What you say is directly contradicted by the quoted words of a retired Major General in the article I previously cited. If you want to convince you me you are more knowledgeable or truthful than what was presented there, you'll need to cite some source. No offense, but when it comes to matters of military action, I'm going to take the word of someone with is or was relatively high in the military over a pseudo-anonymous internet persona unless evidence to the contrary is presented.
Here's the last paragraph: North Korean anti-aircraft weapons “are not all that impressive,” Scales said, “but there’s lots of them.” Could the North Korea guns be taken down? “Sure, over time,” he said. “But by the time we do that, the damage they’d inflict on Seoul would just be staggering.” They go into the reasons for that earlier.
It is pretty rich to repeat over and over again statements like, "I'm sure that" and "I believe" as well as a host of other implications with nothing to back any of your assertions except a Huffington Post article, then try to high road your way out of the corner you built for yourself by demanding citations.
What else do you do when people start calling your beliefs into question? You fall back on facts and expert sources to back up your assertions. And I believe I'm still the only person to have done so in this direct thread, even if only through a Huffington post article. But the point of that article wasnt that it was from the Huffington post, but that they had an expert source, and that's who I referenced.
I was a bit incredulous when I referenced someone that k rw that they were talking about and it was ignored. I'm even more so now when I'm actually being called out for bringing some expert information to this pissing contest.
I'm in class so I can't post as detailed as I wish, but there are at least three links in this comment section from much more credible sources that might inform your opinion more. I recommend the New Yorker article first. You need to segregate your emotions from your reasoning. Having a misinformed opinion is not a crime, but it is correctable. My chief issue with your comments is, as I stated before, your general implications and assertions, particularly in regards to China and Best Korean competency. I too am still learning just how isolated, geographically, ideologically, and intellectually, the Juche government of NK is.
Don't hear what I'm not saying: I think you are ignorant of some of the facts, not incapable of understanding. I see now that my initial comment was overly petulant and could have been more constructively worded. I will post some links I find helpful when I get out. But should you gave the time there are some enlightening docs on documentaryheaven.com (their site is a huge mess) about Best Korea. Be well.
> but there are at least three links in this comment section from much more credible sources that might inform your opinion more.
And none as direct ancestors to this comment. If you follow this directly up thread up you'll find I'm the only one to have sourced any reference beyond the very top level comment, which was an Amazon link to a book. Even if we expand to branches from tzs second level comment, there's almost no references.
> I recommend the New Yorker article first.
I did find what I assume is the New Yorker article you mentioned in a sub-thread that starts out talking about Qaddafi, but it just seems to bolster my point:
Six years into Kim Jong Un’s reign, some analysts in Seoul argue that senior Party officials can overrule or direct him, but U.S. intelligence believes that Kim is in sole command. ... That left Jong Un, who had received a degree in physics from Kim Il Sung University, had trained as an artillery officer, and was active in security and political work.
So an intelligent person that is well versed in the challenges and threats artillery faces? Are we to assume he ignores the obvious weaknesses that he should know of (since he's trained in their aspects) then?
The Obama Administration studied the potential costs and benefits of a preventive war intended to destroy North Korea’s nuclear weapons. Its conclusion, according to Rice, in the Times, was that it would be “lunacy,” resulting in “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualties.” ... If Kim used his stockpiles of sarin gas and biological weapons, the toll would reach the millions. U.S. and South Korean forces could eventually overwhelm the North Korean military, but, by any measure, the conflict would yield one of the worst mass killings in the modern age.
So the same source you called out as worth reading that might inform my opinion mirror what I've been stating all along. Attacking North Korea would result in massive casualties in South Korea. There is no current strategy that would result in us wiping out the offensive capability of North Korea before they can cause massive damage.
> My chief issue with your comments is, as I stated before, your general implications and assertions, particularly in regards to China and Best Korean competency.
So, my implications and assertions that a nation that views its defense a existential priority won't put the bare minimum of 1910's level technology in place to make sure they have secure land lines run to important military locations? This is a country with artillery that is literally "dug in", as in they've placed the entire thing below ground with large hanger doors that can be closed to shield the artillery for defense, and opened for attack.
NK has an estimated 12,000 pieces of tube artillery, and another 2,300 multiple launch rocket systems.[1] That we would be capable of knocking all these out, or that they don't have specific orders on exactly how to proceed should the command structure deteriorate that would result in them commencing attack requires more explanation than "we'll take out the cannons quickly" which is the argument most the responses have put forth, and as I've references previously from educated sources, that is not the case.
I'll just note that I'm still citing references, my own and ones you pointed out, which still support my argument. If you can't cite something yourself, perhaps you should examine your own beliefs, and why there's no evidence to be found for them.
I think it’s fair to assume that such answers assume the US isn’t willing to preemptively nuke an entire southern swath of North Korea. If we are, and Trump is trying very hard to at least pretend that we are, it’s a totally different ballgame.
Here's the last paragraph: North Korean anti-aircraft weapons “are not all that impressive,” Scales said, “but there’s lots of them.” Could the North Korea guns be taken down? “Sure, over time,” he said. “But by the time we do that, the damage they’d inflict on Seoul would just be staggering.” They go into the reasons for that earlier.