North Korea declares end to Armistice

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 15:33

Sauce

Thoughts?

Personally, I've seen this coming for a while now. Though they have done it in the past just for attention, so who knows.

Sauce
It was the fifth time in 15 years that the North has threatened to tear up the armistice, according to the White House.
"We're certainly concerned and take any threat seriously," said spokesman Robert Gibbs. "But my sense is they're trying to get renewed attention through sabre-rattling and bluster and threats."

Here's to hoping they're just trying to get attention through a case of sabre-rattling. Though the circumstances are a bit different now that they have nuclear weapons.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 15:37

so? they have plane dropped hiroshima sized nukes. Who cares? the planes suck anyways so they'll get shot before they get anywhere near south korea. If they break the truce and attack, there will be tiny bits of north koreans all over the place.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 16:34

You seem to be forgetting the multitudes of artillery that are pointed at major cities. It will be a bloodbath on both sides if war does occur. And what are we doing to stop this bloodbath? Nothing, because pre-emptive action will be frowned upon, no matter how easy it would be to neutralize the threat.

That being said, no sh*t that North Korea would lose horribly if war did break out. But the numbers of losses really would make you wonder if the "winners" really did win.

by Shemuel 2009-05-30, 17:16

I think everyone is waiting for Kim Jong-Il to die.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 17:22

artillery? at south korean cities? there arent many big cities that can be hit by artillery, and that artillery would be too busy fighting off NATO and south korean troops to attack (mostly) worthless civilians. But yes, there would be huge military losses

by me naam is m 2009-05-30, 17:51

Thingy wrote:artillery? at south korean cities? there arent many big cities that can be hit by artillery, and that artillery would be too busy fighting off NATO and south korean troops to attack (mostly) worthless civilians. But yes, there would be huge military losses

a city can be completely flattened within a day. however, Nato troops, if any, will take weeks just to get mobilised. remember blitzkrieg? the only reason why germany was able to conquer all of west europ was by plain friggin surprise.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 17:59

yes, and breaking through the huge number of infantry, tanks, artillery and other troops plus (i think...) the US support south korea has at the border will take a long time. Plus the US has a whole bunch of troops, aircraft and ships in the area to keep the north koreans back till reinforcements arrive

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 18:04

Shemuel wrote:I think everyone is waiting for Kim Jong-Il to die.

The military is corrupt enough to continue his totalitarian policies.

Thingy, I don't think you get it. Let me put it in plain words: We CanNOT attack first.

North Korea will attack first if they decide to do so, and we will be helpless to prevent a first strike. Why? Because we don't want to appear as the aggressors. Only after many heavily populated cities are decimated by artillery fire will troops be mobilized, only to be slaughtered by the same artillery. All of this because we have our hands tied in this conflict. However, we can only hope that they have enough sense not to attack first, because to do so would mean hundreds of thousands of civilian and military losses and the end of North Korea.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 18:10

no, YOU dont get it. I said if they attack first, they will take a long time to break through the soth korean troops stationed at the border and the reinforcements they'll get from other military bases. And artillery has a maximum range, they have to be close enough to fire at a city, and even if they get in range they'll be too busy supporting their troops.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 18:29

And even then they have more than a million troops ready to go break through those South Korean troops stationed at the borders. And they really don't have to worry about China until the later stages, which will be too late as South Korea will be left in shambles and they can turn their army around (and be owned by the Chinese army that grossly outnumbers the N. Korean army).

This does not take into account if America decides to stretch its military to the breaking point even more than it already is. Then the hordes of pretty ill-equipped North Korean soldiers would be turned back pretty quickly.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 18:31

the south koreans have the same equipment as the US and are pretty well trained. compared to the north korean cannon fodder anyways. and i'm sure NATO would come in and help, losing south korea would be a disaster.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 18:33

Yes NATO would help. But the time it would take to mobilize an effective number of troops and send them over is kinda twitch-worthy.

by Shemuel 2009-05-30, 18:34

The UN might even do something this time if we're lucky, seeing that the secretary-General is South Korean.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 18:37

pfft, not gonna happen. they're just going to ''condemn'' it like they always do.

by Shemuel 2009-05-30, 18:40

well yeah, but I meant economic sanctions.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 18:42

how's that going to help if everyone in the whole world has decided not to trade them and the US has put a huge naval blockade around them?

by Shemuel 2009-05-30, 18:51

China and Russia still trades with them.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-30, 18:53

Meh, i dont think sanctions will help much, it might stop the plutonium (if it's not being smuggled in) but except that it's not going to do much.

by me naam is m 2009-05-30, 18:59

Thingy wrote:how's that going to help if everyone in the whole world has decided not to trade them and the US has put a huge naval blockade around them?

so? that's been the situation for decades... look at that, they're still there.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-30, 19:13

The only reason the whole country's not starved to death is because China is sending aid.

by Earthdeath 2009-05-30, 22:28

Oh, this again.Everyone's been talking about it here, obviously.I'd like too see them try and tear it up and declare war though, they would be defeated in a week tops.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 00:19

meh, they've done it 15 times alredy, so it's probably not that bad.

by Roger Smith 2009-05-31, 02:00

As others have said, I don't think this means anything. No one even knows how that nuclear test even went, and even if they do have the bomb, they'll be wiped out in a second if they ever try to use it.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 10:46

the bomb's not a problem, at all. They'd have to send one of their crappy outdated bombers to deliver it, and because they dont have many the bomber would be the first to be shot down in an air raid. the problem would be if they managed to develop the technology needed to mount it on missiles

by Philly Homer 2009-05-31, 13:15

Have you not been paying attention? They have missiles now. And they can reach Alaska and Hawaii, but who cares about those states, right?

by Shemuel 2009-05-31, 13:21

"Alaska is gone!!!"

"So?"

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 13:21

the technology to mount NUCLEAR warheads ON MISSILES is needed to MOUNT NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON MISSILES. They dont have it. They have missiles but they can be shot down by patriot missile defence batteries, and they can only mount conventional warheads.

And dont you think the US would deploy missile batteries in alaska and hawaii? they're not stupid you know, they've alredy deployed some in japan and (i think) south korea.

by Philly Homer 2009-05-31, 13:25

So what if they can't put the two together? Now that they have the ability to create nuclear weapons and having missiles, all they have to do is calibrate a warhead to fit onto a missile. It's putting two and two together, and really, it doesn't take an Einstein to do that.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 13:27

still, their missiles are low tech and can be easily shot down. They wont be able to hit anything they want to hit

by Philly Homer 2009-05-31, 13:35

There's truth to that, but still. The fact that an unstable nation like North Korea has ICBMs of any sort is kinda unsettling, no matter how low-tech it is.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 13:37

it has them, but they're harmless. and if they even tried to use them, they'd be invaded in no time

by Shemuel 2009-05-31, 13:44

Thingy wrote:still, their missiles are low tech and can be easily shot down. They wont be able to hit anything they want to hit

But even if the missiles get intercepted there will still be radioactive stuff going around.

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 13:48

yeah, but the knowledge that they'll get shot down and spread radioactive materials all over korea and get them invaded by half the world should be enough to keep them from firing

by me naam is m 2009-05-31, 13:58

Shemuel wrote:
Thingy wrote:still, their missiles are low tech and can be easily shot down. They wont be able to hit anything they want to hit

But even if the missiles get intercepted there will still be radioactive stuff going around.

the system has never been proved to work. besides that, if they only nuke S korea there will be no reaction time at all.

Thingy wrote:yeah, but the knowledge that they'll get shot down and spread radioactive materials all over korea and get them invaded by half the world should be enough to keep them from firing

morons never listen to reason, you'd think that was obvious. Rolling Eyes

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 14:07

all they need to do is put a couple of PAC-3 patriot systems in south korea and it will be impossible to hit them with missiles. That system is the most advanced system in the world. It can even determine which sub ordinance has the warhead if korea somehow managed to get high tech missiles. But now they only have low tech crap which an ordinary non upgraded patriot can shoot down

by me naam is m 2009-05-31, 14:26

they're not gonna get that stuff into there without serious trouble. second, due to the short distance there's just no time to activate it. third: don't you think they would be wise enough to take that one out first?

by Karlo 2009-05-31, 14:40

I am going to have to side with Alka and Me naam on this.

All i know is that if N Korea attacks S Korea, there is a chance they will fail to hurt anyone, or they succeed epicly, though it is all agreed that N Korea will lose, and they KNOW that fact.

and also, i also agree with the fact that mobilizing troops under enemy fire willl pretty much slow the soldiers down, but that dosn't mean they all died.

and lastly, i wonder if they tried to get the reaction time by flying around N korea until there was enough time and then try to hit S korea, this is just some guess

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 17:15

me naam is m wrote:they're not gonna get that stuff into there without serious trouble. second, due to the short distance there's just no time to activate it. third: don't you think they would be wise enough to take that one out first?

they cant get to it if it's far enough, and it's multipurpose. so any kind of airstrike would be a total failure, it's AA and can shoot down missiles. Hell, they can send in 16 planes at the same time at one position and they wont get through, the PAC-3 has 16 missiles, all can be individually fired at a plane and have a really really tiny chance of not hitting their target, plus the air cover south korea and the US probably will have over the PAC-3 systems. And no, korea isnt that small. They cant just put a missile silo right on the border without anyone noticing. They'd have to put it way back to keep it protected, which means the missile systems will have more time to intercept it. Hell, it's so fast, so long range and so efficent that it could probably take it down while it's in flight over north korea. And south korea has a whole bunch of them, plus the american and japanese launchers in japan

by Shemuel 2009-05-31, 17:17

I have one thing to show you, Thingy.

THIS

by **Thingy** 2009-05-31, 17:24

So? 8 of 13 is good. They have a good chance of intercepting it. But yeah... i guess they're not that good. Still, there's a chance it can be intercepted on its way to south korea or japan.

by me naam is m 2009-05-31, 17:32

thingy, you're talking about equipment which has NEVER had a full scale test. and shemuel is very right.

also, 8 out of 13 is WAY to small of a chance for a nuke. besides that's it's hugely exagerated.

secondly: i present you this:

www.albinoblacksheep.com).swf" WIDTH="780" HEIGHT=440>

by Philly Homer 2009-06-01, 19:31

PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA—A press release issued by the state-run
Korean Central News Agency Monday confirmed that the Oct. 9 underground
nuclear test in North Korea's Yanggang province successfully exploded
the communist nation's total gross domestic product for the past four
decades.

North Korea's announcement would appear to support the CIA's
intelligence information on the blast. According to the CIA, over 500
tons of compressed purchasing power, the equivalent of 40 years of
goods and services produced by the impoverished country, vaporized in
560 billionths of one second.

Wonderful. If China stopped sending aid, then they're really screwed.

by bodysurfnj 2009-06-02, 00:06

THAT VIDEO WAS AWESOME!!!!!!

by Sponsored content