Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
dbapig
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=afx114]Isn’t N. Korea’s military made up mostly of rusted out and broken down Cold War-era Soviet hardware? And aren’t their troops and populace in general poorly trained and weakened by famine?
I don’t know if these things are true — they’re just nuggets that I’ve heard a few times from various reporters who’ve managed to get in there. I am curious what the military-knowledgeable people here think about the above claims.[/quote]
Afx: Google “Oplan 5027” and you’ll get a good look at US planning on the subject. While the general populace is impoverished and starving, the NK military is not. Kim makes certain his military machine is well fed and they are certainly well indoctrinated and hate the US with a passion.
It’s also interesting to note that North Korea does not consider South Korea it’s main foe: The US holds that role. South Korea considers North Korea their main enemy, but not vice versa.
Someone earlier opined that North Korea has 8,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul. Actually, this number is about 500, and I think North Korea has about 8,000 tubes TOTAL in their military.
Either way, a second Korean War would be devastating and I don’t doubt that we’d see WMD and even nukes if Kim had them in deployable fashion. I don’t seriously think he wants war, especially because he knows the final outcome, but it’s a convenient bargaining chip/tool for him to use.
[/quote]I did google “Oplan 5027” and found this sentence to be pretty insightful.
“Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=afx114]Isn’t N. Korea’s military made up mostly of rusted out and broken down Cold War-era Soviet hardware? And aren’t their troops and populace in general poorly trained and weakened by famine?
I don’t know if these things are true — they’re just nuggets that I’ve heard a few times from various reporters who’ve managed to get in there. I am curious what the military-knowledgeable people here think about the above claims.[/quote]
Afx: Google “Oplan 5027” and you’ll get a good look at US planning on the subject. While the general populace is impoverished and starving, the NK military is not. Kim makes certain his military machine is well fed and they are certainly well indoctrinated and hate the US with a passion.
It’s also interesting to note that North Korea does not consider South Korea it’s main foe: The US holds that role. South Korea considers North Korea their main enemy, but not vice versa.
Someone earlier opined that North Korea has 8,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul. Actually, this number is about 500, and I think North Korea has about 8,000 tubes TOTAL in their military.
Either way, a second Korean War would be devastating and I don’t doubt that we’d see WMD and even nukes if Kim had them in deployable fashion. I don’t seriously think he wants war, especially because he knows the final outcome, but it’s a convenient bargaining chip/tool for him to use.
[/quote]I did google “Oplan 5027” and found this sentence to be pretty insightful.
“Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=afx114]Isn’t N. Korea’s military made up mostly of rusted out and broken down Cold War-era Soviet hardware? And aren’t their troops and populace in general poorly trained and weakened by famine?
I don’t know if these things are true — they’re just nuggets that I’ve heard a few times from various reporters who’ve managed to get in there. I am curious what the military-knowledgeable people here think about the above claims.[/quote]
Afx: Google “Oplan 5027” and you’ll get a good look at US planning on the subject. While the general populace is impoverished and starving, the NK military is not. Kim makes certain his military machine is well fed and they are certainly well indoctrinated and hate the US with a passion.
It’s also interesting to note that North Korea does not consider South Korea it’s main foe: The US holds that role. South Korea considers North Korea their main enemy, but not vice versa.
Someone earlier opined that North Korea has 8,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul. Actually, this number is about 500, and I think North Korea has about 8,000 tubes TOTAL in their military.
Either way, a second Korean War would be devastating and I don’t doubt that we’d see WMD and even nukes if Kim had them in deployable fashion. I don’t seriously think he wants war, especially because he knows the final outcome, but it’s a convenient bargaining chip/tool for him to use.
[/quote]I did google “Oplan 5027” and found this sentence to be pretty insightful.
“Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=afx114]Isn’t N. Korea’s military made up mostly of rusted out and broken down Cold War-era Soviet hardware? And aren’t their troops and populace in general poorly trained and weakened by famine?
I don’t know if these things are true — they’re just nuggets that I’ve heard a few times from various reporters who’ve managed to get in there. I am curious what the military-knowledgeable people here think about the above claims.[/quote]
Afx: Google “Oplan 5027” and you’ll get a good look at US planning on the subject. While the general populace is impoverished and starving, the NK military is not. Kim makes certain his military machine is well fed and they are certainly well indoctrinated and hate the US with a passion.
It’s also interesting to note that North Korea does not consider South Korea it’s main foe: The US holds that role. South Korea considers North Korea their main enemy, but not vice versa.
Someone earlier opined that North Korea has 8,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul. Actually, this number is about 500, and I think North Korea has about 8,000 tubes TOTAL in their military.
Either way, a second Korean War would be devastating and I don’t doubt that we’d see WMD and even nukes if Kim had them in deployable fashion. I don’t seriously think he wants war, especially because he knows the final outcome, but it’s a convenient bargaining chip/tool for him to use.
[/quote]I did google “Oplan 5027” and found this sentence to be pretty insightful.
“Pyongyang has the ability to start a new Korean War, but not to survive one.”
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to be misunderstood as appeasing N Korea is the way to go. You can’t really compare Hitler to Kim of NK. Both are ruthless but are different animals. Kim of NK wants nothing more than finding a way to continue the status quo so that he can enjoy his his life.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to be misunderstood as appeasing N Korea is the way to go. You can’t really compare Hitler to Kim of NK. Both are ruthless but are different animals. Kim of NK wants nothing more than finding a way to continue the status quo so that he can enjoy his his life.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to be misunderstood as appeasing N Korea is the way to go. You can’t really compare Hitler to Kim of NK. Both are ruthless but are different animals. Kim of NK wants nothing more than finding a way to continue the status quo so that he can enjoy his his life.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to be misunderstood as appeasing N Korea is the way to go. You can’t really compare Hitler to Kim of NK. Both are ruthless but are different animals. Kim of NK wants nothing more than finding a way to continue the status quo so that he can enjoy his his life.
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dbapig]
The threat by NK that they will turn Seoul into a sea of fire is what it is, a threat.Trust me, no one wants ‘peace’ on the Korean peninsula more than Kim in NK. He’s got it good. Why lose it by starting a war that’s he’s sure to lose?[/quote]
I bet that’s what Neville Chamberlain was thinking about Hitler…
Interesting note from Wikipedia:
“Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed in the article Appeasement), thinking it his job as Britain’s leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany’s belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of people are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to be misunderstood as appeasing N Korea is the way to go. You can’t really compare Hitler to Kim of NK. Both are ruthless but are different animals. Kim of NK wants nothing more than finding a way to continue the status quo so that he can enjoy his his life.
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=UCGal][quote=partypup]
Fourth: Everything about this video is creepy to me, down to the well-rehearsed hand gestures…[/quote]I assumed the hand gestures were ASL. My kids do ASL hand gestures in songs they learn at public school for school performances.
Overally, I guess I don’t see the creepy factor. I understand your points, but don’t agree and am not creeped out.[/quote]
Exchange Bush for Obama in the song.[/quote]
Agreed. Someone called obama a tool. Hm, wasn’t W a cheerleader in his high school senior year? Yale grad with C average who got in only because of his daddy?
who’s a tool?
imho
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=UCGal][quote=partypup]
Fourth: Everything about this video is creepy to me, down to the well-rehearsed hand gestures…[/quote]I assumed the hand gestures were ASL. My kids do ASL hand gestures in songs they learn at public school for school performances.
Overally, I guess I don’t see the creepy factor. I understand your points, but don’t agree and am not creeped out.[/quote]
Exchange Bush for Obama in the song.[/quote]
Agreed. Someone called obama a tool. Hm, wasn’t W a cheerleader in his high school senior year? Yale grad with C average who got in only because of his daddy?
who’s a tool?
imho
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=UCGal][quote=partypup]
Fourth: Everything about this video is creepy to me, down to the well-rehearsed hand gestures…[/quote]I assumed the hand gestures were ASL. My kids do ASL hand gestures in songs they learn at public school for school performances.
Overally, I guess I don’t see the creepy factor. I understand your points, but don’t agree and am not creeped out.[/quote]
Exchange Bush for Obama in the song.[/quote]
Agreed. Someone called obama a tool. Hm, wasn’t W a cheerleader in his high school senior year? Yale grad with C average who got in only because of his daddy?
who’s a tool?
imho
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=UCGal][quote=partypup]
Fourth: Everything about this video is creepy to me, down to the well-rehearsed hand gestures…[/quote]I assumed the hand gestures were ASL. My kids do ASL hand gestures in songs they learn at public school for school performances.
Overally, I guess I don’t see the creepy factor. I understand your points, but don’t agree and am not creeped out.[/quote]
Exchange Bush for Obama in the song.[/quote]
Agreed. Someone called obama a tool. Hm, wasn’t W a cheerleader in his high school senior year? Yale grad with C average who got in only because of his daddy?
who’s a tool?
imho
Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=UCGal][quote=partypup]
Fourth: Everything about this video is creepy to me, down to the well-rehearsed hand gestures…[/quote]I assumed the hand gestures were ASL. My kids do ASL hand gestures in songs they learn at public school for school performances.
Overally, I guess I don’t see the creepy factor. I understand your points, but don’t agree and am not creeped out.[/quote]
Exchange Bush for Obama in the song.[/quote]
Agreed. Someone called obama a tool. Hm, wasn’t W a cheerleader in his high school senior year? Yale grad with C average who got in only because of his daddy?
who’s a tool?
imho
-
AuthorPosts
