If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Leon Panetta says U.S. is "within an inch" of war every day with North Korea. Blames conflict on their rulers   (articles.cnn.com) divider line 185
    More: Obvious, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, North Koreans, United States, NATO summit, Kim Il Sung  
•       •       •

1429 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 11:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 07:50:23 AM
Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?
 
2012-04-21 08:00:16 AM

doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?


I have never been to Korea, so I dunno how true this is. I had a Sergeant talk about his Korean experience. He would say shiat like "If the north were to invade, the first ones we would shoot would be the South Koreans. They could not be trusted".

As I said, second hand information, so take it with a grain of salt
 
2012-04-21 08:10:49 AM
aren't we technically still at war? i thought we just signed an armistice but no formal peace treaty.
 
2012-04-21 08:21:59 AM

doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?


It may have something to do with that we only have an armistice with NK, not a peace treaty. If they break it, we're at war.
 
2012-04-21 08:23:33 AM
Are we talking war war or continued police action war?
 
2012-04-21 08:30:13 AM
Thank you for that "We're all going to farking die!!OMGWTF!" moment, Lou. Way to be a leader.
 
2012-04-21 08:30:46 AM
Since this was a UN war, is there any way we can take the next 50 years off and let the rest of the UN sit on the DMZ?
 
2012-04-21 08:34:45 AM
t-shirtguru.com
 
2012-04-21 08:50:03 AM
We better meter our criticism or we might have to foot the bill for another way
 
2012-04-21 08:50:46 AM
War, not way
 
2012-04-21 08:53:21 AM

I_C_Weener: Since this was a UN war, is there any way we can take the next 50 years off and let the rest of the UN sit on the DMZ?


I'm not sure that deforestation for all those strongly worded letters will really help, but I'm sure that it will help boost some parts of the economy. At least NK will get fuel for their furnaces, which could help ease tensions a tic...
 
2012-04-21 08:58:35 AM

doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?


Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery. The first thing that would happen in a N-S Korea conflict is you would kiss the spare parts to your Hyundai goodbye. Then the cost of flat panel TVs would likely double. And the price of Kim Chi would skyrocket.

So you can see they've got us over quite a barrel here.
 
2012-04-21 08:59:53 AM
I honestly do not really know much about the military strength of Best Korea...

But, I suspect in the grand scheme of things, they have the equivalent of a handful of m80s and a few sticks of dynamite by comparison to the fire power of So. Korea, the UN and the US. I really do not think that they would stand much of a chance against a "war with the West". I mean sure, they will probably be able to lob a few missiles into/toward Seoul...but I am going to guess that a lot of the missiles that they display in the huge parades that they hold are nothing more than dummy missiles.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part here. The fact that they can not even feed their citizens and the country is run like the poor mans hunger games leads me (the lay person) to believe that while evil, they are a joke to the rest of the West.

Can anyone backup/correct my thought process?
 
2012-04-21 09:00:26 AM
Bullshiat. More money for the defense budget is what he's really saying
 
2012-04-21 09:03:56 AM
Aren't we still technically at war with Best Korea?
 
2012-04-21 09:20:38 AM

Endive Wombat: But, I suspect in the grand scheme of things, they have the equivalent of a handful of m80s and a few sticks of dynamite by comparison to the fire power of So. Korea, the UN and the US.


I think they have something like 10,000 artillery tubes zeroed onto Seoul.
 
2012-04-21 09:28:07 AM

GAT_00: Endive Wombat: But, I suspect in the grand scheme of things, they have the equivalent of a handful of m80s and a few sticks of dynamite by comparison to the fire power of So. Korea, the UN and the US.

I think they have something like 10,000 artillery tubes zeroed onto Seoul.


Maybe we should pull one of these:

img37.imageshack.us

and move Seoul out to sea. That'll show em.
 
2012-04-21 09:28:09 AM
South Korea has sufficient military assets to handle this on their own. Plus, the citizens are already organized in case of occupation, or to repel invaders block by block.

There is absolutely no reason to keep troops stationed there. F*ck the forward deployment, rapid capability to the region crap. It's that ease of deployment that allows us to get into so many stupid regional conflicts.

Withdraw, pare down the active duty force. Hell, sell all the equipment to South Korea for $25. Cheaper than shipping it home.

If North Korea invades, South Korea will eat their lunch. Sure, it will be bloody and awful, but at least we'll finally have a resolution to a 60 year old problem.
 
2012-04-21 09:38:35 AM
Or, in the preferred nomenclature of the region, "One Kim Jong-Un Penis"
 
2012-04-21 10:01:39 AM

Endive Wombat: Can anyone backup/correct my thought process?


I don't think I know a helluva lot more than you but it's also my opinion that they're very loud because they're very impotent. Like Rush Limbaugh.

As for the fate of Seoul, they already held an Olympics, what use are they to us now? It's their problem. "Communism" was the reason we were in most of these places in the first place and the only people still screaming about communism are old Republicans who were crying about Clinton and now Obama.

So fark South East Asia. No literally, they have some hot girls. You just have to make sure they're girls.
 
2012-04-21 11:05:17 AM

Endive Wombat: I honestly do not really know much about the military strength of Best Korea...

But, I suspect in the grand scheme of things, they have the equivalent of a handful of m80s and a few sticks of dynamite by comparison to the fire power of So. Korea, the UN and the US. I really do not think that they would stand much of a chance against a "war with the West". I mean sure, they will probably be able to lob a few missiles into/toward Seoul...but I am going to guess that a lot of the missiles that they display in the huge parades that they hold are nothing more than dummy missiles.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part here. The fact that they can not even feed their citizens and the country is run like the poor mans hunger games leads me (the lay person) to believe that while evil, they are a joke to the rest of the West.

Can anyone backup/correct my thought process?


Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.
 
2012-04-21 11:09:25 AM

vygramul: Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.


That's really the only thing in question. Worst Korea, even without the help of the USA (which they would absolutely get) would roll over Best Korea in due time. Best Korea has a million man standing army, but faced with land mines in the DMZ and modern weaponry, they don't stand a chance. The question is how many artillery shells could be launched at Seoul before they are destroyed.
 
2012-04-21 11:15:37 AM

GAT_00: Endive Wombat: But, I suspect in the grand scheme of things, they have the equivalent of a handful of m80s and a few sticks of dynamite by comparison to the fire power of So. Korea, the UN and the US.

I think they have something like 10,000 artillery tubes zeroed onto Seoul.


Yeah, most of that isn't really large-caliber with significant range. People tend to just count guns and assume each one is a 155mm gun.
 
2012-04-21 11:18:20 AM
It would be a very slow slow campaign but South Korea would inchon its way to victory.
 
2012-04-21 11:18:58 AM

nekom: vygramul: Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.

That's really the only thing in question. Worst Korea, even without the help of the USA (which they would absolutely get) would roll over Best Korea in due time. Best Korea has a million man standing army, but faced with land mines in the DMZ and modern weaponry, they don't stand a chance. The question is how many artillery shells could be launched at Seoul before they are destroyed.


Depends on who fires first and what triggers it. If NK decides tomorrow morning to level Seoul, they could probably do it. If, however, it's a series of increasing tensions... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to own a straw hut anywhere near an NK gun emplacement.
 
2012-04-21 11:27:08 AM

vygramul: Depends on who fires first and what triggers it. If NK decides tomorrow morning to level Seoul, they could probably do it. If, however, it's a series of increasing tensions... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to own a straw hut anywhere near an NK gun emplacement.


Yeah I guess that's the key factor, who fires first? I have no doubt the U.S. and Worst Korean military have a plan to take out every Best Korean artillery unit out there, but how many rounds could they fire before being destroyed? If I lived in Seoul, I'd be forever on edge about that.
 
2012-04-21 11:38:37 AM

nekom: vygramul: Depends on who fires first and what triggers it. If NK decides tomorrow morning to level Seoul, they could probably do it. If, however, it's a series of increasing tensions... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to own a straw hut anywhere near an NK gun emplacement.

Yeah I guess that's the key factor, who fires first? I have no doubt the U.S. and Worst Korean military have a plan to take out every Best Korean artillery unit out there, but how many rounds could they fire before being destroyed? If I lived in Seoul, I'd be forever on edge about that.


That's where readiness matters. Exposed artillery would be subject to counter-battery fire instantly, and those in caves wouldn't be lucky to get out, set up, and fire before the position was rendered inert.
 
2012-04-21 11:40:10 AM
When your economy is predicated on the consumption of weapons of war, ya gotta keep demand rolling along, brah.
 
2012-04-21 11:42:05 AM
Every week the American military industrial complex is throwing out some new threat to world stability, Iran, North Korea, China... I presume when more talk of budget cuts come up... one day will they wake up and finally realize the only real threat is themselves?
 
2012-04-21 11:43:48 AM

intelligent comment below: Every week the American military industrial complex is throwing out some new threat to world stability, Iran, North Korea, China... I presume when more talk of budget cuts come up... one day will they wake up and finally realize the only real threat is themselves?


Yes because everyone in the world likes to hold hands and pass out free flowers.
 
2012-04-21 11:44:23 AM
I, too, think we should pull out all our troops because, like, fark our allies. I mean seriously, what have allies ever done for us?
 
2012-04-21 11:45:24 AM
Yea, uh... I don't think so.
 
2012-04-21 11:46:51 AM
I thought "Be Afraid," was the Bush era?
Guess we will always make up a reason to feed our bloated pig military budget.
 
2012-04-21 11:48:17 AM
It's unlikely that the US is going to go to war with North Korea, as they'd probably fight back.
 
2012-04-21 11:49:18 AM
I lolled, subby. Good job.
 
2012-04-21 11:50:43 AM

nekom: vygramul: Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.

That's really the only thing in question. Worst Korea, even without the help of the USA (which they would absolutely get) would roll over Best Korea in due time. Best Korea has a million man standing army, but faced with land mines in the DMZ and modern weaponry, they don't stand a chance. The question is how many artillery shells could be launched at Seoul before they are destroyed.


War with North Korea would be an obliteration of the North, they can't fight or sustain a war, BUT, they do have 10,000 artillery peices aimed at Seoul. So the war goes something like this:

Day 1 : Seoul gets obliterated by massive artillery barrage.
Day 1.5 : North Korean artillery wiped out by South Korean and U.S. counterfire
Day 2 - End of war : Rest of North Korea gets obliterated by U.S. and South Korean air forces/missiles/army

So, yeah, we'd thoroughly kick their asses, but it sacrifices Seoul and the few million people living there to do it. If the South Koreans didn't have their capitol a mile from the farking border, this might be a lot easier.
 
2012-04-21 11:51:17 AM

cman: doglover: Within an inch? Why would WE go to war with North Korea considering South Korea is like RIGHT THERE and has more guns trained on them than we've got in the whole region?

I have never been to Korea, so I dunno how true this is. I had a Sergeant talk about his Korean experience. He would say shiat like "If the north were to invade, the first ones we would shoot would be the South Koreans. They could not be trusted".

As I said, second hand information, so take it with a grain of salt


I'm taking that with a HUGE grain of salt. Why on earth can't SK be trusted? Are you saying they secretly want to get invaded by the north? Why would they shoot at Americans who were trying to stop that from happening? I mean, if they want to get annexed by NK that badly, all they have to do is ask.
 
2012-04-21 11:52:08 AM

vygramul: nekom: vygramul: Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.

That's really the only thing in question. Worst Korea, even without the help of the USA (which they would absolutely get) would roll over Best Korea in due time. Best Korea has a million man standing army, but faced with land mines in the DMZ and modern weaponry, they don't stand a chance. The question is how many artillery shells could be launched at Seoul before they are destroyed.

Depends on who fires first and what triggers it. If NK decides tomorrow morning to level Seoul, they could probably do it. If, however, it's a series of increasing tensions... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to own a straw hut anywhere near an NK gun emplacement.


Most of them are buried in massive bunkers lining the mountains and difficult to get to until they open the doors and start shooting.
 
2012-04-21 11:52:21 AM

Mugato:

So fark South East Asia. No literally, they have some hot girls. You just have to make sure they're girls.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-04-21 11:54:50 AM

theknuckler_33: Yea, uh... I don't think so.


It does seem unlikely. The Kims have not been irrational. They're really unlikely to start one because...

farkityfarker: It's unlikely that the US is going to go to war with North Korea, as they'd probably fight back.


...everyone saw how it worked for Saddam Hussein, even when he had what was thought to be one of the world's most powerful air defense systems. North Korea would fare far, far worse and the war, as far as the Kims are concerned, would be over about as quickly.
 
2012-04-21 11:58:02 AM
'Home Before The Leaves Fall'

That said, even if a second Korean War would be a bloody mess, there's no Mao bailing Four-Star Fatty's fat out of the fire. I'm pretty sure the Best Korean military leadership doesn't want to spend their retirement in the Hague, so it'll just be more sabre rattling from both sides for the forseeable future.
 
2012-04-21 11:58:45 AM
Why exactly are we on the brink of war with a country 6000 miles away that does not have any capability of striking the United States let alone invading us?
 
2012-04-21 12:01:52 PM

lennavan: Why exactly are we on the brink of war with a country 6000 miles away that does not have any capability of striking the United States let alone invading us?


Because there are other nations on the planet besides America, and some of them are allies that we depend on for trade.
 
2012-04-21 12:10:01 PM

vygramul: theknuckler_33: Yea, uh... I don't think so.

It does seem unlikely. The Kims have not been irrational. They're really unlikely to start one because...

farkityfarker: It's unlikely that the US is going to go to war with North Korea, as they'd probably fight back.

...everyone saw how it worked for Saddam Hussein, even when he had what was thought to be one of the world's most powerful air defense systems. North Korea would fare far, far worse and the war, as far as the Kims are concerned, would be over about as quickly.

even when he had what was thought to be one of the world's most powerful air defense systems


Um, what? America knew when it invaded that Iraq had no defense forces whatsoever. That's why it invaded.
 
2012-04-21 12:11:27 PM

GodsTumor: I thought "Be Afraid," was the Bush era?


Yeah but at least this time it's not the President saying it.
 
2012-04-21 12:16:03 PM

delathi: vygramul: nekom: vygramul: Pretty good thought process. After 60 years, the North Korean military probably can't even handle the South Koreans, much less the US. The North Korean readiness i pretty lousy, and I would venture to guess that a lot of their artillery crews would be lucky to be able to deploy and fire a round between an alert and the arrival of a JDAM or Tomohawk.

That's really the only thing in question. Worst Korea, even without the help of the USA (which they would absolutely get) would roll over Best Korea in due time. Best Korea has a million man standing army, but faced with land mines in the DMZ and modern weaponry, they don't stand a chance. The question is how many artillery shells could be launched at Seoul before they are destroyed.

Depends on who fires first and what triggers it. If NK decides tomorrow morning to level Seoul, they could probably do it. If, however, it's a series of increasing tensions... well, let's just say I wouldn't want to own a straw hut anywhere near an NK gun emplacement.

Most of them are buried in massive bunkers lining the mountains and difficult to get to until they open the doors and start shooting.


It's a two-edged sword. You don't have to kill the weapon. You can just make it hard to get it out. It's not like they just open a door and start shooting, or all you have to do is penetrate the door, which Saddam's air force discovered the US is really quite good at. Setting up artillery is a non-trivial task, and they don't have 10,000 tubes of the type that makes sense to hide in a cave.

It all adds up to one giant over-statement about their capability to "destroy Seoul".
 
2012-04-21 12:16:54 PM

farkityfarker: vygramul: theknuckler_33: Yea, uh... I don't think so.

It does seem unlikely. The Kims have not been irrational. They're really unlikely to start one because...

farkityfarker: It's unlikely that the US is going to go to war with North Korea, as they'd probably fight back.

...everyone saw how it worked for Saddam Hussein, even when he had what was thought to be one of the world's most powerful air defense systems. North Korea would fare far, far worse and the war, as far as the Kims are concerned, would be over about as quickly.

even when he had what was thought to be one of the world's most powerful air defense systems

Um, what? America knew when it invaded that Iraq had no defense forces whatsoever. That's why it invaded.


I was talking about 1991, when they had what was considered second only to Moscow in air defense.
 
2012-04-21 12:18:26 PM
huh....maybe I won't teach english in korea next year after all.
 
2012-04-21 12:19:50 PM
Obvious tag is appropriate here.

I had a friend who was stationed at the DMZ in the early 90's. He said every day he woke up thinking "this is the day we're going to war"

Scary scary place.
 
2012-04-21 12:21:06 PM

vygramul: I was talking about 1991, when they had what was considered second only to Moscow in air defense.


I really wish there had been a video of the faces on the Russian generals when they saw the US slice and dice their air defense system like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report