Your reaction if we went to war with North Korea?

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Who would actually want NK? And NK's neighbours would be against it, having the odd million NK refugees rock up on your doorstep all of a sudden would be awkward.
A lot of people would finally be able to see their family members again, distant ones at this point but still, it'd be like the Berlin wall.
The Rogue Wolf said:
Assuming that China doesn't throw its military might behind North Korea? In any realistic military scenario, NK folds like a house of cards under any first-world nation's assault. We've never gotten a full look, but it's obvious that many of North Korea's weapons and other materiel are either decades old or outright fake, and their economy couldn't possibly hope to keep a large fighting force well-fed and well-supplied for any length of time.

Then, of course, we have the classic question: What happens after? Every scenario posits problems.
Now there's a good thought.
- Send in a ground force to "pacify" the nation? You're looking at a desperate, brainwashed populace the likes of which we haven't seen since World War 2-era Japan. (Remember how we ended up nuking them twice because they wanted to keep on fighting even after they were hit by the most terrifying weapon the world had ever seen?) Iraq and Afghanistan at least had locals who saw the occupying forces as human beings; your typical North Korean civilian would probably see an invader as a literal demon from Hell. How do you pacify a populace like that without resorting to tactics that would be best measured in "mega-Hitlers"?
I personally prefer the measurement of kilonazis or Romans (remember Carthage or the sammanities, well of course roman book keeping), but i think there are ways around it.
Now in all honesty there is dispute to whether it was wholly necessary to bomb the Japanese by the end, their forces would have likely ground to a halt but holy hell the suicides.
Well from what I did remember they were told the occupiers were going to rape, torture and murder everyone and there were a number of confused and happy Japanese civilians that found out the opposite to that.
I can really only hope the population understands the opposing force is human once it swings into occupation. not the best choice but that's how i handled rome one, and if they rebelled that's some chared villages you got there. in all fairness, the britians started it first by burning my pitsburg to the ground.
I should never be put in a position of power.
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
Short term thoughts: Yes, definitely. It is a cruel dictatorship, concentration camps included and should probably be purged.

Long term thoughts: Bad idea. Wars are never short. Much wasted life on both sides. South Korea will get caught in the crossfire. China might get some funny ideas themselves. Even worse image of the west (particularly US) in the other parts of the world. Chances of a new dictator being installed are huge, as is the chance that this dictator will be a puppet for China or the US, so ultimately we might return to square one in a matter of years.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,887
733
118
ecoho said:
1. China will just stop trade with us and doom our economy right? I hear this alot and it will never happen just like theyll never call in our debt. why you may ask, because we supply about 60% of their food and after 6 months of no trade half their population would be dead or otherwise incapable of mounting any kind of resistance.Were as the US can actually survive without pretty well though it would be extremely hard on our civilians and may put us in recession for a couple years.(we wont enter another depression at this point due to certain back ups in place since the 50s.)
The US economy is fragile, though, with lots of other problems. China might not be able to cause such a problem, but might well be enough to trigger it.

However, China also has an economy they'd rather not have ruined, so this isn't going to happen on purpose.

ecoho said:
believe it or not if the US really wanted to conquer the world we could we just prefer not to.
Not remotely true. The US could make a mess of any nation it wanted to, sure, but conquering a nation means holding onto the pieces afterwards. The US can't manage that very well in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone the world.

Secondly, if the US got into a nuclear exchange with anyone, it would lose. A single nuclear device initiated in a US city would be a disaster the like of which the US has not seen in decades, if ever. Doesn't matter how badly the US hurts the enemy, the US is a lot worse off than it was before the war. It has lost.

cleric of the order said:
Well from what I did remember they were told the occupiers were going to rape, torture and murder everyone and there were a number of confused and happy Japanese civilians that found out the opposite to that.
The opposite in that not everyone was raped and murdered. The occupying forces did do quite a bit of that, as occupying forces tend to do, especially after a long war (though many of the occupying forces committing atrocities didn't actually fight in it)
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
I'd be slightly concerned about NK's ICBM capabilities, but first and foremost I'd want to know what China does. Because we all remember what China did the last time Western countries started stomping on Korea...
 

chocolate pickles

New member
Apr 14, 2011
432
0
0
Mumbly said:
chocolate pickles said:
About time. The sooner we put a bullet in Kim Jong-un's face, the better.
...you need to go to war for that...?
Generally, yes. Unless you want some 'so-far-his-own-ass-he-cant-see-daylight' douche in a suit to start crying about how things need to be done with procedure, and how murder of death-wielding dictator is never justified unless everything is official and all the paperwork has been filed.

Personally, i'm fine with Kim Jong-un just spontaneously dying in his bed room 'alone', with the signs of asphyxiation just being a strange coincidence.
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
thaluikhain said:
The opposite in that not everyone was raped and murdered. The occupying forces did do quite a bit of that, as occupying forces tend to do, especially after a long war (though many of the occupying forces committing atrocities didn't actually fight in it)
I would not say quite a lot, and this is one few the few time's I'd defend America (perhaps because I'm also defending colonial forces).
Now Okinawa was quite something
So was the Kanagawa Prefecture
But compared to most of history and hell compared to the Japanese military itself it was nowhere near a problem.
My point was they were expecting a Rape of Nanking and got a Boer war camp instead (people complain about that but in all fairness there were less people there then in the arm or at home from what I've been told).
Can't find the documentary i watched on it but this quote is close enough, basically: "However, some other authors have noted that Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[30][31] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."

And i really have to give the Americans credit for their restraint, the Japanese played dirt during the last stretches or were at least reported to.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,887
733
118
cleric of the order said:
thaluikhain said:
The opposite in that not everyone was raped and murdered. The occupying forces did do quite a bit of that, as occupying forces tend to do, especially after a long war (though many of the occupying forces committing atrocities didn't actually fight in it)
I would not say quite a lot, and this is one few the few time's I'd defend America (perhaps because I'm also defending colonial forces).
Now Okinawa was quite something
So was the Kanagawa Prefecture
But compared to most of history and hell compared to the Japanese military itself it was nowhere near a problem.
My point was they were expecting a Rape of Nanking and got a Boer war camp instead (people complain about that but in all fairness there were less people there then in the arm or at home from what I've been told).
Can't find the documentary i watched on it but this quote is close enough, basically: "However, some other authors have noted that Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[30][31] According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."

And i really have to give the Americans credit for their restraint, the Japanese played dirt during the last stretches or were at least reported to.
Oh sure, compared to what they expected and/or what Japanese had done when they occupied places, there was only a bare minimum of problems. However, people tend to equate that with no problems.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Wouldn't want to see actual troops on the ground. Maybe some precision drone strikes with the first one being an assembly of their leaders. Hmm... maybe the first and only one being that...

But I wish no harm on the brain washed and isolated people of North Korea, just the leaders that have caused the situation of isolation.

Beyond that, my only concern would be if they have any actual means of striking at us.
 

Jaegerbombastic

New member
Sep 20, 2014
25
0
0
Squilookle said:
I'd be slightly concerned about NK's ICBM capabilities, but first and foremost I'd want to know what China does. Because we all remember what China did the last time Western countries started stomping on Korea...
China is not going to intervene militarily. Especially on behalf of Best Korea.

They're not going to risk crippling their economy and possibly setting off World War III just to save a failed state that they already have to prop up. At the same time, they're most likely not going to do nothing because that risks their trading relationships with other countries that have less-than-savory relations with the West (Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Pakistan, etc.) In the event of a war China is likely gonna do the same thing they've done every time a crisis as arisen between the Koreas; make a vague denouncement of "the violence" and quickly push for peace talks that would result in status quo ante bellum.
 

Quazimofo

New member
Aug 30, 2010
1,370
0
0
Mostly I'd just hope to god North Korea can't somehow smuggle nukes into any major US Cities (well, anywhere in the us really, but big cities especially). I don't know for sure whether or not my house is close enough to be taken out by a downtown blast and I'd rather never find out.

I'd also hope the war was over quickly and doesn't escalate. Best case scenario a lot of impoverished, pretty much brainwashed. people are going to die, but if it escalates (especially considering the proximity to Russia and China) who the hell knows how bad it could get.
 

thehorror2

New member
Jan 25, 2010
354
0
0
My probable reaction would be something like "Oh, CRAP" because NK is propped up by China, so by going to war with NK we start a war with CHINA, too. And their first response to something like that would be to TANK our economy. Forget their military power (which, while impressive, still lags behind us) they could trigger something like the 2009 financial collapse just by calling in their debts (which they haven't done up until now specifically so they can keep growing their economy by trading with us, and so they can hold it over our heads to prevent this kind of situation). Plus, however awful NK is to its people, it's only AWFUL to IT'S people. It's not like Afghanistan, which harbored genuinely dangerous terror cells. The worst NK is actually capable of doing on the world stage is attacking South Korea, which would result in the annihilation of their armed forces by LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE except China, which would pull support and lead to the total collapse of the state. It's really hard to justify going to war with a nation that hasn't actually attacked anyone yet, no matter how much they may deserve to get curb-stomped.

They've managed to work themselves into a nice little stalemate where any action triggers horrible consequences, and the rest of the civilized world has apparently decided the slow, grinding death of thousands of impoverished innocents is an acceptable loss in exchange for those consequences not coming to pass.
 

Mau95

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2011
347
0
21
Every single country against NK? That'd be kinda cool. But mean. It's like ganging up in the weird kid, in a way.
 

A_Parked_Car

New member
Oct 30, 2009
627
0
0
An unprovoked war won't occur, but a provoked one may. People don't seem to realize how close we came to war back in 2010. We were literally one single KPA shell south of the DMZ away from a full-blown retaliatory air campaign against the entire KPA IV Corps after they shelled that island. Local commanders were given complete authority to retaliate against any KPA provocation. It was so bad that my friend who was an intelligence officer stationed in South Korea at the time said he watched the KPA move onto full war footing, then quickly back down as their own intelligence services saw how far they had pushed the South and realized that they couldn't do any more bullying without actually committing to a hot war.

People also don't seem to realize that if war broke out on the Korean peninsula today, the bulk of the fighting would be done by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces, not the US or UN. It isn't 1950 anymore, South Korea is more than capable of defending itself. The US would participate because it is obligated by treaty, not because it is needed to win. The US has the equivalent of one combat brigade in the South along with a large number of HQ units that would receive their actual troops at a later date after the outset of hostilities. The KPA is no longer a war-fighting force in the traditional sense. The vast majority of KPA units have devolved into a kind of robber-baron outfit that leech off the local population and act as the power base for pseudo-warlord military commanders. Outside of a handful of special forces and light infantry units, that would all be quickly dealt with, the KPA is good for little more than marching in parades. The internal situation is so weak that the current US-RoK OPLAN involves large swaths of the KPA immediately surrendering, or even actively assisting, an invasion of the North. Particularly those in the Eastern portion of the country, which is heavily neglected. No power, no funding for basically anything, one entire province turned into an open-air concentration camp, etc.

Nor will China intervene on the side of the North. We have leaked PLA documents stating that the Chinese would actively assist the South, not in direct military engagements, but in seizing any chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as sealing their border against any fleeing DPRK officials. The Chinese aren't stupid. They realize who will win in a hot war in Korea without massive intervention on their part and see no point in antagonizing a newly unified Korea when they could bring it under their influence instead.

Even the most pessimistic of wargames see any KPA advance stopped well north of Seoul since the disparity both organizationally and technologically between the two forces is absolutely massive. Nor would KPA troops be able to melt into the local populace since they have zero popular support south of the DMZ (and not too much north of it either). The KPA is no longer a threat in a conventional sense, hence the increased emphasis on deterrence weapons (chemical and nuclear) on the part of the DPRK. One can see this in current RoKAF weapons procurement. The K2 Black Panther is massive overkill against anything the KPA can field. That is because the K2 isn't designed to fight the DPRK, K1s from mid-'80s are more than enough for that, instead it is designed to deal with Russian and Chinese MBTs in the relatively near future.
 

cleric of the order

New member
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Oh sure, compared to what they expected and/or what Japanese had done when they occupied places, there was only a bare minimum of problems. However, people tend to equate that with no problems.
in honesty i will have to disagree I assume and believe that t is more likely that people don't focus on it, give it much thought or care more then anything. People live their lives focusing on their personal dramas and the events of a distant front miles away involving people they don't know or understand is hard for most to grasp, specially when referring to an even that took place almost a century before.
It's apathy more then anything.
But I agree in some sense, ignorance is horrible when we can't remember that history rhymes.
However, as much as I dislike falsehoods and ignorance i think this is one of those, "you have to find the dragons for yourselves moments".
To give an even hand to these events and every detail of any war together is an enormous strain when compounded with life and other lessons. worse yet once it becomes main stream knowledge you have a bunch of counter culture rejects that dither on about the evils of our world without ever understanding them.
That's why we focus on the barest of the bones, so everyone can get a loose understanding of it, historians are the ones that have to dig deeper.

But even if you are to be right, in all honesty I'll admit they have good reason to
You get a bunch of random people, discipline the crap out of them, dehumanize the targets and expose them to a place of stress and physical reaction you end up with the most primal, based parts of human nature coming out. Nasty business that.
War is and will remain a nasty business and collateral damage is a constant, you can't in so much remove collateral damage as minimize it. Such is the way of war. VAE VICTIS
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
Basically I'd laugh and get back to whatever I was doing. If there was the need for a draft I'd laugh again as I'm too disabled to join and I'd get back to whatever I was doing. So long as Steam stays up I'd be fine.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
thaluikhain said:
ecoho said:
1. China will just stop trade with us and doom our economy right? I hear this alot and it will never happen just like theyll never call in our debt. why you may ask, because we supply about 60% of their food and after 6 months of no trade half their population would be dead or otherwise incapable of mounting any kind of resistance.Were as the US can actually survive without pretty well though it would be extremely hard on our civilians and may put us in recession for a couple years.(we wont enter another depression at this point due to certain back ups in place since the 50s.)
The US economy is fragile, though, with lots of other problems. China might not be able to cause such a problem, but might well be enough to trigger it.

However, China also has an economy they'd rather not have ruined, so this isn't going to happen on purpose.

ecoho said:
believe it or not if the US really wanted to conquer the world we could we just prefer not to.
Not remotely true. The US could make a mess of any nation it wanted to, sure, but conquering a nation means holding onto the pieces afterwards. The US can't manage that very well in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone the world.

Secondly, if the US got into a nuclear exchange with anyone, it would lose. A single nuclear device initiated in a US city would be a disaster the like of which the US has not seen in decades, if ever. Doesn't matter how badly the US hurts the enemy, the US is a lot worse off than it was before the war. It has lost.

cleric of the order said:
Well from what I did remember they were told the occupiers were going to rape, torture and murder everyone and there were a number of confused and happy Japanese civilians that found out the opposite to that.
The opposite in that not everyone was raped and murdered. The occupying forces did do quite a bit of that, as occupying forces tend to do, especially after a long war (though many of the occupying forces committing atrocities didn't actually fight in it)
ok first i was talking conventional war due to as you pointed out using nukes just screws everyone.

Now the iraq and Afganistan ocupations are a very bad example as we have no intreset in actually concuring them. If we did then this is how it would happen;
step 1: target every warter source in a 10 mile radious of a major enemy stronghold/area.
step 2: contamenate and distroy said water source.
step 3: maintain a blockade around said area with shoot on sight orders.
step 4: wait 3 weeks.
step 5: repeat as needed till population surenders or is no longer an issue.

That would be the mindset of a war mongering US and while barbaric would work very well on dessert nations, for the others it would simply be a mater of taking out their tech and ability to wage war. In fact i think the only people who would have any chance of resisting and pretty much make us say screw it would be the UK.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Jaegerbombastic said:
Squilookle said:
I'd be slightly concerned about NK's ICBM capabilities, but first and foremost I'd want to know what China does. Because we all remember what China did the last time Western countries started stomping on Korea...
China is not going to intervene militarily. Especially on behalf of Best Korea.

They're not going to risk crippling their economy and possibly setting off World War III just to save a failed state that they already have to prop up. At the same time, they're most likely not going to do nothing because that risks their trading relationships with other countries that have less-than-savory relations with the West (Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Pakistan, etc.) In the event of a war China is likely gonna do the same thing they've done every time a crisis as arisen between the Koreas; make a vague denouncement of "the violence" and quickly push for peace talks that would result in status quo ante bellum.
Need I remind you that Korea is right on China's freaking doorstep? How can any nation engaged in the proverbial superpower tadger measuring contest possibly let all it's rivals set off so many fireworks just across the pond? China may not give a damn about Korea. They may have no interest whatsoever in it's fate or even WANT to intervene in what could only be a messy confrontation. But they would HAVE to- because if a military giant like China doesn't intervene, it would look like a massive red carpet of inaction inviting anyone to flex their bloated military muscles right outside the front door to anyone who looks out and actually cares about that sort of thing.

I mean really, you think the US would just stand by and roll with it if Russia started racing it's arms in Cuba? Again?
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
I think pity, honestly. The US would wipe the floor with NK and ultimately it would be NK's citizens, who already endure starvation and the most oppressive tyrannic regime in the modern world, who would end up suffering.

Kim Jong-Un is a crazy person, of this there is no doubt. But he's (mostly) harmless crazy, and I think he's not nearly delusional enough to honestly believe that escalating to a nuclear conflict will result in anything else besides an enormous parking lot where North Korea used to be.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,887
733
118
ecoho said:
ok first i was talking conventional war due to as you pointed out using nukes just screws everyone.

Now the iraq and Afganistan ocupations are a very bad example as we have no intreset in actually concuring them. If we did then this is how it would happen;
step 1: target every warter source in a 10 mile radious of a major enemy stronghold/area.
step 2: contamenate and distroy said water source.
step 3: maintain a blockade around said area with shoot on sight orders.
step 4: wait 3 weeks.
step 5: repeat as needed till population surenders or is no longer an issue.
It would work very well in killing lots of innocent people, and making the populace of that, and other, nations hate you. It's not a good way of holding a nation.

I used Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, even if the US didn't want to conquer them, because the problems are similar. The US didn't want them destroyed, they wanted the countries as intact as possible, and running along relatively smoothly.

ecoho said:
for the others it would simply be a mater of taking out their tech and ability to wage war. In fact i think the only people who would have any chance of resisting and pretty much make us say screw it would be the UK.
That's how the US would defeat an enemy, sure. But to conquer it, that requires you to have troops in the streets, at risk from anyone with any sort of firearm who might happen to hate them.

(Out of interest, why the UK, as opposed to other industrialised nations with modern militaries?)