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 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221 next last
1
posted on
10/11/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT
by
Flavius
To: Flavius
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.
2
posted on
10/11/2006 7:05:43 PM PDT
by
2banana
To: Flavius
Sounds familiar.
Where have I heard these dire forecasts before?
Hmmmmm.
3
posted on
10/11/2006 7:06:07 PM PDT
by
airborne
(Show me your friends and I'll show you your future.)
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. Perhaps a better plan has since been drafted? One would certainly hope so.
4
posted on
10/11/2006 7:06:57 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Flavius
So I am to believe that we are scared to death of losing to a tin can dictator?
Pathetic!
5
posted on
10/11/2006 7:07:19 PM PDT
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
To: airborne
6
posted on
10/11/2006 7:07:24 PM PDT
by
bannie
(HILLARY: Not all perversions are sexual.)
To: 2banana
Story must be based on old info...
7
posted on
10/11/2006 7:07:38 PM PDT
by
elhombrelibre
(The Democrats newest paranoid strategy: Get to the bottom of the Vast Corn Hole Conspiracy!)
To: Coyoteman
By "previously" we could be talking 1953 here.
To: 2banana
I don't get it. There are not even 52,000 American troops stationed in Korea.
------------------------------------------
The Marines on Okinawa and RCTs of the 25ID have long been dedicated to a QRF to back-up 2ID.
9
posted on
10/11/2006 7:08:42 PM PDT
by
wtc911
(You can't get there from here)
To: Flavius
Well, the consequences of inaction must be weighed. 52,000 military and 1,000,000 civilian lives sacrificed to avert a possible global nuclear tragedy. It makes me disguted as well, at Kim Jong Il.
10
posted on
10/11/2006 7:09:42 PM PDT
by
phoenix0468
(http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
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. The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test." How ridiculous. Just nuke the bastards and be done with it.
There is no reason to accept any American causulties in a war with the North Koreans.
11
posted on
10/11/2006 7:10:06 PM PDT
by
StormEye
To: Flavius
How many deaths will the U.S. suffer if we allow these thired world nutjobs to launch their nuclear tipped missiles at our country. I think the cost of neutralising North Korea and Iran is better than the cost of allowing them to get those nukes.
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."
That's what the desk jockies said about going into Baghdad in '91.
13
posted on
10/11/2006 7:10:22 PM PDT
by
familyop
To: 2banana
I agree-this is outlandish unless they sank a lot of the Pacific Fleet.
14
posted on
10/11/2006 7:11:46 PM PDT
by
unkus
To: Flavius
Thanks again, Harry Truman for not letting MacArthur finish the job. We're technically at war with these cretins. A ground war with NK would make Somme look like a family picnic.
To: Billthedrill
By "previously" we could be talking 1953 here.Yep, my first thought as well.
"52,000 US military casualties"?? Horse manure.
To: Flavius
How many will die if they are allowed to continue building nuclear weapons? Sooner or later they will sell them to terrorists or use them themselves and tens of millions will die. As usual, the Democrats want to appease the enemy and give them gifts to not kill us. How long can we hold the starving wolf at bay? Tick, tock...
To: 2banana
There were 52,000 troups there once.
Around 1960 or so...Seems to be a dated analysis.
Must have been leaked to the MSM.
18
posted on
10/11/2006 7:13:06 PM PDT
by
Prost1
(Fair and Unbiased as always!)
To: Flavius
I don't see why we would send one soldier into DPRK. We have no reason to occupy it. If they attempt to attack us or their neighbors with WMD we should obliterate them from the air and sea.
To: Flavius
Yeah ... just like they predicted 50,000 US deaths if we attacked Iraq
20
posted on
10/11/2006 7:13:18 PM PDT
by
clamper1797
(It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson