Bluegrassrivals

Full Version: North Korea vows 'physical response' to US exercise
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
From the BBC News. (Here's the link -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10736538)

North Korea vows 'physical response' to US exercise

North Korea has promised a "physical response" to joint US-South Korean military exercises this weekend. The comments came as Asian foreign ministers met in Vietnam for a regional security forum. The forum has been dominated by the crisis resulting from North Korea's alleged sinking of a South Korean warship in March. The US has accused Pyongyang of "provocative" behaviour and on Wednesday announced new sanctions.

North Korea's delegation spokesman at the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi said the military exercises - which begin on Sunday - were an example of 19th century "gunboat diplomacy". "It is a new century and Asian countries are in need of peace and development, and DPRK [North Korea] is also moving to that end," said Ri Tong-il. He said the exercises went beyond defensive training and would involve "sophisticated weapon equipment". "It is a threat to the Korean peninsula and the region of Asia as a whole. And the DPRK's position is clear: there will be a physical response to the threat imposed by the United States militarily."

Washington and Seoul say the war games - involving the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, 20 other ships and submarines, 100 aircraft and 8,000 personnel - are intended to deter North Korean aggression. China has criticised the plans and warned against any action which might "exacerbate regional tensions". But Japan is sending four military observers, in an apparent endorsement of the drills. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is attending the forum, declined to comment directly on North Korea's comments, but said the door remained opened for it to return to talks if it committed to irreversible de-nuclearisation.

In comments earlier in the day, she accused Pyongyang of launching a "campaign of provocative, dangerous behaviour".

On Wednesday, the US announced it was to impose new sanctions on North Korea, aimed at halting nuclear proliferation and the import of luxury goods.

The Asean Regional Forum was attended by foreign ministers from 27 nations, including China, Japan, North Korea and the US. The BBC's Rachel Harvey in Hanoi said there had been hopes that the forum could be a chance to reduce tensions on the Korean peninsula.

But if anything, the proximity of the protagonists seemed to inflame sentiment, our correspondent adds. South Korea sought to rally support behind a statement condemning North Korea over the warship sinking. But a closing statement from the forum only expressed "deep concern" over the incident, echoing a UN statement that fell short of blaming Pyongyang. China - which is North Korea's closest ally - has been reluctant to take strong measures against its unpredictable neighbour.

The Cheonan warship sank in March near the disputed inter-Korean maritime border with the loss of 46 South Korean sailors. An international investigation said it was sunk by a North Korean torpedo, but Pyongyang has rejected the charge and demanded its own inquiry.

In a separate development on Friday, North Korean and US-led UN Command military officials held rare talks on the sinking in the truce village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas. The talks lasted two hours, Yonhap news agency said. The results were not known, but they were believed to have set out the details for further higher-level talks on the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't copied and pasted from a news website before. I know some people do, and it seems a lot more organized than my thread. Could a moderator help me organize my thread?
Bring it on.
vundy33 Wrote:Bring it on.

Remember the last time we said that? Yea, me too.

Theres a reason we study history; so we don't make the same mistakes over and over again (expecting the same results).
What are you referring to? NK would get destroyed, they know that better than anyone. They won't respond militarily and if they do it will be something like sinking a South Korean ship like they did back in March so they can deny it and we won't absolutely destroy them.
Its called guerilla warfare. You dont want to mess with that ish.
lol...I'm pretty experienced with fighting an insurgency. A conflict with NK would be nothing like that. Not even close.
Thats what they said last time. You seem to be an old traditionalist who's out of touch.
vundy33 Wrote:lol...I'm pretty experienced with fighting an insurgency. A conflict with NK would be nothing like that. Not even close.

:Thumbs:
ukyfootball Wrote:Thats what they said last time. You seem to be an old traditionalist who's out of touch.

I'm not old, but I am old school. Do some research man. The people of NK hate their own country for the most part, you think we would be fighting insurgents that support communism? lol, no, we would be fighting the North Korean military, which would get destroyed, like I said.

I've not been stationed in Korea, but I have a few friends over there. We have enough of a force in SK to take on NK without bringing in anymore troops. At least that's how many Soldiers we have in-county, I'm not sure about the other services. The South Korean military is one of the best in the world, by the way.
You still dont get it. It really doesnt matter how many troops we have when it comes to guerilla warfare, because theyll fight during the day and blend in with the common population at night.
ukyfootball Wrote:You still dont get it. It really doesnt matter how many troops we have when it comes to guerilla warfare, because theyll fight during the day and blend in with the common population at night.

A modern day war is not fought in guerilla fashion. What is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan is not war. The War in Iraq has been over for years. What is happening in Iraq is not war.
Did I ever say that it was guerilla warfare? No.

The fact of the matter is, when numbers are against you, you fight with guerilla warfare. Thats just simple logic, and theyve worked it before.
ukyfootball Wrote:You still dont get it. It really doesnt matter how many troops we have when it comes to guerilla warfare, because theyll fight during the day and blend in with the common population at night.

You know nothing about me, so don't tell me I don't get it. I've been to Afghanistan, have you? I know more about guerrilla warfare than you can imagine. Get your **** straight.

North Korea HAS HAD a modern military for 60 years. They have a the fourth largest Army in the world, the have a Navy, they have an Air Force equipped with MiG-29's, and they have a reserve. Like I've told twice already, North Korea would fight a WAR, not an insurgency. We would have a much easier time with NK or any other regular military than we've had in Iraq and AFG.

No sir, You still don't get it.
ukyfootball Wrote:Its called guerilla warfare. You dont want to mess with that ish.

That's where you said guerrilla warfare.

And 1950 was a long time ago. We were a different Army, as they were.
Has anybody ever beat a guerilla force in war? No.
I'm giving up trying to explain this to you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

There you go, that might enlighten you to what kind of fight we would have with North Korea.
Im sorry, I just saw your last post and didnt read your more in-depth post.

Im aware that North Korea has a military, but they use both army intelligence and guerilla warfare.

If theyve had a modern army for the last 60 years, then why did we get our glass beat decades ago?

Also, how would our army survive the rice plantations and tunnel system again?

I just have a hard time believing that we would win anything by going over there.
I don't know much about North Korea's army much, but I do think they have a more "modern" army. I think I understand why you mentioned guerilla warfare, ukyfootball. Guerilla warfare is good for a smaller army when they're facing a much bigger army. (As you said, this is what terrorists do in the middle east. Since they can't compete with the technology USA has, they have to use guerilla warfare. In other words, they have to hide, attack, hide, attack, etc.)

The only way I personally can see North Korea have a chance of winning a war is if they somehow can use guerilla warfare effectively (Which, I think as vundy33 said, North Korea doesn't use guerilla warfare. I think they use more modern warfare, like the USA does.) Another way to win a war is by having nuclear weapons, which I'm not sure if North Korea has. (If North Korea does have nuclear weapons, that gives them a lot of power.)

I'm pretty sure guerilla warfare is effective against the US since the US is pretty dominant in military power (and the only thing opposing armies can do is attack, run, attack, run). Pretty much, if you're facing a dominant military power like the US or China, I would imagine you would have to use guerilla warfare just to have a chance of winning. For example, if an army is more technologically advanced, better trained, better equipped, etc., the other army probably can't beat them in a head-to-head fight. You have to use strategy, which is what guerilla warfare is.

Is this all correct vundy33? I would say you would know a lot more than me about this since you've served in the armed forces.
They use a mixture of both.

But 3rd times a charm, right guys?
This is from my experience, research, and an MP buddy that looks across the sand at NK soldiers.

North Korea, Korea in whole, is a very mountainous area. I think that would play to our favor, even in their country.

Again, this is from my experience with working with Soldiers from all over the world and seeing the U.S. military power.

And another thing, I don't think the news gives us very much credit. What happens in Afghanistan is we establish COP's (Combat Out-Posts) in the middle of nowhere, usually in a valley. They would get up on a mountain and put fire down on us. From 03-08', it took forever to get permission to put artillery or send a Quick Reaction Force after them. Now, that's not the case. When we get fired at, we were after them. They got away with it alot of times, but we also found them and killed them alot of the time too. We don't have as much "red tape" holding us back now, but we're still being held up.
vundy33 Wrote:You know nothing about me, so don't tell me I don't get it. I've been to Afghanistan, have you? I know more about guerrilla warfare than you can imagine. Get your **** straight.

North Korea HAS HAD a modern military for 60 years. They have a the fourth largest Army in the world, the have a Navy, they have an Air Force equipped with MiG-29's, and they have a reserve. Like I've told twice already, North Korea would fight a WAR, not an insurgency. We would have a much easier time with NK or any other regular military than we've had in Iraq and AFG.

No sir, You still don't get it.

:Thumbs:
Hopefully, NK will respond to the US-SK exercise by staging another nuclear test. That would be one less nuke that NK could be used in a war. Anybody who has ever seen a satellite photo of North Korea at night who believes that NK could win a sustained ground war against the US and SK is just plain crazy. NK cannot feed its people in peace time, much less feed and supply an army during wartime.

NK's only hope in a war would be to quickly destroy Seoul with a nuke and then try to negotiate peace before the US and SK retaliated. That scenario is not very likely, even with 0bama in the White House.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Hopefully, NK will respond to the US-SK exercise by staging another nuclear test. That would be one less nuke that NK could be used in a war. Anybody who has ever seen a satellite photo of North Korea at night who believes that NK could win a sustained ground war against the US and SK is just plain crazy. NK cannot feed its people in peace time, much less feed and supply an army during wartime.

NK's only hope in a war would be to quickly destroy Seoul with a nuke and then try to negotiate peace before the US and SK retaliated. That scenario is not very likely, even with 0bama in the White House.

That scenario is about as likely as me growing a 3rd leg out of my butthole...:dontthink
vundy33 Wrote:That scenario is about as likely as me growing a 3rd leg out of my butthole...:dontthink
That is why I said that it is not very likely...However, if and when NK attacks SK it will very likely involve an all out assault on Seoul because even the crazy people in charge of North Korea must know that they cannot win a protracted war with South Korea and the United States. The only reason that they would attack is if they are convinced that our politicians do not have the stomach to engage in another war and the 0bama regime has not exactly taken a strong position in negotiations with NK.
I agree.