Your reaction if we went to war with North Korea?

Mumbly

New member
Dec 26, 2014
40
0
0
Zontar said:
Now the issue is ISIS, the new symbol for radicals to form around which is spreading from one Muslim state to the next. Though pretty much contained to western Iraq and eastern Syria (outside of a lone city in Libya) we've had to make a choice when dealing with them. Either the pragmatic choice to not intervene and let the locals deal with it on their own, or the moral one to help stop the militants where they stand (as it stands I feel we haven't gone far enough due to Washington and London not wanting this to turn into another occupation of Iraq).
One of my friends said the only way to deal with that problem is to "outfuck" them. Literally. Make more kids than they do.

I have no opinion on that tho.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Mumbly said:
Zontar said:
Now the issue is ISIS, the new symbol for radicals to form around which is spreading from one Muslim state to the next. Though pretty much contained to western Iraq and eastern Syria (outside of a lone city in Libya) we've had to make a choice when dealing with them. Either the pragmatic choice to not intervene and let the locals deal with it on their own, or the moral one to help stop the militants where they stand (as it stands I feel we haven't gone far enough due to Washington and London not wanting this to turn into another occupation of Iraq).
One of my friends said the only way to deal with that problem is to "outfuck" them. Literally. Make more kids than they do.

I have no opinion on that tho.
I suppose that is a practical long-term solution if we refuse to solve it in the short term, but I think bombing the bases of operation of radicals is enough. Though forcing the Saudi family to stop sheltering and funding them would probably also help.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
I think the world would be better off without nations like NK around..

However, Warfare has changed. It's no longer acceptable to go bomb entire cities into rubble and just go full out scorched earth an entire country. Very good for humanity, ethics, and non combatants.. But bad for "winning" wars.

That's why all the stuff in the middle east is still going on. If people still had the WW1-WW2 mindset, we'd have rolled in there with the gloves off and that whole place would be gone and it would have been over in no time. But there would be a whole lot more dead innocents and we'd look like monsters.

Assuming China and other trading partners didn't very bad react to being blocked, they could probably be starved out meaning less friendly allied lives but that would leave a lot of dead innocents. And they would die before the enemy combatants. So you're left with doing it the hard way, like in Iraq. Either way, it ends with NK getting stomped. But it wouldn't be pretty for anyone.
 

verdant monkai

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,519
0
0
Auron225 said:
Suppose it was announced tomorrow that "we" (I'll give 3 different scenarios for who "we" includes) had declared war with North Korea. What would your reaction be? Would you think it's about time? Would you be distraught?

As for who "we" is (you can break up your answers if it changes how you'd feel about it);

1) U.S.A. alone VS North Korea

2) U.S.A., the UK, South Korea, Japan and minor help from other countries (with China and Russia agreeing to not get involved).

3) Every country against North Korea.

Also; how would you feel if North Korea had not provoked us as opposed to them striking first?
North Korea eh?

1) I hope it works out better for you guys than your trip to Vietnam did. Please get rid of Kim Jong and force those silly bastards to have a peaceful democracy.

2) Oh god please don't involve us Brits into another one of your embarrassing escapades against a vastly inferior foreign power, Afghanistan was bad enough. But by all means bring us along if you decide to fight the war with anything other than your usual foetus mutating, child maiming explosives and burning chemical sprays. I'm sure our troops will be delighted to hear you GI's constantly shouting "U.S.A U.S.A" in an undignified manner. I'm a big fan of America so please don't take that the wrong way, you make all my favourite music and films, I just think the way you go about warfare is disgusting.
I doubt Japan will appreciate America sticking its big nuke launching red white and blue nose in Asian affairs, especially in an aggressive way. As for China and Russia not doing anything, I know this is hypothetical but come on they would definitely get involved.

3) What even places like Costa Rica with no standing army? this scenario is a bit dumb. Well North Korea would be fucked I guess. Then there would probably be another war about who gets to force their ideology on the defeated Koreans.

I honestly wouldn't care if we attacked unprovoked. They are a global nuisance.

To be honest its not anyone's place to sort out North Korea. The military and political fallout a war with them would cause is too great. We'd probably have another cold war on our hands. The Koreans need to sort themselves out, either the Northerners revolt or the southerners get an army together and sort them out.
 

Mumbly

New member
Dec 26, 2014
40
0
0
BoogieManFL said:
That's why all the stuff in the middle east is still going on. If people still had the WW1-WW2 mindset, we'd have rolled in there with the gloves off and that whole place would be gone and it would have been over in no time. But there would be a whole lot more dead innocents and we'd look like monsters.
I'd say "a whole lot more dead innocents" is a much larger problem than "we'd get bad PR".
 

norashepard

New member
Mar 4, 2013
310
0
0
If any variation of this war broke out, I would be incredibly sad, and would likely protest the war if the U.S. got involved. The North Korean public has enough to contend with without another fucking country trying to murder them, too. Not to mention all the apparent racism they already face would be quadrupled, and that's no good.
 

crazygameguy4ever

New member
Jul 2, 2012
751
0
0
anything made in Korea, like a missile for example, would probably fall apart or blow up before it ever left the launch pad lol
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,228
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
There's three things that are going to happen in every scenario.

1.The US will crubstomp NK. Not a contest. North Korea loses on logistics alone(I'm curious how many of their artillery shells actually work, because on 1991, many of Iraqs were duds due to homeloading), before the tech gap even comes into play. I'm willing to bet that as long as the US doesn't fire the first shot, China will probably stand by and let it happen(though they might make some token gestures of "Bad America!" to save face).

2. A lot of people are going die. A decent chunk of those are going to be on Seoul, because NK is likely going to open with an artillery barrage on SK. Those guns will be silenced, but NK might get quite a few barrages off before they are.

3. The Reconstruction will likely be a nightmare. NK is believed to have the the kind of infrastructure that would make Soviet Bloc states cry. That's before it gets bombed. There's also the massive Refugee crisis, and I don't think China wants a couple of million extra mouths to feed.

If we're really lucky, the world will help rebuild the country.

Of course, if we're really lucky, one of lil'Kimmys advisers will shoot him, take over and start moving the country towards some sort of sanity. Something akin to China is probably the best we can hope for right now.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,228
7,007
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Mumbly said:
One of my friends said the only way to deal with that problem is to "outfuck" them. Literally. Make more kids than they do.

I have no opinion on that tho.
I've noticed people who believe in "Outfucking them" seem to have this weird conception of warfare as it was in the middle ages, where population was actually a big factor to winning wars.

In the modern era, industry, technology, training and logistics mean a hell of a lot more then pure numbers. Having more troops(or potential troops) doesn't mean a lot when the other guy has more bullets then you, or can bomb you at will.

I have this wierd feeling that if we do go to war with NK, there's gonna be a lot of "The first man gets the rifle, the next man gets a clip of ammo" on the NK side, like the Russians did at Stalingrad(I'm also fairly sure the Soviets in WW2 were in a much better position then the North Koreans are now).
 

Timedraven 117

New member
Jan 5, 2011
456
0
0
First thought: If China is okay with it we have nearly nothing to lose and would likely have the public's faith restored in our military. Everyone saying it will be like the middle east aren't taking into account the circumstances and difficulties of such a cluster fucked area. North Korea doesn't not have hundreds of tribes with half a dozen ethnic groups that hate each other. They also are very poor and ill educated, I personally doubt they can afford an AK in decent condition (Let alone the government actually being desperate enough to give one in advance, the last thing a dictator ship does is arm its people), or have the know how and capability to maintain a resistance for long. In Afghanistan, they had received previous funding and training from American CIA operatives to help counter the Russian invasion From there it was s snowball effect of experience leading to training, which still resulted in an absurd causalities dissonance between Coalition and n Afghan forces. Along with a failure to kill or capture the majority of Taliban infantry.

Especially if the US has prior agreements from China to not help North Korea at all, meaning no training for IED making, no equipment to make bombs from, and the only thing they really have in war materials are illegal chemical weapons, which will likely be more likely to kill the user, since they won't have access to chemical protection gear while Coalition troops will. This may be idealistic of me but as soon as they start getting fed (Which a lot of people are not or are just scrapping the bottom of the barrel), and see that South Korea is actually really good, which despite what the Kim's propaganda proclaim constantly, everyone but the most fanatical knows that he South is better, only the most fanatical will stay to fight while the rest return home or go see family that is on the other side of the border.

And before people say they will use their massive artillery stockpile, or nuclear weapons, it should be noted that while the artillery is a problem (If the military even bothered springing the enormous amounts of cash cycling out their ammo constantly to avoid misfires, duds, ect. Which i doubt from the very poor nation.) the Nuclear weapons (Launched by missile or aircraft) Will be nullified by American air superiority and intelligence. We won't just declare war before we're ready, in all likelihood it will either be NK attacking first, or an agreement with China to allow us to launch a surprise attack which will allow us to gain air superiority before the NK planes can even launch. From then on any artillery piece that opens fire will get bombed.

The biggest loss will likely be Seoul, even if you get a majority of people into underground shelters, and even if a majority of enemy shells are just duds, the damage will still be catastrophic or problematic, they can rebuild alongside North Korea and may even serve as a catalyst for SK involvement in peace keeping duties if spun right. Either way, the US administration will and should wash their hands of the area as soon as possible and give it to South Koreans to maintain. They are rich, of the same nationality,ethnicity, and language which already solves most problems of a foreign occupation with the drive to help their brothers across the DMZ.

Second Thought: American Shock troops and aircraft superiority, with South Korean and Japanese ground forces fording the way, the war will be drastically shorter then the planning period (Months to a year of combined planning, compared to a few days or a few weeks at most for the surprise.) All of the above still apply, but Seoul will probably be saved by SK counter artillery, and the desire of NK leadership, if they have any competence, to rather arty the troop formations coming for their heads.

Third Thought: War won't even start, Kim Jung Un's head will be on a pike before the first shot is fired with a total surrender. What ever the regime did to make CHINA angry, will likely have the military literally screaming for their heads. No way they can even begin to fight a 360 degree war, likely with the Chinese uncaring about Civilian causalities if THEY of all people had to get dragged in.


Best part is, since we have no economic, or political interests in North Korea, we can just kill their political and military leadership, and then just leave, no need to even kill their soldiers or even occupy the land. Who in the US congress honestly gives a fuck if that shit hole collapses upon itself in civil war? The South Koreans will see this as an opportunity to reunite the nation. And even if they didn't China's only interest is to keep it American base free.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
Jul 19, 2010
1,620
83
33
Country
Free-Dom
"Shit. I'm draftable."

Not that I think it would happen...unless things escalated with different countries getting involved (not like China would risk its major economic partners for an anchor like North Korea) in which case, things maaaay get out of hand.

In any case.

War bad. Mass death bad. Booms cool, but bad in this context.

No like.
 

Dango

New member
Feb 11, 2010
21,066
0
0
I'm honestly amazed North Korea has not been taken over by a foreign power yet. No country would be against it since it provides exactly zero resources or usefulness to anyone. In fact if anything, it would be beneficial for most countries since it would likely be turned into another nation for cheap labor, which is honestly better than it is now. And there's no way in hell NK could defend themselves, the military would surrender in a heartbeat. Over 30% of North Korea is living in poverty, and the population would have no reason to support the government.

The government would be ousted in no time, and there'd be little to no resistance.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
Mumbly said:
BoogieManFL said:
That's why all the stuff in the middle east is still going on. If people still had the WW1-WW2 mindset, we'd have rolled in there with the gloves off and that whole place would be gone and it would have been over in no time. But there would be a whole lot more dead innocents and we'd look like monsters.
I'd say "a whole lot more dead innocents" is a much larger problem than "we'd get bad PR".
In no way did I say it was lesser than the other, but both would be a result. There is also no way it could/should be assumed that it what I meant. So your comment doesn't really apply.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,302
8,779
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Assuming that China doesn't throw its military might behind North Korea? In any realistic military scenario, NK folds like a house of cards under any first-world nation's assault. We've never gotten a full look, but it's obvious that many of North Korea's weapons and other materiel are either decades old or outright fake, and their economy couldn't possibly hope to keep a large fighting force well-fed and well-supplied for any length of time.

Then, of course, we have the classic question: What happens after? Every scenario posits problems.

- Send in a ground force to "pacify" the nation? You're looking at a desperate, brainwashed populace the likes of which we haven't seen since World War 2-era Japan. (Remember how we ended up nuking them twice because they wanted to keep on fighting even after they were hit by the most terrifying weapon the world had ever seen?) Iraq and Afghanistan at least had locals who saw the occupying forces as human beings; your typical North Korean civilian would probably see an invader as a literal demon from Hell. How do you pacify a populace like that without resorting to tactics that would be best measured in "mega-Hitlers"?

- Allow South Korea to attempt to integrate the NK populace? Expect a process that'll take at least a decade, during which millions of North Koreans will simply starve to death. Between the abovementioned indoctrination, a destroyed infrastructure, two cultures that are literally half a century apart, and the simple fact that South Korea simply couldn't absorb any large numbers of refugees all at once, you'd have masses of innocent civilians with nowhere to go and no way to reliably get life's necessities.

- Allow China to absorb the refugees? One of the reasons China still props up North Korea is because they don't want millions of uneducated foreigners spilling over their border should Pyongyang collapse. If that should that happen, you get all the problems listed in the last scenario- except instead of a free nation handling things, you've got China's "nothing to see here" clandestine government doing whatever they deem fit to "relieve the problem".

- Seal the borders and let the problem "solve itself"? Either you end up with a humanitarian crisis that would make Darfur look tame, or an even more insane powermonger would step to the fore in order to rally the nation around him, and then without even Beijing holding the leash, what would stop him from causing some serious problems?

North Korea is a powder keg, and China has been keeping it propped up well past its natural life span for its own expediency. If there even is a solution, it'll take time and care- neither of which war tends to value heavily.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Auron225 said:
1) U.S.A. alone VS North Korea
Meh, I don't live in the US and even if NK had nukes they couldn't use them across the Pacific. I'd rule this the best scenario.

Auron225 said:
2) U.S.A., the UK, South Korea, Japan and minor help from other countries (with China and Russia agreeing to not get involved).
In this case NK could nuke/bomb South Korea or Japan if they wanted to, and that wouldn't be good for really anybody. Probably the worst scenario.

Auron225 said:
3) Every country against North Korea.
Same as scenario 2 except maybe China could pull some strings and stop the leadership via a coup before any shots were fired. Purely speculative of course.

Of course, in any scenario North Korea would be fucked. For all their bluster they're basically a naked hobo with a gun holding a couple of respected businessmen hostage. The situation won't end well for them no matter what.

And I wouldn't really care if the US/NATO/whatever was the aggressor. NK's human rights violations warrant an invasion purely on principle. This being said, it literally wouldn't benefit the US at all and wouldn't be a good idea for them. I just wouldn't care either way.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,578
3,535
118
Phrozenflame500 said:
Auron225 said:
1) U.S.A. alone VS North Korea
Meh, I don't live in the US and even if NK had nukes they couldn't use them across the Pacific. I'd rule this the best scenario.
They don't have missiles capable of reaching that far. Not quite the same thing.

Dango said:
I'm honestly amazed North Korea has not been taken over by a foreign power yet. No country would be against it since it provides exactly zero resources or usefulness to anyone.
Who would actually want NK? And NK's neighbours would be against it, having the odd million NK refugees rock up on your doorstep all of a sudden would be awkward.
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
1) America stop being asses, nk might as well still be using outdated ww2 weapons like very commie state. Also stop trying to piss of china, you may be the largest military in the world but Roma is not a power house anymore.
Don't press your luck or we'll have elephants coming over the Rockies or something like that if you catch my drift.
2) well that's a bit horrible but if china and to a less extent russia walks into it goot, no diplomatic crisis immediately, long term i guess.
3) why are we all killing this country, fine i guess. I might even try to enlist in the peace corps as a Canadian. But personally what i want to see is the military forces of sealand.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
if it happened the only way to win it would be to wipe out that whole country to the last daisy. That may sound heartless but remember these people are so brainwashed and beaten that at this point the best thing we could do is give them a quick death.

To those who think china is scary to the US id like to point a few things out from the view of a former military man

1. China will just stop trade with us and doom our economy right? I hear this alot and it will never happen just like theyll never call in our debt. why you may ask, because we supply about 60% of their food and after 6 months of no trade half their population would be dead or otherwise incapable of mounting any kind of resistance.Were as the US can actually survive without pretty well though it would be extremely hard on our civilians and may put us in recession for a couple years.(we wont enter another depression at this point due to certain back ups in place since the 50s.)

2. China's army is so big they can beat us back right? at this point no they have millions of conscripts but very few well trained solders and with a loss of the air their large army becomes target practice for the air force and navy. In fact there is no military standing that can beat the US in conventional war at this point hell most would struggle against just our navy which is so large it would take the combined naves of at least 6 countries to match its numbers.

believe it or not if the US really wanted to conquer the world we could we just prefer not to.
 

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
considering the leadership knows it cant compete militarily with western countries and the US especially and things have still gotten to the point where war is started again, well we have the potential for the first nukes going off in war since the second world war, not to mention the use of chemical and biological weapons.

you are probably looking at millions dead and Seoul ceasing to exist.

assuming it didnt escalate to that level and remained conventional, then seoul would still have significant casulaties, you would have hundreds if not millions of people in the north needing care, and a totally devastated korean economy, it would make the reunification of germany economically look like a picnic.

all that said its rare for a regime to actually be classed as evil and north korea seriously fits