Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If North Korea are mad enough to attack the South then they will cause a lot of damage and kill thousands before they are stopped.
Short of using nukes, the USA has no quick means of halting a massive attack on the south. There are just 35,000 US troops there plus the South Korean army. Certainly we could slow them down with air strikes and cruise missile attacks but it would take time to get sizable ground forces in place.
So lets all hope this is just saber rattling and nothing more.
If North Korea are mad enough to attack the South then they will cause a lot of damage and kill thousands before they are stopped.
Short of using nukes, the USA has no quick means of halting a massive attack on the south. There are just 35,000 US troops there plus the South Korean army. Certainly we could slow them down with air strikes and cruise missile attacks but it would take time to get sizable ground forces in place.
So lets all hope this is just saber rattling and nothing more.
Agreed!
Just another reason why such nations, (including Iran) should not posses WMD. Some posters wonder why America has nuclear weapons, yet N. Korea is not permitted to own them. "It's only fair to let them develop nuclear weapons" they say.....
You're in complete denial there bud. We pushed them north nearly to the Yalu River only to have that all go away when they turned around and ran us all the way back to the 38th again.
Firstly you weren't alone over there, secondly the green U.S. replacements and South Koreans were in full retreat and storming south of the 38th after suffering "terrible losses" with episodes like over 60 odd of your new arrivals being killed in their sleeping bags without even posting a night watch.
Battles like this one using battle tested WWII troops who were tremendously outnumbered by the Chicoms saved the day:
Read that entire link and pay special attention to the part where while one American Lieutenant in charge of five shermans stuck around throughout a bitter battle he still had to withdraw eventually when the New Zealanders and Autralians he was supporting became surrounded whereupon one entire U.S. morter company simply fled the area leaving all of their weapons and vehicles behind. Yeah, you really showed 'em alrighty.
You destroyed no one. The U.N. fought them to a draw and suffered terribly doing so.
All sides agreed to the armistice because they were fugging tired!
Explore and research some history instead of parroting crap you've heard all your life.
Take the chip off your shoulder. It's clouding your vision.
I see that you're terribly confused.
After we utterly destroyed the NK military, the ChineseRed Army came storming across the Yalu and pushed us back to the 38th parallel, which was the original border. They suffered hundreds of thousands of deaths in the process. The war devolved into a 3 year stalemate at that point.
My family has a long history in the military. I currently have family in the Air Force and in the Army. I served during war as did my father and grandfather. I am not objectionable to our nation going to war, but we haven't truly gone to war since WWII. When you go to war, you bomb cities and you kill innocent women and children that stand in the way of your opposition. War is total destruction and devistation of ones adversary. Surrender must be absolute and unconditional. Until such time as we as a society are once again ready to support without hesitation or pause such an action, we have no business entering into any more wars to do anything. We already have two going on that we have absolutely no business in being there.
What a STUPID post. There are ALWAYS women and children being killed. When we invaded Iraq and occupied it, that was WAR. Just because the opponent was very weak and had very little military, certainly doesn't absolve the fact that over 100,000 people were killed over there. How about you live in Iraq through what the US did to them and then tell me that invasion wasn't war. You have lost your mind.
What a STUPID post. There are ALWAYS women and children being killed. When we invaded Iraq and occupied it, that was WAR. Just because the opponent was very weak and had very little military, certainly doesn't absolve the fact that over 100,000 people were killed over there. How about you live in Iraq through what the US did to them and then tell me that invasion wasn't war. You have lost your mind.
Compare that to what we did to Berlin, to Tokyo, not to mention Nagasaki and Hiroshima... That is how you actually win a war... You don't negotiate a nice little settlement and spend decades fighting a feel good war. You go in and devistate. We lost men in Korea for what? We lost almost 60K in Vietnam, for what? What did we accomplish? Why didn't we win? Simple answer, we didn't have the will to win.. 100,000 people killed in a war is nothing in comparison. Our military does a fine job of caring out it's orders. The problem is, those giving those orders are doing a poor job of managing a war.
No, the US can, and should, back down.
What is the cost to the US of having military presence around the world?
It's not our fight, although we've been pushing it for decades.
The world is in turmoil because of US interference.
Why do you think the middle east is as it is, our interference.
The cost of the US having a military presence? I don't know, stability? Things have been pretty peaceful during America's stint as policeman.
We've been pushing it? Who's the one threatening the use of nukes? Which nation is building military arsenals while their populace is poor and starving?
The world is in turmoil because of US interference. Haha, hardly. It's not even close to turmoil.
The middle east is as it is because of many reasons. The creation of Israel for one. Yeah, invading Iraq was a terrible decision as well. But we are not completely at fault for the tension in the middle east.
The thing I don't get, is surely NK has to know that militarily that they just can't complete... hell, they don't have enough food for the starving population.
Granted, I'm not a military person, but it would seem like we could just carpet bomb the **** out of them before we even send a single troop on their soil.
Correct me if I'm wrong??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
