North and South Korean Tension

Yeah, where the heck do you guys get your soldiers anyway? I thought your recruitment pretty much failed during and before the "Bush years".
 
I have painstakingly analyzed the situation and have come to a conclusion that only a venn diagram can properly explain I hope this helps those who still are unable to properly read before posting about gay relations between two countries that are at war theoretically with the world aka The United States. This shows the many relations between NK and SK and their effects on the missile crisis in Cuba. Technically Cuba doesn ot exist and is merely a facade set up by the Chinese government in 1966 to test the effects of America's might in the face of adversity. Of course, China failed.

nd2c0n.jpg
 
EDIT: A lot of the info is outdated, btw, for example, we have more than 1000 tanks; more like 2300 or so. Infor prolly from 1990s. We've changed heavily during the past 5 years, so not sure if other info is correct.
If you had American tanks, you'd only need 1. (and lots of ammo)

I doubt it's from the 90s. I would expect it was information available when the site came to be - which was 2005. So information from 2002 or 2004 at the earliest.
 
Those numbers count for shit, quality matters, especially when the age difference is about a generation.

Hitler thought the same thing when invading the Soviet Union (not that his technology was better, mind you).
 
Hitler thought the same thing when invading the Soviet Union (not that his technology was better, mind you).

Point taken. But I also think that Soviets did have some weapons to their advantage, like KV tanks which were near impossible for 1941 Nazi tanks to destroy, and the T-34s that came later were not really that bad compared to German Panzer III, IV and the like.

Still, western, both European and American (as well as ours that are based on them), weapons and weapons systems are greatly superior to whatever North Korea, or maybe even China and Russia can come up with for the time being.

Rule of Modern War #1: be friendly with westerners, for they have better weapons. :p

If you had American tanks, you'd only need 1. (and lots of ammo)

I doubt it's from the 90s. I would expect it was information available when the site came to be - which was 2005. So information from 2002 or 2004 at the earliest.

Well, most of our tanks are about equal to the earlier, 90s version of the M1 Abrams, or equal to M1A1s. Of course we have those M48 Pattons that we really need to get rid of, but still, upgraded M48A5Ks are better than their T-5X and T-6X lineups.

Anyway, other than that, it was pretty accurate.
 
I don't know why we don't have nuclear powered tanks yet. I demand they begin work immediately.
 
Point taken. But I also think that Soviets did have some weapons to their advantage, like KV tanks which were near impossible for 1941 Nazi tanks to destroy, and the T-34s that came later were not really that bad compared to German Panzer III, IV and the like.

Well, in 1942 Germany was technologically inferior to the Soviets, as the latter had T-34s with better armour, better cannons and greater armours than their German counterpart (Panzer III I believe). The only reason the Nazis succeeded was because they had the element of surprise.
 
So, theoretically speaking if NK & SK/US went to war, and China joined forces with NK and eventually all hell (WW3) broke loose. What side would Russia join? I feel that whatever side Russia would be on would have the upper hand as it'd be hard for the West to counter both China and Russia as it would China to counter the US/West/Russia.
 
So, theoretically speaking if NK & SK/US went to war, and China joined forces with NK and eventually all hell (WW3) broke loose. What side would Russia join? I feel that whatever side Russia would be on would have the upper hand as it'd be hard for the West to counter both China and Russia as it would China to counter the US/West/Russia.
In the late 1980's the SU had an attack plan who's goal was for the SU to nuke the USA to pieces with a Chinese land invasion to follow.
 
So, theoretically speaking if NK & SK/US went to war, and China joined forces with NK and eventually all hell (WW3) broke loose. What side would Russia join? I feel that whatever side Russia would be on would have the upper hand as it'd be hard for the West to counter both China and Russia as it would China to counter the US/West/Russia.
Assuming states are rational actors, big powers will never go to war with eachother in today's world, as they're all economically dependent on each other. And if war broke out between China and the US (plus the rest of NATO), I see no reason why Russia would want to join either side, as they aren't particularly good friends with either.
 
Asking China to Act Like the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/weekinreview/28cooper.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

A fundamental tenet of foreign policy says that nations will seldom voluntarily act against what they have determined, for whatever reason, to be their own national interest.
From economics to climate change to currency to Iran and finally culminating with North Korea last week, America has sought to push, prod and cajole China, to little or no avail.
 
UN talks broke down, heavy N Korean activity reported on the border, military is on full alert, war is imminent.
 
I wasn't worried; usually North Korea doesn't announce that it will attack before it actually does.
 
Back
Top