Your reaction if we went to war with North Korea?

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
inu-kun said:
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.

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.
But that exactly the problem, resistance fighters will still use guerilla tactics to wear out the american army, I think Apocalypse Now said it best, the problems with the americans is that it's way to soft rather than completely breaking the opposition, so they eventually wear out. And destroying a country and then walking out is a much worse crime than destorying it.
I answered this question a few times already but once again in this plan one would not hold cities or large stretches of land just the basic human needs in the area and deny the rest of the area any other sources of said needs. Also with no need to worry about civilian casualties one simply kills heat sources you find in an area were your enemy is operating when you find them. That can be done from the air with very little to no risk.
 

Lord Garnaat

New member
Apr 10, 2012
412
0
0
I'd definitely support it. The fact that North Korea still exists is a blight on mankind, so far as I'm concerned, and the faster that regime is toppled the happier the world will be for it, I say. There are few military actions that would be more justified, assuming it were provoked. And even if it weren't, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

It wouldn't be hard either. North Korea may have a large military, but it is poorly trained, ill-equipped, and half-starved. Conventional victory would likely occur within a matter of months. The biggest concern would be the fate of South Korea in the early months, considering North Korean artillery, but if that can be disabled quickly (I imagine that would be the first target) then we'll have little to be worried about.

I think people in this thread are seriously overestimating how willing China would be to intervene on the North's side. The only reason they support them at all is because they'd rather not have refugees swarming into their country, but that isn't something they'd go to war over, particularly when it puts their economy and relations with the US (and the future, reunified Korea) at risk. They're fine with keeping the status quo, but they're not willing to die for it.

People seem to be comparing this to "another Iraq" as well. There's not really a comparison between the two. North Korea has no ethnic strife, no tribal conflicts, no regional divides or factional infighting between tightly-knit groups, and no method of foreign terrorist insurgents from taking root, either. The US wouldn't need to create a new government from scratch, it would be a reunification led by the South - a difficult and expensive process, but not an impossible one. A full-blown guerrilla resistance seems unlikely, considering that the ordinary people will likely lose sympathy with their former masters once they've fallen. Think the occupation of Japan or Nazi Germany, not Iraq.

And really, it would be an entirely just cause. North Korea is an abomination, and we would all be well rid of it. Sitting back and waiting is not going to make things any better there, so why wait? It would be preferable if it were an international coalition organized within the UN, but even if the US had to go alone (though the South would still probably be doing most of the work), I wouldn't have any reason to object.
 

Aesir23

New member
Jul 2, 2009
2,861
0
0
Well, my thoughts about it would generally occur in this order.

1. How is China okay with this?
2. Shit, Seoul is screwed.
3. How can the US afford this?
4. Is Harper/whoeverreplacesHarper going to drag us into this?
 

willnz93

New member
Jan 5, 2015
2
0
0
Lord Garnaat said:
no regional divides or factional infighting between tightly-knit groups, and no method of foreign terrorist insurgents from taking root, either. The US wouldn't need to create a new government from scratch, it would be a reunification led by the South
Would reunifying the North and the South not create a huge regional and factional divide in a unified country? Especially considering the two Korean nations have been basically in a cold war with each other for 60 years.

Most of the population in the North have no idea what is going on in the world save what their government tell them and history has shown that populations can be brainwashed/brought up into believing their dictator is divine. Even if it was a provoked invasion I simply cannot see anything other than a huge Guerilla campaign after their (no doubt swift) official defeat. The mountainous regions of North Korea would no doubt be well suited to such a conflict. People said the Afghans would keel over when the Russians invaded, people said the Russians would keel over once Napoleon took Moscow and people said the Vietnamese would keel over when the US intervened. The number of times the incredibly advanced (at the time) British Army got smashed by farmers over the empire period is staggering. I could go on.

While I am by no means saying that invading NK would result in the attackers eventual retreat, I am just of the opinion that there is often a pattern when a large advanced army attacks a less advanced country where the defending population genuinely support their (often pretty nasty) leaders. While that pattern isn't always defeat, more often than not the pattern is a stretched out conflict that results in the deaths of not only many soldiers but of innocents too.

North Korea is no doubt a bit of a mess but without serious (as in serious, serious) provocation I wouldn't support the UK joining a coalition to attack NK. The risk of elongated conflict and the lashings out against SK is just not worth the reward.

I'm not even going to take into account the superpower of China, who while for obvious reasons wouldn't directly intervene, would be pretty pissed.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
inu-kun said:
ecoho said:
inu-kun said:
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.

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.
But that exactly the problem, resistance fighters will still use guerilla tactics to wear out the american army, I think Apocalypse Now said it best, the problems with the americans is that it's way to soft rather than completely breaking the opposition, so they eventually wear out. And destroying a country and then walking out is a much worse crime than destorying it.
I answered this question a few times already but once again in this plan one would not hold cities or large stretches of land just the basic human needs in the area and deny the rest of the area any other sources of said needs. Also with no need to worry about civilian casualties one simply kills heat sources you find in an area were your enemy is operating when you find them. That can be done from the air with very little to no risk.
Except you can't have it both ways, either you go in the populace or you just leave the place to rend itself apart, the americans can't hide in a corner and still expect to show authority.

And the problem with terrorists is that they aren't in some stronghold, they hide among the populace, that's why they suck so much for both sides.
and what you don't get is that fact that in this scenario we are not hiding we are controlling an entire area by controlling that areas basic human needs. If the only presence we have in a country is at places that if destroyed would doom an area to death by starvation/thirst the chances of any real resistance destroying it would be small.

Terrorists are only a threat if they can hit you were it hurts. right now this is easy as the ways of checking people out are limited, but in this scenario we are at war with the majority of the world as such profiling would be common place, as would denial of entry into the US by any foreign nationals.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,576
3,532
118
ecoho said:
and what you don't get is that fact that in this scenario we are not hiding we are controlling an entire area by controlling that areas basic human needs. If the only presence we have in a country is at places that if destroyed would doom an area to death by starvation/thirst the chances of any real resistance destroying it would be small.
When has that ever been successfully done?

Secondly, you aren't controlling the area, except in the sense of keeping it crippled. You don't own it, it just can't do much to hurt you.

Bat Vader said:
Seeing as how North Korea is still using Cold War Era weapons and equipment my reaction would be how hours or days it would take to take down Kim-Jong Un. In fact we pry could pry just send in Seal Team Six, SAS, GIGN, Australian SAS, South Korea's Special Forces, ETC and the job would be done in couple of hours.
Iraq had Cold War ear weapons, Afghanistan some even older (ancient Khyber copies from when the British were last there).

Saddam's death didn't end the fighting in Iraq, Kim-Jong's might not in NK.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
thaluikhain said:
ecoho said:
and what you don't get is that fact that in this scenario we are not hiding we are controlling an entire area by controlling that areas basic human needs. If the only presence we have in a country is at places that if destroyed would doom an area to death by starvation/thirst the chances of any real resistance destroying it would be small.
When has that ever been successfully done?

Secondly, you aren't controlling the area, except in the sense of keeping it crippled. You don't own it, it just can't do much to hurt you.

Bat Vader said:
Seeing as how North Korea is still using Cold War Era weapons and equipment my reaction would be how hours or days it would take to take down Kim-Jong Un. In fact we pry could pry just send in Seal Team Six, SAS, GIGN, Australian SAS, South Korea's Special Forces, ETC and the job would be done in couple of hours.
Iraq had Cold War ear weapons, Afghanistan some even older (ancient Khyber copies from when the British were last there).

Saddam's death didn't end the fighting in Iraq, Kim-Jong's might not in NK.
This kind of tactic was used successfully till 1977 when "scorched earth" tactics were banned by the Geneva Conventions at which point most of the world stopped using them. These kind of tactics are banned for two really big reasons;

1.they are barbaric and uncivilized.
2.they are surprisingly effective.

Yes I do know that im not talking about "scorched earth" tactics per say but its the closest definition I can find that you could look up:)
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
inu-kun said:
ecoho said:
inu-kun said:
and what you don't get is that fact that in this scenario we are not hiding we are controlling an entire area by controlling that areas basic human needs. If the only presence we have in a country is at places that if destroyed would doom an area to death by starvation/thirst the chances of any real resistance destroying it would be small.

Terrorists are only a threat if they can hit you were it hurts. right now this is easy as the ways of checking people out are limited, but in this scenario we are at war with the majority of the world as such profiling would be common place, as would denial of entry into the US by any foreign nationals.
How could the occupying force be capable of being in charge of the entire food/medicine/water resources to a single area, let alone for a single nation, what they'll recuit FedEx to the war effort?

And considering Israel is actually in a smiliar state where we supply most of the food, water, electricity AND building materials (for free) for Gaza (only for said caonstruction materials be used to make rockets and tunnels) you can't close the passage without incuring massive rage and lawsuits from other countries, even if said area is currently bombarding us with rockets.
you contaminate the water sources so only the ones you control can be drank, then controlling food is pretty easy while you have an area under blockade and keep burning their fields.

Lawsuits? In this situation the first lawyer dumb enough to try and sue during a war would be shot on sight. As an Israeli im surprised by your lack of understanding of the use of the tactics I put forth, mostly because having worked with many of your countrymen I know how well your mandatory training is.

Since there seems to be some common issues lets get his straight right now;

1. In this situation the US would not care about lawsuits, embargos, and would not hold vast quantities of land just control resources.
2. controlling basic human needs is surprisingly easy in this day and age due to both satellite mapping and deep thermal imaging.
3. I spent several YEARS in the US military and do know what im talking about. I am not some COD fanboy who cant understand how the real world works.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
America is a nation in love with war, the cost of the war machine they have built is mind boggling. Just look up the cost of things like tanks, ships, boats, choppers etc then look at the cost of missiles they own ... let alone the destruction they bring.

How much they spend on r&d could probably fund a small country.

Now, NK.... remember that game they released, something racer? That is where their tech level is, 64 bit models.

It would be like a reoccurring thought I have ... going back to ww2 with modern day tech. How much of a difference would that make? Could 1 man single handedly beat Germany or at least a small team?

Anyway, America vs NK would be a crushing loss for NK.

As for others joining in, mike Tyson didn't need Ali to jump in the ring to help him.