably somewhere in the United Kingdom, to be honest, which means that somewhere around here, I probably die. I say the United Kingdom because we have a fair number of US bases, and happen to speak the same language, give or take a few words that got ruined along the way. You can argue that we have treaties, but if your country no longer exists, your treaty probably doesn't count for much.

If the new-US manages to take over a country, be it Britain, Australia, or an island such as the Isle of Man, you can expect even more people to be upset. This is even more likely due to the wartime habit of declaring martial law on anything you take by force. You'll now have even more people against the US, the cycle will continue, there'll probably be less nukes this time, though, as the Isle of Man is within fallout distance of the rest of the United Kingdom. It's likely, however, that a major strategic assault would take place, and neither old nor new US could stand up against the rest of the world at once.

North Korea wins, what's left of it. Those retaliatory nukes had to go somewhere, right? Right back at the people who fired them in the first place. I don't think they'll be too bothered about the effects on neighbouring countries. There might be a few cycles like this, where North Korea or the US establishes a new island colony, much to the dismay of the native population, and turns it into a World War III stronghold. Eventually, if there's anyone still alive after all the radiation, changed climate (You were worried about global warming before?), and worldwide fighting, it won't matter which side they were on. The world will probably have different political and physical borders due to weather phenomena and civil war, and it'd take a long time for anyone to fill the void left behind.

Note that this hypothetical doomsday event assumes several things:

1: The world is that simple. It isn't, but it very much is. Any country smart enough to test nuclear weapons is smart enough to fire a number that they feel they will avoid the total destruction of life on Earth, even if it's just them left - Hell, especially if it's just them left. Similarly, if your country is gone and you have tanks, you're going to want somewhere to put them, and it won't matter who lives there.

2: The initial assault manages to take out all US military infrastructure. No doubt something would be left behind, but it's likely that they either would be unable to reach it due to the radiation/interference, or there'll be nobody left to fire it anyway. Either way, assume the remaining weapons are unusable, since it's not possible to determine what's there to begin with, let alone what'll remain.

3: The initial 50 (or 5, or 1, or 1800) will be the bulk of the missiles fired. This count obviously does not include non-nuclear missiles, or similar weapons. There are thousands of nuclear weapons around the world, but the point is to have them, not to fire them.

4: North Korea, or the US, start with a nuclear barrage and not a bio-weapon assault. The most well-guarded fact in war is just how easy it really is to kill someone. Nuclear weapons are pretty, but there's little doubt that both countries know how to put bio-weaponry together. Seed the atmosphere, innoculate your own people and let the bugs fall. Alternatively, just use good old-fashioned chemicals to achieve the same result.

Well, that was fun. I was just going to write "They're probably right".




BobDole

Alpha Mike Foxtrot

50 XP

15th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,255 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

you forgot about M.A.D. cause niether of those nations have second strike capability.




Suleyman_Eisenhower

Ottoman Janissary

50 XP

3rd May 2006

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

I Disagree with Kais246 and Sheepeep. @Kais246, if you were president of the United States and the US had a missile shield similar to the one planned in the 1980's, would you risk an enemy firing a missile at you? Would you? WOULD YOU? @Sheepeep, North Korea does not have the nuclear materials to create enough missiles to destroy the United States. And propaganda does NOT occur more frequently in the US than in any other country. Sure, we have our propaganda, but it's not overkill. You know, I have heard that North Korea installs radios in people's homes that cannot be turned off, even at night, that play propaganda 24/7. Well, fortunately it's not actually 24/7 since they don't get electricity all the time, but you get the point. Have you watched some of the North Korean propaganda videos on youtube? THAT is propaganda. I can brag that the US Army is the best in the world, but that is a fact, not propaganda. We spend as much on our army as something like the next 20 most powerful countries combined. So we damn well better have a more powerful army. If anything, our army is quite weak for how much we spend on it, since I don't think we can beat the next 20 countries all at the same time. But it's certainly strong enough to take on anything North Korea could put out, if it foolishly attacks. The US Army has been proven against forces clearly stronger than North Korea, such as Saddam Hussein's 1991 army. It was the same size as North Korea's army right now and more technologically advanced. Saddam could brag about thousands of miles of minefields and dug-in T-72's (which, by the way, North Korea is not advanced enough to use). Saddam had more antiaircraft weaponry, not to mention a decent air force. North Korea has NO defense against a land invasion. The only threat I see from North Korea is its conventional artillery, which will be able to pound Seoul to oblivion for a few days before it runs out of ammunition. I understand your point Sheepeep (which is that nukes are a battlefield equalizer, right?). But North Korea cannot create enough nuclear weapons to completely annihilate the United States before we invade and destroy it first.




Suleyman_Eisenhower

Ottoman Janissary

50 XP

3rd May 2006

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

I also half-joked to someone that China should just invade and conquer North Korea, then everyone will be happy. But don't take that seriously.