US tracking NK ship with apparent nuke on board

[QuadCityImages]

If North Korea hit Hawaii with a missile-launched nuke or dirty bomb, I could easily see the next-day forecast for Pyongyang to be unseasonably hot and glowing, no matter who the President of the US is. The US public would demand it, and the entire usefulness of our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent would require it.

[Azure]

If the US wouldn't respond with a nuclear attack, you might as well kiss your country goodbye, because every single country with a nuclear arsenal and a corrupt or terrorist supporting leadership would be tripping over themselves selling nukes to every single terrorist group in the world.

[ResAlien]

I opened this thread and was worried, but thank god it's not a snuke.

[BlackArcher101]

The ship, Kang Nam, left a port in North Korea Wednesday and could be carrying ANYTHING since that's what ships do. The U.S. military has been tracking it since its departure.

I fixed their quote.

Seriously, what a load of crap this whole thing is. They don't know what's on the ship.

While the United States does not know what specifically is on the ship...

They should stop right there. Anything further is making assumptions and we see how well that went with the WMD's. GOD DAMNIT I HATE THE MEDIA THESE DAYS $%&#$^&Y$#^&$#

[bcb]

Seeing as The Japanese think a missile is going to hit Hawaii, maybe they could take out the ship. They owe the US a favour.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's just Korea playing more mind games.

[BlackArcher101]

nevermind

[bluejays]

I hate politics, which is why I don't follow it whatsoever, but can anyone simply explain why the US or any other country never took out North Korea years back? When I read about their modern day death camps, it's like a mini-holocust. How can anyone stand by and watch this happen. Do they really have that loyal and massive a military presence?

[QuadCityImages]

Massive, yes.

Loyal, who knows.

5th biggest army in the world. Coincidentally, Iraq used to occupy that position until about 1991...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

Massive, yes.

Loyal, who knows.

5th biggest army in the world. Coincidentally, Iraq used to occupy that position until about 1991...

They are probably very loyal as they are a lot more cut off than the Iraqis were. Despite being a horrible dictator, Saddam Hussein was actually quite open to western culture. He didn't really isolate Iraq, so I don't think his brainwashing worked as well as it would in North Korea.

But N. Korea has a massive army and only 23 million people. They have little resources, cold winters, and no real allies. A war with N.Korea would probably be viscous and coslty, but I don't think it would take too long before they couldn't feed their army. China is the wild card though. They don't necessarily love Kim Jong Il, but they hate other countries trying to interfere in their sphere. If N. Korea did take things to the exteme by launching a war on the U.S. or an ally, I would not put it past China to take North Korea before the Americans could get in there.

BTW, is that true about Iraq or were you just being tongue-in-cheek? It doesn't sound right to me, but if you say it's true, I'll believe you.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by fleury

I hate politics, which is why I don't follow it whatsoever, but can anyone simply explain why the US or any other country never took out North Korea years back? When I read about their modern day death camps, it's like a mini-holocust. How can anyone stand by and watch this happen. Do they really have that loyal and massive a military presence?

Because years back the largest army in the world were N-Korea's buddys

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by T@T

Because years back the largest army in the world were N-Korea's buddys

You're going to have to explain this.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

BTW, is that true about Iraq or were you just being tongue-in-cheek? It doesn't sound right to me, but if you say it's true, I'll believe you.

Actually, google searching it finds some sources that say it was the 4th largest army. Granted, this is from wiki, but: "Iraq had only a few gunboats and small missile craft to match the coalition's armada, but approximately 1.2 million ground troops, 5,800 tanks, 5,100 other armoured vehicles, and 3,850 artillery pieces all made for a greater strength on the ground. Iraq also had 750 fighters and bombers, 200 other aircraft, and elaborate missile and gun defenses."

The 1.2 million ground troops listed there would indeed put them at 5th on the list I posted earlier. The first Gulf War was an unbelievable beat-down of an impressive military force.

[CrusaderPi]

One of the most interesting wars that I've ever read about was the Iran-Iraq war. (Some of us old school types would call that the original Gulf War). Both countries had and raised impressive armies with some really creative programs and financing. But neither were able to accomplish much as they should have been able to. Intriguing stuff for us geopolitics guys.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

One of the most interesting wars that I've ever read about was the Iran-Iraq war. (Some of us old school types would call that the original Gulf War). Both countries had and raised impressive armies with some really creative programs and financing. But neither were able to accomplish much as they should have been able to. Intriguing stuff for us geopolitics guys.

They may have raised impressive armies, but the one thing that eluded those two countries, and eventually ended up costing the Iraqi's in the second Gulf war was that they didn't see infantry as any more then cannon fodder. They were poorly equipt and trained as oppossed to the other branches of the army (artillary armour) who were lavishly equipt and relatively well trained (except when compared to the Americans).

For some reason they still fight the same kind of wars that they fought in the dark ages where they would mass their armour (Cavalry) and infantry (foot soldiers) and fight straight up frontal assaults.

Iran was notoriously bad for this as they conscripted poorly trained soldiers with little in the way of actual combat skill and promised them paradise then charged them into the machine guns and artillary barrages of the Iraqi's and they were slaughtered in whole sale.

You would see bodies stacked to the roof far away from reaching any objective because they would charge into the teeth of the defenses.

The American's have repeatedly won these type of engagements because

1) They value the individual foot soldier and give him the tools to get in close to the enemy and kill him

2) Superior command and control and lavishly trained officers

3) Combined forces attacks The Russians were the real masters of this at the end of the 20th century but they stole the playbook from WWII germany. You basically hit the enemy with everything, artillary, air support, helicopter support, stand off tank barrages, and you force them to keep their head down. The infantry approaches right behind this rolling thunder and by the time the enemy sticks his head up to look around they're basically within pistol range.

4) The Iranians and Iraqi's during their conflict were very much road armies, the opposing force would zero in on road crossings with artillary and decimate tank and APC columns

5) The ability to fight moving combat continues to elude them. There's a reason why the American's demanded that the M1A1 be able to fire accurately over long distances on the move. American's like to fight maneuver battles where they constantly try to smash in on the flanks or behind the head of the enemy. Iranians are armed with the T-72/T-80 tanks where they are not accurate on the move compared to the American and British tanks. The use of static defenses doesn't work if the enemy goes around it and rolls it up from the sides. Conversly the use of roving defenses works incredibly well for the American's as they tend to use the Russian approach of building fire sacks to ambush and destroy their enemies.



When you fight WWIII, your never going to win if you fight WW1 with WWIII weapons.

Where the American's failed after the second Gulf War is that they forgot everything they had learned about pacifying a hostile country and how to fight those tough urban combat scenarios.

[CrusaderPi]

CC, that is an awesome post. So I'm going to chop it up a little.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Iran was notoriously bad for this as they conscripted poorly trained soldiers with little in the way of actual combat skill and promised them paradise then charged them into the machine guns and artillary barrages of the Iraqi's and they were slaughtered in whole sale.

Ahhh the Revolutionary Guard. How insane is it that the Guard and the regular army didn't really have lines of communication until '85ish(?) Could you imagine the Marines and Army fighting independently against a common enemy?

The American's have repeatedly won these type of engagements because

1) They value the individual foot soldier and give him the tools to get in close to the enemy and kill him.

This shows tremendous growth from the Americans considering their loses compared to the rest of the allies in WWII and the way they wasted men in Vietnam. How were they in Korea? Looks like I have to find myself a book!

3) Combined forces attacks The Russians were the real masters of this at the end of the 20th century but they stole the playbook from WWII germany. You basically hit the enemy with everything, artillary, air support, helicopter support, stand off tank barrages, and you force them to keep their head down.

It is with no small amount of pride that I can point to the Canadians in World War I. It must have been a crazy leap of faith. "Stay about 20 yards behind the artillery." Speaking of Canadian pride, I was driving through Nanton two weekends ago when they had their Lancaster out. They only had one engine going, but the sound it made was incredible.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

CC, that is an awesome post. So I'm going to chop it up a little.


Ahhh the Revolutionary Guard. How insane is it that the Guard and the regular army didn't really have lines of communication until '85ish(?) Could you imagine the Marines and Army fighting independently against a common enemy?

Remember that the revolutionary guard was both considered to be the elite of the elite and they were an extention of the governments will on the battlefield. The army was composed of what you would basically call the red shirt brigades. But the truth is that while the American revolutionary guard was considered elite, it was elite compared to the rest of the army so they were not that elite. Bottom line was that the powers that be didn't want contamination of the less politically reliable army to seep into the revolutionary guard.

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

This shows tremendous growth from the Americans considering their loses compared to the rest of the allies in WWII and the way they wasted men in Vietnam. How were they in Korea? Looks like I have to find myself a book!

Korean losses were pretty high, I just finished reading a couple of books on Korea and they had nearly 40000 deaths in three years as oppossed to the nearly 60000 deaths that occured over 10 years in Vietnam. So the death toll in Korea could be considered to be brutal compared to nam.

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

It is with no small amount of pride that I can point to the Canadians in World War I. It must have been a crazy leap of faith. "Stay about 20 yards behind the artillery." Speaking of Canadian pride, I was driving through Nanton two weekends ago when they had their Lancaster out. They only had one engine going, but the sound it made was incredible.

Sadly I had forgotten about the rolling thunder in WW1, my minds turning to mush from working on this massive proposal.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

CC, that is an awesome post. So I'm going to chop it up a little.


Ahhh the Revolutionary Guard. How insane is it that the Guard and the regular army didn't really have lines of communication until '85ish(?) Could you imagine the Marines and Army fighting independently against a common enemy?
This shows tremendous growth from the Americans considering their loses compared to the rest of the allies in WWII and the way they wasted men in Vietnam. How were they in Korea? Looks like I have to find myself a book!

I would recommend picking up Three War Marine. The book discusses the differences and learning curve of training of the US Army and specifically the artillery corps. Written by a Marine who enlisted during the Pacific campaign, through his years in Korea and later as a colonel in Vietnam. Interesting stuff.

[CaptainCrunch]

Thats an outstanding book.