North Korea declares war upon South Korea.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Well, the sides have technically been at war since 1950's as the conflict then didn't end with a peace treaty. I don't know how to embed/tag/link websites in a post either, otherwise I would... if you google search something along the lines of "North Korea declares war..." you'll find numerous news articles.

Anyway, here's a statement from a North Korean news source, that is in most of the news articles.

"From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly," a statement carried by the North's official KCNA news agency said.

What are your thoughts on this? Are you worried? Do you have friends or family currently in North or South Korea? I'm not sure how to feel, as in the past North Korea has made numerous threats, but it seemed to be all bluster and no bark.

Well congrats North Korea, you have fucked yourself.

Hopefully it's just another rhetoric or I'm going to have make a lot of teary-eyed phone-calls to Seoul >.>.

Assuming this isn't more crazed propaganda from the communist state, this likely marks the beginning of the fall of North Korea.

I'd get a tub of popcorn, but knowing the cost of life that will potentially come out of this, I'm just going to cautiously watch this unfold.

As foretold by Homefront, this means that North Korea will take over the US by 2024... So it begins!

IF they're serious (which is a big if), then they've fucked themselves. I doubt China will back them up in this because even they've had enough of the NK's bullshit. And the US won't stand still for this - South Korea is one of our allies in the region. In all likelihood, they're just bluffing though.

Well actually, NK says it's entered a 'state of war' with SK which means all matters from here on out between the two will be dealt with 'in a manner befitting war'. Based on NK's previous antics, I'm thinking they're not actually going to go on any offensive ops. Both sides will probably just stare angrily at each other across the DMZ and NK will take a few pot shots.

Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Call me back when they actually start trying to roll tanks through the DMZ.

For now, I'm pretty sure this is just a bit of chest pounding. Maybe they'll lob a few shells over the border, as if to say, "No, really, we mean it this time, we really do!"

Yeah, most likely more angry posturing. OTOH, glad I don't live anywhere near there.

Barciad:
Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Damn, wish all the best for you mate.

OT: I really hope this is just some technicality bullshit and nothing actually happens. If it does though I doubt North Korea will last very long.

I think that North Korea is bluffing as always, but I wonder if the South Korean's are going to take this occasion to attack first. It's not like they don't have a military after all, and North Korea has shown that they are quite willing to shell a good part of SK.

Disabling those artillery pieces first might prevent a lot of deaths, or it might make things worse. I don't know. Is there an expert on this subject in here?

Anyway, I hope nothing comes out of this.

Dark Knifer:

Barciad:
Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Damn, wish all the best for you mate.

OT: I really hope this is just some technicality bullshit and nothing actually happens. If it does though I doubt North Korea will last very long.

History shows us it wont be short. I really think other nations will try to step in and stop the U.S from using nukes in which case it will become a ground war that will be extremely casualty heavy.

The Vietnam war is almost exactly the same situation we are dealing with here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Zhukov:
Call me back when they actually start trying to roll tanks through the DMZ.

For now, I'm pretty sure this is just a bit of chest pounding. Maybe they'll lob a few shells over the border, as if to say, "No, really, we mean it this time, we really do!"

The issue is that the ROK is becoming more and more radicalised at the command level. If I recall correctly the new defence minister is a lot more hardline than the last. I don't think that shells hitting the mainland are going to be tolerated anymore.

CogDiss:

Dark Knifer:

Barciad:
Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Damn, wish all the best for you mate.

OT: I really hope this is just some technicality bullshit and nothing actually happens. If it does though I doubt North Korea will last very long.

History shows us it wont be short. I really think other nations will try to step in and stop the U.S from using nukes in which case it will become a ground war that will be extremely casualty heavy.

The Vietnam war is almost exactly the same situation we are dealing with here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

The culture is different, the terrain is different, the geopolitical background is different, the doctrines of the militaries are different, the government of the capitalist side is different, the public perception of US intervention is different, the likelihood of pro-communist intervention is different, the attitude towards communism in the south is different etc etc, the only similarity is is is an Asian nation divided by communist north and capitalist south.

The crux of your point is correct however, boots on ground, lots of deaths. I told one of the blokes I live with in the lines, keeping the lads updated you know, he simply said 'fuck'. I am really not looking forward to this.

Capathca-love you. God help me, I do.

CogDiss:

Dark Knifer:

Barciad:
Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Damn, wish all the best for you mate.

OT: I really hope this is just some technicality bullshit and nothing actually happens. If it does though I doubt North Korea will last very long.

History shows us it wont be short. I really think other nations will try to step in and stop the U.S from using nukes in which case it will become a ground war that will be extremely casualty heavy.

The Vietnam war is almost exactly the same situation we are dealing with here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

No, you are talking about the technological difference between 1969, and 2013.

This is not the same situation at all given the advancement and sheer amount of money spent to ensure a vietnam never happens again.
image
image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

PsychicTaco115:
As foretold by Homefront, this means that North Korea will take over the US by 2024... So it begins!

If anyone invaded Us. They would face atleast 25 million armed militia, plus military, and national guard. Homefront did nothing to show the weapons Us citizens may have like 50 cal snipers, and machine guns, Ak-47s, and Ar-15s. Lots of Ak's, and Ar's. Some of them even shoot than some in the military like the sport shooters.I doubt even China with 50 million troops could secure the US.

How long before China slaps North Korea to put an end to this shit? It was cute when it was all ridiculous propaganda videos, but the joke has worn a bit thin.

I really think that China isn't far off from removing the Kim Jongs from power. It's simply not worth it to have an ally like that. A stable nation that can actually feed itself is much more useful, but that's not going to happen as long as the power structure remains the same.

Dark Knifer:

Barciad:
Right now, I am about 5 miles south of the border with North Korea. The entire town in which I live is like one big army base. There is a barracks next to the school where I work, another barracks just to the north of the town, and an aerodrome slightly further on. Military convoys are a daily event and you will see soldiers whenever you do some shopping. Most of the heavier gear though is kept out of sight. Only twice have I seen artillery go past, and thankfully, getting stuck behind tanks is rarer still.
If they do invade, I will be in the middle of a war zone. Something I try not to think about.

Damn, wish all the best for you mate.

OT: I really hope this is just some technicality bullshit and nothing actually happens. If it does though I doubt North Korea will last very long.

Thanks for the support. In my opinion, everything rests with China. Seeing as China is the big player in the region and North Korea's only ally, what is their stake in all of this? I'm getting the impression that they are less than please with the current leader in the North. He is a kid, sincerely out of his depth in a world of grand power politics. He is as unable to control his increasingly bellicose army as he is to feed his starving population.
My guess is that China wants rid of the current regime. They are sick to the back teeth of their childish and unpredictable behaviour. More than that, China's leaders know that, even after the events of the last 10 years, the US is still a force to be reckoned with. More than that, both sides know that they have appearances to maintain. Two of the most disastrous wars in human history, WWI and the Peloponnesian War started in the same circumstances. A bipolar world, in which two rival hegemonic powers strove to maintain their areas of influence. This was done by a combination of diplomacy, the threat of force, and its actual use when needs be. However, there both arose situations where both side was put in a position where neither could afford to back down. To do so would be seen as weak and thus allow sedition to rise in their respective spheres of power. In the wars that followed, neither side won and that they strove to build was brought crashing to the ground.
China and the US know this. They know the unholy mess that this erstwhile ally is causing. China wants a small, friendly autocracy on its eastern border. A stable one two, one that doesn't make much noise. The problem is, how to create one with the minimum of fuss. The current rulers in the North aren't going to go down without a fight. They like how things stand right now. Thus it remains for China and the US to change the parameters so that the status quo becomes less appealing. The North Korean leadership needs to be given an alternative.
As for how, if I knew, I would be in the diplomatic corp and not sitting here.

Lil devils x:

No, you are talking about the technological difference between 1969, and 2013.

This is not the same situation at all given the advancement and sheer amount of money spent to ensure a vietnam never happens again.

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

Vietnam wasn't about the US military not being big enough. It was vastly superior to anything it faced. The problem is that that was totally irrelevant.

A long pointless war to no real end can happen any time. A lot of people were worried that Iraq or 'Stan would turn into that. Many years on, still too early to say, though both are much smaller.

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:

No, you are talking about the technological difference between 1969, and 2013.

This is not the same situation at all given the advancement and sheer amount of money spent to ensure a vietnam never happens again.

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

Vietnam wasn't about the US military not being big enough. It was vastly superior to anything it faced. The problem is that that was totally irrelevant.

A long pointless war to no real end can happen any time. A lot of people were worried that Iraq or 'Stan would turn into that. Many years on, still too early to say, though both are much smaller.

The thing is, with the technology the US has now, there really should not be a ground war needed to neutralize a threat. The ground war itself is outdated, and only offers US casualties that people see as unnecessary. The only purpose for a ground war is rebuilding a nation, and to reduce casualties and if they choose to abandon the humanitarian aspect, only to leave the destruction, it isn't going to be pretty. It will be effective, less costly, and quick, but it would be far from humane.

We have only begun to see the use of drones, and they have pretty much stuck to using the least damaging weapons. People are viewing that as the problem here rather than being a good thing and are blaming that for the reason the whole Iraq/ Afghanistan conflicts were so drawn out. Everyone I have heard speak of the subject here are blaming the government for NOT being more destructive, and calling for them to use MORE force. The way this is viewed here is people think that if the US didn't hold back they wouldn't still be doing this. The most concerning is I am hearing that from Democrats even moreso than republicans these days!

The majority of the world is looking at the casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as too many, and the force too extreme. In the US it is viewed as it wasn't enough and they are calling for the big guns. I don't think people realize where it is headed if the US continues to get provoked. They will elect leaders that will not hold back, and then we will have a genocide on our hands.

I do hope they are bluffing because the civillian casaulties in this war on both sides will be terrible

Lil devils x:
The thing is, with the technology the US has now, there really should not be a ground war needed to neutralize a threat. The ground war itself is outdated, and only offers US casualties that people see as unnecessary. The only purpose for a ground war is rebuilding a nation, and to reduce casualties and if they choose to abandon the humanitarian aspect, only to leave the destruction, it isn't going to be pretty. It will be effective, less costly, and quick, but it would be far from humane.

We have only begun to see the use of drones, and they have pretty much stuck to using the least damaging weapons. People are viewing that as the problem here rather than being a good thing and are blaming that for the reason the whole Iraq/ Afghanistan conflicts were so drawn out. Everyone I have heard speak of the subject here are blaming the government for NOT being more destructive, and calling for them to use MORE force. The way this is viewed here is people think that if the US didn't hold back they wouldn't still be doing this. The most concerning is I am hearing that from Democrats even moreso than republicans these days!

The majority of the world is looking at the casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as too many, and the force too extreme. In the US it is viewed as it wasn't enough and they are calling for the big guns. I don't think people realize where it is headed if the US continues to get provoked. They will elect leaders that will not hold back, and then we will have a genocide on our hands.

In that sense, yes, I agree. It was how WW2 was brought to and end in the Pacific, after all...AFAIK, it was Macarthur that wanted a glorious ground war (the USSR would land troops somewhere to say they were part of it), everyone else wanting to destroy infrastructure and crops until Japan was starved into submission over a few years.

Lil devils x:

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

You're forgetting about Iraq - and I'd never underestimate the ability of humans to make the same mistake multiple times.

OT: A war in the long-term might be the best alternative if it gets rid of the dictatorship, but I'd really have preferred it if we could use the diplomatic route. There were a lot of signs earlier this year that NK was amenable to private development (such as the internet) and wanted to change things at least a bit.

I can't see the war being that bloody either, the amount of air support will mean North Korea's missiles etc will get destroyed before they can use them, and it's hardly going to be a challenge fighting Soviet-era troops that are probably suffering from starvation.

Esotera:

Lil devils x:

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

You're forgetting about Iraq - and I'd never underestimate the ability of humans to make the same mistake multiple times.

OT: A war in the long-term might be the best alternative if it gets rid of the dictatorship, but I'd really have preferred it if we could use the diplomatic route. There were a lot of signs earlier this year that NK was amenable to private development (such as the internet) and wanted to change things at least a bit.

I can't see the war being that bloody either, the amount of air support will mean North Korea's missiles etc will get destroyed before they can use them, and it's hardly going to be a challenge fighting Soviet-era troops that are probably suffering from starvation.

Although I greatly disagreed with them going into Iraq, I don't see how that could be comparable to Vietnam when you look at the mechanics of it. The actual conflict didn't last very long at all in Iraq, the problem being after that, The US took out all the countries defenses, so the US had to be their defense after that. There was no draft, and any leader who thinks of bringing back the draft would be committing political suicide. Everyone sent to Iraq was a volunteer. Once The US took out their government though, the US had to make a new government for them.. that is where you get into complications. US had to be their police and their defenses in a impoverished country where anarchy was setting in.. that is never a good thing no matter how you look at it. You just invaded them and blew up their stuff, family and friends.. of course they aren't going to like you being there, and they surely do not want you bossing them around.

I do think the idea of the nation who goes into war with them being the one who rebuilds is a bad one. It would be better to bring in someone they actually like at that point, not the people who just bombed them. They would be more receiving to friends rather than enemies. When you look at the contrast between the cultures, it is obviously a bad move to bring in a bunch of rowdy Americans to police them at that point. Really they needed people better equipped at understanding their culture,and people as policing is a very sensitive, personal matter to begin with.

If a bad government does have to be taken out, it would probably be better to have a " good cop/ bad cop" scenario. Whoever takes out the previous goverment is the bad guy, then they bring in someone else to make friends. Even if the country who bombed them is paying for the relief, it kinda needs to be someone else who delivers it.

"Declares" war? Interesting to declare war on a country you've already been at war with for decades. Indeed, the Korean war never actually ended. The state they are in is "ceasefire", which is simply short for "at war, but not currently shooting at each other".

Uptown Korea done been threatenin violins fo' decades, therez not a god damn thang freshly smoked up ta peep here.

Technically they can't straight-up declare war thankin bout they still at war wit Downtown Korea wit tha absence of a peace treaty followin tha war.

It's very unlikely to escalate into war. China's only interest is keeping it's border secure and preventing a refugee situation from developing. Western blind optimism thinking that China will simply abandon a tributary state is disconcerting however.

Esotera:

Lil devils x:

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

You're forgetting about Iraq - and I'd never underestimate the ability of humans to make the same mistake multiple times.

The primary similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is that the force opposing the US used assymmetrical warfare, and even then not in the same way. The political conditions, objectives, the primary stage of conflict involved, and even the composition of the enemy force are starkly different between the two, among other things. Afghanistan would be a closer example of Vietnam than Iraq would be, but even then there are significant differences between the two.

Edit: As for whether North Korea would become a Vietnam or Iraq, I would say there is a slightly better chance of it becoming a Vietnam, but it's still pretty low. It doesn't have nearly the internal political problems Iraq had that made occupation difficult(ie no solid national identity, religious/ethnic strife, lack of local allies, porous borders, etc) and its occupation would be more akin to post-WWII Western Germany or Japan. The biggest issue the US might have is with the initial ground war, but I use the term "biggest" loosely because in order for it to become a Vietnam the leadership would have to basically go in with a half-assed and slow operation. But if America is known for anything nowadays, it's for going balls to the walls when given the chance to do conventional operations.

the north korean leader is facing a triple "threat". you have the fact he is new to the job, that hes just had a purge and removed his military leaders who were a threat to his power base and shipped them and their families off to prison camps and on top of that you have the annual thing with the americans and south korea.

the one thing we can count on is that the whole point of the regime is to keep it intact. whats worrtying is that the north koreans seem to be bent on using techniques that for the most part they can stand there hands in their pockets going "we didnt do anything" like the recent cyber attack which has the potential to escalate things badly.

I propose a new grand tactical strategy for the U.S.. I call it the 'Stay down' strategy.

It's really simple; the North Koreans have lots of artillery and that's about it. So we blow the shit out of every single one of their artillery pieces that we can find, and then we don't fucking do anything. If they try to set up more artillery pieces, we blow them up too. You don't move in ground troops, you just keep blowing them the fuck up every time they try to set up something with long range capability.

Once you remove North Koreas ability to threaten anything beyond its own borders, it will either A: Be forced to commit to a ground war or B: Be forced to the peace table, not the 'cease-fire' table, the PEACE table.

It's the equivalent of trying to get someone who's picking a fight they can't win to STAY DOWN. You don't want to have to hurt them any more then you need to, but you do need to prevent them from getting back up and hurting someone. It's not going to work against every enemy, but against an enemy who has no real ability to control the air space, it's basically a killer. And since North Korea has a essentially non-existent air force..

Also the term is 'all bark and no bite'. Bark is the bluster, bite is actually doing something with the bark.

I mean, if they want to fight a war why not let them fight the war.

PsychicTaco115:
As foretold by Homefront, this means that North Korea will take over the US by 2024... So it begins!

Ha I thought about this the other day. What if Kim Jung Un had played homefront and decided he could actually do that? As soon as someone figured out that a videogame initiated a war all of us would get screwed. video game ban for national security.

Both men and women are capable of handling their sexuality on equaly, i see no issue of having sexual content in a game which is aimed at a sufficiently mature audience. I doubt you have any reservation to the fact that male characters in most games(well western games at least) look like the love baby between a 3 times olymic swimmer and an underwear model..

Esotera:

Lil devils x:

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

You're forgetting about Iraq - and I'd never underestimate the ability of humans to make the same mistake multiple times.

OT: A war in the long-term might be the best alternative if it gets rid of the dictatorship, but I'd really have preferred it if we could use the diplomatic route. There were a lot of signs earlier this year that NK was amenable to private development (such as the internet) and wanted to change things at least a bit.

I can't see the war being that bloody either, the amount of air support will mean North Korea's missiles etc will get destroyed before they can use them, and it's hardly going to be a challenge fighting Soviet-era troops that are probably suffering from starvation.

How about we parachute you into NK with flowers and a teddy bear so you could all tell us about the triumph of diplomacy?
North Koreans live in a bubble, they are "brain washed" from infancy to believe in a fabrication, they are not staging all those moments with the "great leader" the majority of the populous just that strongly conditioned.
I also do not think that if you lived in Seoul or any where in range of NK artillery, Cruise, and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, not to mention the possible NBC weaponry you would be still singing the same tune.
People are not bad, but the majority of people are irrelevant, the "silent" majority is allays irrelevant, the majority of Germans were not some evil spawn of Satan during WW2, same goes for Russians under Stalin, or Chinese under Mao. The fact that you might reason with most if not all of them individually is irrelevant, nations and people are capable of heinous acts of "evil" and atrocities with out being made up of Mansons and Hitlers.

Also Iraq was not a "mistake" whatever you think about the invasion and the continuous involvement of American forces in their affairs they are still better off than being rules by a maniacal dictator that was responsible for the death of millions of people in Iran, Kuwait, and in his own backyard.

Yes Iraq is a mess, but if any thing you should be at least a little bit proud(irrelevant of your conspiracy theory pretense) that you got rid of Saddam.

Verbatim:

Esotera:

Lil devils x:

The idea that Vietnam will ever happen again, when all the US has done since Vietnam is ensure they do not make that mistake ever again is a bit absurd.

You're forgetting about Iraq - and I'd never underestimate the ability of humans to make the same mistake multiple times.

OT: A war in the long-term might be the best alternative if it gets rid of the dictatorship, but I'd really have preferred it if we could use the diplomatic route. There were a lot of signs earlier this year that NK was amenable to private development (such as the internet) and wanted to change things at least a bit.

I can't see the war being that bloody either, the amount of air support will mean North Korea's missiles etc will get destroyed before they can use them, and it's hardly going to be a challenge fighting Soviet-era troops that are probably suffering from starvation.

How about we parachute you into NK with flowers and a teddy bear so you could all tell us about the triumph of diplomacy?
North Koreans live in a bubble, they are "brain washed" from infancy to believe in a fabrication, they are not staging all those moments with the "great leader" the majority of the populous just that strongly conditioned.
I also do not think that if you lived in Seoul or any where in range of NK artillery, Cruise, and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, not to mention the possible NBC weaponry you would be still singing the same tune.
People are not bad, but the majority of people are irrelevant, the "silent" majority is allays irrelevant, the majority of Germans were not some evil spawn of Satan during WW2, same goes for Russians under Stalin, or Chinese under Mao. The fact that you might reason with most if not all of them individually is irrelevant, nations and people are capable of heinous acts of "evil" and atrocities with out being made up of Mansons and Hitlers.

Also Iraq was not a "mistake" whatever you think about the invasion and the continuous involvement of American forces in their affairs they are still better off than being rules by a maniacal dictator that was responsible for the death of millions of people in Iran, Kuwait, and in his own backyard.

Yes Iraq is a mess, but if any thing you should be at least a little bit proud(irrelevant of your conspiracy theory pretense) that you got rid of Saddam.

Not only that but most N. Koreans are basically told that America is the aggressor and if the government is the only thing that can protect them

NK leadership has to show the rest of the world it is insane, because only an insane regime would use its nukes (even on its own soil).

It is all about the NK leadership protecting itself from 'regime change'.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here