North Korea readies missiles against the USA

[Captain.Sassy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea


"China is sharply critical of US pressure tactics towards North Korea and wants a resumption of the six-party nuclear disarmament talks. But the Guardian can reveal Beijing's frustration with Pyongyang has grown since its missile and nuclear tests last year, worries about the economic impact of regional instability, and fears that the death of the dictator, Kim Jong-il, could spark a succession struggle.

China's moves to distance itself from Kim are revealed in the latest tranche of leaked US embassy cables published by the Guardian and four international newspapers. Tonight, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said the US "deeply regrets" the release of the material by WikiLeaks. They were an "attack on the international community", she said. "It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems," she told reporters at the state department."

Now, a lot of this seems to come from SK diplomats talking to their US counterparts, but there's likely something to it.

 

[MG1962]

Now there's a wildly off-base "analogy".

If you actually knew anything about the relationship between China and North Korea you would understand how valid the analogy actually is

 

[MG1962]

Iraq fell in short order and they were better equipped than NK had better radar systems and more resources to wage war and they went down quick.

You dont know much about the geography of North Korea do you?

 

[WildCat]

If you actually knew anything about the relationship between China and North Korea you would understand how valid the analogy actually is

Dude, you're seriously comparing North Korea to Canada. If Canada was like North Korea, I'd welcome any country that wanted to take them out and install a sane government.

You dont know much about the geography of North Korea do you?

Why don't you explain how China is going to get tanks, and the convoy of trucks needed to equip and maintain them, into North Korea in a case of all-out war. You think they'll be able to just drive there on the highway? On rail cars?

eta: Ditto artillery.

 

[keale]

You dont know much about the geography of North Korea do you?

What does geography have to do with air superiority? We would have control of the air no question. Iraq had a better military with more modern equipment and better radars they even had MIG-29s. What military assets could NK move without being destroyed by precision guided missiles? It would be a turkey shoot from the air.

 

[MG1962]

Dude, you're seriously comparing North Korea to Canada. If Canada was like North Korea, I'd welcome any country that wanted to take them out and install a sane government.

I am sorry, could you point out in my posts where I compared North Korea with Canada. I was actually pointing out the relative relationships of each super power to a near neighbor that it has a long and shared history with.

Why was I doing this? In response to your asinine point about the US telling China they better get North Korea under control or get out of the way

Why don't you explain how China is going to get tanks, and the convoy of trucks needed to equip and maintain them, into North Korea in a case of all-out war. You think they'll be able to just drive there on the highway? On rail cars?

eta: Ditto artillery.

Sorry there is a point in here somewhere? I was responding to a post that seems to want to try and campare battle field conditions in Iraq with those that will be encountered in North Korea

 

[MG1962]

What does geography have to do with air superiority? We would have control of the air no question. Iraq had a better military with more modern equipment and better radars they even had MIG-29s. What military assets could NK move without being destroyed by precision guided missiles? It would be a turkey shoot from the air.

So whats going wrong in Afghanistan?

 

[keale]

So whats going wrong in Afghanistan?

Asymmetrical warfare where the enemy lives in and is supported by the general population.

This is referring to a ground war where we wouldnt be involved. SK will do all the heavy lifting if there is a ground war and we would be there for air and naval support. Were not sending troops into NK and its unclear if thats an option for SK. Im not even sure if NK troops would have the will to fight or if they would be waving the white flag at the first opportunity since I suspect many in NK would rather live in the south.

 

[Spindrift]

All this stuff about China won't risk it, sounds an awful lot like the incorrect predictions of 1950. We held a large technological edge back then, but a million Chinese managed to overwhelm that technology. This is not some backwater country anymore. They can keep coming. The Chinese will not run out of soldiers. They have over 2 million in their active army and hundreds of millions in reserve.

Who knows what kind of weapons they've developed and borrowed. I doubt they're all listed in Jane's.

China considers NK a buffer state. It doesn't particularly want a western allied nation sitting on an easily accessible border. It can't barely stand Japan being so close. It will fight for North Korea if it has to and the Obama and Hilary know that.

 

[MG1962]

Asymmetrical warfare where the enemy lives in and is supported by the general population.

And North Korea wont do this why?

Im not even sure if NK troops would have the will to fight or if they would be waving the white flag at the first opportunity since I suspect many in NK would rather live in the south.

Given how well the army is looked after, they do have a lot to fight for

 

[keale]

All this stuff about China won't risk it, sounds an awful lot like the incorrect predictions of 1950. We held a large technological edge back then, but a million Chinese managed to overwhelm that technology. This is not some backwater country anymore. They can keep coming. The Chinese will not run out of soldiers. They have over 2 million in their active army and hundreds of millions in reserve.

Who knows what kind of weapons they've developed and borrowed. I doubt they're all listed in Jane's.

China considers NK a buffer state. It doesn't particularly want a western allied nation sitting on an easily accessible border. It can't barely stand Japan being so close. It will fight for North Korea if it has to and the Obama and Hilary know that.

This isnt 1950 not sure if you noticed but our technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. Theres no conventional military in the world that stands a chance against our current weapons systems.

Again if theres a ground invasion we wouldnt be going in there thats SK troops doing the heavy lifting.

 

[keale]

And North Korea wont do this why?



Given how well the army is looked after, they do have a lot to fight for

See above post regarding a ground invasion

its unclear how many would fight and how many would surrender given the overall state of the country...not something I would bet on or against.

 

[WildCat]

I am sorry, could you point out in my posts where I compared North Korea with Canada. I was actually pointing out the relative relationships of each super power to a near neighbor that it has a long and shared history with.

China's relationship with N. Korea is not like the US relationship with Canada. Sorry, not even close.

Why was I doing this? In response to your asinine point about the US telling China they better get North Korea under control or get out of the way

Not just me, the State Dept. is telling China the same thing, just not as bluntly.

Sorry there is a point in here somewhere? I was responding to a post that seems to want to try and campare battle field conditions in Iraq with those that will be encountered in North Korea

Yes. The point is if the **** hits the fan China isn't going to do a damned thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Given how well the army is looked after, they do have a lot to fight for

When the battle doesn't go the way they've always told it would, when they aren't gloriously advancing south to crush the imperialist yankees and their south Korean lackeys but instead are being pounded with airstrikes, paralyzed by destroyed bridges and railways, cut off from their commanders because of the collapse of communications infrastructure... will they choose to die for it?

 

[WildCat]

All this stuff about China won't risk it, sounds an awful lot like the incorrect predictions of 1950. We held a large technological edge back then, but a million Chinese managed to overwhelm that technology. This is not some backwater country anymore. They can keep coming. The Chinese will not run out of soldiers. They have over 2 million in their active army and hundreds of millions in reserve.

Mao is dead, and this Chinese army isn't the one they had in 1950. And the technological gulf between the US and China has greatly widened in the ensuing 60 years. Human wave attacks won't work very well these days, the S. Koreans and US can rain firepower on them a hundred times greater than in 1950.

Who knows what kind of weapons they've developed and borrowed. I doubt they're all listed in Jane's.

Whatever they have that's not listed in Jane's, they don't have very many of.

China considers NK a buffer state. It doesn't particularly want a western allied nation sitting on an easily accessible border. It can't barely stand Japan being so close. It will fight for North Korea if it has to and the Obama and Hilary know that.

If they're worried about a US military presence propping up N. Korea is guaranteed to increase it. Only the old Mao hardliners still think of N. Korea as an asset. There wouldn't need to be any US military presence on the peninsula were it not for N. Korea.

 

[MG1962]

China's relationship with N. Korea is not like the US relationship with Canada. Sorry, not even close.

With a withering assertion like that you must be right Dont let anything like proof get in the way

 

[MG1962]

When the battle doesn't go the way they've always told it would, when they aren't gloriously advancing south to crush the imperialist yankees and their south Korean lackeys but instead are being pounded with airstrikes, paralyzed by destroyed bridges and railways, cut off from their commanders because of the collapse of communications infrastructure... will they choose to die for it?

And we all know the North Koreans will never expect the US to destroy their bridges, blow up their railways or destroy their communications infrastructure

 

[dtugg]

And we all know the North Koreans will never expect the US to destroy their bridges, blow up their railways or destroy their communications infrastructure

It doesn't matter what they expect. Their military is extremewly backwards and could easily be destroyed.

 

[Ziggurat]

And we all know the North Koreans will never expect the US to destroy their bridges, blow up their railways or destroy their communications infrastructure

I'm sure the generals do. But the population in general lives in such a distorted world that the grunts probably have no idea what we're capable of. And the leadership probably does its best to keep it that way.

 

[Quad4_72]

I took this to be implying such a thing:



With "squishies" remaining. "Squishies" interpreted as an infective force unable to defend.

I never said anything about acquiring territory. Also, your interpretation of "squishies" is incorrect at well. All squishies means is infantry on the ground. It does not mean ineffective force unable to defend.

Silly posts is what I do.... whoever you are.

Apparently.

As for credibility - I consider all my posts very, very, very low on that score but from a few examples, above yours and your "squishies".

Wrong.