COH: Europe In Ruins

After reading the other thread, I've came to the conclusion that the question we might ask is not whether Chine and North Korea are allies, but is much more oriented towards:
 "In the event of a military breakthrough between North Korea and International power, would Chinese side or engage military actions to sustain their Allie, the North Koreans?"

The most likely event is Attack North Korea. China trades $200 Billion a year with S. Korea. They can't afford to have North korea dropping nuclear weapons on them.

oh brn i was making a joke about the women part. take a joke man loool

And they are less likely to want the US dropping nukes on thier neighbours, also as the Japanese showed in WW2 there doctrines for military consider non-asians to often be cowardly and weak they may think its easier to win a war against the US and Nato then it is against the 9 million strong NK army.

Also no one thought that China would attack us during the Korean war, and they did it. It really just comes down to who they hate less. And with all the grief the US has been giving Russia over the early warning sites in Poland (the nukes being aimed at Britain) There is another possible ally waiting.

In my honest opinion, it'll just be another cold war in the works, or if worst comes to worst, a non-nuclear war as nukes would just radiate the land/resource that is the real reason for said wars for 50 years.

No one noticed how good looking *every* girl is?

... you obviously havent seen many asians than. there not good looking.

Australia - China and North korea against the lot of you noob countries. its happening.

Requesting the new warmap to be set in the Korean peninsula and surroundings

Interesting idea for a mod tbh the original Korean war. Nato instead of Brits, US for US, NK instead of Wher and China instead of PE

Now theres an idea that would sell!

Also forgot, a unique triage for americans The Mash 4077

North Korea just rattles their Saber, they didn't fire artillery into SK but just onto the area around the border, they're cowards, they don't want a fight with SK, cuz they know they don't have the tech that SK has, plus a lot of NK troops may just say "screw this' and not fight.

I don't see why they wouldn't fight, I thought all Best Koreans are basically brainwashed into loving their glorious leader, and only a few don't. But I'm not an expert on Best Korea so maybe I'm wrong.

well mister kinjoniel, is crazy as hell lmao. if a war were to break out, i dont have any doubts they would quickly resort to nulclear arms. and in so, im sure alot of nations would step in to run them over.

Crazy yes, stupid no. Tbh he is smart as hell, and would know that as he has alot less nukes then anyone else he would def lose that type of war.

Or perhaps not; having use of the nuclear weapon hereby declare you as the most efficient army in the world. If South Korea were to be destroyed by nuclear means, you would see a lot of hesitation from the international community; the first option would be to involve their armies against a country that can wipe most of their military might in a few salvos, and the second option, being bombing South Korea to rubble either with conventional means or nuclear means would either meant major radiation fallouts on China; or major public disapproval. In both cases, the major nations have way too much to lose to either engage in one of those way efficiently.

You guys are seriously debating about the military power of North Korea?

It's really not that scary of a nation, it's capabilities are limited to basically its neighbors as far as aggressions. Sure it has a large standing armor, but everything else is pretty sub-par, in the first Korean war it was fought from a fairly equal technological standpoint, in the current age it would be a one sided beat down.

I believe that was said about the Vietnam War too. They have alot of fortifications, a fanatical will, and it is the most secretive country on the planet.

Also its well known that all militaries indoctrinate thier soldiers to believe that every country is far weaker then there own.

Also, were not going to let SK to just fall, the UN will send troops again, (we won't nuke so close to our own ally) and a land war will ensue.

And Vietnam was lost solely due to politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy.

If we actually fought a total war, North Korea would be destroyed in a matter of weeks, if not days.

The issue when fighting a war, is not that the weapons and soldiers can't do it, it's that the politicians won't let you do it.

Really? Honestly thats bull, it was a total war the government just never admitted it. The troops werent ready for it, your guns got the wrong gun powder. The home front didn't support it. The rotation of the Soldier every year to prevent breakdown caused the troops to never understand the terrain.  The enemy had fought the British then the French over the same ground knew it like the back of thier hand, were vetrans of war especially that type of war. (tbh they had been fighting off and on against various enemies for about 116 years at the end of that war)

Almost 2 million forces fought the approximate 500 000 Opposition, about 300 000 were Viet Cong. About 530 000 were American.

American Casualties alone were approx. 50 k dead, 1 k missing and 300 k wounded.

Vietnamese Civilian casualties 2 mil.


But no it was just a conflict. Because conflicts cause mass bombing runs, a chemical agent to destroy the terrain to find the enemy (that caused cancer)

A Cornell University study placed the over-all total U.S. cost
of the Vietnam war at $200 Billion

Total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped during:
     World War II =   2,057,244 tons
     Vietnam War =  7,078,032 tons  (3-1/2 times WWII
     tonnage, but still just a conflict)

Bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to
1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam.

An estimated 70,000 draft evaders and "dodgers" were living
in Canada by 1972.

And who has to conscript soldiers (the draft) for a 'conflict', not to forget the US was chased out with its tail between there legs, abandoning over a thousand POWs in enemy hands. Of which remains of those are still being sought after

Yeah, as if a war will actually break out from a single artillery exchange. The USSR and China did that nearly monthly after their relations fell apart lol - don't hear of any USSR vs China great wars :).

pakistan and india too i believe, or was it china and pakistan?

India and Pakistan, pretty sure.

The biggest difference with those, is the fact that even though they have been two seperate countries for a while now, its a civil war as well as an ideological one

 lol

-Wind

Spartan, Total War is not the concept of going to war.

It is the concept of the complete and utter destruction of your enemy regardless of collateral damage.

Sounds like what was being done in Vietnam by the US forces...

Fine, but the fact is that the US never admitting that it really was a war is well known to the rest of the world as the biggest attempt to save face.


This is just an outright lie, one to cover the fact that American forces were never able to find the enemy. Hence the creation of Agent Orange and the other agents. And a 12% of your fatalities and 18% of wounded due to traps is another embarassment (and a major accomplishment to the VC)

Veitnam was an embarrasment, you can argue it till your blue in the face. But if dropping more bombs then all of World War 2 does not make it a war then what does a Nuke?

 AMPM is right that Vietnam was not total war. Total war is when a country's entire industry, government, and populace are fully committed to the war effort (not in terms of public support, but in terms of economy etc.).

 It is not correct, however, to say that the war was only lost because of "politicians saying we were not allowed to actually attack the enemy". That is a gross oversimplification, and it isn't particularily accurate either.

 But he is right about it not being a total war - it wasn't from America's perspective.

 -Wind

I never meant to imply 'total war' but i did mean that it was still a war.

By deffinition, there has never been a real 'total war'

oh rly.

You mean like the Eastern Front of WW2? That kind?

yes


as long as there was even 1 civilian industry operating, 1 person directly involved by deffinition its not a Total War.

It is impossible for us to have an actual Total War, even if you can agree to only one side waging a 'Total War'

(like glass for civilian homes, food for civilians)

And we can never know for WW2 Russia, as alot of numbers pertaining to Russian Economy before during and after are known to have been adjusted for propaganda reasons or just not well known to begin with

Maybe if they go to war we can make an East Korea.

The Mongols under Genghis Khan Practices Total war. All he did was topple Empires and Cities. then he left them to rule themselves as a hassle of his Empire.

Not really, the mongols had a code that allowed Religious figures to be exempt from tax, which meant that a certain amount of the economy had to go towards supporting them.

also his 13th law "Every man who does not go to war must work for the empire, without reward, for a certain time." which means after this period of servitude, he is working for himself again.

His Roving onslaught of genocide is about as close as you'll get to total war. You will never ever have 100% of the economy devoted to Martial production or feats. Because you always need to feed the workers. But toal war takes into account Military Production, and nondiscrimination of the difference between enemy civilian and enemy combatant.

True, but as it is Religion is not a part of war, and the fact that if its even less then 0.00000001 percent goes towards supporting it its not Total War.

My comment was that its is impossible to have an actual Total War with 100% exactly of the population devoted to the war effort (including supplying all necessities to the civilians), as soon as 1 non necessity is produced, 1 non war related item is funded its no longer a total war.

Sigh...
Away for a few hours and you guys are once again gone into religion.
No offence intended, but this is meant to be a political/military discussion.

NOT a discussion about Mongol tax policies and the redefinition of what a "total war" is.
Now, as nobody bothered to read my first post nor my second, I will rewrite them here in the hope that someone actually READS and understands it.

The question is: "In the event of a military breakthrough between North Korea and International power, would Chinese side or engage military actions to sustain their Allie, the North Koreans?"

---
Now, what is it supposed to mean is that in the event of a military breakthrough, what would be the alternatives/motives to the North Koreans, the International Community, and the Chinese.
---

I will now post *AGAIN* my point of view on the question:

Having use of the nuclear weapon hereby declare you as the most efficient army in the world. If South Korea were to be destroyed by nuclear means (Due to North Korea), you would see a lot of hesitation from the international community; the first option would be to involve their armies against a country that can wipe most of their military might in a few salvos. The second option, being bombing South Korea to rubble either with conventional means or nuclear means, would either meant:
1. Major radiation fallouts on China and thus assuring an entry into this war;
2. Major public disapproval.

In both cases, the major nations have way too much to lose to either engage in one of those way efficiently, and it pretty much seems like a no-win situation if North Korea start using nuclear means.

N. Korea is the poster child for failing states. Especially if they escalate to nuclear options China's going to ass rape them.

It's a pretty safe bet that both China and the US 7th Fleet have very detailed knowledge of N. Korea Launch sites, and will when the situation demands it drop a retarded amount of Cruise missiles or air strikes against them.

No one in the region wants them going nuclear, but Kim's got dementia and could do it. His named successor is in experienced and considered weak by the die hard militarists. Either way the situation only gets more unstable. If they declare war and stay conventional China may sell them Arms and ammunition. If it even looks like they are going nuclear China would be all over them in a heartbeat

HEY HEY HEY!!! Okey There is no way in hell u just compared Fing Commie pricks chine to the proud and glorious Arian PE and wher???

Other than that ye and play that, ofc then id be playing the NATO side ofc ^^

And what if i am? :P

(http://libertypundits.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-il.jpg)

Vietnam was a big ole fuckup.. being a IRAQ War vet i know how a real battle is run, talking to old vets who were in Vietnam, it was a complete fuckup, they had restrictions on where to bomb and attack.. commanders where limited in what they could do, units were poorly trained, the and opposition was poorly researched and underestimated.

If the Commanders on the group and in the Air had control on what they wanted and needed to do, they could have succeded rather easily, but the politicians and brass in washington were too worried about outside intervention if we just totally overran the north like we could have.. i.e korean when we chased them all the way up to chinese border.

Point is, the US troops didnt fail, the inflicted many times more casualtys than received... and if given the chance to acutally fight properly they would have walked all the way up the north just like we did in korea when we got our shit together.  the main reason for vietnam being a completly cluster fuck was johnsons dorkness and worriness about political reprocusions if we did just walk them.

end of story.  no other argument will be accepted by me, sorry.

If you want to see how such battle would turn out use this:

Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank. Set year 2010 - 2011 North Korea vs South Korea. You get quite detailed units and forces they are using.

and on the north vs. south

south probably could just knock the north all over now.. but the north still does have buttloads of dudes to just throw at ya.

Thanks to Wikileaks, you can now probably answer your own question, SX23.

US soldiers fail.

Yeah, well it doesn't help that they try to write every war they lost out of history, or blame it on the politicians.

whats that.. 1 war?

and not to mention, without our intervention in 3 wars this past 100 years alot would have been fubar, in ww1 you prob would have a border of germany right on france, belgium and netherlands wouldnt even exist.

ok, so that was handled

without our intervetion in ww2 the russians prob would have just over run the entire continent of europe.. ya that would have been fun for the brits.. france, bel, neth etc would all be like the baltic states.

and korea.. it would all be communist now.

so ya.. enjoy your freedom, that was pretty much assured by our intervention.

But we're not free. We're consumed by the internets.

better then by the russians eh?

ya.. i suppose your right :)

Koreans should have the freedom to be Communist.

Vietnam fucked - but atleast you tried, spoken to some SA veterans and there mindframe was defend there land, atleast you tried to help
Iraq fucked - Harder than you thought to invade a country when the population doesnt want you aye. Nazi certainly made it look easy aye
Afghanistan - same thing as Iraq

I'm just waiting for the inevitable US retreat from Afghan and declaring it a draw.

and we can join the soviets in failing there as well..  

silly police actions never work out that well when the country itself cant stand on its own to wack jobs.

 Listening to Demon try and talk about history is like listening to a retarded kid try to explain Quantum Physics. You know he is trying hard, and there are some words that are technically English, but it's ultimately hilarious and obviously nonsensical.

 Pretty funny.

 -Wind

Technically you did lose vietnam. Pretty badly :).
Iraq. Better than what it could have turned out to be, still far worse than what it should have been, taking into account the resources and manpower from either side.
Afghan. Lolz, getten RAPED!!! Except you're not some utterly backwards country like the Soviet Union.. At least you would never agree to being one (sideways jab inserted, assume waiting positions for counter-flame).

What is that supposed to mean?

 I think it's important for people, in the interest of ending the "LOLS OMG US GOT RAPED HAHAHA" 4 year-old reading level interpretations of history, to recognize the difference between a war and an insurgency.

 The Iraq war was won. The Iraq Occupation, however, continues to this day and has yet to be concluded (successfully or otherwise).

 Vietnam was a war. What is going on in Iraq right now, and what is going on in Mexico for that matter, are not.

Also, just so people know, I'm not American.

 -Wind
 

It's a partisan war, but a war nonetheless.

And US did get raped in vietnam. Pew-pewed.

 Why are you convinced someone is trying to tell you US did not lose in Vietnam? Paranoia is the symptom of insanity.

 Also, branding "war" as a broad brush stroke is both inaccurate, irresponsible, and belies a basic misunderstanding of the inherrent complexity of the term. That might not have been your intention, but if this discussion is moving beyond the neanderthal discussion that characterized it's beginning... it's going to mean taking it seriously.

 -Wind

as I was saying, the US was raped in Vietnam.

Also, the french are taking over Canada. True story.

Demon, if you knew any better, the loss of Europe to Nazi Germany was directly the fault of the French and British forces not mobilizing sooner, and not going to the aid of countries like Poland.

In fact, Poland held out longer than all of Western Europe. The fought in hopes that Europe would respond to its treaties and come to it's aid, when in fact the rest of Europe was trying to pretend nothing was happening.

Vietnam, French failed first, US tries to help out, people back home get all QQ because its the first real televised war and it people were not ready for the reality. That and a lack of will to just annihilate the North ends in US withdrawal.

Iraq War, first one ended in 4 days, 4th largest military in the world defeated.

Afghan police mission, failing due to the countries own corrupt government and the lack of any sort of real society. Most of the country is subsistence farming with a tribal culture, towns rarely have contact with each other.

Iraq War part 2, Iraqi army routed again in short order, unfortunately we disbanded the Iraqi military and so have been rebuilding its security forces from the ground up. Country is a backwards hellhole and can't get it's shit together enough to maintain its own security.


As far as getting raped by partisans, if you check the K:D ratio you will find that the US is never on the losing end of that one =)

AM pretty much said it all..

Didnt you know? Draken fought to the last bullet..

Blame your failures on the afghans and Iraqis! It's usually what you do when you lose a war to the Afghans or Iraqis :D.

 Lets not also forget that the parameters for "defeat" and "victory" are vastly different for an occupying force and a "insurgent resistance".

 Defeat for the US in Vietnam, and for them in Afghanistan and Iraqi, has thousands more variables than it does for the insurgent forces from those countries.

 For the Taliban, for example, defeat would only come at the complete and utter destruction of their fighting capabilities.

 The US, however, has a far more delicate definition of defeat.

 So using terms like "The US got raped in Vietnam" is childishly ignorant. Technically, the North got raped even harder. Their conditions for victory, however, were far more broad and easily obtained.

 -Wind

In terms of available firepower, the north raped moar than the US did. Therefore, US raped.

Pew. Pew.

 Based on what mathematics?

 If analyzed by casualties, that doesn't hold up.

-Wind

he doesnt like USA, so thats his logic.

Afghanistan isn't really a failure, though. We took the Taliban out of power in the region, reduced Al-Qaeda to a non-issue and established major footholds in the middle east (which we were lacking). Seeing as country-building will take decades to accomplish, I'm not sure what 'success' you're looking for there.

I agree that Iraq was a fuckup, but again, country-building takes decades, so it'll be a while to determine the actual outcome.

Vietnam was an out-and-out loss, but we fucked that country up so bad that in the end we didn't care if it went communist.

Korea we won.

As for a Korea War II (not that it would ever happen), the war would be an extraordinarily short one. The US, siding with South Korea, would beat back NK forces easily, and China, siding with its greatest economic partner (the US), would also bring down all sorts of hell on the NK. The biggest concern in that war would be potential losses and damages in Seoul.

Have nothing against USA, or peeps from USA. I just like trolling wind.

And cission momplete, Wind posted a two-liner. Therefore troll successful.

i'll join the anti french movement pretty quick once they start handing out guns!

Ah, i C

Salan, we all know that in Canada you aren't allowed to own guns =)

KDR is no longer a valid measuring factor, More then 85% of the enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign nationals to those countries. In which case you are literally pulling from a global population.

It's all public opinion. the Fallujah operation was canceled by the White house based on incorrect news media that hundreds of civilians were being killed in the fighting. It made them look pretty dumb.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army precipitated the whole event as it negatively impacted the western image and hundreds of thousands of fighting age men hit the streets.

The Taliban is an ideological religious institution. Defeat is only achieved when they all die. Besides the Taliban did alot of good work for Afghanistan in the 90's. They stabilized a region that had been fighting for generations.(Taliban is also a catch all phrase for the Afghanistan situation, it comprises everything from local warlords to Terrorist groups to actual Taliban and drug groups. It's just easier for the western media to label it as one thing)

Having the worlds 4th Largest military doesn;t mean much when a vast portion of it is conscripted. Even the die hards like the Tawakalna were using outdated T-72's against M1A1's and Challengers. Besides Saddam Hussein is also responsible for the worlds largest national literacy rate increase in human history. So he wasn't all bad

Since all my posts in this thread were short, in order for the troll to be succesful you would have to get me to do the opposite: a very long one.

 Troll fail!

 And I came out of this one right, again, so I win... again. ;)

-Wind

Our feeble minds don't understand. Please be more elaborate in your posts.  :)

omg, here we go again.

No we are allowed to own guns. Mainly for hunting purposes and highly regulated, want to own a gun fill out 132 pages of 'why the fuck we should risk it'.

Yeap, because if I was a criminal, I would totally go through the legal processes to get a weapon =)

Gun regulation is fail.

How could we do while we're surrounded by an incompetent administration, population, and with no military means whatsoever, except perhaps maple syrup?

And why does any thread about North Korea ends up as "Let's go kill some frenchies"?

Cuz there easy to kill, i mean just look at both world wars....

Bunch of stackers and newb stompers  :P

Actually its pretty successful. Most of the guns that are used in violent crimes comes from our neighbour to the south who believes more guns are better

Again, because gun regulation means criminals won't get them....


Like anything else that's illegal, it's impossible to stop the sale of them.

Its not like drugs where you can grow/create them in your basement (most zip guns will get you killed making/firing)

The fact is that the US has near 0 regulations on guns making it next to impossible for countires next door to stop thier criminals from getting guns. Last statistic was 90% of the guns are from the US, 10% are acquired from smash and grabs/robberies on people who own said guns.

If I wanted to get a gun illegally, I could.
If I want to I can, it's that simple.
Regulations aren't doing shit to protect anyone (except maybe the criminals, who now have an easier prey).

If everyone has guns, the place goes to shit, if no one has guns the place goes to shit.

It's a hard balance to strike but the use of firearms needs to be tempted by discipline. Alot of people who legally own firearms have that discipline but people they live with/know they own guns don't.


Firearms hit the streets illegally everywhere, but all manufactured firearms come from somewhere. Thats the best place to start trying to shut it down.

Meh, tbh violent crime has been dropping percapata all over the world. The media plays upon the fact that there are more actual crimes per year so its not nearly as bad as it seems.

What the gun discussion needs is a reminder that technology is mankind's curse. You can't go back. Made an atom bomb and wish you didn't? Too late. You have to have them because the other guy might have them. Go from melee weapons to ranged weapons to gunpowder-ranged weapons and wish you didn't? Too bad. Try to have a bow and arrow fight vs a modern infantry company .. lets just say w/o air support or indirect fire. Just m4s with light optics. My point is made. Same goes for Joe going to the store to buy milk with his wife. If Angry Ted pulls a gun on Joe and his wife, you want him to respond with a stick? A fist? A nun-chuck? A phone call to the power rangers? We will be forever cursed until our destruction with our own inventions and those who fight that are fighting against unmovable reality.

I agree, we should all go back to being samurai, when combat was honorable.

You mean stupid. The japanese code meant you probably had the worst generals in the world.
(not to mention those 'honerable' samurai were designed with the purpose to keep peons in line)

Oh teh noes i fucked up. -kills self-

General of any other Country, well i fucked up, guess i won't do that again -learns from mistake-

At this point the only option is to keep going forward and hope we can develope defences against said technology

Agreed. Outlaw the sell of firearms to civies and not allow anybody but military personnel to have 'em

We tried that. It's called pre-United States.

Its called modern day Japan, it works

This is a common misconception =)

Except not, because they still have violent crime.

A man will still commit violent crime with a spoon if he has no other means. Guns just make it worse

I'll take getting shot over getting stabbed with a sharpened spoon 34 times thanks.

*tapes AmPM's mouth and shoots AmPM in the torso 34 times*

pow pow pow pow pow

DEAD

I used to be so against guns, until I realized I could use them to shoot the people I don't like.

Only time you have to worry about a gun is in the hands of someone who plans to kill others, in which case you should also worry about a car, knife, household chemicals, baseball bat, etc.

Not to mention, a fact that everyone seems to be forgetting, even if guns are completely outlawed, outlaws will still have guns.
They're called outlaws, they do shit that's outlawed.

Even if we somehow did get every gun ever out of civilian hands, you'd still see a huge jump in crime committed with knives and other legal-yet-lethal weapons.

I'd rather be able to shoot back.

lol, you can kill anybody with anything if you think about it.

Take a bra. Now go kill an elephant.

He said 'anybody,' and last i checked elephant aren't people (confirm/deny??)

Last time I checked Elephants have bodies (confirm/deny??).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anybody

Anybody refers to a person hence no space between "any" and "body". If i was refering to a body it would be any body. (space) (Confirm/deny??)

But to answer your question. If its a big enough bra tie that fucker round its head over its eyes, with any luck it will go nuts and kill its family. It will continue to rage until someone has to put it down. Hows that? Not only have i killed one elephant Ive killed its familey to  : ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK2tWVj6lXw

Still answered you question regardless.

I'm sure it would just take the bra off with it's trunk. So invalidated.

Level 2 : kill a boxer with a singular completely unpolluted drop of water. And nothing else.

Wih the low IQ of boxers these days, id tell him that this water belongs to a rival boxer and he has to beat the other boxer to get it. What he wont know is the rival boxer has a cleaver.

So no other boxers or cleavers.

Okay, your proved me wrong. I shall rectify my statement.

You can kill anybody (being a person) with almost anything.

Kill chuck norris. With a roundhouse kick.

You can kill anybody with a round house kick. But its chuck norris. Hes not anybody, hes not even human! Hes a god!

If you were to shout "Help! Somebody! Anybody!" and Chuck was within earshot, he would turn up. Therefore your statement has yet again been invalidated.

So I repeat the situation :

Chuck Norris vs your Roundhouse Kick.

As long as your not basing this off Chuck Norris's fandom of magical powers. You would kick him in the side of the head, in all hope that it was powerfull to snap his neck around.

No you wouldn't, because your roundhouse kick would only reach about 2 foot up, at the very most.

And yes, chuck DOES have magical powers.

Depends if you were trained in the arts of raoundhouse kicking.

But then that invalidates everything.... becuase magical powers don't exsist...

Well God created Myst, so anything is possible!

With this, i do belive so...  :D

Being Christian, you should know that I transcend the fabric of God's and Devil's creations and am in fact something far, far worse.

Indeed, you are you and nothing more. A Ancient Acident

Wow this conversation got pedantic fast.