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.

(BBC)   North Korea has shut down the Kaesong complex   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 287
    More: Followup, Kaesong, North Koreans, Ministry of Unification, South Koreans, Yongbyon  
•       •       •

18741 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2013 at 11:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 10:40:38 AM
PunGent:

It's the old Soviet strategy...quantity has a quality all it's own.

Well there was a little more to the Soviet strategy than pure numbers. They understood that "quality" does not necessarily mean "sophisticated." Quality to Soviets was "easily mass produced", "field serviceable", and "simple to operate."
 
2013-04-03 10:48:28 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Then, all of a sudden, after a short but bloody war that killed friends and relatives, you're now told that X is a complete lie by strangers who don't look or talk like you. You don't see any real evidence of this, though: You still live in the same valley as before, tending the same fields. What are you going to believe?

Except this time the one telling you something different comes bearing gifts of food, something you haven't seen in regular supply for 30 years.

The dinner table has a funny way of changing peoples hearts and minds


Except it won't be immediate for most.  Even when it does arrive, it will be viewed with suspicion.  Imperialist plot to poison Koreans and wipe out the ideology of Juche.

You just don't get how we are viewed over there.   People run away when they see someone who looks American because they are the bad guys in all of their films.
 
2013-04-03 10:51:14 AM
Benevolent Misanthrope:

I do wonder, though - if they did attack South Korea, what would happen?  Judging by our wars since WII, the U.S. isn't exactly known for winning.  My guess is we'd declare war and then try not to hurt anyone.  Again.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we beat the shiat out of the Koreans (but a million Chinamen turned us back), we won the Gulf War, curb stomped the Afgahnies and Iraqis, and have toppled a shiat ton of leaderships in the MiddleEast, Latin America and South America.

Who exactly have we lost to?
 
2013-04-03 11:26:40 AM

Owangotang: I had a brother at Kaesong
Fighting off them Viet-cong
They're still there, he's all gone


That might actually work better with the original name. Khe Sanh actually rhymes with "Gone" better.
 
2013-04-03 11:57:06 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=4f1e0899533 f 7680e78d03281fe18baf&wit_id=4f1e0899533f7680e78d03281fe18baf-2-1 Nort h Korea work Prison Testimony. Not for the faint of heart.


That was disturbing to read, to say the least. I can't even imagine surviving a place like that.
 
2013-04-03 12:14:59 PM

dittybopper: Except it won't be immediate for most. Even when it does arrive, it will be viewed with suspicion. Imperialist plot to poison Koreans and wipe out the ideology of Juche.

You just don't get how we are viewed over there. People run away when they see someone who looks American because they are the bad guys in all of their films.


Faster than you think, and the north is not as hermetically sealed as you might think. There are strangle holds regarding information on the center of the small nation, but in the hinterlands and borders along SK and China the information is start to flow pretty freely.
 
2013-04-03 12:15:28 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: Benevolent Misanthrope:

I do wonder, though - if they did attack South Korea, what would happen?  Judging by our wars since WII, the U.S. isn't exactly known for winning.  My guess is we'd declare war and then try not to hurt anyone.  Again.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we beat the shiat out of the Koreans (but a million Chinamen turned us back), we won the Gulf War, curb stomped the Afgahnies and Iraqis, and have toppled a shiat ton of leaderships in the MiddleEast, Latin America and South America.

Who exactly have we lost to?


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-04-03 12:33:21 PM
An actual armored assault on the south by the north, is there a word stronger than annihilation? We were able to drive the north korean army within miles of the Chinese border, and ground the Chinese army into a standstill on the 38th parallel.

The Chinese don't appear to in any mood to help this time, and our technology has improved, oh just a tad, since 1953. Annihilation isn't really a strong enough word for what would to a DPRK armored assault on the south.

A combined-arms attack on an enemy that has complete control of the air, when said enemy has things like A-10 warthogs, Apaches, AC130s, and heavy bombers armed with GPS guided 2000 pound bombs, and anti-armor cluster bombs isn't a "combined arms attack" it's mass suicide.


Heck even by 1953 the idea of human wave attacks against troops dug in with kit like the Quad 50 kinda lost their allure.
 
2013-04-03 12:52:02 PM
www.buzzpatrol.com
 
2013-04-03 12:54:15 PM

croesius: HellRaisingHoosier: Benevolent Misanthrope:

I do wonder, though - if they did attack South Korea, what would happen?  Judging by our wars since WII, the U.S. isn't exactly known for winning.  My guess is we'd declare war and then try not to hurt anyone.  Again.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we beat the shiat out of the Koreans (but a million Chinamen turned us back), we won the Gulf War, curb stomped the Afgahnies and Iraqis, and have toppled a shiat ton of leaderships in the MiddleEast, Latin America and South America.

Who exactly have we lost to?

[images.sodahead.com image 350x272]


What's funny? I can only think of Vietnam being a loss on a large scale war. We've lost some small scale insurgency stuff (think Operation Eagle Claw), but we tend to win when we commit large amounts of resources and loosen up ROEs.

Winning wars is a matter of logistics overcoming attrition rates. And the US has the best logistics out there and our equipment has pretty low attrition rates in battle.
 
2013-04-03 01:08:33 PM

hardinparamedic: You know what would be ironic?

If the John McCain docked in Vietnam.


For some reason I thought you had to be dead to get a ship named after you.
 
2013-04-03 01:26:17 PM

mr intrepid: Okay. For all you landlubbers out there, one more time; Aegis is a radar system. It's carried by cruisers and destroyers.  The USS John McCain is a Arleigh Burke class destroyer.  They carry about 60-70 missles , SAMs, SSMs, etc. One Burke could pretty much remodel Pyoyang, or end their navy, or cripple their AF.  Before Lunch.


blow it out your ass you pretentious piece of shiat. nobody cares but you...
 
2013-04-03 01:30:02 PM

dittybopper: In fact, I can easily imagine a scenario where if the KPA goes south over the DMZ, the PLA will go south over the Yalu.


God... what a thing to see. This whole situation has the potential to get very interesting, very quickly. Interesting in a bad way.
 
2013-04-03 01:32:42 PM

hutchkc: hardinparamedic: You know what would be ironic?

If the John McCain docked in Vietnam.

For some reason I thought you had to be dead to get a ship named after you.


It's named after his dad.
 
2013-04-03 01:35:08 PM

Fggin Bizzy: hutchkc: hardinparamedic: You know what would be ironic?

If the John McCain docked in Vietnam.

For some reason I thought you had to be dead to get a ship named after you.

It's named after his dad.


Or possibly his grandfather. Both of them were four-star admirals, and as of yesterday, both of them were still dead.
 
2013-04-03 01:40:01 PM

PunGent: Defense-in-depth is a fine idea, but there's not all that much depth between Seoul and the DMZ.


An aside: NATO had the same problem in hypothetical Soviet-bloc attacks on West Germany. The strategy was officially "defense-in-depth", but that meant giving up huge amounts of West Germany to gain time and maneuvering room, which understandably put our West German allies in a difficult spot politically. The unofficial but real defense plan was to defend-in-depth in EAST Germany. To put a fine point on it: NATO intended to invade East Germany before the Soviet Bloc started their assault. This meant our forces needed to be on a hair trigger, and nothing helps bring about unintentional wars like lots of armed people being really jumpy.

Officials have also confirmed that the USS John McCain, an Aegis-class destroyer capable of intercepting missiles, has been positioned off the Korean peninsula.

If anyone still here can help me on this - Aegis defends the ship itself from anti-ship missiles, but the article seems to imply it can defend against the strategic medium-to-long range ballistic missiles that North Korea is threatening everyone with. Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of?  Thanks!
 
2013-04-03 01:45:14 PM

StopLurkListen: Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of?


Probably? I don't know for sure, but those Aegis-class destroyers continually amaze me. They don't look like much, unlike an aircraft carrier, but damn...
 
2013-04-03 01:49:22 PM
So, haven't they about run the limits of crazy short of actually starting shooting? What next, they can't last long without income.
 
2013-04-03 01:52:39 PM
The barely-restrained glee with which some people post pictures of our military hardware and/or describe how many North Koreans we could easily mow down with it is a little bit disturbing.
 
2013-04-03 02:11:12 PM

StopLurkListen: If anyone still here can help me on this - Aegis defends the ship itself from anti-ship missiles, but the article seems to imply it can defend against the strategic medium-to-long range ballistic missiles that North Korea is threatening everyone with. Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of? Thanks!


Aegis is a radar/fire control system.
 
2013-04-03 02:35:33 PM

StopLurkListen: If anyone still here can help me on this - Aegis defends the ship itself from anti-ship missiles, but the article seems to imply it can defend against the strategic medium-to-long range ballistic missiles that North Korea is threatening everyone with. Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of?  Thanks!


Yes, there is.
 
2013-04-03 02:37:35 PM

Gawdzila: The barely-restrained glee with which some people post pictures of our military hardware and/or describe how many North Koreans we could easily mow down with it is a little bit disturbing.


Yeah. What's a few million peasant deaths among friends, though right? USA! USA! USA!

North Korea is a whole country filled with people like this little gal. That's who we'll be beating up on. Their leaders talk big and are irritating as hell, but if it comes back to open war there are going to be a lot of bodies of short, malnourished Norks with ribcages easily visible through their skin strewn about the place.

The current situation sucks, and any resolution to it will also suck.
 
2013-04-03 02:48:02 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Gawdzila: North Korea is a whole country filled with people like this little gal.


NK is filled with stinky Tennessee girls? Lol, wut? (Wrong link??)
 
2013-04-03 03:44:41 PM

dforkus: An actual armored assault on the south by the north, is there a word stronger than annihilation? We were able to drive the north korean army within miles of the Chinese border, and ground the Chinese army into a standstill on the 38th parallel.

The Chinese don't appear to in any mood to help this time, and our technology has improved, oh just a tad, since 1953. Annihilation isn't really a strong enough word for what would to a DPRK armored assault on the south.

A combined-arms attack on an enemy that has complete control of the air, when said enemy has things like A-10 warthogs, Apaches, AC130s, and heavy bombers armed with GPS guided 2000 pound bombs, and anti-armor cluster bombs isn't a "combined arms attack" it's mass suicide.


Heck even by 1953 the idea of human wave attacks against troops dug in with kit like the Quad 50 kinda lost their allure.


I agree with that assessment assuming you have enough assets to do the job.  It isn't clear that the US/SK has enough assets deployed to stop the NK forces before they reach Seoul and can inflict catastrophic damage.  Assuming every bomb dropped, every missile hits, we may not have enough fired quick enough to stop the forces before they reach and destroy significant South Korean assets. Almost every scenario has the NK army being destroyed given enough time.  The problem is that victory costs South Korea their capital and large amounts of destruction in the surrounding areas which is a massive cost coupled with the required economic support that North Korea will require with the defeat and collapse.  Defeating North Korea isn't the real issue, it is the costs involved with doing so.
 
2013-04-03 04:09:19 PM

Daedalus27: I agree with that assessment assuming you have enough assets to do the job.  It isn't clear that the US/SK has enough assets deployed to stop the NK forces before they reach Seoul and can inflict catastrophic damage.  Assuming every bomb dropped, every missile hits, we may not have enough fired quick enough to stop the forces before they reach and destroy significant South Korean assets. Almost every scenario has the NK army being destroyed given enough time.  The problem is that victory costs South Korea their capital and large amounts of destruction in the surrounding areas which is a massive cost coupled with the required economic support that North Korea will require with the defeat and collapse.  Defeating North Korea isn't the real issue, it is the costs involved with doing so.


You're looking at it from the wrong perspective:  No one thinks the US or South Korea is going to invade the North, starting a war.  If a war starts, it will be because of the North.

So the cost is irrelevant.
 
2013-04-03 04:49:08 PM

dittybopper: StopLurkListen: If anyone still here can help me on this - Aegis defends the ship itself from anti-ship missiles, but the article seems to imply it can defend against the strategic medium-to-long range ballistic missiles that North Korea is threatening everyone with. Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of?  Thanks!

Yes, there is.


Holy Cow. Thanks!  My knowledge of Aegis is outdated. (from the USS Stark era.)
 
2013-04-03 05:19:25 PM
North Korea thread?
321delish.files.wordpress.com
DRINK!!!
 
2013-04-03 05:22:57 PM

Klom Dark: Fuggin Bizzy: Gawdzila: North Korea is a whole country filled with people like this little gal.

NK is filled with stinky Tennessee girls? Lol, wut? (Wrong link??)


Poor, backwards, uneducated, desperate, ignorant, starving people. What, I gotta draw you a picture? Work with me here, FFS.
 
2013-04-03 05:34:41 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: "Grand old Flag" I recall was a beer commercial in the 1960s


Neat. Here's a link to Grand Old Flag, I never heard it as a beer commercial though?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFV_tmTcU0Q
 
2013-04-03 05:50:54 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Fggin Bizzy: hutchkc: hardinparamedic: You know what would be ironic?

If the John McCain docked in Vietnam.

For some reason I thought you had to be dead to get a ship named after you.

It's named after his dad.

Or possibly his grandfather. Both of them were four-star admirals, and as of yesterday, both of them were still dead.


Actually, according to Wiki it's named after BOTH of them.

/still dead today as well as far as I know, however it is tomorrow over where the events are taking place so things may have changed on that front too...
 
2013-04-03 06:09:22 PM

dittybopper: Daedalus27: I agree with that assessment assuming you have enough assets to do the job.  It isn't clear that the US/SK has enough assets deployed to stop the NK forces before they reach Seoul and can inflict catastrophic damage.  Assuming every bomb dropped, every missile hits, we may not have enough fired quick enough to stop the forces before they reach and destroy significant South Korean assets. Almost every scenario has the NK army being destroyed given enough time.  The problem is that victory costs South Korea their capital and large amounts of destruction in the surrounding areas which is a massive cost coupled with the required economic support that North Korea will require with the defeat and collapse.  Defeating North Korea isn't the real issue, it is the costs involved with doing so.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective:  No one thinks the US or South Korea is going to invade the North, starting a war.  If a war starts, it will be because of the North.

So the cost is irrelevant.


No, just like the fears during the Cold War, it will a mistake and response that gets us into it.  North launches a limited attack of some kind.  There is a limited retaliation that is perceived as a greater attack triggeirng  escalation and war.  Its the slow crawl into a massive engagement.

For example, a North Korean sub torpedos a US/SK ship (again).  This time, there are assets in the area and the sub is sunk (as is a proper act of self defense).  This is precieved by NK as an escalation (since last time SK just absorbed the attack).  This triggers an limited artillery strike by NK in an area that leads to counterbattery fire in response (again in self defense).  However this tit for tat response leads to ever increasing responses and soon the front opens up and the war kicks off.
 
2013-04-03 06:19:08 PM
StopLurkListen:

If anyone still here can help me on this - Aegis defends the ship itself from anti-ship missiles, but the article seems to imply it can defend against the strategic medium-to-long range ballistic missiles that North Korea is threatening everyone with. Is there some new anti-ICBM/anti-ballistic missile capability of Aegis that I'm unaware of?  Thanks!

There are a few destroyers out there now that have the upgrade, USS Cole and Stout and a few others I'm sure, but probably in the next 5-10 years, they all will have it.  Upgrade takes about six months, and a few more if you include the schooling they have to send everyone to, as well as testing phase after the upgrade.  Last deployment I did before retiring was BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) off the coast of Israel.  Wasn't an AEGIS tech, but dealt with a lot of them and they were all mainly indifferent to the upgrades, because there are still a lot of problems with keeping SPY working all the time, not to mention being in certain areas (the Gulf, and North Africa) where there is a lot of sand and dust in the air plays absolute hell on the radar returns.  A couple of cruisers on the west coast have the upgrade, but don't really remember which ones they are.
 
2013-04-03 06:32:37 PM
Wow... transparently the SM-3 missiles are capable of intercepting targets all the way up to low earth orbit, and just one destroyer can carry 90 of them...
 
2013-04-03 06:33:16 PM
***apparently***
 
2013-04-03 07:57:12 PM

digistil: BarkingUnicorn: digistil: BarkingUnicorn: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: 800 South Koreans are currently trapped at the factory. SK working on military contingency plans to get them out if necessary.

This is now an international hostage crisis. Un could literally go from "tubby annoyance" to full-blown mad man tomorrow.

Citation, please.  All I'm seeing is that South Koreans aren't allowed IN.

It was a rumor, but has been debunked.

Damn you, Obama!

Funny enough, the rumor was mostly being spread on Twitter with the hashtag #tcot


Is "Tcot" his Kenyan birth name?
 
2013-04-04 12:30:41 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Asa Phelps: An attack from the DPRK would hurt, and be expensive to clean up.

But it would also essentially signal the end of the DPRK.

What good is a standing army of 1.5 million men without trucks to transport or supply them, let alone supplies to load onto those truck to feed them?

One carefully placed FAE would put an end to any morale that north korean foot soldiers have.

And then south korea and china will have to deal with an unbelievable influx of refugees.

Field Applications Engineer?
Fundamental Attribution Error?

Oh, I got it!  Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana, the Ecuadorian Air Force!


fuel-air explosive. aka thermobaric weapon.

think big tank of fuel and two charges.

First charge disperses the fuel which is aerosolized over a large area. Think multiple football fields.

Second charge detonates the fuel.

If you're lucky, the shock wave kills you. If you're unlucky, it merely gelatinizes your internal organs and you die horribly, or you breathe the fuel before or during detonation.

A column of 100,000 soldiers marching south is 100,000 sitting ducks, and a nice big FAE can kill 70% of them in a single drop.
 
2013-04-04 08:47:33 PM

Deep Contact: [www.abc.net.au image 700x467]
My uncle killed thousands of Chinese. They would just keep marching on their machine gun positions.
The dead would be stacked 6' high at some points. But at night the Chinese would move in and take the dead away.


Seems like at some point they would think of sneaking around at night as a way to conduct the attack instead of the clean up.
 
Displayed 37 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report