Anonymous Attacks North Korea
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Ironman126 said:
Im 40 , and yes i remember the Persian Gulf incident, in retaliation to kuwait being invaded and backing a UN resolution a multi national force largely being american of course rolled in and bombed the crap out of alot of dessert and some tanks.
Thing is i also remember we stopped and didnt achieve a damn thing, 10 years later we had to go back and do the same again. and as we sit here behind our computer screens 23 later were still watching the coffins come back on a daily basis. America alone has lost around 4.5 thousand KIA and 32k Wounded since we "Won"
I also recall all the inquiries and investigations that went on to conclude that the WMD's that were used to get us involved in the second war were a fabrication , they never existed.
But using the dessert section of either gulf war as an example of how we would deal with a NK conflict? just a tad not helpful dont you think?
A modern mechanized army given a 100 click sight radius can call in bombing runs close air support or just use artillery to blow the crap out of anything before it can fight back
North korea is 60% woodlands and 20% mountains. so the previous korean war or vietnam might be better parallels.
Saddam was a despotic tyrant that didnt trust his own military had no great tactical sense and didnt bother pulling his troops back to urban settings, Kim is a living god beloved by his people who does trust his military. Iraq had according to the highest American reports ive seen 600 thousand troops, most reports came in several hundred thousand lower, and these were largely conscripts with little to no training or equipment.
Korea on the other hand with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth. America quite sensibly ill add likes to have a 10:1 advantage in fact it needs it to have a war fast enough with low enough casualties for the american populace to stomach. so that's 100,000,000 troops you need to find somewhere. and as every person in the NK goes through 3-5 years of military training going up to 10 for those going on to do more. your not going to face goat herders who have been handed a AK who are fighting because they are scared of the secret policeman behind them. your going to be fighting door to door tree to tree with a fanatic group of people who are willing to die for their living god and in defense of their homeland from what they view as an evil imperil-st invader.
Iraq had no chance to use its air , NK with 1700 jets might be a different kettle of fish. lets assume you get to shoot them all down with no casualties its sitll going to cost 1.700.000.000 in ordnance, But as a US congressional report put it
" While much of the equipment is outdated, the high saturation of multilayered, overlapping, mutually supporting air defence sites provides a formidable challenge to enemy air attacks."
NK also has the largest submarine fleet in the world. Now im sure out in the open ocean vs the modern american NAvy/air power they wouldnt pose much of a threat but making short range sallies out of heavily armoured /hidden sub pens even the biggest carrier is going to be at some risk.
Iraq had no WMD's it was a massive lie used to start the second war. NK definitely does possess nukes and chemical. sure it might not have miniaturization levels for ICBMS but as the main thrust of any invasion is going to be straight through the DMZ they dont need to "launch" anything. who knows what they procured in the soviet brake up and the issue of small pox has to be considered as a very likely problem.
Also they are not held by any treaties they are free to use those lasers the Chinese developed that were banned for being too indiscriminate in causing blindness over a large area. they also possess EMP devices GPS scramblers so its not as if their tech is that outdated in all area. sure thier jets and tanks are outmoded but in urban, forest and mountain scenarios that matters less than in a dessert
When we hit Iraq it was the first invasion, now with heavy entanglement in Iraq and Afghan going in to NK would be doing so with a vastly reduced and highly strained military.
oh The nuclear option, it isnt an option. Nukes are WMD's designed for a world ending fight, if were going in to NK its going to be to affect a regime change and enforce democracy on another country that doesn't want it. so nuking the populace is a bit of a self defeating thing to do . now if you get a hold of a globe you will see another problem , there's no way to nuke NK without hitting Russia, China, south Korea and japan there's a thing called fall out. and at least 2 of those have quite large nuclear arsenals that unlike NK are capable of hitting around the world.
In short NK is safe. we dont have the troops the will or the cash to go in there. and they dont have the oil to make it worth it.
I was not interested in why the US went into Iraqi, I already know that. I also wasn't interested in a motivation. I'm not advocating a preemptive strike against N. Korea. However, given the stance that the US has in regards to its South Korean and Japanese allies, I feel that it's reasonable to assume that should N. Korea try anything like an invasion or a missile strike, then that would be a valid excuse to finally finish what was started in the Korean War.zumbledum said:
As for how the war would go, I am hesitant to use the Korean War as an analogy given the vast increase in technology on the part of the US since then. Considering that the US Air Force has access to multiple photographic intelligence satellites, combat-capable drones, and a host of precision munitions, they could quite easily eliminate most of the major threats in a matter of weeks. The largest issue becomes the threat to Seoul (and the rest of S. Korea) and Japan that the N. Korean army poses in the form of artillery and missile strikes.
As for nuclear weapons, I would agree, that option is unthinkable, to an extent. However, there exist tactical nuclear weapons and while their ethicality is subject to debate, it is possible to use them to devastate targets, like a column of tanks, without irradiating Russian, China, and Japan. I would also agree that costs of fighting N. Korea are extremely prohibitive. It would be a battle of attrition and a very large portion of the North and South Korean populations would die or be displaced.
In the end, I would hate to see such a war because it would likely mean the destruction of Seoul and I have a lot of friends and even some family there. I'd be happy to live and let live, but Kim and friends see the need to act like children and make threats that they should not be eager to back up with force.