News Stories

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

"Blowing everything up" might just be the way forward. You can't just take out Kim, you have to also take out the senior military personnel as well. Their headquarters is likely large enough that collateral damage is minimal.

And besides, while you might hit a few unfortunate innocent civilians, in the long run by offing the regime millions will be saved.

However, the Anarchy that follows the collapse of the regime might see a lot more people die.

In the end, I don't think anything should be done without the say so of South Korea and China. You would need a very swift response, with all interested parties presenting a unified front.

To get China on side, I'd give them something like 30 year rights to many of the mineral resources in North Korea, and a very large demilitarized "buffer" zone that the new "unified Korea" can't post troops within, and the removal of all US military bases from the peninsula.

As for South Korea, I'd get the US, China and Japan to foot a suitable portion of the bill required for North Korea's transition to a stable state.

As for the North Korean people, they should get enough development aid such that they have a guaranteed food supply, guaranteed employment and a "decent" standard of living during a suitably long "transition period", during which time they'll also receive educational resources to help them integrate into the modern world, and un-indoctrinate them, perhaps with classes given by the North Koreans defectors (who they might more easily identify with).

And you go take him and everything else around out with an airstrike....that not only takes out the rulers, but anyone else around. Civilians, workers etc.

That's like the best excuse ever for any militarist officer who takes over to declare all out revenge on the West and attempt to rampage down south the border. Sure it will end with the DPRK ceasing to exist but what you get in the end? A bloodbath...unless that's what you were aiming for from the get go of course.

It's like saying Iran's nuclear facilities and leaderships can be decapitated in one strike....not happening. And if you go to that extent....might as well just invade anyway.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

What the Russians lacked in Moscow was the presence of antidotes in the process of quick response. But once you have them around in sufficient quantities as part of the protocol of use of narcotic analgesics, it should be fine.

I read the US military have fentanyl as an analgesic/a painkiller, so I don't think it would be far out of reach for special LE/HRT units.

edit: the fact that they are burning down the cabin is making things look more suspicious for the public IMO.

Heh, there's a BIG difference between something used in a medical setting as painkiller/analgesic and its weaponized form. It's much too expensive and is too much of a liability for common LE use - "Chief, we've got this fancy gas that may or may not kill everyone inside, or we can just use good 'ol tear gas and flash bangs, what do you think?"

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

The blue fraternity likely has a big mad on for Dorner, so them intentionally trying to kill him by torching the cabin is likely....
The Sherrifs department has just as much reason to wanna kill Dorner as the LAPD. Those two guys Dorner shot up before barricading himself in the cabin were county police I believe.

Going by this logic, no cop killer would ever be arrested, they'd just show up dead.

What you're describing would not be a police force, but rather just a gang with fancy uniforms.

[Ithekro]

Some would consider the LAPD it be not much better than that for the last century.

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by kyp275

What you're describing would not be a police force, but rather just a gang with fancy uniforms.

Funnily enough but the LAPD has been called this for decades.

[kyp275]

/shrug, I don't live in CA, I don't have any first hand experience with or strong opinion on the LAPD. While I'm certain many of the criticism are probably valid, somehow I doubt that it's as bad as some are making it out to be.

[AnimeFan188]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Are the two political parties really unable to comprehend the ramifications of diluting the rule-of-law that badly? I was concerned about this consequence the instant the Bush administration decided to treat terrorists like military warriors instead of criminals. The reverse was inevitable -- suddenly mere criminals were destined to be labeled terrorists and no due process was necessary.

If terrorists were treated like "military warriors" they'd be subject to the Geneva
convention rules.

As it is, terrorists don't wear uniforms, and don't (overtly) work for a nation-state.
Though they are covertly supported by nations like Iran & Pakistan, who want to
wage war deniably against other countries in order to avoid retaliation.

This puts terrorists in a nether region between criminals and soldiers.

Since terrorists are neither fish nor fowl, coming up with a legal framework for
dealing with them has been a rather knotty problem.

So administrations from both parties have simply decided: "If they serve no
country and follow no rules, then screw'em. We'll do as we please with them
whenever/wherever we find them."

And that is how we got to where we are today.


"when you endorse the application of a radical state power because the specific target happens to be
someone you dislike and think deserves it, you're necessarily institutionalizing that power in general.
That's why political leaders, when they want to seize extremist powers or abridge core liberties, always
choose in the first instance to target the most marginalized figures: because they know many people
will acquiesce not because they support that power in theory but because they hate the person targeted.
But if you cheer when that power is first invoked based on that mentality - I'm glad Obama assassinated
Awlaki without charges because he was a Bad Man! - then you lose the ability to object when the power
is used in the future in ways you dislike (or by leaders you distrust), because you've let it become
institutionalized."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...bama-kill-list

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by kyp275

/shrug, I don't live in CA, I don't have any first hand experience with or strong opinion on the LAPD. While I'm certain many of the criticism are probably valid, somehow I doubt that it's as bad as some are making it out to be.

The LAPD has a wretched reputation compared to any other major city's police force. They really are considered simply a gang with fancier guns, uniforms, and weapons by many citizens. As Ithrekro has pointted out, a lot of this stems from the utter disconnection between the force and the population thanks to the lack of walking beats, the lack of community policing, etc.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Those who think that ROKA is outnumbered is looking at the wrong numbers.

- KPA has a nominal conscription length of 3~5 years, but effectively 10 years. ROKA has the effective conscription length of 2 years. Basically, the only reason KPA has a higher nominal troop number is because of the length of conscription, not effective conscription.
- While nominal reserves of KPA is 8,200,000, this includes virtually everyone of "reliable" political background from age 17-49, with most of them knowing only the simplest things and mostly used for logistics and construction (less than 20% are actual combat troops). The ROK Reserve Forces of 2,900,000 is to be a pure infantry fighting force, meaning in effective reserves the ROKA outnumbers the KPA.


I don't need to go into the logistical and technological differences, do I?

If majority of that 2.9m is the type of the bunch of 20-plus-year-old S-Koreans I used to regularly see at my local casino (and most of which the suits have to be called in to "escort out"), then I am putting my money on the North Koreans.

I thought I was one of those boys who don't turn to men post-conscription and still remain as a softie who grumbles and pouts, apparently these ones are worse. Trash talking the croupiers, behaving in an arrogant way when they are denied further alcohol, and attempting to attack security, then sobbing away when their old man couldn't negotiate with the CSO not to hand them over to the police for throwing cards/chips at a female staff and cutting her face.

Makes me want to smack them over their heads - didn't the army teach those boys something called humility? With that attitude any junior counterintelligence officer could easily flip them or be pissed off enough to put a round between their eyes should they get captured.

[Cosmic Eagle]

They still have a solid core of professionals..besides...our own reservists don't behave too well either but some do have competency in the field.


When invading DPRK, strategy is going to count for more anyway. Attrition battle is the last thing you want. And the PRC won't be interfering militarily this time since they want to look good

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

They still have a solid core of professionals..besides...our own reservists don't behave too well either but some do have competency in the field.


When invading DPRK, strategy is going to count for more anyway. Attrition battle is the last thing you want.

I am not sure about "solid core of professionals", because my gut says that in such a developed state, a number of their regulars probably have the same attitude as ours, just there for money and testimonial instead of the adventure.

That most likely does not apply for the quick-reaction/special operations units. The 707th SMB (and probably AISU/ROKNSeals because there are some in different BDU) does cross training with our SOs and they are pretty badass, the only problem being that they suck at speaking English so much that a suit from the ROK Embassy has to accompany them as a translator (I don't think I need to tell you about the mud on whatever he is wearing).

A fight between the North and South would probably start off with guerilla warfare, and NK's special operations soldiers outnumber the South massively. Although surgical operations only cripple, the lack of a powerful follow-up despite effective sabotage may turn the war into a stalemate instead of a runover by either side.

P.S I think our reservists might actually fight better than the regulars should there be a conflict. They may be unfit, overweight and unmotivated, but when push comes to shove they certainly have that attitude to fight.

[Ithekro]

I would think that unlike Singapore, South Korea does have a defined enemy and semi-state of war on its border. Even with the large numbers of US troops stationed there.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I would think that unlike Singapore, South Korea does have a defined enemy and semi-state of war on its border. Even with the large numbers of US troops stationed there.

I think the term would be "defined enemy strategy" - NK does alot more of infiltration, flipping and sabotage than an outright AOW with their outdated equipment. The SK counter-guerilla/intelligence warfare wings are probably alot more better than their American counterparts, but the regular infantry forces may not be as on par with the US Army infantry (ROKMC is the exception if you count Marines as naval infantry) due to less attention being paid to them - an unpleasant term for them in guerilla warfare is "meatshield for the civilian populance until the SpecOps arrive".

The 707th are very professional - there is a tale about how a team of 4 managed to get to a rendevous point 12 hours earlier than their foreign counterparts in a training exercise in US. Since the operation involves crossing over an area including open field manned by the US Army Rangers or Airborne. A couple of British snipers hiding nearby vouched for the Koreans, so they were asked, "How do you get here so fast?"

They answered in broken English, "We go grass area.", meaning that they crossed the open field undetected, in the middle of the afternoon. The only mistake they made was not detecting the 2 snipers (talk about British humour).

If there is an outbreak of violence, I don't think I want to be a North Korean guerilla even though I may get to smack those South-Korean brats around.

[Ithekro]

The ROKMC were the troops the US Navy used in Vietnam to cover their flanks. PBR crews never worried about those flanks as the ROKMC were paid per kill even though the US forces did give them ammo on the side (to make sure they could make those kills to get paid).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The ROKMC were the troops the US Navy used in Vietnam to cover their flanks. PBR crews never worried about those flanks as the ROKMC were paid per kill even though the US forces did give them ammo on the side (to make sure they could make those kills to get paid).

Never heard anything about the ROKMC soldiers, but being a spearhead troop rather than part of the "grinder" to clean up the trapped enemy the QRF has cut-off, I think they do have better training in counter-guerilla warfare to maintain their barrier against infiltrating reinforcements.

I think that the ROKMC functions more like the British RMC as a quick-reaction force, than the actual Marines of the Russian and American armies which are expeditionary (politically correct term for invasion) force, I could be wrong because they have tank battalions for "wall smashing" operations.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Try competitive shooting before you say that.

Put it this way, you can be completely unfit and have no particular physical strength and excel at shooting, which is unlike every other Olympic Sport. For instance, one of the Olympic Shooters was 8 months pregnant, which I don't think would be possible in any other sport.

Not saying it doesn't require skill. But having Shooting in the Olympics would be like having Chess or Auto-racing in it, sports that undoubtedly require skill, but are not particularly athletic.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Put it this way, you can be completely unfit and have no particular physical strength and excel at shooting, which is unlike every other Olympic Sport.

Not saying it doesn't require skill. But having Shooting in the Olympics would be like having Chess or Auto-racing in it, sports that undoubtedly require skill, but are not particularly athletic.

Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Try putting a 7.62x51 downrange 400m with an L96A1 under tremedous pressure. With an increased heartrate, your aim gets screwed - it takes more than technique to keep that 10x crosshairs on your target.

If you want to talk about air rifles with mitigated recoil, heartrate still counts. So does focus, concentration, increased blood pressure........I think a basic sniper selection test serves a better understanding than an air rifle training programme.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Sorry, I have to call BS on that. Try putting a 7.62x51 downrange 400m with an L96A1 under tremedous pressure. With an increased heartrate, your aim gets screwed - it takes more than technique to keep that 10x crosshairs on your target.

If you want to talk about air rifles with mitigated recoil, heartrate still counts. So does focus, concentration, increased blood pressure........I think a basic sniper selection test serves a better understanding than an air rifle training programme.

Sure, but where is the physical fitness? As I (later edited in), an 8 months pregnant woman could compete in Olympic Shooting, with seemingly no negative consequences on her performance.

I would never have a hope of doing well in any Olympic Sport (due to being tremendously unfit), but with a lot of practice, I could do well in Shooting. My lack of any physical ability would not set me back. Sense of timing and self control is not the same as, say, the physical strength to throw a javelin.

EDIT: It's also not particularly great to watch. Certainly, between shooting and wrestling, I'd choose wrestling.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Put it this way, you can be completely unfit and have no particular physical strength and excel at shooting, which is unlike every other Olympic Sport. For instance, one of the Olympic Shooters was 8 months pregnant, which I don't think would be possible in any other sport.

Not saying it doesn't require skill. But having Shooting in the Olympics would be like having Chess or Auto-racing in it, sports that undoubtedly require skill, but are not particularly athletic.

Auto-racing is far from not atheletic....Especially F1

[Bri]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

And dressage does have ratings?

There are events that could be cut from the summer Olympics, but I don't think wrestling is the top of that list (instead, perhaps the wrestling body should do a better job of advertising itself). Other sports I'd get rid of first:
Water Polo, all Equestrian sports, Basketball, Field Hockey, Soccer (Olympic Soccer can't beat the World Cup), Modern pentathlon, Shooting (though I respect the sport, it's not athletic even compared to archery). Generally, I don't think the "Field team" sports (like Soccer, Basketball etc.) really fit into the Olympics.

I don't see why Olympic sports aren't put into clusters like athletics. You can have the 8 major clusters: aquatics, athletics, cycling, gymnastics, martial arts, racquet sports, rowing and team sports. From there you can simply remove some of the more silly elements.

I feel equestrian, sailing and shooting (as opposed to archery) have no place at the Olympics as they are not self propelled, same argument as motorization used to disqualify auto-racing by the IOC.

Soccer is a difficult one as the men's game is a bad joke, but for the development for the women's game it provides a major stage. It's also an important source of revenue for the Olympics.

Golf...just no.

[DonQuigleone]

The problem with Auto racing is that it's as much about the car as about the driver inside. Doesn't fit what the Olympics is about ("Faster, Higher, Stronger")