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.

(ABC)   Best Korea: It is ON. United Nations: No, no it's not "on." It's never been "on." It's off   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 243
    More: Obvious, Korean War, Rodong Sinmun, United Nations General Assembly, U.N. Security Council, North Korea  
•       •       •

23295 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 4:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 08:42:19 PM  
It's all for the greater good.
 
2013-03-11 08:44:02 PM  
I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.
 
2013-03-11 08:49:39 PM  
Rapmaster2000: For clarification - is it also on like Rae Dawn Chong, and/or the capital of Jordon, Amman?
 
2013-03-11 08:55:24 PM  

CygnusDarius: It's all for the greater good.


THE GREATER GOOD.
 
2013-03-11 09:03:05 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: jm105: alice_600: Okay I wanna ask the arm chair generals: What do you do with the people of North Korea after the war to rebuild?

Send in the Germans. They handled their own reunification well enough.

I have thought about that as a model. One pretty substantial difference is that West Germany had the world's fourth largest GDP in under three decades after World War II ended. I think also, and this is just conjecture on my part, that Germany was under a lot more scrutiny in the beginning phases of the reunification due to what Germany had done to the world less than fifty years before.

While there are a lot of similarities between Germany and Korea, there are also a lot of substantial differences, some of which are generational. Germany's split lasted roughly forty five years, which is a long time, but I'm sure there were some people who were around before the end of the war and potentially even before the war itself started. If you're in North Korea and under the age of 65, you haven't known a head of state who wasn't a Kim.

I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.


Predictions: Samsung and other Chaebols will have a source of near slave labor. This will also bring the standard of living down the for south. The peninsula will still be divided to prevent waves of hungry and poorly educated norK's from inundating the south.

East and West Germany is the nearest example of such a reunification but there are other huge differences as was pointed out. Many younger South Koreans do not desire reunification at the expense of their lifestyles. The ones pushing it are the much older Koreans and the Korean equivalent of the Teapartiers.

/doctrinally "NORK" is written "norK" not "Nork". The letter "n" is always lowercase as well as the "or" and the "K" is always uppercase. - norK
//it's a Korean thing
 
2013-03-11 09:04:08 PM  

timujin: The U.N. can say it's still valid, but that doesn't mean anything if Best Korea decides to ignore it.


I think the point is if they ignore it, then the UN can punish them for ignoring it, because as far as the UN is concerned it's still valid law.
 
2013-03-11 09:04:54 PM  

Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.


Well there is a non-nuclear plan that has been done before.
Battle of Messines (1917)k
/Interesting movie about it on Netflix.
 
2013-03-11 09:05:20 PM  

Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.


You don't even have to try hard.  We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.
 
2013-03-11 09:16:16 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.

You don't even have to try hard.  We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.


NO-GO.

First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south. Second, the Koreans will not allow nukes to be used on their soil (they include the north in that definition) and their norK brothers and sisters. Not to mention the neighbors are a bit squeamish about anyone throwing around nukes, especially the Japanese, for some reason. You can also bet it would greatly upset China and Russia who are very close. Lest we also not forget the direction some of the fallout would be carried. The US has already received radiation from Fukishima, and that was far from a bomb. And of course the world outrage in general. Bad PR.

It's a non-starter. There are other ways to skin a cat...
 
2013-03-11 09:18:33 PM  

phrawgh: NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Sgt.Zim: I just had a completely random thought regarding the problem of the 5000 artillery emplacements. Given realistic rates of fire (someone mentioned it upthread), 3-4 rounds/gun/minute ... if they truly are in range of Seoul, then it becomes easy: they're targeted at a population center, therefore, they are a WMD. There's the justification for release of tactical nukes to take them out.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, but I'd bet that someone else has already thought of it.

You don't even have to try hard.  We were always warned that a good many of those arty emplacements were equipped to fire chemical and biological rounds.

NO-GO.

First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south. Second, the Koreans will not allow nukes to be used on their soil (they include the north in that definition) and their norK brothers and sisters. Not to mention the neighbors are a bit squeamish about anyone throwing around nukes, especially the Japanese, for some reason. You can also bet it would greatly upset China and Russia who are very close. Lest we also not forget the direction some of the fallout would be carried. The US has already received radiation from Fukishima, and that was far from a bomb. And of course the world outrage in general. Bad PR.

It's a non-starter. There are other ways to skin a cat...


I wasn't saying nukes was a good idea, just that you didn't have to twist that hard to make an argument they have WMD's on the border.

I suspect our plan is something like "Launch every fighter and bomber located in south korea, and any carrier air groups in range and start bombing the ever loving fark out of the border while decimating their aircover, while every B-52 left in service heads over to carpet bomb whatever is left."
 
2013-03-11 09:19:42 PM  

jm105: CygnusDarius: It's all for the greater good.

THE GREATER GOOD.


The needs of the many
 
2013-03-11 09:26:17 PM  
"The terms of the armistice agreement do not allow either side unilaterally to free themselves from it," said Nesirky, the spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-11 09:27:33 PM  

2xhelix: [i.imgur.com image 500x329]


i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-11 09:31:47 PM  

phrawgh: First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south.


They have the withering artillery, Soviet Doctrine, to overwhelm the South. They have the massive but poorly trained, China Doctrine, infantry to inundate - mostly by attrition, and just drown them with soldiers. They are a product, doctrine-wise, of their military partners. Seoul is to close. The UN, the US, don't have a good answer, without going nuclear of course, which they will not.
 
2013-03-11 09:34:49 PM  
So to sum it up, North Korea:
i.chzbgr.com

And the UN's like:
 
2013-03-11 09:38:47 PM  
KiwDaWabbit:
I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.

Sure, the last ten minutes will suck, but you can't have everything.

/<a href=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html>not obscure</a>
 
2013-03-11 09:39:23 PM  
 
2013-03-11 09:47:33 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.


North Korea doesn't want armed conflict, to be sure. But its leaders have never been models of mental stability, and Kim Jong-Un has, in a very short time, proven himself the worst of the lot by leaps and bounds on his score. It's only a matter of time before he snaps, and I don't think it's going to be a very long time. We can't count on his underlings to betray him when that happens, either by disobeying orders or by outright removing him; not when he rules by a personality cult stretching back three generations. Certainly there will not be a popular revolt.

It bothers me to call for someone's death. It really does. But for crying out loud, someone put a bullet in this man's brain before he nukes somebody.
 
2013-03-11 09:54:04 PM  

Mister Peejay: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html

Because the new system sucks,


You can go back to the old one. Go to my fark comment preferences and click off enable modern rich text.
/Just sayin'
//Oh, and cool comic : )
 
2013-03-11 10:06:02 PM  
So, I just had an unpleasant thought.  Say there is at some point a full-blown conflict (née war) on the Korean peninsula.  If I were a madman in Iran, I might see that as an opportunity.  In fact, if I were a collection of mad men - say a handful in Best Korea and a handful in Iran - I might consider that synchronized action the best strategy to divide the "West" and sue for peace... and/or just burn the world.
 
2013-03-11 10:07:52 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: phrawgh: First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south.

They have the withering artillery, Soviet Doctrine, to overwhelm the South. They have the massive but poorly trained, China Doctrine, infantry to inundate - mostly by attrition, and just drown them with soldiers. They are a product, doctrine-wise, of their military partners. Seoul is to close. The UN, the US, don't have a good answer, without going nuclear of course, which they will not.


We've come a long way from that NK army. If our army is concerned about obesity, what do you think their army must be running on?
 
2013-03-11 10:09:42 PM  

bubba_2ba: So, I just had an unpleasant thought.  Say there is at some point a full-blown conflict (née war) on the Korean peninsula.  If I were a madman in Iran, I might see that as an opportunity.  In fact, if I were a collection of mad men - say a handful in Best Korea and a handful in Iran - I might consider that synchronized action the best strategy to divide the "West" and sue for peace... and/or just burn the world.


The US Navy is still in a 2 Major Theater War capability and posture.
 
2013-03-11 10:20:15 PM  

vygramul: We've come a long way from that NK army. If our army is concerned about obesity, what do you think their army must be running on?


I didn't know our Army was so concerned with PT. I've only read that in recent months/years they are getting more selective, especially at the recruiting posts. .
 
2013-03-11 10:23:20 PM  

RandomRandom: It's not just a refugee crisis that South Korea is really worried about, it's the NK's 5000 hardened artillery positions within firing range of Seoul.  If NK gets hit bombed by the west, even a little, even just the nuke sites, the north will probably start firing shells at Seoul.

How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker?  Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate.  Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition.  Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs.  5,000 is a lot of sorties.

Here's the big deal.  How many shots would the NK howitzers get off before being destroyed?  Modern artillery can fire a few rounds a minute, but lets say that each of the 5000 fire just 1 round per minute and are - on average, destroyed after just one hour of firing.

Using that artificially low rate of fire and terribly optimistic rate of destroying their guns, it would still result in 300,000 high explosive and incendiary shells hitting Seoul in the first hour of fighting.   After the first hour of fighting, Seoul would look like Dresden.  If the war came on fast, in response to say, a surprise attack by the west, a good proportion of Seoul's 25 million population would see their last day on earth.

It's not Best Korea's nukes that have everyone in the South worried, it's their half-century old gun tech.  Which unless we have some new technology hidden away that is able to instantly disable 5000 howitzers, the chances of a preemptive strike against the north's nukes is about as close to 0% as it gets.


ROFLMAO you earna 8.90/10 from me, lil injun, that was amazing.
 
2013-03-11 10:33:57 PM  

vygramul: We've come a long way from that NK army. If our army is concerned about obesity, what do you think their army must be running on?


About 1200 kcals per day.
 
2013-03-11 10:36:14 PM  

phrawgh: /doctrinally "NORK" is written "norK" not "Nork". The letter "n" is always lowercase as well as the "or" and the "K" ...


It's our language.  We'll capitalize it however the hell we like.
 
2013-03-11 10:46:35 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: jm105: alice_600: Okay I wanna ask the arm chair generals: What do you do with the people of North Korea after the war to rebuild?

Send in the Germans. They handled their own reunification well enough.

I have thought about that as a model. One pretty substantial difference is that West Germany had the world's fourth largest GDP in under three decades after World War II ended. I think also, and this is just conjecture on my part, that Germany was under a lot more scrutiny in the beginning phases of the reunification due to what Germany had done to the world less than fifty years before.

While there are a lot of similarities between Germany and Korea, there are also a lot of substantial differences, some of which are generational. Germany's split lasted roughly forty five years, which is a long time, but I'm sure there were some people who were around before the end of the war and potentially even before the war itself started. If you're in North Korea and under the age of 65, you haven't known a head of state who wasn't a Kim.

I want to think that North Korea doesn't want armed conflict. We all realize that they could go down in a "blaze of glory" and decimate Seoul, but to what end? What's left of North Korea will be commandeered and the whole God-King deal will be over.


It's the German unification model that S Korea desperately wants to avoid. It cost Germany billions of dollars worth of Deutsche Marks to integrate East Germany economically, and the difference between East and West Germany in 1990 was nothing compared to the difference between modern-day North and South Korea. Bear in mind that East German children were going to school, eating fairly well, and were still fairly similar, culturally speaking, to West German children. None of those things are true about North and South Korea anymore.

Imagine modern-day US waking up one day and having the South of the Great Depression - rampant pellagra, racism, economic stagnation and all - suddenly materialize off the coast of Florida. Now imagine we decided to let them rejoin the United States. How would we handle tens of millions of starving, near-illiterate people whose attitudes and perceptions about the world are decades out of date? For that matter, how would the air-dropped Southerners handle *us*?

Now you know why nobody is invading North Korea. It has nothing to do with their artillery or their nukes. Truth is, though they do have lots of artillery, there's no guarantee anyone would fire it. As former leaders of Iraq can attest, all the hardware and training in the world don't mean a thing if your soldiers just want to go home. Bear in mind that no North Korean soldier has seen action since the Angolan Civil War in the late '80s. For most of them, joining the military was something they did because they were drafted - and they stayed because the food was slightly better. There's absolutely no guarantee that any of them will bother to fire in anger if they get ordered to.
 
2013-03-11 10:53:50 PM  
And here I was, thinking 'Can anyone say or do anything crazier and more stupid than the Norks at this point?' At least the UN is reliable for something.
 
2013-03-11 10:57:16 PM  

vygramul: bubba_2ba: So, I just had an unpleasant thought.  Say there is at some point a full-blown conflict (née war) on the Korean peninsula.  If I were a madman in Iran, I might see that as an opportunity.  In fact, if I were a collection of mad men - say a handful in Best Korea and a handful in Iran - I might consider that synchronized action the best strategy to divide the "West" and sue for peace... and/or just burn the world.

The US Navy is still in a 2 Major Theater War capability and posture.


On paper, absolutely,... but if worst case Seoul is burned and Iran ignites a full-blown mid-east conflict, it's no longer a case of who wins in the long term.  The real question would be does the "West" have the political commitment to fight the long war on two fronts?  It's a nightmare scenario.
 
2013-03-11 11:19:28 PM  
I never had any opinion on Rodman before but his trip to NK changed that.  Class I douche in my book.  He should be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy or some such shiat.
 
2013-03-11 11:31:24 PM  

bubba_2ba: vygramul: bubba_2ba: So, I just had an unpleasant thought.  Say there is at some point a full-blown conflict (née war) on the Korean peninsula.  If I were a madman in Iran, I might see that as an opportunity.  In fact, if I were a collection of mad men - say a handful in Best Korea and a handful in Iran - I might consider that synchronized action the best strategy to divide the "West" and sue for peace... and/or just burn the world.

The US Navy is still in a 2 Major Theater War capability and posture.

On paper, absolutely,... but if worst case Seoul is burned and Iran ignites a full-blown mid-east conflict, it's no longer a case of who wins in the long term.  The real question would be does the "West" have the political commitment to fight the long war on two fronts?  It's a nightmare scenario.


If we withdraw from the middle east, turkey will take over as a regional power, NOT iran.
 
2013-03-11 11:32:11 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I never had any opinion on Rodman before but his trip to NK changed that.  Class I douche in my book.  He should be charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy or some such shiat.


I suppose that is technically possible since we are still at war.
 
2013-03-11 11:33:12 PM  

vygramul: WhoopAssWayne: phrawgh: First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south.

They have the withering artillery, Soviet Doctrine, to overwhelm the South. They have the massive but poorly trained, China Doctrine, infantry to inundate - mostly by attrition, and just drown them with soldiers. They are a product, doctrine-wise, of their military partners. Seoul is to close. The UN, the US, don't have a good answer, without going nuclear of course, which they will not.

We've come a long way from that NK army. If our army is concerned about obesity, what do you think their army must be running on?


duncan
 
2013-03-11 11:37:31 PM  
 
2013-03-11 11:43:09 PM  
 
2013-03-11 11:57:47 PM  

vygramul: WhoopAssWayne: phrawgh: First of all it is more like 50,000 tubes aimed south.

They have the withering artillery, Soviet Doctrine, to overwhelm the South. They have the massive but poorly trained, China Doctrine, infantry to inundate - mostly by attrition, and just drown them with soldiers. They are a product, doctrine-wise, of their military partners. Seoul is to close. The UN, the US, don't have a good answer, without going nuclear of course, which they will not.

We've come a long way from that NK army. If our army is concerned about obesity, what do you think their army must be running on?


Fumes. No weapons, no materiel, and soviet doctrine can be summed up as: do as little as possible and avoid getting shot by all means necessary. Preferably while remaining drunk the whole time.

Seriously, we don't need landmines. Just line the border with buckets of original recipe. They'll never make it an inch further into the south.
 
2013-03-11 11:58:11 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: The risk of millions pouring over the border, both in China and Seoul, is very real and it's always taken into account when dealing with North Korea.


Oh, I figured there was some risk, I was just curious as to how much. Sounds like my guess is as good as anyone's at this point. Thanks.
 
2013-03-12 12:05:43 AM  
War on 2 fronts question...commitment...

The next war isn't the video game drone war? Fought with drones, tomahawks, ICBM's, Cheetos and Mountain Dew?

I thought we were letting the gamers fight the next war(s) so they could respawn and live to fight another day.
 
2013-03-12 01:55:38 AM  
I would think that almost all Best Koreans are practically mentally ill by now, having been locked away in a cellar by their despicable rulers all their lives.

Do those poor people ever enjoy any sort of release from their propaganda and pain?
 
2013-03-12 02:08:42 AM  
Cant we just launch a cruise missile up his yang before this one gets to die of natural causes as well.  Just make the war head more burney than explodey, so that those people can get some benefit from his renderings, and I'd like for him to feel it.
 
2013-03-12 03:19:34 AM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: jake_lex: Usually, "regime change" backfires in the end and the new leader turns out to be about as bad, if not worse, than the original leader that got overthrown. I can't see, though, how anyone would be worse for North Korea than this family of sociopaths.

Yea personally I find it hard to believe he is as cooky as the old man. He was educated in Switzerland; right? So he literally has first hand knowledge that the west isn't as bad as the picture that is painted.


he also had plastic surgery at a young age to look more like grandpa. his way of thinking is not remotely like yours or mine. he has been raised as a god king. he is insane.
 
Skr
2013-03-12 03:21:41 AM  
Well if the UN is going to do something about Un, they'd be better off doing it before he becomes as deified as his father and grandfather were.
 
2013-03-12 06:50:37 AM  

bubba_2ba: vygramul: bubba_2ba: So, I just had an unpleasant thought.  Say there is at some point a full-blown conflict (née war) on the Korean peninsula.  If I were a madman in Iran, I might see that as an opportunity.  In fact, if I were a collection of mad men - say a handful in Best Korea and a handful in Iran - I might consider that synchronized action the best strategy to divide the "West" and sue for peace... and/or just burn the world.

The US Navy is still in a 2 Major Theater War capability and posture.

On paper, absolutely,... but if worst case Seoul is burned and Iran ignites a full-blown mid-east conflict, it's no longer a case of who wins in the long term.  The real question would be does the "West" have the political commitment to fight the long war on two fronts?  It's a nightmare scenario.


Iran's ability to create that kind of problem is limited. And we still have a lot of force there.

/On the one hand, the US spends more than the next six countries combined, on the other, we can't handle two pissant conflicts?
 
Displayed 43 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report