[Bobboau]

I would realy like to know wwhat did happen to Iraqs weapons, we know they had them, I realy doubt he actualy destroied them, hmmm... anyway

NK is a much meaner beast to fight, we realy should get done in Afghanastan and Iraq first, and it would probly be better to try and trick Kim into pissing off China,
NK is one of the few places I wouldn't be totaly against useing Nukes, there entire populace is brainwashed into something strait out of old Tojo Japan, unlike Iraq I beleve they would fight, and hard, this is something that could probly best be done via specal ops, sabatoge, getting ourselves a ****ing intelegence agency of some form, keeping things caiotic within the NK government (a few well placed assassanations maybe), and slowly building up a coalition this time (unlike Iraq we will need it for NK). now I am hopeing for something to get done, but this isn't a five week war, and we can't win it in our current state allone (without nukes anyway)

but maybe Kim will make it easy on us and decide it's time to invade South Korea, nukes Soal, and we would have nobody complaining if we nuked him there.

note: use of nukes is not a means of liberation, any use of nukes would be in resoponce to NK, and would be an attempt to simply kill the entire contry (ie, they nuked Soal or LA, or something equaly stupid), I would _much_ prefer containment and sabatoge untill we have a means by wich to take care of Kim and palls, but if he picks a fight, South Korea becomes an island nation

[Gank]

Interesting timing, first the US reduces ground forces in SK, then they pull them back from within range of NK's guns, now the horror storys start appearing. Ground wars not gonna happen, US doesnt, and never had, the strength for it.  If anything does happen it'll most likely be bombing, though I dont see how thats going to achieve anything as everything worth bombing is deep underground and US intelligence doesnt seem to be able to find its own arse these days.

[Bobboau]

it's been quite a few years sence any US intelligence agency has had reliable evedence regarding likely locations of there ass(es)

[an0n]

China - Wouldn't give a ****. They'd enter an economic deal with the US whereby their new-found capitalism would be fed by US companies in exchange for them not directly engaging the US forces.

UK - No ****ing way would the UK pick a fight with North Korea. The government is in tatters as it is over Iraq and starting more **** would just kill it outright.

US - Even without China backing NK, the US would get raped. The simply don't have the man-power to attack North Korea while policing Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there's the matter of every tin-pot dictator, terrorist and 'illegitimate businessman' in the East deciding they could get a lot of power by attacking the US while their forces are thinly spread.

UN - No matter how 'justified' an invasion would be, the UN aren't going to back it, on the grounds that if they tell the US "It's okay to invade yet another country" they'll lose all credibility.


All the US have to do is shoot one high-power ballistic missile at the capital and take out the NK government.

The entire country is basically one huge rabble with guns. Their heirarchy is laughable. And few people have the ability to organise and control the armies of NK. You take out the leaders, the 'army' gets scared, turns tail and runs.

Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?

Hell, they could even do things the easy way and just commandeer the media in NK.

If the population believes everything that pours through their 2-cent radios all you gotta do is broadcast the surrender-message at a higher power than the NK Gov can and you've won.


And before you all go whining about how terrible this is, at least NK have a reason. The US lets thousands of people die every year because they can't afford health-insurance. They let thousands of people die because the government just doesn't give a **** and would rather be clutching at glory and conquering the world than sorting out problems at home.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?

Quite a bit longer actually. Hitler didn't support Rommel enough in North Africa for one thing. Had the germans had someone capable in charge rather than just charismatic and popular the war would have gone on a lot longer.

[an0n]

Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.

Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.

[Gank]

China would give a ****, NK is the sole chinese client state in an area dominated by US allies. The Chinese would be very eager to see the US taking a blow both militarily and credability wise over NK. Probably wouldnt intervene militarily, might slip the Koreans a couple of SS-N-25s if they were feeling particularly nasty but other than that they wouldnt really have too.

You're right about the US, UK and UN but the rest of your post is utter bollocks.

First of all the NK leadership lives about a mile underground, along with all heavy industry, military installations and most of its skilled labour force. Launching a missile at Pyongyang would simply be a slaughter of poor civilians.

Secondly the army isnt a rabble, its highly trained and motivated and frequently has fought to the death when caught infiltrating by the south.  Its also well equipped, particularly in the artillery department. Taking out the leadership is a nice idea, but I think in real life it mightnt be as easy as you make it sound.

The idea that the people are going to give up just because they hear an american voice on the radio is ****ing ludicrous. I seriously hope you're taking the piss. These guys have trained to fight you for the last 50 years, they're not going to run away when you come, they're going to try and **** you up as best they can.

Oh and I seriously doubt the article is true, people dont defect from Nk every day and by the sounds of it this guys been out a while. Usually defecters spill the beans as soon as they get out, and I cant see how this guy forgot to mention it when whoever picked him up interrogated him. And iirc, most of the evidence concerning Iraqs wmds came from defectors.

[Gank]

Originally posted by an0n
Think of it this way: How far would the Nazi's have got if in 1940 the UK had assasinated Hitler, Himmler and Goebels?

Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.

Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.

War had already started in 1940, so the only people who wouldnt have been invaded were the russians. Given how much German strength this front took up I'd say Britain would have screwed themselves quite thoroughly had they pursued this course of action.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. The only reason they wanted a war in the first place was because of Hitlers speeches and Goebels manipulation of the media.

Take away that and all support for the war collapses. So no matter how capable Rommel was the people wouldn't have even let him into power and he wouldn't have been invading anyone.

As Gank says by 1940 the war had already started. Do you think that if Hitler had been killed the germans would have just turned over Poland and retreated to their pre-war positions? Absolute nonsense.

Had you said 1933 then you might have had some validity but by 1940 killing Hitler would have been a bad idea. That much should be obvious from the fact that AFAIK no one from the allied powers even tried it.

Originally posted by Gank
Oh and I seriously doubt the article is true, people dont defect from Nk every day and by the sounds of it this guys been out a while. Usually defecters spill the beans as soon as they get out, and I cant see how this guy forgot to mention it when whoever picked him up interrogated him. And iirc, most of the evidence concerning Iraqs wmds came from defectors.

I doubt that the story itself is made up. The Guardian is a pretty credible source. If you're saying that the defector is suspect then that's a completely different matter.

[an0n]

Firstly: I meant 1940. By killing Hitler the Nazi's lose their figure-head, the population loses most of its sense of purpose and everyone goes "Hey, why the hell does Himmler get to be king now? I wanna be king" and the bickering starts. I'm not saying they wouldn't have still been all "Kill everything", just that they'd've been pretty much instantly ****ed.

Secondly: The North Korean leadership could be 100 miles underground for all it'd matter. How the hell do you think they'd organize a counter-offensive burried under hundreds of meters of solid rock and collapsed tunnels?

Thirdly: No matter how well-trained an army is, it cannot function properly unless it A) Believes in the cause enough to die for it and B) Has some kind of leadership, be it cell-based, centrally organized or faction-based.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by mikhael
* Rest of the World: Here that means "The Rest of the World" and NOT "the UK and Australia and a bunch of other pissant nations that can't muster the force of arms to rob a liquor store, let alone force regime change in a nation that desperately needs it".

Wheee, I'm Willing!

[Bobboau]

well they seem to have A

[karajorma]

Originally posted by an0n
Firstly: I meant 1940. By killing Hitler the Nazi's lose their figure-head, the population loses most of its sense of purpose and everyone goes "Hey, why the hell does Himmler get to be king now? I wanna be king" and the bickering starts. I'm not saying they wouldn't have still been all "Kill everything", just that they'd've been pretty much instantly ****ed.

An0n that's really simplistic thinking from you. Sometimes when a dictator dies or get killed the resulting power vacuum does result in trouble like that but just as often an even worse person seizes control and since everyone moves up the food chain no one is particularly unhappy enough to cause a revolution (or brave enough for that matter).

Besides as I said earlier. If killing Hitler would have ended the war that easily how come no attempts were made by the allies?

[IceFire]

Doesn't always work that way...for instance Goering contributed significant gains to the British during The Battle of Britian by being a strategic and tactical idiot.  He knew nothing of fighter or bomber tactics and between that and his arrogant boasting managed to loose himself the battle quite handily.  Kill him and replace him with one of his lieutenants who actually knew how to do things and the situation may have been different...of course Hilter was the one who decided that London be reduced to rubble which gave a chance for the RAF to rebuild their numbers enough to make the Germans think twice about a daylight bombing campaign over London again.

[aldo_14]

Hitler was a principle reason for Germany losing the war.... he demanded, in particular, control of every single unit on the ground.  For example, during the Omaha landings, there was a division of Panzers that, if deployed, would have decimated the landing toops and repelled that particular landing.  But, because Hitler demanded  total control, they couldn't send in the Panzers without his approval.  And no-one wanted to wake him in Berlin to ask.....

a similar thing also happened in Iraq, when Saddam moved a division(+) of the Republican guard to the North - as the US was making it's attacking move from the south.  Despite the fact that Republican guards were engaging US forces   to the south at tat moment, no-one dared disobey Saddam.  When Baghdad fell, the northern based divisions simply went home and gave up.

Granted, neither example is a 'war-losing' one, but imagine these repeated over and over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/hitler_churchill_01.shtml

Is interesting.

[karajorma]

I sometimes wish my history lessons had been better I'd heard several times with explainations that killing Hitler would extend the war but I couldn't remember a single one of them

[Gloriano]

I still really hope there is no war between usa and NK in near future Woolie wool&Drew you guys talk that USA should attack against NK would you willing go there too? and maybe end dead

Cos Soldiers fight war not lame Politics .

[karajorma]

I vote we drop Woolie, Drew and the rest of them in NK with a gun and leave them to get on with it

[an0n]

If killing Hitler would have ended the war that easily how come no attempts were made by the allies?

Because Hitler was a known quantity. And they'd rather face Hitler with all his flaws that have him assasinated and face the uncertainty of who would follow him.

At the time it coulda swung either way, either the entire German government coulda gone to **** or one man could've decisively seized power and conquered the world.

But with the gift of hind-sight we know there was enough selfishness and inter-personal bickering within the heirarchy to have at worst put Goering into power with begruded support from the rest of the leadership and at best completely screwed the Nazis.

The peoples belief in Hitler was the only thing stopping the likes of Goering or Hess sticking a very literal knife in his back and seizing power for themselves.

Germans liked Hitler. Hitler was a man of the people. And if someone had ousted him and tried to take power they'd've seen it as treason and probably (literally) crucified them.

[karajorma]

With the gift of hindsight we know that MIGHT have happened. You can never say with much certainty that someone else whouldn't have simply knifed Goering and done a much better job of running Germany.

Besides as Aldo said without a lot of Hitler's micromanaging of the war the fighting would have gone on for longer.