Will The U.S. Go To War With North Korea? (Would It Be Vietnam All Over?)

[kingblaze84]

Hell no America won't dare go to war against North Korea....it has its hands full losing the war in Afghanistan and politically, losing the war in Iraq COMPLETELY.

You think America would even DREAM of taking on a million man army with nuclear weapons? Hell no lol....remember how costly Vietnam was and how North Korea has killed over 95 Americans since the END of the Korean War. America doesn't want problems there, although we can all admit America would beat NK. NK would do some heavy damage if we sent troops there though.

And call me crazy but I think Rodman has helped America out in some ways there. While Rodman obviously hasn't created real peace btw America and NK, the tensions could be much much worse. Remember, this is a regime that dares America to fight every 3 months and has openly declared it wants to send a nuclear bomb to Washington DC. They even made a video about it lol....now imagine Iran did that.

 

[kingblaze84]

Oh and North Korea will be a free nation in probably 50 years or more. NK is one of those few troubled nations where you never hear about revolutions or mass protests taking place. I guess they're comfortable with their free housing and healthcare

 

[zombie]

there really is no need to go to war with nk and I don't believe they can last another generation without serious change.

if we did go to war with them it would likely last only a month and that's bring generous. the nk army has 1950s level technology and they don't have the supplies to feed their army. a large army is a weakness if you can't feed it.

 

[janklow]

-US doesn't have much incentive to go to war with NK right now

-wouldn't be as bad as Vietnam IF ONLY because in a circumstance where we fought NK, their outside backers would likely have signed off on it in some capacity

-rah rah NO OIL IN NK rah rah

and how North Korea has killed over 95 Americans since the END of the Korean War.

really, dude, this is a lame talking point and you should probably drop it from the material

 

[Plutarch]

-rah rah NO OIL IN NK rah rah

dammit, stole my line.

 

[kingblaze84]

-US doesn't have much incentive to go to war with NK right now

-wouldn't be as bad as Vietnam IF ONLY because in a circumstance where we fought NK, their outside backers would likely have signed off on it in some capacity

-rah rah NO OIL IN NK rah rah

and how North Korea has killed over 95 Americans since the END of the Korean War.

really, dude, this is a lame talking point and you should probably drop it from the material

Why is NK killing 95 American soldiers since the armistice signing a lame talking point? It's gotten away with a lot

 

[janklow]

Why is NK killing 95 American soldiers since the armistice signing a lame talking point? It's gotten away with a lot

well, first off, it's not like they ran into SK, killed 95 soldiers and no one did anything about it. it's small incidents spread out over 61 years.

second, giving no information clearly conceals that there's a difference between things like an American stumbling into a land mine and NK shooting down an EC-121.

third... i am not even sure 95 is an accurate number.

 

The user and all related content has been deleted.

 

[kingblaze84]

Why is NK killing 95 American soldiers since the armistice signing a lame talking point? It's gotten away with a lot

well, first off, it's not like they ran into SK, killed 95 soldiers and no one did anything about it. it's small incidents spread out over 61 years.

second, giving no information clearly conceals that there's a difference between things like an American stumbling into a land mine and NK shooting down an EC-121.

third... i am not even sure 95 is an accurate number.

America technically invaded Iraq for less though. Saddam didn't kill any American troops or people before we invaded his nation....and the 95 killed number comes from American military websites I looked up

 

[LUClEN]

America doesn't fight nuclear powers

 

[janklow]

America technically invaded Iraq for less though.

sort of a debatable notion because you're weighing larger global concerns versus small-scale outrage. always a judgment call.

Saddam didn't kill any American troops or people before we invaded his nation...

the first Gulf War doesn't count? seriously though, see above

.and the 95 killed number comes from American military websites I looked up

let me get a link, my friend

 

[kingblaze84]

America technically invaded Iraq for less though.

sort of a debatable notion because you're weighing larger global concerns versus small-scale outrage. always a judgment call.

Saddam didn't kill any American troops or people before we invaded his nation...

the first Gulf War doesn't count? seriously though, see above

.and the 95 killed number comes from American military websites I looked up

let me get a link, my friend

I didn't include the Gulf War but I should have. Yes Saddam did help kill American troops in the Gulf War.

As far as the 95 troops killed by NK over the years, here's one link but mind you, I first heard 95 Americans were killed by North Korea on a CNN report a few years ago. According to this link though, 100 Americans have been killed by North Korea since the armistice signing, with zero retaliation from USA
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120528

Since the signing of the armistice, North Korean attacks have killed 100 U.S. and more than 450 South Korean troops.

Today, 28,500 U.S. forces continue to serve in South Korea, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their South Korean counterparts to provide security on the peninsula.

“They are trip wires,” Weber said. Even with the South Korean Army now holding the demilitarized zone created by the armistice agreement, “the Americans are there, so the North Koreans know that if anything started, the United States would be involved,” he said.

 

[janklow]

As far as the 95 troops killed by NK over the years, here's one link but mind you, I first heard 95 Americans were killed by North Korea on a CNN report a few years ago. According to this link though, 100 Americans have been killed by North Korea since the armistice signing, with zero retaliation from USA

honestly, i'm just going to dispute anything that quotes a random number with no breakdown. i mean, for example, if NK shot down a spy plane and killed 31 Americans, it's a bit much but what specific retaliation do you expect?

 

[kingblaze84]

As far as the 95 troops killed by NK over the years, here's one link but mind you, I first heard 95 Americans were killed by North Korea on a CNN report a few years ago. According to this link though, 100 Americans have been killed by North Korea since the armistice signing, with zero retaliation from USA

honestly, i'm just going to dispute anything that quotes a random number with no breakdown. i mean, for example, if NK shot down a spy plane and killed 31 Americans, it's a bit much but what specific retaliation do you expect?

Yes there isn't a breakdown of the 100 Americans killed by NK since the armistice signing because technically, there is still a war going on. A peace treaty has never been signed and nothing online refutes the evidence that NK has killed at least some Americans since the signing.

For the same NK regime to still be firmly in place, considering America likes to start wars over every little thing, is very telling.

 

[janklow]

Yes there isn't a breakdown of the 100 Americans killed by NK since the armistice signing because technically, there is still a war going on. A peace treaty has never been signed and nothing online refutes the evidence that NK has killed at least some Americans since the signing.

well, considering i have talked about specific incidents where Americans were killed, i don't think i am disputing that Americans have been killed. however, to be redundant, i'm just going to dispute anything that quotes a random number with no breakdown. because the circumstances matter.

For the same NK regime to still be firmly in place, considering America likes to start wars over every little thing, is very telling.

62 Americans were killed when the Soviets shot down KAL 007. did we immediately go to war with them?

i agree the US likes to react in a manner befitting SUPERPOWER STATUS, but it's never as simple as "an American was killed somewhere? WAAAR!!!"

 

[zombie]

anti Americanism is a break in logic that prevents objective perspectives of the foreign policy of the USA. 95 americans die within 60 years but somehow that's a loss for America??? that small number is nothing especially when we don't know the circumstances behind each death

 

[kingblaze84]

We don't know the circumstances behind each American death and that's a legitimate point. Many could have been spies, but it's still a big number to me considering NK has videos declaring its wishes to destroy American cities with nuclear bombs. If Iran did that, the war drums would be beating so fast there'd probably be a war next year. NK also acts aggressive with its neighbors every 3 months, if not less.

And that's why I think American govt officials, privately, have a grudging respect for North Korea's military and regime. SK officials have publicly admitted any war with NK would devastate its land. Yes NK would lose eventually, but NK behavior is very aggressive compared to Iran, and American govt officials whine about Iran much more then NK. But like someone said here earlier, NK in the end has nothing we need.

 

[janklow]

We don't know the circumstances behind each American death and that's a legitimate point. Many could have been spies, but it's still a big number to me considering NK has videos declaring its wishes to destroy American cities with nuclear bombs.

okay, but the specifics matter (and, frankly, the accurate of the 95 number).

take a situation like that which led to Operation Paul Bunyan: tragic incident, but is that specifically worth going to war over? and yet it's one of your 95.

or when you have 31 of those deaths due to a spy plane being shot down: it's a huge percentage of your number, but it's also a spy plane, and thus a different circumstance from an unprovoked attack on an American. do you go to war for that?

If Iran did that, the war drums would be beating so fast there'd probably be a war next year.

pretty sure Iran has been linked to deaths that the US believes Iran was behind 100% and yet the war drums were not beaten...

And that's why I think American govt officials, privately, have a grudging respect for North Korea's military and regime.

nah. this is a respect for the opinions of SK and China.

 

[kingblaze84]

We don't know the circumstances behind each American death and that's a legitimate point. Many could have been spies, but it's still a big number to me considering NK has videos declaring its wishes to destroy American cities with nuclear bombs.

okay, but the specifics matter (and, frankly, the accurate of the 95 number).

take a situation like that which led to Operation Paul Bunyan: tragic incident, but is that specifically worth going to war over? and yet it's one of your 95.

or when you have 31 of those deaths due to a spy plane being shot down: it's a huge percentage of your number, but it's also a spy plane, and thus a different circumstance from an unprovoked attack on an American. do you go to war for that?

If Iran did that, the war drums would be beating so fast there'd probably be a war next year.

pretty sure Iran has been linked to deaths that the US believes Iran was behind 100% and yet the war drums were not beaten...

And that's why I think American govt officials, privately, have a grudging respect for North Korea's military and regime.

nah. this is a respect for the opinions of SK and China.

I can live with all that.

As far as America respecting the opinions of SK and China, that's also fine. But SK officials stating publicly NK can devastate their land and even ruin their capital shows NK is still a force in Asia. The crazy guy down the block who has nothing to lose, while America has zero appetite to fight a nuclear armed nation.

 

[janklow]

As far as America respecting the opinions of SK and China, that's also fine. But SK officials stating publicly NK can devastate their land and even ruin their capital shows NK is still a force in Asia. The crazy guy down the block who has nothing to lose, while America has zero appetite to fight a nuclear armed nation.

i don't think it's a statement that they're a force in Asia; they're really not. i've said it before, but for all their supposed superiority in military skill and unending desire for war, NK also manages to never actually START a real war (or start it back up, if you like).

the fact of the matter is the proximity to NK means SK would suffer some serious damage in an out-and-out fight and SK's being realistic about that. but i think that's more a realistic perspective on what war in the Korean Peninsula would mean rather than some outright fear of NK.