Your reaction if we went to war with North Korea?

Spearmaster

New member
Mar 10, 2010
378
0
0
The United States has the military supremacy to decimate North Korea in about a month of all out warfare. The problem is that N.K. would not have their guns pointed at us but rather at South Korea, I feel they would ignore U.S. military targets in favor of S.K. civilian targets which would be a very heavy death toll of innocent lives. Then there is the trump card Russia, I really don't worry about China so much, Our economies are so linked at this point we would only be crippling each other. The Russian Federation on the other hand has little to loose supporting N.K. just to fuel the cold war erection they have had for the U.S. for the last 60 or so years. R.F.'s involvement would mean WW3 as allies are divided between the U.S. and the R.F. and the dissolving of the United Nations.

All my opinion of course...
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
No need to do it, South Korea could do it on it's own, we chould just provide some air support or something.
 

PetitDemon

New member
Jan 4, 2015
33
0
0
This probably wouldn't happen, but if it did, it would be tragic. War is no good thing.
It is a bunch of unnecessary and horrifying death and suffering.
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
"Oh good, another pointless, ill-conceived expenditure of American lives and material in another fucked-up corner of the world so some filthy-rich industrialists with their hands up politicians' asses here at home can get even more filthy and even more rich. One of these days I really will move to Canada."
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
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.
Compared to what the Japanese did to the people they got hold of, and worse, what they got away with after the war, Japan got off bloody lightly. There is a reason Japan is still deeply unpopular in the Pacific region: everyone remembers the nightmarish things they did to soldiers, civilian resistance fighters, women, children, pregnant women and they still haven't properly apologized, and the US gave most of the doctors responsible a free pass in return for the research notes.

Seriously, look up 'Unit 731' and prepare to be revolted at just how barbaric the Japanese military was. They where monsters.

On the subject of the OP: good luck getting the UK and Europe involved in another foreign mess. We have enough to worry about on our doorstep with Russia to go gallivanting off on an expensive, wasteful war with a tinpot dictatorship run and entirely populated by crazy people.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
verdant monkai said:
2) Oh god please don't involve us Brits into another one of your embarrassing escapades against a vastly inferior foreign power, Afghanistan was bad enough. But by all means bring us along if you decide to fight the war with anything other than your usual foetus mutating, child maiming explosives and burning chemical sprays. I'm sure our troops will be delighted to hear you GI's constantly shouting "U.S.A U.S.A" in an undignified manner. I'm a big fan of America so please don't take that the wrong way, you make all my favourite music and films, I just think the way you go about warfare is disgusting.
Jesus fuck, this. Being around the Americans in the middle east was more dangerous for our troops than being around the actual "enemy". It was rediculous. The Americans even attacked our air units and bombed or strafed clearly British ground hardware.

My favourites being a scenario where a US jeep was told not to let anyone past them. A british jeep was with them in the convoy and wanted to over take. So the US jeep strafes the British jeep.

One night in October 2006 a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.
 

willnz93

New member
Jan 5, 2015
2
0
0
I'm sure the US would absolutely destroy the 'official' army in a few days.

That said, the following years would probably be an even bigger disaster than the Vietnam War. This isn't a country wanting to be liberated, I'm pretty sure a significant portion of the population would fight to the death against any invader long after the army was destroyed.

To answer the question however, I would be infuriated if any of us European countries were coerced into joining another region destabilising invasion which results in the massacre of countless poorly equipped people whose only crime was being born in the wrong place under the wrong leader.

EDIT
Also for all those saying they don't mind as the NK nukes can't reach America/Europe, try telling that to the completely innocent South Korean's who will no doubt be hit with everything NK has the moment they think they are under attack.
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
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.
So, your way to conquer a nation is to commit a series of war crimes against its population, up to and including repeated genocide against defenseless civilian targets? Such a strategy would quickly see the entire international community against the US, and would result in survivors who would possess a burning hatred for the USA and will to sacrifice themselves to claim vengeance against it. You'd make enemies quicker than you could kill them.

The US can't 'conquer' the world. You don't have the manpower or the economic clout to hold down a few sand pit 3rd world states, what makes you think you could take on the European Union, or the South American economic block? You could destroy the world, but thats not conquering it.

Captcha; vogon poetry, which is, in itself, a war crime.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
China is one hell of an ally. But i dont think even they would have a war with the USA/UK etc if there was good reason, eg NK attacking another country. I think China sees NK as an embarrassment, kinda like having a younger brother you protect etc that young brother is a mouthy fucker that starts trouble knowing your their to deal with the fallout. But i think if a war did happen then NK will be beaten fairly quickly. Their equipment sucks and though they have lots of people ready to fight, how many have the morale and are fighting fit? I think all they need is a good reason to turn on their leaders.

Though only thing i cant think would stop it coming to a war is the amount of money it would cost to bring NK up to the tech level of the rest of the world. Thats a huge investment in a country that has nothing to offer the rest of the world apart from memes.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
Auron225 said:
Suppose it was announced tomorrow that "we" (I'll give 3 different scenarios for who "we" includes) had declared war with North Korea. What would your reaction be? Would you think it's about time? Would you be distraught?

As for who "we" is (you can break up your answers if it changes how you'd feel about it);

1) U.S.A. alone VS North Korea

2) U.S.A., the UK, South Korea, Japan and minor help from other countries (with China and Russia agreeing to not get involved).

3) Every country against North Korea.

Also; how would you feel if North Korea had not provoked us as opposed to them striking first?
Well, in any scenario, most analysts are confident that the North Korean military wouldn't last more than a few days against a concentrated effort and bombardment. They might do some damage during that time sure, but if we really went in there with the intent to shut them down, it wouldn't take long at all. Of course, if their ally China chips in to help them, then it would be a bigger issue all together.

My personal feelings on it, having a wife who is half-Korean, and a mother in law who is full Korean from South Korea, is that it would be a good thing. Saying that NK hasn't provoked the other countries of the world is kind of silly though, they live by provoking the other countries.

On a professional level though, assuming it turned into a larger conflict (which it very likely could), it would mean a lot more work for me through the VA department, as we'd have new veterans coming in from combat, seeking benefits. And an influx of new veterans is always tough around the office, having to help them file claims with the federal VA.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Dakkagor 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.
So, your way to conquer a nation is to commit a series of war crimes against its population, up to and including repeated genocide against defenseless civilian targets? Such a strategy would quickly see the entire international community against the US, and would result in survivors who would possess a burning hatred for the USA and will to sacrifice themselves to claim vengeance against it. You'd make enemies quicker than you could kill them.

The US can't 'conquer' the world. You don't have the manpower or the economic clout to hold down a few sand pit 3rd world states, what makes you think you could take on the European Union, or the South American economic block? You could destroy the world, but thats not conquering it.

Captcha; vogon poetry, which is, in itself, a war crime.

you assume of course two things
1. that the people left alive would be willing to and capable to resist when there's not a single water source available to them that's not heavily defended and controlled.

2. that the enemies we made would be able to do anything to the US.

as for those last two points you mentioned

1. we only have problems in the middle east because we care about civilian casualties and don't bomb every heat signature we find in an area were hostiles are operating. Plus you know desert target water they die in days due to their own county killing them.

2. south America can be taken out with the use of EMPs at strategic locations breaking their economy and if that's not enough a blockade would pretty much ruin their trade with nations outside South America.

3. You seriously thing the European Union could out spend the US then your delusional their economy has almost collapsed twice in the last 8 years and one of those was because the US went into recession.

4. Really going with lack of manpower? Just got to ask who do you think protects international trade in the ocean?
then we can get into our air force bombing targets from home with drones or just dropping them for above effective Anti-air fire.
Seriously you don't need much to cripple a nation now. Just an effective way to deliver what can do it.
 

Dakkagor

New member
Sep 5, 2011
59
0
0
ecoho said:
you assume of course two things
1. that the people left alive would be willing to and capable to resist when there's not a single water source available to them that's not heavily defended and controlled.

2. that the enemies we made would be able to do anything to the US.

as for those last two points you mentioned

1. we only have problems in the middle east because we care about civilian casualties and don't bomb every heat signature we find in an area were hostiles are operating. Plus you know desert target water they die in days due to their own county killing them.

2. south America can be taken out with the use of EMPs at strategic locations breaking their economy and if that's not enough a blockade would pretty much ruin their trade with nations outside South America.

3. You seriously thing the European Union could out spend the US then your delusional their economy has almost collapsed twice in the last 8 years and one of those was because the US went into recession.

4. Really going with lack of manpower? Just got to ask who do you think protects international trade in the ocean?
then we can get into our air force bombing targets from home with drones or just dropping them for above effective Anti-air fire.
Seriously you don't need much to cripple a nation now. Just an effective way to deliver what can do it.
1:: seriously, you under estimate the human spirit. The polish didn't give up when Germany kicked them over, they formed a resistance and kept fighting, at the cost of their historic capital city. The British didn't give up when the Luftwaffe bombed London and Coventry to rubble, killing thousands. And the Viet-cong didn't give up because the US napalmed their country.
In a similar vein, America didn't give up just because terrorists knocked down the world trade towers. People don't respond to atrocity with shock and complacency, historically they respond with anger and vengeance.

2: What EMP's? I am not aware of any strategic or tactical EMP weapon in any nations arsenal, that aren't nuclear warheads. You going to nuke south america? How would the rest of the world respond?

3: Sure. In this nightmare scenario you are creating for yourself, you have already committed multiple atrocities, alienated your allies and started invading other countries. The least we would do is put an embargo on trade, no matter how much it hurt. The British sacrificed their entire empire to stop Nazi Germany, why would the EU do any less? More over, we are showing signs of recovery in Europe, and Germany is already clear of the worst damage. The US is still trying to drag itself clear of the ground zero it created with the sub prime mortgage crisis (thanks for that, by the way.)

4: Everyone else combined has more people than America. Everyone else combined has more money than America. You have a large army and navy, but I'm pretty sure if you where fighting everyone else in the world, while trying to garrison multiple locations and kill thousands of civilians in atrocities, you'd quickly run out of warm bodies and boots on the ground. Unless being wrapped in the star spangled banner makes you bullet proof.

So far, all I've seen from your posts is a commplete lack of understanding of real politik, military logistics or even common sense. Stop cribbing from Call of Duty and Spec-Ops: the Line and do some real research please. And learn to spell.
 

Xixikal

New member
Apr 6, 2011
323
0
0
Economically a bad idea, but for the sake of those suffering under the North Korean regime - I would almost support it. However, knowing that the world's politicians standard agendas I wouldn't think they'd have a care for the impoverished nation of NK, or the people anyway. This kind of this has never been done right, trying to fix world problems with militaristic force never has a good outcome, and talking about it - like the UN Security Council does - appears not to achieve much. It's such a complicated situation, a problem for people who are much smarted and more experienced than I to solve. Just wish there was something to be done for the poor NK citizens...
 

BadNewDingus

New member
Sep 3, 2014
141
0
0
I think it's impossible to conquer any country these days. Unless you're in a country where the population truly wants to be liberated. Other than that ... nope. It would be a waste of lives, money, and resources. Guerrilla warfare sucks and that's the only way to combat against a large nation like the US.
 

JayRPG

New member
Oct 25, 2012
585
0
0
My thoughts (coming from Australia) would probably just be "lol, and what does China have to say about this?" because there would likely never be a scenario where China would not get involved.
 

Marsell

New member
Nov 20, 2008
824
0
0
GIVE ME A C, U, R!
GIVE ME A B, S, T!
GIVE ME A O, M, P!

yeah for real tho, NK provokes the US and you may as well shout...
FINISH HIM!
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
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.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Dakkagor said:
ecoho said:
you assume of course two things
1. that the people left alive would be willing to and capable to resist when there's not a single water source available to them that's not heavily defended and controlled.

2. that the enemies we made would be able to do anything to the US.

as for those last two points you mentioned

1. we only have problems in the middle east because we care about civilian casualties and don't bomb every heat signature we find in an area were hostiles are operating. Plus you know desert target water they die in days due to their own county killing them.

2. south America can be taken out with the use of EMPs at strategic locations breaking their economy and if that's not enough a blockade would pretty much ruin their trade with nations outside South America.

3. You seriously thing the European Union could out spend the US then your delusional their economy has almost collapsed twice in the last 8 years and one of those was because the US went into recession.

4. Really going with lack of manpower? Just got to ask who do you think protects international trade in the ocean?
then we can get into our air force bombing targets from home with drones or just dropping them for above effective Anti-air fire.
Seriously you don't need much to cripple a nation now. Just an effective way to deliver what can do it.
1:: seriously, you under estimate the human spirit. The polish didn't give up when Germany kicked them over, they formed a resistance and kept fighting, at the cost of their historic capital city. The British didn't give up when the Luftwaffe bombed London and Coventry to rubble, killing thousands. And the Viet-cong didn't give up because the US napalmed their country.
In a similar vein, America didn't give up just because terrorists knocked down the world trade towers. People don't respond to atrocity with shock and complacency, historically they respond with anger and vengeance.

2: What EMP's? I am not aware of any strategic or tactical EMP weapon in any nations arsenal, that aren't nuclear warheads. You going to nuke south america? How would the rest of the world respond?

3: Sure. In this nightmare scenario you are creating for yourself, you have already committed multiple atrocities, alienated your allies and started invading other countries. The least we would do is put an embargo on trade, no matter how much it hurt. The British sacrificed their entire empire to stop Nazi Germany, why would the EU do any less? More over, we are showing signs of recovery in Europe, and Germany is already clear of the worst damage. The US is still trying to drag itself clear of the ground zero it created with the sub prime mortgage crisis (thanks for that, by the way.)

4: Everyone else combined has more people than America. Everyone else combined has more money than America. You have a large army and navy, but I'm pretty sure if you where fighting everyone else in the world, while trying to garrison multiple locations and kill thousands of civilians in atrocities, you'd quickly run out of warm bodies and boots on the ground. Unless being wrapped in the star spangled banner makes you bullet proof.

So far, all I've seen from your posts is a commplete lack of understanding of real politik, military logistics or even common sense. Stop cribbing from Call of Duty and Spec-Ops: the Line and do some real research please. And learn to spell.
first off sorry for my spelling im dyslexic so spelling is a bit hard for me(I use spell check but it doesn't always catch things)

second I spent several years in the US military and have done scenarios with other NATO members (mostly Brits and Canadians) very similar to this. In all of them the US won when it attacked first.

now on to the points:)

1. once again you assume we would be controlling cities in this case we would simply control basic human needs (such as food and water) and deny any other access to said needs through other means. With the technology we have now we can bery easily find underground water sources and contaminate them or simply wait till the resistance builds a base around one and simply bomb the area to ash.

2. The US and most NATO countries have EMP devices to be used as "non lethal" weapons for pacifying enemy nations.

3. WW2 brought us out of the great depression and we have more then enough resources in our country to sustain our people. Plus add in that no US products will be coming out and no US companies would be moving goods from other countries and you have the rest of the worlds economy failing and ours rising.

4. the difference in tech and training between the US and most of the world is rather large, and the few who can match us in both have smaller armies then the US combined. Also good to note that while not ideal we could always fall back to scorched earth tactics in which we leave no way to possibly live in an area when we leave it.

These tactics work really well but are barbaric hence why they are war crimes. That said they are only crimes if the one using them loses.

I find that I should of course say again that this is simply a tactical analysis and not my personal feelings on how the US should wage war, just that it would work.