4 ms·

On a very short time scale. DPRK has a colossal amount of heavy artillery sitting just 35 miles from Seoul. To put that in perspective its as if Connecticut had

On a very short time scale. DPRK has a colossal amount of heavy artillery sitting just 35 miles from Seoul. To put that in perspective its as if Connecticut had the 4th largest army in the world poised to attack New York City at any time. Its a hostage situation, where DPRK has been holding one of the worlds largest, most prosperous cities with a gun to its head for decades...

mistercow 14y ago
>On a very short time scale. By "over what time scale?" I think Osmium meant "yes, more people would die in the short term, but would more people die in the long term?" It's a valid and important question. For how many decades should the rest of the world allow a regime to torture and kill innocent children before we decide that it's worth the (heavy) short-term losses to put a stop to it?
- kamaal 14y ago
  In any attack, South Korea is doomed, not just militarily. There is more than one way DPRK can attack. DPRK also has nuclear weapons. They have a built a dam called Imnam dam and wired it with explosives, they can simply detonate the explosives and flood Seoul(There are ways to stop this, but still there will be considerable damage). Their army is pretty strong, and can fight until they cause significant damage. And beyond all they have a huge cache all kinds biological, chemical weapons. Also don't forget, China gets a buffer zone due to North Korea. Speaking from a Geo political stand point North Korea is very important to China. All this means war is impossible in that area. The best way is to exert economic pressure and have the regime collapse. But I'm believing that isn't possible either, China won't let that happen mostly because they don't want a refugee problem. Its a stalemate. Hardened more by Nuclear weapons.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Their army is pretty strong, and can fight until they cause significant damage. And beyond all they have a huge cache all kinds biological, chemical weapons. I don't think the Nork Army is a significant factor, really. The Western (or First World, or whatever you prefer to call it) way of war has moved on a lot since the 1950s. Communications and logistics are the key. In the first minutes of any stand-up fight, any modern military[1] would have absolute air supremacy, and from then on no Nork forces can communicate or move - it doesn't matter how many millions of men they have. They stop being an army and become just a bunch of guys in the same clothes. The problem is what do you do with them once you've "won"? It would be Irag or Afghanistan x100. [1] As an example, the UK defends the Falklands with just 4 modern fighters (Typhoons). That's enough for total superiority over the entire Argentine air force.

mistercow 14y ago

>On a very short time scale. By "over what time scale?" I think Osmium meant "yes, more people would die in the short term, but would more people die in the long term?" It's a valid and important question. For how many decades should the rest of the world allow a regime to torture and kill innocent children before we decide that it's worth the (heavy) short-term losses to put a stop to it?

kamaal 14y ago
In any attack, South Korea is doomed, not just militarily. There is more than one way DPRK can attack. DPRK also has nuclear weapons. They have a built a dam called Imnam dam and wired it with explosives, they can simply detonate the explosives and flood Seoul(There are ways to stop this, but still there will be considerable damage). Their army is pretty strong, and can fight until they cause significant damage. And beyond all they have a huge cache all kinds biological, chemical weapons. Also don't forget, China gets a buffer zone due to North Korea. Speaking from a Geo political stand point North Korea is very important to China. All this means war is impossible in that area. The best way is to exert economic pressure and have the regime collapse. But I'm believing that isn't possible either, China won't let that happen mostly because they don't want a refugee problem. Its a stalemate. Hardened more by Nuclear weapons.
- gaius 14y ago
  Their army is pretty strong, and can fight until they cause significant damage. And beyond all they have a huge cache all kinds biological, chemical weapons. I don't think the Nork Army is a significant factor, really. The Western (or First World, or whatever you prefer to call it) way of war has moved on a lot since the 1950s. Communications and logistics are the key. In the first minutes of any stand-up fight, any modern military[1] would have absolute air supremacy, and from then on no Nork forces can communicate or move - it doesn't matter how many millions of men they have. They stop being an army and become just a bunch of guys in the same clothes. The problem is what do you do with them once you've "won"? It would be Irag or Afghanistan x100. [1] As an example, the UK defends the Falklands with just 4 modern fighters (Typhoons). That's enough for total superiority over the entire Argentine air force.