• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

N Korea Violates S Korean Waters

tlmorg02 said:
If it came down to war a full scale invasion would be needed to prevent a massive influx of North Koreans into South Korea and China after the regime fell.
Click to expand...
Thats not at all necessarily so.
Wars are won by eliminating your enemy's means to wage war.
Why do we necessarily need to invade NK to do that?
 
NK would be dogmeat, if the Chinese didn't help them last time. The Chinese may be a little timid now that NK has it's nuke delivery systems.
 
Saboteur said:
As far as my comment, the U.S. is only going to invade countries that don't have a large military to defend itself. The Bush administration knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and that their military was shakey at best.
Click to expand...

What ignorance.

Tis widely known Saddam was in charge of the world's fourth largest military.

100 hours later he had the second biggest army in Iraq.
 
Voidwar said:
What ignorance.

Tis widely known Saddam was in charge of the world's fourth largest military.

100 hours later he had the second biggest army in Iraq.
Click to expand...

True enough. I was told by most of my professors at the time that we didn't stand a chance.
 
Saboteur said:
Well, I'm sick of the posturing. Both from N Korea and the conservatives here that swear up and down that the 'leftist commies' are taking over America. This is the real deal here not just the regurgetation of some fat, white pundit's hate speech. If the Conservative's here had any shred of understanding regarding what it means to fight for freedom (or any real balls) they'd be on board with military action.
Click to expand...

So say the person wno probley has never been in any REAL COMBAT ACTION.
 
Saboteur said:
Sanctions obviously aren't working. If the U.S. doesn't invade, which I agree isn't an option really, the Navy could at least provide a blockade and shoot down their missle tests.
Click to expand...

HA HA Ha man you have no ****ing idea what your talking about at all. First off where would you send the US Navy for this Blockade and what are you going to stop huh just KN Flagged vessel or you going to also stop other Country flagged Vessels. Next you do understand that in order to shot down one of their Missiles we will have to move at least 15 Aegeis Destroyers into the China Sea and the Sea of Japan you really think the Chinese are going to let this happen or the Russians.
 
Voidwar said:
What ignorance.

Tis widely known Saddam was in charge of the world's fourth largest military.

100 hours later he had the second biggest army in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Worldandnation: New Iraqi army will be one-tenth Hussein's force

"At the height of his power, Hussein boasted an army of more than 20 divisions and 400,000 soldiers, 2,600 tanks and an air force of more than 300 fighters and bombers."

THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000

Don't be an ass. I have all day to look **** up.
 
Goobieman said:
OK -- STILL not answering the question...

You seem fixated on the idea that because we invaded Iraq, we much also invade North Korea. How does that necessarily follow?
Click to expand...

I said sanctions obviously are not working. If you don't understand it, I give up. I've been down this road with you before and it's a dead end.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Japan has been having debates in the Diet over changing their Constitution in order to once again allow for a military. The U.S. has been trying to get them to do so for years, but Japan likes the free protection.
Click to expand...

Japan has one of the largest advanced militaries in the world. So its not like they do not have a military.
They simply call it the JSDF-
The JSDF numbered 239,430 in 2005 with 147,737 in the Ground Self-Defense Force, 44,327 in the Maritime Self-Defense Force, 45,517 in the Air Self-Defense Force, and 1,849 in the Joint Staff Office. Reserves numbered 57,899.
Click to expand...

They have already 'bent' their Constitution and sent troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, and some other places in non-combat roles.

Japan already in 2005-6 or so warned North Korea that it would unilaterally attack if they evidence suggesting North Korea was going to launch a large amount of missiles in a nasty way.


But yeah they are debating scrapping the entire deal and likely will. Its virtually void by the realities now anyway.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
What ignorance.

Tis widely known Saddam was in charge of the world's fourth largest military.

100 hours later he had the second biggest army in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Which only matters during the Feudal Ages where superior numbers actually meant something. Where there weren't battlefield changing weapons which would allow small numbers of troops to decimate larger enemy forces. When everyone is armed with a sword, numbers actually matter.

Superiority today is quite irrelevant when it comes to numbers. When a squadron of ground support aircraft backing up several regiments can utterly decimate entire tank divisions despite being numerical outnumbered 10 to 1, superior numbers mean absolutely nothing more than more targets.

The British during the Zulu Wars were always horribly outnumbered. Care to guess who won and who took the majority of the losses?

Nazi machine gun nests allowed a few platoons of Germans to hold off huge numbers of Allied soldiers. Your argument of numbers over all argues that the Normandy invasion should have been a cakewalk because the Allied Forces massively outnumbered the Axis defense forces. Tell that to those who landed at Omaha.

Numbers don't mean anything these days.

The Iraq's military was shaky. Its air force was decimated during DS. Its tank divisions were essentially gone. All it really had as a capable force was the Republican Guard which wasn't that good in conventional warfare. Furthermore, the whole Iraqi command structure was fundamentally weak. Look up the Iraq Perspective Project. Any army with that kind of central command structure barring inter-unit communication cannot function effectively in repelling invading forced.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
An unintended occurrence due to the fact that the area is disputed.
Click to expand...

I doubt that very much. They knew where they were and they hung around just long enough to make a point.
 
Harshaw said:
True enough. I was told by most of my professors at the time that we didn't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

That was largely due to Vietnam thinking. To be Frank, no one really knew just how much of a change the armed forces went through. Desert Storm was seen by many within the military and outside that the US military had fully recovered from the debacle of Vietnam, that it had overcome the technological and morale problems. Furthermore, Iraq was a paper tiger when it compared to at the time modern military training and equipment. Also remember that military planners at the time at the Pentagon expected much higher causalities. Upwards of 15,000. Essentially it was a war fought with modern technology with a Vietnam sense of how losses would be taken. The biggest problem with DS is that it reinforced the notion that interstate warfare would continue to be the biggest threat. The past 10 years has shown that thinking dead wrong.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Because airstrikes don't win wars.
Click to expand...

Alone no, they don't. But in conjunction with local ground forces such as the KLA in flushing out enemy forces, they do. That and air strikes on civilian utilities has a way of making the population win the war for you.
 
Scorpion89 said:
HA HA Ha man you have no ****ing idea what your talking about at all. First off where would you send the US Navy for this Blockade and what are you going to stop huh just KN Flagged vessel or you going to also stop other Country flagged Vessels. Next you do understand that in order to shot down one of their Missiles we will have to move at least 15 Aegeis Destroyers into the China Sea and the Sea of Japan you really think the Chinese are going to let this happen or the Russians.
Click to expand...

Good points, though presented a little jerky like. I guess we have no choice but to let them invade S Korea and develope intercontinental ballistic missiles. Hell why don't we just sell 'em a few of ours we need the cash anyway.
 
Saboteur said:
Good points, though presented a little jerky like. I guess we have no choice but to let them invade S Korea and develope intercontinental ballistic missiles. Hell why don't we just sell 'em a few of ours we need the cash anyway.
Click to expand...

No we won't invade them trust me on that one if anything it will be the Russian who have over the past few weeks have quitley been moving units down from Kamchuk Pens. and the Chinese who have moved quite a number of units to the border.

As for the ICBM's well they have basically have don't forget they are one of the largest Skud makers in the World who do you think Iraq and Iran got their Missile Tech from.
 
Saboteur said:
Worldandnation: New Iraqi army will be one-tenth Hussein's force

"At the height of his power, Hussein boasted an army of more than 20 divisions and 400,000 soldiers, 2,600 tanks and an air force of more than 300 fighters and bombers."

THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

1. China - 1,700,000
2. India - 1,200,000
3. North Korea - 900,000
4. South Korea - 560,000
5. Pakistan - 520,000
6. United States - 475,000
7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.
8. Myanmar - 325,000
9. Russia - 320,000
10. Iran - 320,000

Don't be an ass. I have all day to look **** up.
Click to expand...

During the late 1970s and the mid-1980s, the Iraqi armed forces underwent many changes in size, structure, arms supplies, hierarchy, deployment, and political character. Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34. The number of tanks in the Iraqi military rose from 2,700 to 5,700 and artillery pieces went from 2,300 to 3,700.


Iraqi Army
 
akyron said:
During the late 1970s and the mid-1980s, the Iraqi armed forces underwent many changes in size, structure, arms supplies, hierarchy, deployment, and political character. Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34. The number of tanks in the Iraqi military rose from 2,700 to 5,700 and artillery pieces went from 2,300 to 3,700.


Iraqi Army
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if most of them surrendered in '91. And by 2003 they didn't have nearly that much. Anyway the point I haven't clearly communicated is that;

Now that we invaded Iraq, for no real reason, we cannot respond to a real threat to our national security and that of our allies.
 
Saboteur said:
Doesn't matter if most of them surrendered in '91. And by 2003 they didn't have nearly that much. Anyway the point I haven't clearly communicated is that;

Now that we invaded Iraq, for no real reason, we cannot respond to a real threat to our national security and that of our allies.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?


Regardless of the rhetoric We now have 14 permanent bases in that region from wich any number of threats can be addressed expanding US operational CC ability significantly.
It appears we now have influence over just about everyone in that region. Check out a map sometime. It may not be boardwalk but its at least parkplace.

I would not use the word "cannot". What happened to "hope and change"?


STATE OF THE U.S. MILITARY RESERVE COMPONENTS

Big changes are ahead. Expansion of the Reserve components, More Equipment, Better HR management, Leveraging of civilian skillsets for particular issues. etc.
The Military Industrial Complex is all Eisenhower envisioned in his darkest nightmares.
 
obvious Child said:
Can anyone tell me why in today's world the size of your military matters?
Click to expand...



Sun Tzu -The belligerent who holds this dominating position can constrain most of them to become his allies.


Helfire missles dont hold ground that long either.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Sun Tzu -The belligerent who holds this dominating position can constrain most of them to become his allies.
Click to expand...

The same Sun Tzu who said that numbers alone confer no advantage. Numbers do not equate to dominating position. If that was the case, the Zulu would have bent the British to their will, not the other way around.

Helfire missles dont hold ground that long either.
Click to expand...

So? One does not need to outnumber the enemy to win a battle. Nor does one need to take ground to deter an enemy from a fight.

Voidwar's dumb argument of numbers mean something ignores how war is actually fought these days.
 
obvious Child said:
Can anyone tell me why in today's world the size of your military matters?
Click to expand...
Because, unltimately, all disagreements are resolved through force, or the credible threat thereof.
 
obvious Child said:
The same Sun Tzu who said that numbers alone confer no advantage. Numbers do not equate to dominating position. If that was the case, the Zulu would have bent the British to their will, not the other way around.



So? One does not need to outnumber the enemy to win a battle. Nor does one need to take ground to deter an enemy from a fight.

Voidwar's dumb argument of numbers mean something ignores how war is actually fought these days.
Click to expand...

One more time.

Sun Tzu -The belligerent who holds this dominating position can constrain most of them to become his allies.


Always come from a position of strength. This submissive nonsense is just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom