[Lorric]

Lay off deathfun.  He's legitimately pointing out (perhaps tactlessly) that from historical and educational perspectives, war on the Korean peninsula would be quite a departure from the military conflicts of the last 40 or so years and therefore fascinating to observe.

Tragic for all concerned, no doubt, but on a purely intellectual level, fascinating.  I doubt he actually means that he wants to see war break out, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope you are right, Deathfun has seemed a nice person to me so far, and the possibility did enter my mind that it was just badly written. But it's saying that he wouldn't mind seeing it and the guerrila stuff today is boring that rang the alarm bells for me.

I saw your post above where you talked about it being fascinating as an academic exercise. I've found myself in a similar position before on this and other things, where my mind starts wandering to the possibilites and I can get pretty intellectually stimulated. Right up until the point I remember it involves people suffering, then I check myself and don't like that I was feeling that way.

[Nuke]

I wouldn't actually mind seeing war break out
Seeing how a modern war would carry out would certainly be interesting to see. All this Guerrilla stuff we've been dealing with for the past decade is just boring

You are living up to your name.

I thought you were better than this.

i think hes been taking nuke lessons.

[General Battuta]

It would be a brief and ultimately one-sided exercise in the application of 'cool' military tactics and maneuvers, followed by a prolonged and not at all photogenic humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions.

also quotin myself to say that if you want war porn there's a disgusting* amount of material from Syria just a Google search away. It's a war so thoroughly YouTubed that you can actually find videos from the rebel and loyalist sides of the same battle.

*i watch everything that involves tanks exploding

[Suongadon]

I wouldn't actually mind seeing war break out
Seeing how a modern war would carry out would certainly be interesting to see. All this Guerrilla stuff we've been dealing with for the past decade is just boring

So... you're too young to have watched Desert Storm on TV I take it? Because that's the same 'modern war' that would happen if there was a conventional fight on the Korean peninsula. Except there is no way it would stay non-nuclear/chemical. NK has the same antique hardware and doctrines that failed against their western counterparts then.

[Luis Dias]

Ok this is getting creepy.

As it probably should...

[headdie]

not to mention it wouldnt be a modern war.  Given my understanding of NK's weapons and probably tactics, it would be more like iraq/afgan just with enough numbers on the low tech side to actually be a threat

[Nuke]

It would be a brief and ultimately one-sided exercise in the application of 'cool' military tactics and maneuvers, followed by a prolonged and not at all photogenic humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions.

also quotin myself to say that if you want war porn there's a disgusting* amount of material from Syria just a Google search away. It's a war so thoroughly YouTubed that you can actually find videos from the rebel and loyalist sides of the same battle.

*i watch everything that involves tanks exploding

war porn <3

[Nuke]

I wouldn't actually mind seeing war break out
Seeing how a modern war would carry out would certainly be interesting to see. All this Guerrilla stuff we've been dealing with for the past decade is just boring

So... you're too young to have watched Desert Storm on TV I take it? Because that's the same 'modern war' that would happen if there was a conventional fight on the Korean peninsula. Except there is no way it would stay non-nuclear/chemical. NK has the same antique hardware and doctrines that failed against their western counterparts then.

i cant really call the mad strategy a failure. it likely prevented the regular use of nuclear weapons since the end of ww2. as for the rest of their military hardware (there fizzlebombs too), lol.

i wouldn't put it beyond them to counter a conventional attack with nuclear response, provided they still had that capability. which if we fall back to mad, means a large north korean sized crater. continuing with conventional warfare risks further nuclear responses. a north korean first strike would need to be nuclear, a conventional attack would be totally ineffective against military targets. they can hit civilians i suppose but then the military hardware you didnt hit hits back twice as hard.

[MP-Ryan]

It would be a brief and ultimately one-sided exercise in the application of 'cool' military tactics and maneuvers, followed by a prolonged and not at all photogenic humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions.

To be fair, North Korea is already a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions.  The results of a significant military conflict would just be that much worse.

[deathfun]

It would be a brief and ultimately one-sided exercise in the application of 'cool' military tactics and maneuvers, followed by a prolonged and not at all photogenic humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions.

also quotin myself to say that if you want war porn there's a disgusting* amount of material from Syria just a Google search away. It's a war so thoroughly YouTubed that you can actually find videos from the rebel and loyalist sides of the same battle.

*i watch everything that involves tanks exploding

Been there
And yes I was too young to have seen Desert Storm from any live perspective. I was born in '92.


To elaborate: We've got all these advances in war technology (from Russia's largest conventional bomb to VTOL F35s to stealth tanks) that were all designed with a level playing field in mind. Seeing them actually used in a scenario other than a test or regular flight would be a sight to behold. 

Headdie does have a point though

Sidenote: People suffer and die as is

[MP-Ryan]

So... you're too young to have watched Desert Storm on TV I take it? Because that's the same 'modern war' that would happen if there was a conventional fight on the Korean peninsula. Except there is no way it would stay non-nuclear/chemical. NK has the same antique hardware and doctrines that failed against their western counterparts then.

not to mention it wouldnt be a modern war.  Given my understanding of NK's weapons and probably tactics, it would be more like iraq/afgan just with enough numbers on the low tech side to actually be a threat

The situation on the Korean Peninsula is not comparable to the Middle East.  NK is armed with Cold War era devices, but has the benefits of Cold War-era Russian and Chinese military training and doctrine.  They also have chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry and *might* actually be crazy enough to use them in a conflict, unlike Iraq in the 90s and Afghanistan/Iraq in 2001-2003.

In short, I was being quite serious when I said a conflict in the Koreas would be unlike anything we've seen in about four decades, and even then not all that comparable to Vietnam.  It's historically uncharted, truly.

[MP-Ryan]

i cant really call the mad strategy a failure. it likely prevented the regular use of nuclear weapons since the end of ww2. as for the rest of their military hardware (there fizzlebombs too), lol.

i wouldn't put it beyond them to counter a conventional attack with nuclear response, provided they still had that capability. which if we fall back to mad, means a large north korean sized crater. continuing with conventional warfare risks further nuclear responses. a north korean first strike would need to be nuclear, a conventional attack would be totally ineffective against military targets. they can hit civilians i suppose but then the military hardware you didnt hit hits back twice as hard.

Frankly, I think most observers can predict with a fair degree of confidence that unless North Korea deployed its nuclear options within the first minutes of engagement, they would cease to exist in short order.  Even then, a successful launch is exceedingly unlikely.  Beyond that, there is no need for anyone else to deploy non-conventional weaponry in the Koreas - MAD doctrine does not strictly-speaking apply to North Korea (though there are certainly lessons we can draw from MAD that do).

[Suongadon]

i cant really call the mad strategy a failure. it likely prevented the regular use of nuclear weapons since the end of ww2. as for the rest of their military hardware (there fizzlebombs too), lol.

i wouldn't put it beyond them to counter a conventional attack with nuclear response, provided they still had that capability. which if we fall back to mad, means a large north korean sized crater. continuing with conventional warfare risks further nuclear responses. a north korean first strike would need to be nuclear, a conventional attack would be totally ineffective against military targets. they can hit civilians i suppose but then the military hardware you didnt hit hits back twice as hard.

Who said it was? I meant 'doctrines' in relation to the (Soviet-style) inflexibility and training, etc. (which probably would be much less of a factor than the only-used-in-three-wars tanks.)

[Nuke]

the best thing the nk has is its large numbers of soldiers, but without mechanized support i can see it degrade into guerrilla warfare pretty quick, assuming they still have the will to fight. aircraft and ground vehicles wont last long at all.

i cant really call the mad strategy a failure. it likely prevented the regular use of nuclear weapons since the end of ww2. as for the rest of their military hardware (there fizzlebombs too), lol.

i wouldn't put it beyond them to counter a conventional attack with nuclear response, provided they still had that capability. which if we fall back to mad, means a large north korean sized crater. continuing with conventional warfare risks further nuclear responses. a north korean first strike would need to be nuclear, a conventional attack would be totally ineffective against military targets. they can hit civilians i suppose but then the military hardware you didnt hit hits back twice as hard.

Frankly, I think most observers can predict with a fair degree of confidence that unless North Korea deployed its nuclear options within the first minutes of engagement, they would cease to exist in short order.  Even then, a successful launch is exceedingly unlikely.  Beyond that, there is no need for anyone else to deploy non-conventional weaponry in the Koreas - MAD doctrine does not strictly-speaking apply to North Korea (though there are certainly lessons we can draw from MAD that do).

our conventional weapons are sufficient for the job of knocking them on their ass. i would be somewhat concerned with them attempting to smuggle nuclear technology out of the country as a final act of spite.

[StarSlayer]

The folks living in the DPRK probably have the been given the ****tiest end of the stick in all of ****land.  It's one thing fighting a force that actually made something approximating an informed decision about the conflict.  Curb stomping people who really don't know any better because they've lived in the Kim crazy regime for half a century would be tragic.  Plus the folks in the South having their end of the peninsula plastered by tube arty and rockets, that's not really worth an experiment in modern NATO equipment vs three decades old Warsaw gear.

[deathfun]

Remind me again why we bothered to build all of the Modern NATO equipment in the first place
It's not as though any of these million dollar expenses are ever going to get used to their full potential.

[Gloriano]

N.Korea's Asian Pacific Peace Committee tells South to make plans to evacuate foreigners from country, state-run TV says.

Just how many more threats they can make?

[Mongoose]

N.Korea's Asian Pacific Peace Committee

lol

[NGTM-1R]

Just how many more threats they can make?

Hundreds.

[Grizzly]

Just how many more threats they can make?

Hundreds.

ALL Of THEM.
SIMULTANIOUSLY.