Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US fears 'hell' of a response
au ^ | October 12, 2006 | Mark Dunn

Posted on 10/11/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by Flavius

PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang. The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: exterminatethepests; getitoverwith; goodbyechiapet; kimjongmakesusill; northkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221 next last
To: Flavius
The worst is the dems nipping at the Presidents heels. Kicked saddam and the islamonazis down the road for the next CIC to deal with and did the same with the dog eating porno king.

China and russia arming the jihadis and pulling kim il's strings and we have a major problem with our citizens buying chinese crap that pays for the weapons that kill our soldiers and may kill us.

121 posted on 10/11/2006 8:04:53 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Nuke NK and our troops and SK people will get hit with the aftermath and die too. Today's nukes are 50 times more powerful than the firecrackers that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In our arsenal we have many nukes with many yields to choose from. With air burst the fallout is minimal but the high speed neutrons, gamma ray, and blast wave will kill you.

122 posted on 10/11/2006 8:05:43 PM PDT by cpdiii (Oil Field Trash and proud of it, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, Iconoclast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

yeah, it is a risk/reward equation which for politicians invariably means nothing will be done until something REALLY bad happens as a result of doing nothing.


123 posted on 10/11/2006 8:07:11 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Uh, oh you are about to get on the bad side of the MOABites.


124 posted on 10/11/2006 8:07:13 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: nitzy

The good news is we'll never drop a 1 megaton nuclear bomb anywhere, least of all Pyongyang. Small tactical nuclear bombs/missiles could be used to stop their infantry advance, destroy their artillery and maybe cutr their supply lines. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives in the event of a full-scale invasion by the Noks, and fall out would be minimal.


125 posted on 10/11/2006 8:10:59 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Only an idiot would invade Korea at this point.

We should warn the Chinese that if they don;t stop Kim, we wuill goive the Japanese nucleaar missles - and the Taiwanese and any other eastern powers on our side them too.

Where we should commit Americn troops is in Iran and Syria and finish the job we started with Afghanistan and Iraq.


126 posted on 10/11/2006 8:11:18 PM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Whatever, but the quote which is relevant is that of the President who says "NO options" are off the table.

In any case, we have no "intention" to attack NK but we also have no intention of allowing any dangerous military buildup by it.

You don't really believe we have any "intention" to attack the NK regime without justification do you?


127 posted on 10/11/2006 8:11:47 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Everyone forgets that the Republic of Korea (ROK aka South Korea) has 600,000 men under arms, and another couple of million in the reserves. The ROKs are tough as nails, too, and shouldn't be taken for granted.


128 posted on 10/11/2006 8:12:15 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Second to none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123
given from what I understand about the almost pathological preparations by DPRK over the years.

Not to mention the fact that the North Koreans have had 40 years to tunnel the hell out of their country. Ya gotta find 'em before you can kill 'em.

129 posted on 10/11/2006 8:13:25 PM PDT by gov_bean_ counter ( I am sitting under my cone of silence, inside a copper wire cage wearing a tin foil hat...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang

Have these people seen the "soldiers" we would be facing? I think Nicole Ritchie has more meat on her bones than these walking chopsticks.

Didn't Joe Biden predict that Desert Storm (1991) would cost America 10,000 lives to invade? These estimates are so presposterous as to be beneath comment. And why are so many Americans so damn squeamish when it comes to the sacrifice neccessary to destroy the enemy? We lost as many men in ONE DAY at Iwo Jima as we have lost in Iraq in 3 YEARS. The deaths were horrific, but the sacrifice was worth the cost of those brave men's lives. However, if people like Nancy Paleolosi were around then, we would have been suing for peace on the eve of victory. And it disturbs me that so many Americans buy the arguments about Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has not helped matters witgh his bumbling explanations, to be sure. But the fact remains that the America that knew and accepted the cost of war is long gone, and the lazy, spoiled sissies we have become is very discouraging for our future.

130 posted on 10/11/2006 8:13:38 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Why waste the troops? Don't we have ICBMs?


131 posted on 10/11/2006 8:15:21 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I sense a tendency to build the North Korean soldiers up as being 10 feet tall here. They aren't.

Heh. Probably they are quite short from lack of good nutrition their whole lives.

132 posted on 10/11/2006 8:16:10 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

These are the types of conflicts where you have to use nukes to decimate the enemy.


133 posted on 10/11/2006 8:17:52 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

However, they are cowed by events and retreat into the woodwork until the American people go back to sleep and it is safe to work their Treason.

If attacks from the North killed thousands of US troops even the worst in the Congress would be crying for revenge. They would have no choice any more than they did after 911 American patriotism would force their hands or they would be committing political suicide.

This does not deny that as soon as the first dangers were passed they would not emerge again to spread their poison.


134 posted on 10/11/2006 8:20:02 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
The only way to prevent such an event would be multiple tactical nukes North of the DMZ.

Actually, I'm thinking loads after loads of delayed fuse cluster bombs. Which did not exist during the Korean War, of course. And Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. Not to mention JDAM's for hardened positions. I believe this is what we used to suppress Iraqi artillery fire during Iraqi Freedom.
135 posted on 10/11/2006 8:25:37 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang.

And the sad thing is that we'd still need to kill another million civilians to catch up to the Chia dictator.

136 posted on 10/11/2006 8:26:50 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I don't get it. There are not even 52,000 American troops stationed in Korea. The first 90 days would be carpet bombing anyways. Then the ROK army would go in.

Actually, there are some 10,000 artillery pieces currently targeted on Seoul. How many people live in that city? I know that it's in the millions. Even if the US were to somehow get every last one of those guns, at least 1/2 would have the chance to fire at least 1 round... 5,000 artillery rounds falling on a heavily populated city isn't a good thing.

Mark

137 posted on 10/11/2006 8:27:33 PM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

I don't see the NK army maintaining cohesion once 20 miles south of the DMZ. They will see so much comparative wealth, everywhere, amongst everything they are surrounded by, combined with all of the propaganda fed to them since birth will create psychological dissonance individually on a massive scale.

On the other note, when FR was young, so maybe 5 or 7 years ago, there was a story i remember about a US spy satellite launching, and several months later the US military analysts discovered over 100+ more underground mortar installations in NK because of increased satellite picture quality, and they feared there were hundreds more than that not yet discovered.

The S.Koreans should use 50lb. bags of rice as sandbags against the first wave, just for the psychological effect.


138 posted on 10/11/2006 8:29:46 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

You said -- "In any case, we have no "intention" to attack NK but we also have no intention of allowing any dangerous military buildup by it."

The U.S. has allowed a military build-up for a long time. It doesn't seem to make any difference to the U.S.


You also asked -- "You don't really believe we have any "intention" to attack the NK regime without justification do you?"

By observing past behavior of the U.S. (to present date) -- it appears that the only "justification" that will be used will be dropping an atomic bomb on a U.S. city. Short of that -- there has only been a lot of "yapping" like a bunch of dogs...

Regards,
Star Traveler


139 posted on 10/11/2006 8:31:11 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

That's a beatuiful collage. Should the USA ever be hit hard again, I will look forward to it occuring on enemy soil.


140 posted on 10/11/2006 8:31:57 PM PDT by theymakemesick (If allah demands muslims kill non-muslims, he must be satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson