Phoenix Network Forums

Myst wrote:But yeah we shouldnt bomb them....realistically, i think the US will handle North Korea like they do with Cuba and Castro...

Um, Castro is still in power. That failed. There wasn't enough popular support for an uprising in Cuba.

Before the US even considers performing a secret CIA takeover in North Korea, it needs to ensure that an uprising would have popular support there.

Anyway, the only thing the US can do now is sit and wait. Our President is already in deep manure for Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is no way Congress would approve another war (and if it did, the Democrats would see an increase in seats in Congress). If the US didn't rush into Iraq, perhaps it could do something about this now. Right now, North Korea can easily be compared to a kid that is testing out his/her limits: Will it get a slap on the wrist for testing its missiles and violating an agreement, or will it get away with it with practically no consequences? It seems that the latter has come true, which is not a good thing. Now, if North Korea can get away with that, I'm sure it can get away with a lot more. That thought alone scares me.

Myst wrote:oh and what do you mean by a conventional war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare

Nintendud wrote:Now, if North Korea can get away with that, I'm sure it can get away with a lot more. That thought alone scares me.

Why would N. Korea get away with with a lot more?

Myst wrote:So are you saying that north korea isnt acting that much of an ass because they know the US would beat them in a conventional war..?
oh and what do you mean by a conventional war

An example of a conventional war would be the first Gulf War, when US forces fought against Iraqi Military.

An example of a non-conventional war would be the current situation in Iraq. US Forces are not being an army per se but more of policemen who are fighting against an unidentified enemy. In short, Insurgency =/ Conventional Warfare.

The American Army kicks complete and utter ass in Conventional Warfare, it's what they're trained to do. The Coalition defeated Saddam Hussein in less then 4 months. The Army is not trained to do what they're doing right now.

Anyway, now to N. Korea. The religious and idealistic ferver isn't in the region. N. Korea is surrounded (proximity) by Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia. The only other 'comrade' (hehe couldn't resist) N. Korea has is Communist China, who is too busy making money from Hong Kong and trying to keep Tiennemen Square clean of rift-raft. Also, there is no problem with what you do with N. Korea after invasion, you merge it with S. Korea.

Basically since Kim's tried to turn his country atheistic, we wouldn't find the same insurgency.

Samppa wrote:Why would N. Korea get away with with a lot more?

The US is tied up with Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows when the US's breaking point is? They could gradually move to do something. I'm not sure what, but, at this point, they could be plotting something.

Anyway, that's just my take on it.

So what you meant was N. Korea could get away with a lot more against the US.

But I'm pretty sure that if need be Iraq would be left to it's own devices and the troops transferred. And you could still bomb the chit out of them.

Nintendud wrote:The US is tied up with Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows when the US's breaking point is?

"U.S. Army is composed of over 675,000 Active Duty and Army Reserve Soldiers." GoArmy.com

"The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries. Some of these deployments have existed for nearly 50 years, as in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, while other deployments have more recent origins such as the current occupation of Iraq." - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... yments.htm

There are currently 22,500 US troops in South Korea, according to that same website.

From CNN: [There are] More than 220,000 [soldiers in Iraq], including more than 130,000 in Kuwait.

Keep in mind these numbers include non-combat personnel.

Myst wrote:We don't want another Hiroshima or another Iraq.

Actually you are compairing apples to oranges there, we need a lot more Hiroshimas and a lot less Iraqs.

callihn wrote:we need a lot more Hiroshimas and a lot less Iraqs.

?

So im assuming you're saying you want more people to die horrific deaths and spread lukiemia over lands for many years and expose things to radiation for years to come also?!?!

Nuke everything that pisses us off won't solve the problem! It would be a short solution for a unshort problem.